Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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

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

If you need help:

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

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

Become a volunteer

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

Volunteers should remember:

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

Open/close quick reference

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	32 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	7 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	23 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	23 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.

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Example on 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.

Location of dispute

Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Example (talk · contribs)
Example2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about 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.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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.

How do you think we can help?

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.

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Wikipedia demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The 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. Example3 (talk)

Billy Fox (politician)

Billy Fox (politician) (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 is a disagreement over including references in the article. Since 2007 there has been a link to an RTE programme [1]. Last month the link was removed by User:One_Night_In_Hackneyas a broken link [2]. I have tried to reinsert a working link but it has been repeatedly deleted along with a link to a speech by John Bruton which I had also added. The justification given seems to be that there are too many sources, and that John Bruton does not refer to the Provisional IRA. I think that if there really is doubt about who killed Billy Fox then it is even more important to have reputable sources listed and the reader can make their own judgement. John Bruton also refers directly to the Provisional IRA.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Other users have already been informed via their talk page and the article talk page.

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=Billy Fox (politician)}} --~~~~ in a new section 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 Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References

How do you think we can help?

Advise on whether to include the 1) RTE link and 2) Bruton link. Thanks.

Flexdream (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Fox (politician) discussion

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

The original link in the first example had invalid formatting [3] so there's no surprise that was removed.

In general, I think the article presents the information quite clearly (in the current version), with circumstances of his death are disputed with various paramilitary groups such as ... + it covers all, with what appear to be appropriate references.

I see that Flexdream thinks that two additional references should be added - shown in this diff.

I don't see much harm in additional references, but nor at the moment do I see any particular benefit; whilst exceptional claims need exceptional sources, I'm unconvinced that it is necessary to have three references to verify the fact that the Provisional IRA are one of the groups which RS's have said were involved. I don't really believe it's "clutter", but I don't see any real benefit; I think it will be helpful if Flexdream could explain here a little more about why the extra refs are of benefit, and also it will be helpful to see why the other parties - in particular RepublicanJacobite - believe they are not.

I have one additional possible suggestion to RepublicanJacobite: if there is no great harm in adding the other ref/refs except for having two or three [n] tags, then how do you feel about adding both or all three in a single numbered footnote with <br /> so that the refs are just one footnote-number, but several refs are shown within it?

And a suggestion to Flexdream - in your further response, it would be helpful if you could assign your own preference/importance value on the two links - perhaps you'd be content if just one more were added? Chzz ► 06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't really been discused Talk:Billy Fox (politician)#References. The discussion has instead been completely sidetracked by Flexdream's apparently inability to read a reference properly. I don't see any need for multiple footnotes when one does the job just as well, especially when it's not a controversial statement being referenced. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chzz. Thanks for that. Combining 3 references into one in the footnotes is a good answer to any problems of clutter, but I don't know how to do that. I think the RTE link, which had been in since 2007, is probably more informative than the Bruton link. As for criticism of me not being able to follow where a link points to, judge for yourself. Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References, links really should point to the reference. Then I, and any reader, could check what the source states. I think claims that Fox was not killed by the PIRA are controversial, because PIRA members were convicted. --Flexdream (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foo.<ref> Some book <br /> Another book </ref> [4] - can some compromise be found, using this idea? Chzz ► 11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. One reference with 3 links? I think the RTE link is the most useful, then the Bruton, then the CAIN. --Flexdream (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Maybe poke the other users that you listed above and see what they think? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav

Yadav (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?

Complete highjack of Yadav page.The article is manipulated and talks only about negatives of Yadavs.So many evidences have een overlooked.Negative Citations from same references are used and positive citations from same are not considered. Most of the people in India disagree to what is mentioned in the article(as is evident from the latest discussions) but the same has been overlooked as user Sitush and User Fowler&fowler have something against Yadavs and being veteran editors have considerable support of wiki administrators.Anyone trying to correct the article is either banned or blocked.This is clear misuse of Wiki admin powers.Please go through the latest discussions throughly and find out yourself that only user Sitush and Fowler&fowler have problems with correct facts and with support of few wiki admins they have completely hijacked the page

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=Yadav}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, we tried to resolve it through discussions on Yadav page.Despite citing references and raising issues over biased and dubious nature of the artcle, no action was taken by admins and they continued their support for User:Sitush and user:Fowler&fowler

How do you think we can help?

Please remove protection from the article and Wiki admins should e unbiased.Or else we will raise a request with government to ban Wikipedia in India because enough is enough

122.174.23.252 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav discussion

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

Is that a legal threat in the originating notice above? - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush,you are again finding ways to get people banned.There is no legal threat but a genuine concern from the people of India and to highlight the wrongs that have been going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are speaking on behalf of 1 billion people. Quite a mandate, that. In any event, you need to be more specific in the points that you are raising. Some examples might help. And I would still like to know what it is you are considering in the event that this process does not reach an outcome which is agreeable to you. What do you expect the government of India would do about it? BTW, I've never proposed or supported the banning of anyone from Wikipedia, although I did support the topic ban for one person - I think that you are confusing blocks with bans. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not notify all of the people named in your report, but did notify some who were not named and share your views. I've notified the remainder of the contributors listed for you. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start another baseless argument i would request a "Neutral" admin to please go through the latest discussions and find out himself how few people have been manipulating the citations and articles to demean a caste in India.This has been a traditional practice by so called "high-caste" people in India to demean other castes and these few editors are supposedly from those so called "high-castes".They give no logic but play with words and Wiki policies to manipulate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you included the word "supposedly". One should not believe everything that is said on Facebook, Orkut, Wordpress blogs etc. Nor, for that matter, everything that is stated in Wikipedia articles (!) Like it or not, among the the fundamental positions of Wikipedia is verifiability using reliable sources. That is not necessarily the same as "truth". This upsets people, and I do understand that. It is an issue that can be related to matters Indian, and is perhaps being exacerbated by the WMF "push" for more contributors from that area, which has a tradition of oral history and an under-representation in English language academic publications, not to forget problems of literacy & internet access. I doubt that anyone here contests that systemic bias exists, but we have to play by the rules otherwise it will be anarchic. What may appear to be a "hijack" may in fact be a valid application of Wikipedia's community-wide consensus. In some ways I hate to say this but, basically, there are other outlets for viewpoints which cannot conform to the community consensus. Ours is not a perfect world. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User 122.174.23.252, I hardly noticed any negativity in the article. Well, Shudra, yes, but that does not equate to Asprushya and according to some brahmins, all non-brahmins are shudra. This is a bone of contention in many caste articles. Please don't waste too much time fighting over that issue. You should instead spend your efforts on improving the section on post-independence history of the Yadav. What I find missing in the article is any mention of Lalu Prasad and Mulayamsingh Yadav or discussion on their rise to power. Basically the last sixty years are wrapped up in one small paragraph.

