Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Volga River Steamers

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. Volga River Steamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) help, some yo-yo has come by and completely altered the page, and has now nominated the page for deletion. The man is completely out of line. He is not assuming good faith. I wish to have to page reverted to its May 2011 state. And have this user kept away from the page. He is welcome to make his concerns known on the talk page, or raise a discussion but not to brutalize the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfsorrow2 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Users involved: Sfsorrow2 (talk · contribs) Mesoderm (talk · contribs) Volga River Steamers discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hello: I am the "yo-yo" to which Sfsorrow2 refers. I nominated the page for deletion because I do not feel that it meets the criteria laid out in WP:NOTABLE. Also, the article is completely unsourced. Sfsorrow2 seems to know quite a bit about steamboats, and I'd love to see him/her contribute more in this topic area, but I just have concerns about the lack of sources in their contributions, and creation of several articles (Volga River Steamers, Parana River steamers, New York tugboats, etc.) that do not meet the criteria in WP:NOTABLE. Sfsorrow2 is making personal attacks and assuming bad faith on my part, but I don't wish any punitive action to be taken for that. I understand that they are angry, because they have put a lot of work into these articles, and are upset that they are up for deletion. So I think that if some other people came in and explained to them what I am trying to say regarding the importance of WP:V, that Sfsorrow2 would not be angry anymore and would stop interacting this way. They are angry with me, so perhaps it would be best if someone else could suggest to them how they could include information about steamboats into the appropriate places, in the appropriate manner. Thanks. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I think the main issue here is that Sfsorrow2 does not understand WP:OR. (I am basing this off a comment on my talk page stating: "Most of these articles have no sources, it is wilderness. Yet that does not mean it is not worthy of a page. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WIKI IS SO VALUABLE CUZ IT CAN GO TO AREAS NOT COVERED.") So I think the solution to this dispute would be for someone to explain to Sfsorrow2 why WP:V is important, and why we cannot accept OR here. Thanks. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC) This all seems to be due to a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Here are some policy extracts: From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." Also, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." From Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so." From Wikipedia:Notability: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. From the Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Reasons for deletion include: "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", and "articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". Sfsorrow2, I think you are underestimating the importance of sourcing on Wikipedia articles. If a subject has significant coverage in reliable published sources, then it can have an article on Wikipedia. If this condition is not met, then any articles on it are required by Wikipedia policy to be deleted. Even if a subject is notable, if an editor finds a claim that is not backed up by a reliable source, then they are allowed by policy to remove it. So there is a very simple solution to the problems you are facing - just add inline citations to the article which point to reliable published sources. The article certainly looks good, and it seems like there should be sources for the information in it. However, if an editor is unable to find such sources they are entitled by Wikipedia policy to list the article for deletion. I have looked at the article and at the talk pages of the users involved, and Mesoderm has been commendably patient and calm in explaining the issues involved, and the reasons for their edits. I can appreciate, though, that Sfsorrow2 would be angry at this edit where Mesoderm reverts 23 edits of an IP as vandalism; that is most definitely not vandalism as defined in WP:VANDAL. Other than this, though, Mesoderm's editing is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy as stated above, and they have been civil and shown good faith throughout. Sfsorrow, I'm afraid that if you don't abide by the Wikipedia policies, including those listed above, then you will continue to find yourself in situations where content that you've added is removed by other editors. I can tell you now that complaining about the editors that remove the content is not likely to work unless they have broken Wikipedia policy by doing it. I can feel your frustration in having your content removed, but the best solution here is for you to learn the policies thoroughly and stick to them in your editing. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC) First of all, I'd like to apologize to Sfsorrow2 for nominating the article for deletion instead of asking for sources first. I looked for sources on Google books, etc. and couldn't find them, and immediately went for deletion since there were none in the article either. But this was a bad decision -- a better one would have been to ask on talk and at the reference desk first. Even if Sfsorrow2 couldn't have provided them, another user could have (as has happened on the AfD page). I will be more careful in the future to ask for sources before nominating articles for deletion. Also, regarding my revert of 23 edits, I'm not sure what happened there. I didn't realize I was reverting 23 edits, and when I looked at the diff, I saw that an edit (or perhaps several) had inserted half section headers (i.e. just one equals sign) into various points in the article, and other edits that broke formatting, were unsourced, etc. I reverted the article because I thought this was vandalism, but I see now that unless they intentionally were breaking the formatting, etc. that I should not have classified it as vandalism. I'm very sorry about this, and will fix such problems in the future, rather than reverting them. Most of Sfsorrow2's reaction to this, while inappropriate per WP:CIVIL, seems to have been the result of my blundering. I hope everyone will forgive me for all of this, and my sincere apologies again to Sfsorrow2. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Volga River Steamers resolution Marking as resolved, per the above comments. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tevfik Fikret