User, 122.174.23.252, you claim that some of the editors involved in editing the Yadav page may be high caste people who hate Yadavs. Why do you have such a narrow view ? Have you considered that not only they may not be high caste, they may not even be Hindu or Indian In fact, they could be from any corner of the world. Please don't assume that only Indians have interest in articles on castes.Jonathansammy (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan,we tried adding pics and details of Yadav Leaders but the same was reverted by Sitush and Fowler saying that there is no proof that these leaders are actually Yadav.The removed pics of Leaders of Yadav Mahasabha but have put pics from flickr which actually is not a verifiable source.Similarly, References from MS Rao and JNS Yadav were taken where any negativity was mentioned but any positive citation from the same references was rejected saying that these are not reliable resources.

References of Yadava's of Lunar and Krishnaut Lineage have been mentioned in this article where there is any negativity, but for positives they have created a separate page page for Yadavas.This heights of double standards and what hurts more is they have blind support of administrators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Sitush's question about the legal threat, it initially looked like one to me, though apparently is more just disruptive but not a threat. Comments like these are unhelpful to the dispute resolution process. If all of you are willing to approach this in a calm, civilized manner, I suggest taking this back to the talk page. If DR is still needed after that, we will be here to assist. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from uninvolved admin - that IP did not make a legal threat. — Joseph Fox 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from uninvolved editor — it would be useful if specifics could be given as examples of negative comments. It may be that there are words that seem innocuous but have negative implications in this specific context; not all editors may be aware of these special meanings. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from yet another uninvolved admin- Steve, while the IP did not make a legal threat as Joseph Fox rightly notes, it does show an unwillingness to play by the rules or participate in DR for the IP to demand unlocking of the article. The response suggesting that it was a legal threat was equally bad as it was either made in Bad Faith or it shows a misunderstanding of the rule. The IP's comment is more of a "political threat" which is meaningless rhetoric but makes any resolution unlikely with that user. I believe this matter has been previously resolved, I would simply ignore the IP because it's being disruptive and if it continues to disrupt, consider blocking.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, How I am being disruptive ? for raising a concern here ? and I should be blocked for that? Right?Steve, that is exactly what has been happening on the talk page and that's why issue has been raised here.So many facts have been overlooked.The dubiety tags were removed by User: Fowler without even discussing that on talk page though relevant discussion was started there.Others get blocked if they attempt anything like that.I am not making any legal or political threat but only requesting unbiased wiki admins to please look into this and suggest a solution.The article should be neutral and should present both the views to the readers which is not the case currently.--122.164.146.68 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, consider the following points:

When discussion was started to correct the lead as it lays more emphasis on historical data, User Sitush reverted by saying it won't be a good news for Yadavs as they are only connected with Naxalism and corruption.These were racist remarks as all castes and communities in India are equally involved in corruption and Naxalism.
The leads starts by mentioning Yadavs as "Non-elites" whereas there are thousands of references (MSA Rao/JNS Yadav etc) that clearly mention that Yadavs were rulers in ancient India.The 4 citations given for Yadavs being non-elite are incorrect.1- Mentions only Ahirs being non-elite and Ahir is a small su group of Yadav so entire Yadav population can not be called non-elite.2-talks about non-labouring gentry groups and not Yadavs in particular.3-says Yadavs are OBCs(Other Backward Class) which is already mentioned in the lead.Being OBC doesn't make you non-elite as there are branhmin sub-groups also (like Goswamis etc) who are declared OBC in some states.OBC status is given depending on the economical backwardness of a community in a particular state of India.4- too nowhere mentions that Yadavs are non-elite.These citations are used selectively to manipulate the article.
Only negative text has been selectively hand picked from Jaffrelot Christophe,Mandelbaum,Swartzberg Leon whereas the same authors talk about the connections between Lunar race, Krinauts etc in the later half of the book.We haven't been allowed to add any of these things from the same book and flawed logic that Yadavas are not same as Yadavs was given for that.But for all demeaning remarks Yadavs and Yadavas remain the same and same references are taken.

I can carry on and give 1000 other examples.Request Wiki admins to please go through the page and see how User:Sitush and few others have been spamming on the talk page and have refuted all concerns with highly illogical arguments.--122.164.146.68 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some beginning notes: I am currently reviewing MS Rao (which I stated on the talk page before this DRN was opened), which some of the IPs and others have advanced as an important RS that we are currently missing; my preliminary feeling is that yes, it may include information that belongs in the article. This is tied up in the Yadava/Yadav distinction; after looking at some sources recently (especially, comparing Jaffrelot and Rao), it looks like we may be being too strict in separating the two. It's a complicated issue; the problem is that we know that some groups intentionally changed their names in the last several hundred years "into" Yadav (at least, that's what I recall), and we know that the claims of descent from the Lunar dynasty are obviously myth, and it's clear that Yadava and Yadav are not identical groups, but teasing out exactly how to represent these complex connections (which, of course, our sources don't agree on) is quite complex. This is going to take quite a bit more talking; the problem is that when IP after IP comes in and tells us we're prejudiced or biased or from one caste or another (as Jonathansammy pointed out, some of us, like myself, don't have even a tiny bit of Indian/Hindu/Aryan/etc. heritage), and then they give us a bunch of sources that we've already said many times before are not RS (like ancient religious texts, or anything published by Gyan Publishing), then it really makes people like me simply not want to help. Plus, not only has this article been the subjective of an off-wiki campaign, several editors have been very directly attacked off wiki for their participation. A lot of the IPs have recommended reverting back to the article from about a year ago, which is an absolute non-starter (as that version was unsourced, poorly sourced puffery). So if we could all try to be polite, and stop threatening to report us to the Indian gov't, then maybe something positive can be accomplished. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, Really appreciate your efforts that your taking the pain of going through MSA Rao and other books. But if even you agree that segregation between Yadava and Yadav is so complicated why don't we consider building a comprehensive article which covers everything.For eg,the article should clearly mention that term Yadav in Modern India is used for following different sects - Yadavas,Krinauts,Ahirs,Yaduvanshi Ahir,Konars Gawlis etc and then can go on and describe all sects in details.I am a Yaduvanshi Ahir and my family has been using surname Yadav and there are millions like us.It is a common practice by all these sects in India to use Yadav surname and hence the current article becomes flawed and this confusion is bound to happen.The present article also includes lots of mix match with stuff about Yadavas,Krisnauts,Ahirs and all(all presented in negative sense though).It would be a nice idea if we give readers a complete and comprehensive detail instead of segregating things as per our whims and fancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.146.68 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has recently been a merge discussion regarding just this - it closed with no consensus to merge. To be honest, it would be one heck of a big article, since the claims of affinity extend from Abhira tribe, through Yadava, Ahirs and then to Yadav. Some of the connections are complex and disputed or, at least, inconclusive and/or contradictory. What we need are people who are willing to converse rationally and calmly, and with rather less repetition if at all possible. I, too, am at present re-reading the excerpts from Rao: his is a work that is extremely easy to cherry-pick and so the context is all-important. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the merge discussion got over ? in your dreams ? It wont be that complex.If we can write a comprehensive article on India(which is a land of diversity),writing one for Yadav is not that difficult job.The current article itself is disputed so don't worry about the comprehensive article.If we all give neutral views with citations and references without any manipulation, the detailed article would help a lot more.--Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yadava#Proposal_to_merge_articles_Yadav_.2C_Ahir_and_Yadava. The fact that writing the article is a "difficult job" is self-evident from the talk pages of the individual articles, and it will be more so if we merge them because of issues such as weight for each community etc. For examples, Ahirs could easily swamp such an article. However, this is probably the wrong place for another merge discussion. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from a non-involved editor. The phrase non-elite seems to be part of the problem. It is qualified as traditional I feel if might be better qualified as historical. It might also be better to reword the Post-Independence section not to use the word elite. I believe the article would be more intelligible if term Sanskritisation were used / defined earlier. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The discussion on Talk:Yadav, has certainly gone far below the desired level, and does require attention, especially the comments from Fowler. Fowler, definitely has shown contempt for the subject on various occasions and has deliberately tried to mislead people through many of his comments and contributions. Some of the samples are. --"their entire past before that (and much since) is now something to be ashamed of"[5]. I am in hurry but ppl. must have tools to scan thru his work on Yadav article, especially comment section, where he declares, He prefers Kurmi to Yadav. You should not make such type of comments, about any community on the talk pages. These are samples only, if you go through his contributions you would be astonished if he is on w/p or on some porn site, and GOI do block porn sites. I may come back again with some more comments plz don't close the thread in hurry.Ikon ^No-Blast 19:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a scan of the talk page but am unclear at present as to where the current issue is being discussed there. If someone could direct me to the current discussion on the talk page, I will weigh in there and try and help resolve it at the talk page. I echo Qwrxyian's thoughts, we need to keep discussion focused and civilized, going round in circles makes discussion harder. Let me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It isn't being discussed in any specific thread. The initial report is very broadly worded and stems, I think, from the outcome of numerous threads which have already fizzled out. Things might pick up now that Diwali is over. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Fowler&fowler's recent comment: "You guys really want me to inundate you with citations to the Yadav's non-elite status. "Non-elite," btw, as you might have guessed is a modern anthropological euphemism. The terms usually used for them are a lot worse"[6].This is really sad that person has been attacking a particular community with such demeaning remarks and no one is doing anything about it.He is openly abusing the entire community on a public forum like Wiki.I am hurt and so are millions of Yadavs across India.I can just hope that neutral moderators will assume good faith here and block Fowler from writing anything on Yadav page.With this type of shameful remarks and attacks on a community, Wiki will surely lose its credibility. As Iconoblast righly said, looks like he is writing stuff on a pornsite--Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point, I think. What F&f is saying is that using the phrase "non-elite" avoids having to use phrases which would most likely cause even more offence, eg: shudra, servant or whatever. Wikipedia is not censored but Fowler&fowler is actually trying to spare people's blushes by self-censoring some of the sources. Me? I would call a spade a spade, and not worry too much about trying to spare people's blushes - I've had a death threat already, so there is only one thing worse that someone could do.
So perhaps people should be grateful that F&f is actually tempering the presentation of the article. It is when people who are obviously from the community begin to debate in a non-policy compliant way, and promote or pick up their cause from Facebook communities/Orkut etc, that the patience of other people starts to become a little stretched. F&f may be at that point right now, but there is good reason for it. I have posted something below the reply from Fowler that you link to above: please read it, and please note the tone of some of the responses from "your side" below it. Then tell me who is being intemperate. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, : Ohh.."your side" and "my side"..so we already have two sides here.With this type of narrow thinking i am sure what justice you are doing to the article.Kudoz to you that you even attempted to justify Flower's remark(failed miserably though).And this is not the first time you and Fowler have teamed up.you support each other's reverts,each others illogical comments,arguments etc and that's how you have hijacked the article.And by protecting the article,the moderators have given you complete dominance of writing any shit that you want to.Your interest and edits in articles of castes like Yadavs,Jats etc and your demeaning remarks on them leave no doubt that you belong to one of those castes that made life of other caste members miserable for hundreds of years and you continue to do it even now.I pity you for using terms like servants and all for some community.you can continue to waste your time on this article with your stupid inputs but it wont make any difference to the caste.Just type Yadav on google and you will find 100s of sites with their glorified history.May god bless you with some sanity and may this negativity go out of your mind.Rockstar1984 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar, you have the right to dispute other editors opinion but you have no right whatsoever to throw out insults such as you have above. This isn't the first time I've seen Yadav at this board, indeed I myself closed the last DRN thread. From my understanding, the main dispute is that the article mainly portrays the modern aspects of Yadav's, as opposed to the historical context. Historical documents, such as the ones that have been referred to by several editors, are considered primary sources and as such, are not on par with secondary sources. It would be inaccurate to say in the article that Yadav's are kings, because modern references do not state this. We likewise do not say that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the centre of the universe, because modern viewpoints say otherwise. The same applies here. It may be appropriate to state such information in say, a history section or something, but this really should be discussed on the talk page. And discussed civilly. Accusing people of having a hidden agenda is unhelpful to discussion, and really needs to stop. Wikipedians edit from across the globe, and for different reasons. So my suggestion here is for everyone here to go back to the talk page, read over the applicable policies (being WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY) and continue discussion, in a succinct and civilized manner. I will watch over the talk page and chip in where I can. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven,you keep seeing Yadav on this board because you guys never really solve the problem.This time again you are closing it without actually understanding the real issue.So many concerns were raised here(with examples) and you think its just about difference in historical and modern aspect.Be it historical or modern, nowhere correct things are mentioned.Article is completely manipulated and presents only Situshs and Fowlers line of thinking.You are warning me for my comments which was only a reaction to even more insulting comments by Sitush and Fowler, but no, Wiki admins will never warn them because they contribute on articles as well.Anyways, you guys write whatever you want to write, will hardly make any difference.With these kinda article wiki only will lose its creditability.I am out of it,do not have enough time to waste talking only about caste and creed, have better things in life!n yeah, you can ban me if you want to coz i too don't believe in wiki anymore!.Rockstar1984 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar, I think the issue is that Wikipedia articles should include all non-fringe viewpoints, not just positive viewpoints. This is one of the basic founding principles of Wikipedia, and it's no surprise that experienced users are not willing to ignore it. Have a look at this video, which includes an explanation of the policy, and see the main policy page for more details. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alprazolam/Xanax

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.