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. Tevfik Fikret (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? One particular editor Takabeg, repetedly removes the Turkish poet category tag from this article about one of the most famous Turkish poets of all time. His contention is that Tevfik Fikret was an Ottoman poet solely, and not a Turkish one. Though there is such a category tag, Ottoman poets already included, he is not satisified and removes the Turkish poets category, and reverts back to back. Intentions seem to be not constructive and a behaviour repeated in many other instances. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Takabeg (talk · contribs) Tevfik Fikret is and was one of the most influencial and well known Turkish poets. All his work was written and published in Turkish as far as I know. His being an Ottoman citizen, a citizen of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-national (Turkish) Empire does not change the fact that he wrote and spoke in Turkish, has a Turkish name, was a Turkish literature teacher and as far as we know has never identified himself anything but a Turk, an Ottoman Turk. If he is not a Turkish poet, then no one is. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Extensive discussion did not result in him stopping his reverts. Though his favored category is included (not disputed by me), he is not satisfied and keeps removing the Turkish poets tag from this article about a very important Turkish poet. How do you think we can help? Simple prevention of repeated reverts and retaining the Turkish poets category will do. A warning about disruptive editing and stalking is also necessary it seems. Murat (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Tevfik Fikret discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. WP:CAT: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So basically, if there's evidence this individual is Turkish or closely associated with Turkish culture, and that evidence is mentioned in the article and referenced, then the category is appropriate. Categories are primarily for readers to find related articles. They are useful but not definitive. A Turkish poet category doesn't mean this writer is exclusively Turkish or Turkish rather than Ottoman. It's okay if there's some overlap in categories as long as it is backed up by sources. Ocaasi t | c 02:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Here is the FIRST sentence of the article: "Tevfik Fikret (December 26, 1867 – August 19, 1915) (توفیق فکرت) was the pseudonym of Turkish poet Mehmed Tevfik." He wrote and published in Turkish, this was his mother tongue, and he was a Turkish teacher in most prestigious schools in Istanbul. Why would anyone remove "Turkish poets" tag? Repeatedly? Tevfik Fikret resolution Discussion fizzled out, closing. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bornking7 and The Nation of Gods and Earths

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. Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.) This mainly concerns the conduct of user:Bornking7 who says he is a representative of the group The Nation of Gods and Earths. Bornking7 has made several large scale edits to the article which have been reverted by other users [1]. I have attempted to engage him in discussion. He has been polite, but shows very little sign of understanding basic Wikipedia rules concerning NPOV, RS, acceptable prose etc. He also leaves very long "walls of text" written in an indignant manner which are very difficult to work through [2]. So far the situation is not serious, but this user believes that the group he represents is being deliberately misdescribed. His most recent edit changed the name of the founder of the organisation to "Allah" [3] [4]. There are WP:COMPETENCE issues - his edits are often misspelled and ungrammatical. Strangely he included his user signature in the article twice, but all his talk page postings are signboted. Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) User:Paul Barlow User:Bornking7 Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page. The issue was raised at the ANI just under a month ago [5]. Other editors offered to assist with Bornking7 (user:Blackmane; user:Hobit) How do you think we can help? I am mainly hoping for some support regarding the policy and content issues and am hoping that some editor who is rather more on Bornking7's "wavelength", as it were, may come forward to help to communicate with him before this turns into a conflict in which he identifies me as an enemy of his, or of his group, which is certainly not my intent. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I think that the best thing to do is to let the people who are helping the user to get more knowledge. This is not really a dispute either. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I think it is a dispute, since it concerns very divergent views about the content of the article. Paul B (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC) It may not be a full-blown dispute yet, but we can help. It's certainly a disagreement, and AN/I is not the place for it, so why not here? One recommendation is to have Bornking read a guide we wrote up in the irc help channel, the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. It's a top to bottom walkthrough of editing, communicating, and neutrality principles and practices. Meanwhile simply revert and request a reliable source be provided for any changes, explaining that Wikipedia only operates on material that can be verified in such a source. If that doesn't work, AN/I is the unfortunate last resort. Hopefully Bornking will get the idea, but give him a few chances since new editors have a learning curve. Just repeatedly and calmly explain our policy and basic operations. Also request Bornking post short comments which include key points and references. And let's double-check the sources. If we're misrepresenting something, find some good research and clear it up. Ocaasi t | c 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I've not been involved with the article at all but merely came across the report on ANI and popped over to Bornking's talk page to drop some advice and a few links to try to nudge him in the right direction of policy. However, it looks like that was a somewhat vain hope. I tend to avoid political and religious articles since they're often a minefield judging by the reports I've read on ANI. This really started as Bornking's misunderstanding of the policies, but with the number of times others have been trying to get him to conform to policy, it's involved into a lot of WP:IDHT. Bornking really needs to understand that no one is misrepresenting his group but neither are we able to let him run amok and do as he wishes. --Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I too offered help and generally feel the same as Blackmane. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC) This mainly concerns the conduct of editor: Paul b. He has admitted to not really knowing anything about the Nation of Gods and Earths except that everything i have contributed is wrong. Still i have been patient. For example the NOGE is not an organization. I gave him the neutral definition of what the NOGE is and yet he keeps changing it back to organization. He is very condescending in his approach to me. He acts as if one does not know how to use reference tags correctly then there is no validity in what is being said. If facts can be considered neutral, I also explained the NOGE was not founded by Clarence 13X, it was founded by Allah. Again he changed it back. How can someone who knows nothing about a subject be the authority? Wikipedia had the NOGE listed on the NOI site as the Subsidary of the NOI. I bought that to his attention and he denied it two or three times. I had to walk him through the NOI page until he finnaly saw it for himself. You can go to the talk page and see the discussion for yourself. Since that point there has been no discussion on the talk page. I then revised my edits and just edited the most glaring false statements found in the lede. He still found the need to revert the lede back to how it was when i discovered it. The facts are that most people do not know about the NOGE and so they google it. When they do your very incorrect lede comes up and does the NOGE a great disservice. Your lede is not neutral and it is not true. So I ask again who is the editor that submitted that lede to you in the first place? This is a very important issue to a people affected by the false information contained in the NOGE lede. I seek assistance in making it neutral and correct, Paul is an impediment--Bornking7 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Again, you don't seem to understand that while a neutral perspective is required, it is also required that you need to show reliable sources that back up your claim. If you are involved with the group, then there is a conflict of intereste that needs to be addressed as well. Your repeated changes to the lede to present your "neutral definition" have not been backed by reliable sources. Insertion of sources is through the use of reference tags. If you are unsure how to do it, present a source on the talk page and request help from any of the other editors there to show you how. It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing how to use ref tags, it's about knowing that you must have something to put into ref tags. Your refusal to see that you are not editing in conformance to policy is rising to the level of disruption. --Blackmane (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Resolution Discussion fizzled out, feel free to reopen if issues arise again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starship Enterprise