Alprazolam (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?

We contest a sentence near the beginning of the article: "The potential for abuse is low and is similar to that of other benzodiazepine, (BZD) drugs." We have presented extensive evidence, from psychopharmacology textbooks and other well-recognized authorities, indicating that this sentence is false. Doc James says that this sentence pertains only to *therapeutic* use of the drug (i.e. use strictly within medically prescribed parameters). But this caveat needs to be conveyed by the sentence itself, if the sentence is not to be seriously and dangerously misleading. Part of the disagreement here regards Wikipedia readers’ likely interpretation of the word “abuse,” and we ask that the reviewer(s) of this covnersation include an evaluation of that issue. We note as well that the disputed sentence is contradicted by information contained not only in other Wikipedia articles, including those on “Benzodiazepine” and Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome,” but also in the alprazolam/Xanax entry itself.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Rbarglow (talk · contribs)
Jmh649 (talk · contribs) (Doc James)

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=Alprazolam/Xanax}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

We have been discussing this issue at length on the alprazolam/Xanax talk page since the beginning of September. About a week ago, we requested a third opinion, but were advised instead to make a request to this dispute resolution noticeboard.

How do you think we can help?

In order to move the dialogue on this matter forward to resolution, we request a careful reading and review of the discussion on the talk page. We ask that a neutral person (or several) – someone who does not know Doc James and has not worked with him in the past on any Wikipedia project -- give us an independent evaluation of the issues involved in this disagreement.

Rbarglow (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alprazolam/Xanax discussion

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

I'm reading over the discussions now and will give my thoughts shortly. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Having read over the discussions, it appears that there has been a discussion over this for quite some time, with a consensus seeming to have formed here. The most important thing to note In this case is the use of up to date references, which is covered here. In short, we try to use sources that are up to five years old. While you indeed have provided references to back up your viewpoint, some of them are a bit old, and have been refuted either by a more up to date source or a more reliable one. The issue on giving appropriate weight to majority viewpoints comes into play, if most reliable sources say X is true, while only a few say that Y is true, it'd be wrong to present that Y is true, or that most people say Y is true. That would be giving the viewpoint undue weight. It may be appropriate to state somewhere in the article, noting it's a minority viewpoint, but that should be discussed on the article talk page. If you wish to do so, I would recommend you acquire recent reliable sources that back up your viewpoints, taking care to read the relevant policies I linked to you, and keep comments concise. Often on Wikipedia walls of text will be ignored, simply because it takes too long to read. I also saw on your user page you note the account is shared. Wikipedia accounts are only to be used by one individual, see our accounts policy and doing so can get you blocked. Feel free to raise any questions about the points I made on my user talk page, but first read over the links I provided and think it all over. All the best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:36, 2 November 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.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (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?

infobox and sources for the article are in question. 1. loss and casualty section of infobox. 2 use of non neutral sources as Source. Please guide us about the 1 Information in the casualty section of the Infobox. at present the other user is trying to place those information in the Infobox which are normally not included by wp:TREND . as they are mentioned in article , mentioning all of them will make the infobox unduly large. 2 also comment on the use of PAF official website as source for IAF losses in the 1971 war.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Hassanhn5 (talk · contribs)
DBigXray (talk · contribs)

1A lot of damage can be mentioned in infobox of both the Indian and pakistani sides, that does not mean we have to add it. these are extra information that cannot and should not be added in infobox. also there has already one dispute above in dispute on "Operation Trident (1971)" . 2 PAF official website does not Give the Value for PAF aircraft losses (while it can accurately give it) for obvious reasons but no the PAF Website gives IAF losses. The user is trying to use another site which has mirrored this info as a neutral source for this change.

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=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

tried on talk pages , no uses user reverts me and complains on Antivandal for getting me blocked.

How do you think we can help?

please guide us on 2 points.

Ðℬig XЯaɣ 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

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

1. Military Conflict Infobox

the Description on the heading above is enough, i would only include few examples for showing the wiki trend . Iran–Iraq_War, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Red Army invasion of Georgia, Kosovo War, Battle of Nanshan. Many more can be included but i think this is sufficient. This Dispute has arisen because there had been an attempt to misuse the Infobox Casualty and loss section to highlight] the damage that Pakistani forces did on Indian harbours airfields etc. The Edits on infobox completely disregard the format of the infobox, the user instead of making an attempt to understand what needs to be placed in the infobox and what not, [[includes needless extra information , which (after noticing) i tried to remove with reasoning, but the other editor assuming bad faith took an offence and reverted it saying vandalism (without discussing) and at once appealed for my blocking at wp:AIV (which was promptly rejected later). In order to prevent a furthur edit war, i have left the article in the incorrect state and i have brought the matter here. I request opinion of other editors on this issue.--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AIV request for above editor was not rejected it was referred to dispute resolution. Secondly, the editor is trying to bias any potential neutral editors. Appropriate discussion has taken place on the talk page which can be reviewed. As for format, in the articles being used for example include ground losses. All ground and territorial losses are added to the infobox, see the example of Indo-Pak War of 1965 where even the captured territories are added in this section. I think this is a valid addition. Even if the format was an issue, the notability of the runway damages is so much that it deserves an infobox inclusion. These runway damages are mentioned in both Pakistani and Indian sources (as well explained on the article talk page) most notably by then Indian Air force chief in his book, "My days with IAF". --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

such damages are a part of each and every war. these things go in the article not in the 'Casualty and losses' section of infobox , one need to understand the difference between damage vs casualty and losses. the above user is desperately trying to include whatever info he likes to include in the infobox, with a clear disregards to the Wikipedia's trends in editing a war conflict infobox. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 22:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's little to support runway or harbor/fuel facility damages in a military conflict infobox of this nature. Such damages are not normally listed and they are very small in comparison to people, vessels and territory lost. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Binksternet the content in question can now be removed from infobox in coherence with wiki policies. Also i would like to inform the editors that the damage on the airfields was promptly repaired (often within few hrs and used for counter strike) and the fuel facilities of the small okha port was damaged. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the notability is significant (as the Indian airchief stated they had to fly from the taxi ways for days) the damage does deserve the info box. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an editor feels that damage to a port and runway is enough to be included as Casulaty/loss in war article infobox does not mean it can be placed violating the wiki trends. We at wiki have some rules to follow. one cannot go around placing whatever he wants to place. What is more saddening is you are still not ready to follow what others are rightly suggesting. we have 2 response on the dispute, this dispute is resolved from my side at least. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The factor of notability is just as important as 'trend' which itself is not so far away from it. Seems like the dispute was always resolved from yours side as far as what you want is done. I'm sure that if there are editors telling you that this placement is right, you'd then be arguing about the reliability of the sources or something. This loss was of significance and cited by both Indian and Pakistani sources. If your issue is of POV, you should check out my comment in the below subsection. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this was not a Loss .the runways were never lost, just damaged due to bombing by planes and promptly repaired for counter strikes. also i think we should limit our discussions to the to the point above , u can fill up the page with comments like , if this happened then you will do this and that and stuff like that. If you have an argument for the dispute u are welcome to say needless arguments and attempts to mislead will hurt your case. we have a 3:1 majority in this dispute, its already on way to its logical conclusion. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3:1? I don't think a 4th editor commented here. Anyway, damages are mentioned in many infoboxes... I remember you including the damage of shahjahan ship in an infobox. That is not against trend. Not to mention, this was not just a damage but a notable one that affected the Indian airforce's flights. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we already have 4 opinion. Binksternet,Ðℬig, Mr. Stradivarius for removal and one lTopGunl against. u can do your maths. like i said above it was promptly repaired and was not a loss, you are the only one considering this runway and port damage as losses of 1971 war --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stradivarius has not said to remove the content but to give proper citations to everything. Also, I've mentioned it is not wrong to add major damages to the infobox as per your own actions. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which is your own understanding. Mr Stra in his 3rd point states that we follow wiki guidelines for such cases. we do not decide by wp:OR that this event of bombing a runway is a major Loss of 1971 war for India (the event is already mentioned in the article as it is cited), theres absolutely no point in repeating it in infobox. Infobox only contains some specific information and not all the damages that one country inflicts on the other. you have been trying to add a strike damage of day1 as a Loss and casualty of A major War(such damages are obvious and frequent in almost every battle and is already included in the article). Including them in infobox based on your interest is simply wrong and futile. if in doubt about wiki trends you can refer some example pages Iran–Iraq_War, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Red Army invasion of Georgia, Kosovo War, Battle of Nanshan. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Citation for lost Indian aircraft

Enough discussion for the issue has not taken on talk in the first place. Instead the user chose to editwar every time changing the pretext of removing cited material from article. First he objected on reliability of the sources provided for the damages to the airfields, then he started with trend when he could not get it removed. The fact is that those damages did take place and have been placed as such in other articles. Another point is that he only removed the damages from only the Indian side under the pretext of making the infobox short (while that too was not needed). Secondly, dbigxray is trying to wrongly frame the issue. The downed Indian aircrafts are not only cited by the PAF site but also another defense website which dbigxray has been eagerly quoting on different issues [7] in the very previous section of the same talkpage. Now when the same site is giving the information which he doesn't like, he is calling it a mirror site just on the basis that the text is similar even though it has been well placed on the site in context to other content. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the edits in question are this

the user lTopGunl (talk) stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Chengiz_Khan#Result_of_Operation_Chengiz_Khan that " There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa. " .

the above statement is his own and it clearly seems to me. clear case of double standards . Enough discussion has not taken place because the user lTopGunl (talk) believes in going to Antivandal rather thank discussing on the talk page. Hence i was forced to come here and notify the matter . About the Information and claims of mirror. the editors can check the EXAct Copied statement from both the sites. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason there is a neutral source backing it up so as to verify its neutrality not letting the Pakistani source be the only one. Its not a mirror. You are trying to mislead other than the fact that you've been quoting the same site as mentioned above. I'd call that double standards. About WP:AIV, when you remove cited information and label it POV on basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are to be reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have reported already, thanks for that, we can wait for the result at AIV. the facts speak for themselves. for the benefit of the neutral editors i am pasting both the citations below.

At war’s end IAF had lost 130 aircraft in all. The three-to-one kill ratio that Pakistan scored, however, could not prevent the tragic fall of Dhaka. The trauma of separation of East Pakistan and a preventable military catastrophe affected all Pakistanis deeply and lingered long afterwards. However a stoic recovery was brisk. PAF soon reorganised and reequipped assimilating the new threat environment on the sub-continent.

source is http://www.paf.gov.pk/history.html

At war's end IAF had lost 130 aircraft in all. The three-to-one kill ratio that Pakistan scored, however, could not prevent the tragic fall of Dhaka. The trauma of separation of East Pakistan and a preventable military catastrophe affected all Pakistanis deeply and lingered long afterwards. However a stoic recovery was brisk. PAF soon reorganised and reequipped assimilating the new threat environment on the sub-continent.

taken from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm

We can clearly see the difference between the two above and also it is clear from where this information has originated (paf.gov.pk). i dont think there is any need to mislead the neutral editors on this issue --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You;ve just pasted it out of context (can be reviewed from site). It is not a mirror. The same information has been published at this source. You can not give a source as your argument at one point and call it a mirror site at another. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mirror here means the information is copy pasted from the source paf.gov.pk you cannot deny this fact, The content is clear above , for the context i have also placed the links so that it can be checked. obviously i will not spam here by copypasting the whole page. And inspite of my raising this issue of source paf.gov.pk i was being reported to AIV for this edit. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror sites do not copy paste selective materials. They completely copy the texts/articles. When something is published on more than one sources, it only becomes more verifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear from the content of the above two citations check the resemblance , it is obvious which one of them is the real source. It also obvious who is trying to make a fool out of others and falsely using misleading statements and trying to block other users. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one here removing cited content. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we still need and explanation on the double standards when the user lTopGunl stated here [[8]] that There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa. . do you mean it is perfectly correct to Use PAF website to use as a source for claiming Kills on IAF as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 well if you think that then you are backtracking your own statement above, . lets not argue without any logic.--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That only reiterates your usage of the global security site which you are now labeling as a 'mirror' when it has come against your own arguments. My edit was well sourced. You on other hand simply removed it labeling it as biased. That only amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thats what you think why dont we wait for a neutral comment on the above statements, things would be more clear then .--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole dispute is part of the ongoing friction between pro-Pakistan and pro-Indian editors. A pro-Pakistan bias should not be allowed to creep into the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Binksternet, thanks for taking out the time to read our comments and providing a valuable neutral suggestion to both the above points of the dispute. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 02:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add the word 'vice-versa' here. The content I added was cited (and backed up by a neutral source) while the editor dbigxray has been contending it without any citation. In addition, see Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 as a reference. All significant claims are cited in infobox under headings, which might be an appropriate solution. In other war articles claims act as ranges like 100[citation by one party]-130[citation by another party].