Closed discussion

War rape

Closed discussion

Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War

Closed discussion

Sri Lanka

Closed discussion

Airconditioning Dispute

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. Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.) An editor named RGCorris is insistent on adding what I believe to be false information to the article Airconditioning, and has been increasingly hostile about the issue. The Status Quo version of the article stated that the song "What Happens When You Blow Yourself Up" appeared as the b-side to the single "It Happened Today". RGCorris deleted this information and replaced it with the statement that it was the second track on the a-side. His edit summary read only "correct data re single", so I reverted the edit with a note saying that the version with "What Happens" on the b-side is at least the more common version. He reverted the edit back and left a note on Talk: Airconditioning warning editors not to revert the claim without providing a referenced source. Neither his edit summary nor his note gave any reason why he believed the preexisting information in the article to be false, not even an "I heard it somewhere", but I decided the best way to avoid a fight would be to simply humor him and add the requested reference. However, this only made him more hostile. He immediately reverted the article back to his version and posted a rant in which he accused me of lying about the relevant single and of getting the information I referenced second hand. He has since allowed the statement "'What Happens' was a b-side" to remain, but has added the claim that it was also an a-side, listing as a source a website which actually lists both versions of the single with "What Happens" as a b-side. When I pointed out to him that the source he cited says the opposite of his claim, he quoted back a listing with "What Happens" as a b-side and claimed that this proves that it was an a-side. At this point, I don't think there's any hope of my reasoning skills getting through to him(and incidentally, I would appreciate any constructive criticism on said reasoning skills, so as to avoid my having to resort to this noticeboard in the future). The issue of "What Happens" as an a-side is trivial, and I have little problem with allowing that claim to remain in the article, but RGCorris's behavior in the dispute upsets me. I don't want to have to continue with my work on the Curved Air-related articles with the constant threat of him picking a fight with me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) User: RGCorris Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? What can we do to help resolve this issue? Discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Editor Martin Illa was asked to provide proper references for his claim that a particular song was a b-side. Although I was able to quote the record company's catalogue reference number for the vinyl issue with it as a second track on the A-side, and offered to send him a scan of the record label, he insisted on reverting the edit, quoting a CD booklet as his source. I have since established that the track in question was a b-side in North America and the second track on the a-side in the UK, and added that information with the catalogue reference numbers for both versions. Mr Illa's aggressive responses, where he claimed that he was not my secretary and showed no interest in establishing the verifiable truth of the matter are regrettable. However IMHO the matter has now been clarified and the dispute has been resolved, with the article containing correct and verifiable data. Mr. Illa has also made edits on various Curved Air album pages with sections left completely blank under the sub-heading, and seems to have taken umbrage when I pointed this out, claiming that he had not yet finished his editing on them. RGCorris (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC) First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it. No one should have to tell you this, but a catalogue number is not a reference, not even an unreliable one. Especially not when the available sources match that catalogue number with a record other than the one you claim exists. I did not take umbrage on the points you mention. Indeed, as anyone reading my talk page can see, my reply to your post could not have been more laid back and friendly. Moreover, the edits you refer to are part of a project started by WP: WikiProject Albums, and I provided a clear link to this project in my edit summaries. As for being your secretary, you had just made the bizarre request that I find you a reference for a piece of information that is not anywhere in the article in question, and moreover, you did so immediately after deleting the reference you previously requested with no explanation. Against such a bizarre request, a blunt "I am not here to be your personal secretary" seemed the best way of putting an end to that side issue. The above should make it clearer why RGCorris is making me nervous. Absolutely anything that I say to him, even "Don't worry, I'll take care of it" and "Here's the reference you asked for", is interpreted by him as an attack. It doesn't help that he seems