I'll like to add a comment to Binksternet's statement that the reason I was reverted was not the reason of length of infobox that dbigxray was giving on the article talk page but was because of his own pov as quoted by an editor:

"If this is really an issue about neutrality and excessive content you'd have removed the content for both sides and not just that inflicted by Pakistan. I would have reverted your edit as well on that basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>"

--lTopGunl (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(the above comment by lTopGunl) is yet another attempt to divert editors from the matter of the dispute and flood this discussion section using irrelevant text. the truth can be checked from the [| talk page]( the above user is only interested in adding the damage done to Indian Side though he is a Pro-Pakistani editor (that too referenced from Pak Sources [POV]), the rest is self understood. ). The content about IAF casualty given by PAF must be removed because it is blatantly copied line from the Pak Air force website wp:POV and not a neutral one (as you wrongly claim). To make the matter clear i have stated both comparison above. I think thats sufficient enough to end the dispute. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again you two - I must say I didn't expect to see you back at this noticeboard so soon! I have a few points to make about the discussion that I have seen here:

There's nothing to stop us linking to a mirror of a source, if we are sure that it is a faithful copy of the source, with no added commentary, and nothing taken away. In this case we can simply cite the original source and link to the mirror.
The source originally published at paf.gov.pk does not magically become a reliable source just because it was re-published at globalsecurity.org. It is still the same source, written by the same people, with the same bias. In this case it seems to be a primary source, and should only be used with the caveats listed at WP:PRIMARY, if at all.
For the infobox, we go with what the sources say, and with what Wikipedia guidelines say. For casualty and damage counts, we should not be in the business of tallying up figures and doing research by ourselves, we should be using what reliable sources say the counts are. If sources disagree, then there ways of getting round that, but judging for ourselves what events were and were not part of the war, and tallying up casualty figures to suit our own purposes is not one of them.
Talking about sources, this entire article needs an extensive rewrite. Looking at the list of references, the vast majority of them are news reports. Reliability of a source depends on context, and using news reports to source an encyclopaedia article about a war simply isn't good enough. You might have heard the cliché that "the first casualty of war is truth" - this should give you a good idea of why using news reports from 1971 is not good practice here. Anything remotely controversial in this article needs to be cited to reliable, third-party, academic sources. Try this Google Books search for a good starting point.

I am of half a mind to tell you both to scrap the article and to start again from scratch. In fact, a good way of doing things might be for both of you to create a special page in your userspace and write the whole thing again section-by-section using quality sources, comparing notes as you go. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedThanks Mr. Stra again for your patient listening and opinion. An Unfortunate turn up of events (failed attempt to get me blocked at wp:AIV etc) and lack of assuming good faith brought us here. But coming here again seems to have helped in resolving our dispute. We already have 2 neutral opinions about the removal of the above 2 contents in question. The dispute seems to be resolved from my side atleast. about the novel suggestion on rewriting the article on userspace, i would like to inform that earlier while i was checking article content and the various citations from sources google books etc for the edits on this page, i had come across various facts that i have included in the articles related to 1971 war. but rewriting the whole article seems to be too tedious a job, nevertheless will give it a try. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way that could be less labour-intensive than re-writing the whole thing could be to simply re-cite the whole thing - removing citations to news sources and replacing them with scholarly citations. The catch is that with this way it is easy to make the mistake of keeping in material that was in the news articles but is not backed up completely by the academic sources. So you should take extra care if you choose to do it this way. Or you could use a combination approach, with a combination of re-writing and updating citations depending on the section. It's largely up to you how you want to do it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dbigxray, if you would discuss the matter on article talk rather than editwarring and repeatedly (and apparently fruitlessly) linking my valid reports to WP:FORUMSHOP, we would have resolved this issue without using DRN. If you want, we can give it another try using Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 as an example since that is pretty stable in this regard. Whether the Pakistani claim is neutral or not, it is reliable official claim from Pakistani side. So why not just make headings like the 65 war article and list all claims by both and neutral parties under those. This would be the fastest step towards a resolution. I'll even suggest for a table to be made to be put in the body of the article for the losses and claims by parties.

Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for your input, it helps alot. I am already in for properly citing the article rather than fighting on the lamest of the issues. But the editor here either takes offense of my suggestions/WP:BOLD edits or blames me with POV even when the sources I give are Indian. Trying to get the issue resolved for now. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

firstly it was lTopGunl not me who went to wp:AIV instead of responding to my comments on the talk page of article and doing edit war on the article yourself also. so kindly dont attempt to sermon when you yourself dont apply your own preaching to your editings. secondly you stated on [[Talk:Operation_Chengiz_Khan][ that "There is a reasonable potential of Indian sources being biased when they are claiming kills or talking about Pakistan and vice-versa (i.e if Pakistani sources claims about kills on india(IAF)). - --<User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl> ". and now on this dispute you make a complete U-turn and you are now advocating the use of Pakistani Sources for claims on Indian Losses.yet another example of you preaching something else and applying the exact opposite in your edits. (this edit of urs is clearly POV as all the above editors have already said this , and who in their good sense are perfectly correct even if you refuse to listen to them). Lets refrain from introduce POV in history articles.we have a 3:1 standing agreeing for removalat the moment, hoping for a logical ending here --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I said, repeated linking of report will get you no favours in a dispute discussion. That is the go-to place when some one removes cited text repeatedly and thats what I did. Coming to the dispute, I backed up my claim with another source which the star describes as not being wrong just because it contains a copy of that information. I'll rather say when the same content is published on different sources, it gets peer reviewed and hence more verifiable. I don't know how you got to the 3:1 ratio. It is not a POV but a cited content. You are repeatedly dragging the issue when I'm willing to resolve. The most important thing some one will note before assuming good faith will be your willingness to resolve the dispute and you are being inflexible on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. If you have a citation at all that disagrees with my citation then list it. You simply can not challenge cited content, without a citation of your own. Lets not forget that you've not given a single citation to contest it yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the discussion is "can PAF official website be used as source for IAF losses in the 1971 war."we have 3 people saying no it cannot as it amounts to Pak's POV and bias on a wiki history article that should be neutral (actually 4 if i also include your own preaching statement quoted above as a support, but i am not doing that) vs you saying yes it can be used. (so total 4 persons and 1 preaching ) . We are not here to find out the number of IAF losses, kindly dont deviate yourself and others from the topic of the dispute. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 18:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of discussion, as started and framed by you, is wrongly representing the issue. You have to contest a citation with another and not just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's what the other editors have said too. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it seems somehow you missed the comments (4 points) of Mr Stra above, i think you need to have a look at it again. i dont need to state the issue again, if you have a supporting arguement you can say. its no use flooding this (already large) thread with useless allegations and wiki pages again and again. i have already replied to your redundant allegations (with links) more than once. Everyone here knows this is clearly not the case of wp:IDONTLIKEIT even then you have repeated that link 4 times above, i hope u dont assume the editors are blind here that they need it again in capitals. hope other editors will see the attempts of flooding the thread.--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing here baselessly, misquoting other editors. Adding links towards wiki policies is not flooding. Where are you citations??? If you cite other claims of these losses or losses sustained by Pakistan, we can add them under their respective heading as done in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. Work towards a resolution. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we have one more allegation above (counter ticking yet again), adding the same allegation and idontlike link with capitals and different words is flooding of course. I am in support for a neutral and reliable assessment of damages. giving essential data and figures on imp history article based on ones POV is not the way to go ahead. we would need a neutral and reliable figure from wp:RS before we claim losses for IAF or PAF kills, so far it is not available hence the section was blank so far. that does not mean one can put in biased figures. the Biased figure needs to be removed as others have also suggested so. as soon as you are ready the dispute is resolved. searching for the neutral figures may take time, it could be done later also,--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 07:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. As this doesn't look like it is getting resolved here, would you both be willing to take this to the Mediation Cabal? I think mediation would be the logical next step if you are still not agreeing over the content here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the editors (except the other party) above have expressed their opinion, by saying these contents in question needs to be removed. Even the other party to the dispute agrees to it (in principle by his preachings) but seems he is backtracking now. all the Suggestions have clearly been ignored and the thread has been flooded with allegations/useless wiki links and what not (shows us the real intentions). Till now there has been no Valid arguement from the other party that opposes the removal. I think its better to go with majority 3 to 1 in favour of removal of questionable content and end the dispute. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 11:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but which "questionable content"? It's not at all clear from my vantage point. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user Dbigxray wants to remove the mention of 130 Indian aircraft lost in the war on the basis that the citation is Pakistani (and neglecting the neutral reference which has republished the same). I am willing to resolve the solution in the way of mentioning the war losses in the similar way as Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 in which each party's claim has been given a heading (since the claims vary too much, it seems appropriate), but the user here has no citation of his own to bring in hence he just wants the already cited content removed. I think this can be solved without further mediation. The mentioned 1965 war article is pretty stable in this regard. Also, if he would bring a reference that would contest it, it would be better to cite an Indian claim instead of uselessly questioning reliability of content where the whole article needs a lot of improvement. Also, the user mistook your points about properly citing the whole article as a comment to remove the specific loss that I mentioned. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the "questionable content" here are the

damages that are wrongly placed in the Casualty/loss section of infobox and
Loss count 130 for IAF taken from the PAF website

stop calling the source neutral, you are trying to fool editors. its already said above that republishing a para does not make the source neutral, the source will not become neutral even if one goes on shouting the same for 50 times in this thread. the info can be placed provided we have a wp:RS backing it, or else its better not to put on values, why doesnt the PAF website give its own losses in the war (clear biased nature and POV) . random guesses or POV cannot be included as a figure for losses. besides it has already been discussed that the damages are not listed in the Casualty section.--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Turkmens

Iraqi Turkmens (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 is currently a dispute regarding the Iraqi Turkmen article. Somebody seems to continuously create new accounts in order to remove my edits. The main issues include:

They keep removing the 1957 Iraqi Census
They keep removing the detailed introduction
They keep removing pretty much anything that says "Turkish" [even though the community themselves have declared it their language]
All new material which I contribute is continuously reverted to an old version of the article.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Turco85 (talk · contribs)
MamRostam03 (talk · contribs)

If you look at archive 1 of the discussion page you will see that this article has previously been disputed. I’m assuming that it is the same individual[s] but with a new user name.

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=Iraqi Turkmens}} --~~~~ in a new section 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 previously tried to resolve this issue (see archive 1 of the discussion page) but due to my long absence it never got resolved. Recently, there has been a minor edit war whilst I was trying to improve the article. I have tried to resolve the issue on the talk page but my edits are still being removed and I feel as though I am not being taken seriously by this user. Furthermore, I have used sources which was already in the bibliography [and is still being used by this user] yet they remove my contributions which come from the same source.

How do you think we can help?

I need guidance on what I should do as I do not usually report anything. I strongly believe in using a range of academic sources [one can see this through my contributions]; however, this certain individual questions every single reference I use. I just don’t know what to do anymore. I am only really active on Mondays and Tuesdays and therefore feel as though this issue will never get resolved.

Turco85 (Talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Turkmens discussion

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

I will allow the Discussion page to speak for my actions on this page. I am merely trying to prevent incorrect information being inserted - and reliable academic sources deleted - by this user. MamRostam03 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though MamRostam03 has not even read any of the sources, this is evident in the discussion page as they will not accept the fact that the sources say that the community speaks "Turkish". Furthermore, I do not understand why this user has removed the detailed introduction and demographics sections as well as removing the 1957 Iraqi Census.Turco85 (Talk) 21:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Turco85 and MamRostam03, and thanks for posting to this board. I've had a look over the talk page, and it seems there are several issues with sourcing and with possible undue weight. I think this case would be served well by mediation - would you both be willing to open a case at the Mediation Cabal? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, sure I'm willing to do that.Turco85 (Talk) 09:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)

Spirulina (dietary supplement) (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 trying to justify an improvement to the page and am frankly convinced I am offering a NPOV version but am being reverted with no proper justification. I need outside POVs to merge the existing version and my suggestion into a proper version while losing the minimum of info.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

MastCell (talk · contribs)
Rdavout (talk · contribs)
(William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs))
(Velella (talk · contribs))

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

Yes.

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Tried discussing it but met with a revert edit by another party.

How do you think we can help?

Commenting on the respective merits of both versions of the incriminated paragraphs and hopefully reaching a compromise.

Rdavout (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirulina_(dietary_supplement) discussion

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

Initial versions in dispute

Version 1:

Spirulina is not considered to be a reliable source of Vitamin B₁₂. The standard B₁₂ assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B₁₂.^[1] Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B₁₂, which is biologically inactive in humans.^[2] Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B₁₂ on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations. The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B₁₂.^[3] The medical literature similarly advises that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12.^[2]^[4]

Version 2:

Some controversy exists concerning the Vitamin B₁₂ content of Spirulina.

The standard B₁₂ assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to contain mostly inactive compounds of vitamin B₁₂ though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion.^[5] Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B₁₂, which is biologically inactive in humans.^[2] Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B₁₂ on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, a view which is supported by a new 2010 peer-reviewed study which confirms the existence of 35.5~38.7 μg methylcobalamin per 100 g of dry biomass - roughly 15% of RDA for adults per gram of spirulina-, by means of two different assays ^[6].

These more recent claims have yet to gain traction among independent scientific organizations. In their 2003 position paper on vegetarian diets, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada stated that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B₁₂.^[7] Different studies emanating from the same lead scientist (Fumio Watanabe) similarly advise that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B₁₂ on the grounds of a theoretical possibility of the existence of anti-B12 analogues^[2]^[8] although this doubt has never been investigated on any B12 analogue food source, including synthetic B₁₂ sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavout (talk • contribs)

Discussion proper

Hi there, I'm a mediator at the DRN and hope we can bring this issue to a consensus. I'm not an expert on this topic, but it seems that the issue is over a new opinion about the dietary supplement. I would suggest that the most useful policies/guidelines here is WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE which say that we should not give undue coverage to minority viewpoints and fringe theories. We thus need to determine whether the new theory is a fringe theory/minority viewpoint or a valid alternative view. We should, therefore, take a look at the sources. If the new theory comes from a reputable and reliable scientific source (preferably a peer-reviewed academic journal, or something similar), then we can accept it as a valid scientific viewpoint. If not, then it is a minority source and probably does not belong in Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in, ItsZippy. The dispute isn't only about the addition of this new reference, which indeed comes from a major peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry) but also the presentation of the facts stated in the other studies. No one ever denied that spirulina contains B12 and the present version doesn't reflect that at all (quote: «spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B₁₂». IMHO, its is pure NPOV to add RDAs and the extra reference to clear things up on that point.

There is a true point of controversy however, concerning the reliability of spirulina as a B12 source. This is something else altogether and the policy pages you indicated directly concern this specific issue. The leading scientist to have worked on the issue of B12 notes in his most recent reference that "van den Berg et al. (68) demonstrated that a spirulina-supplemented diet does not induce severe vitamin B12 deficiency in rats, implying that the feeding of spirulina may not interfere with the vitamin B12 metabolism. **Further studies are needed to clarify bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans.**" (my highlight). Maybe we could end the paragraph with that exact quote or in any case that idea, while maintaining a strongly skeptic POV.

How about -->

« Different studies emanating from the same lead scientist (Fumio Watanabe) similarly advise that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B₁₂ on the grounds of a theoretical possibility of the existence of anti-B12 analogues. A normal profile of contribution of spirulina to vitamin B12 metabolism has been demonstrated in rats though bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans has yet to be clarified, prompting a call for caution among people at risk of B12-deficiency, notably vegetarians.»

Rdavout (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material in question involves medical assertions and the medical literature, the relevant sourcing guideline seems to me to be WP:MEDRS. That guideline is crystal clear that we need to respect secondary sources (e.g. statements from expert bodies), and likewise crystal clear that we should not cherry-pick primary sources (individual studies) and arrange them to editorially "rebut" expert opinion.
In this case, expert opinion is clear, in the form of statements from the American Dietetic Association and Canadian Dieticians organization. We need to accurately convey that expert opinion to the reader, rather than trying to insinuate that the experts are wrong, as version #2 does. If there is in fact accumulating evidence that spirulina is a good source of B12, then expert bodies will alter their opinions, and we'll follow. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as best I can tell, and this seems pretty clear-cut to me. MastCell ^Talk 01:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to determine whether or not the controversy around spirulina is a notable controversy. Essentially - is the alternative view a notable and widely-regarded view; and is the controversy itself noted by experts? If any sources could be provided here, that would be very helpful. We really need a secondary sources which notes the controversy between the two views, I think. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell here. We need to respect WP:MEDRS, which says we should not usually use individual studies. If there is a review study or a textbook that mentions the controversy, then we can cover it, but otherwise I think it is probably too early to soften the wording in the article. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE RAW

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.

WWE Raw (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?

A Wikipedia user is continuously making an edit which is not sourced. I reverted the edit numerous times although it has not made a difference.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

11coolguy12 (talk · contribs)
Mikeymike2001 (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, I wrote back on their talk page.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=WWE RAW}} --~~~~ in a new section 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 wrote on the user's talk page about the un-sourced edit and the fact that it needs a reliable source.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

By providing advice on how to resolve the dispute.

11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE RAW 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.

Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan

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.

Azarbaijani Kurds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kurds in Azerbaijan (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?

The page is proposed for deletion . One of the reasons for deleting it is said to be lack of references . I want to add references to the article for preventing it from deletion . User Orartu ‎thinks all of the references can't be used in the page because the references are not related . In the article Kurds in Azerbaijan , Orartu deletes my disambiguation template because she thinks the existence of the page Azarbaijani Kurds is wrong , and the disambiguation is then have to be deleted.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Orartu (talk · contribs)
Alborz Fallah (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=Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

[9]

How do you think we can help?

Please explain to this user that I'm not her enemy and we may have conversation .

Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan 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.

Elizabeth Rauscher

Elizabeth Rauscher (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?

Apparently, User:Dreadstar thinks it is okay to revert nearly every edit I've made to this article as I try to get it to conform to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. I cross-listed this to WP:FTN because of the content issues, but I think that essentially this editor is claiming ownership of the article. I think the best thing to do at this point is simply revert him until he goes away because he makes no coherent arguments on the talk page yet insists that there needs to be a discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure what more can be done here, but would welcome some help.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Dreadstar (talk · contribs)
[[User:76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)|76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)|contribs]])[reply]

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=Elizabeth Rauscher}} --~~~~ in a new section 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?

76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rauscher discussion

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

^ Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. PMID 12656203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Watanabe F (2007). "Vitamin B12 sources and bioavailability". Exp. Biol. Med. (Maywood). 232 (10): 1266–74. doi:10.3181/0703-MR-67. PMID 17959839. Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominantly contain pseudovitamin B(12), which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B(12) sources, especially in vegans.
^ Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets
^ Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882. The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. PMID 12656203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ A. Kumudha, S.S. Kumar, M.S. Thakur, G.A. Ravishankar, R. Sarada (2010). "Purification, identification, and characterization of methylcobalamin from Spirulina platensis". Journal of agricultural food chemicals. 58 (18): 9925–30. PMID 20799700.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets
^ Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882. The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1] Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. PMID 12656203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[watanabe-review-2] Watanabe F (2007). "Vitamin B12 sources and bioavailability". Exp. Biol. Med. (Maywood). 232 (10): 1266–74. doi:10.3181/0703-MR-67. PMID 17959839. Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominantly contain pseudovitamin B(12), which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B(12) sources, especially in vegans.

[3] Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets

[4] Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882. The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[5] Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Kittaka-Katsura H, Ebara S, Miyamoto E (2002). "Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae". J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 48 (5): 325–31. PMID 12656203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[6] A. Kumudha, S.S. Kumar, M.S. Thakur, G.A. Ravishankar, R. Sarada (2010). "Purification, identification, and characterization of methylcobalamin from Spirulina platensis". Journal of agricultural food chemicals. 58 (18): 9925–30. PMID 20799700.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[7] Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets

[8] Watanabe F, Katsura H, Takenaka S, Fujita T, Abe K, Tamura Y, Nakatsuka T, Nakano Y (1999). "Pseudovitamin B(12) is the predominant cobamide of an algal health food, spirulina tablets". J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (11): 4736–41. doi:10.1021/jf990541b. PMID 10552882. The results presented here strongly suggest that spirulina tablet algal health food is not suitable for use as a B12 source, especially in vegetarians.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

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