to have no ability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Let him correct me if I'm wrong, but his way of establishing that "What Happens" was a b-side in North America was by asking about the matter on the Curved Air fan mailing list. After rejecting the word of official album liner notes, he took a lone fan on a mailing list as an acceptable reference. For all he knows, the one who provided him that information was me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Quote : "First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it." It must have been some other Martin Illa that added that information at 13:07 on 7th May 2011 then ? This dispute is unnecessary and I am at a loss why Mr Illa wants to pursue it. I bought the record in question in 1971 and still have it (along with a second copy as the original got scratched) and have quoted the details from the label; copies come up for sale regularly and I have referred Mr. Illa to one such, although he declined to look at it; the details of the release can be verified from the record company's catalogue data if necessary. I believe the article now contains correct and verifiable information. Why he wishes to pursue the argument I know not. RGCorris (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Is anyone going to help out here? The reason I brought this issue here was because, as RGCorris's above posts demonstrate, I can't get RGCorris to regard me as anything but his eternal archenemy no matter how accomodating I am to him. More back-and-forth between the two of us on this forum is only going to make things worse.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Hello there - first, let me apologise for the length of time it's taken for someone to reply to this. I can sympathise with you both about this one, as it involves fact-checking of fiddly details, and on top of that, the word B-side has grown to be a little ambiguous in meaning. Let's start with the ambiguity - the word B-side has grown to mean the less-important track on a single as well as the actual flip side of the vinyl. The CD booklet reference may say the song in question is a "b-side", but there is no telling which meaning of the word they are actually using unless they state this explicitly. This means we should be wary of using it as a source. (This especially applies if RGCorris is correct in saying that the single was unusual in having two tracks on the a-side.) The actual vinyl single, however, is an excellent source for this information. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources like the single itself can most definitely be used for simple fact-checking like this. It is only when making interpretations of facts that using primary sources becomes a no-no. Then there is the matter that the versions of the single were different in the US, the UK, and Europe. Hopefully RGCorris's latest edit to the article has put this matter to rest. If either of you are still unhappy with the situation, I'll be glad to listen to your responses below. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, this doesn't nearly resolve the issue. As far as the CD booklet, it doesn't merely say that the song is a b-side; it gives the full details of the single. So no ambiguity there. I find RGCorris's claimed copy of the single to be of no help for several reasons. First, records of the time, including Warner releases, often do not boldly display which side is "A" and which is "B", and that info can only be gleaned from the record itself by examining the catalogue numbers written on the label and/or the inner rim. Thus there's a high possibility of RGCorris reading as "side A" what is in fact "side B". Second, mis-labelings and mispressings occur reasonably often(by coincidence, my own copy of Airconditioning has the tracks in the wrong order), so a single copy of a record with tracks arranged in a certain way is by no means proof that the official release of the record had them that way. Third, I have already hypothesized that the record he is talking about is an EP, not a single. The only difference between an EP and a single is that a single has only one track on side A. Since RGCorris says this record has two tracks on side A, it stands to reason that it's probably an EP. At any rate, I can't see why he would assume a record with two tracks on side A is a single. Finally, even if the single exists in the form RGCorris says, the mere fact that it exists doesn't mean that it is signficant enough to mention in the article. After all, the article is meant to be a collection of information on the album Airconditioning, not a discography of every version of every single Curved Air released around the time. Also, I should point out that my biggest problem with RGCorris's edit isn't the claim of the single's existance, but the fact that he has used as a citation a website which doesn't verify its existance, and in fact implies that no such single exists.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC) You make very good points here. First, I agree that it is not clear whether including detailed information about the release of the single is suitable for an article about the album. However, if the track What Happens When You Blow Yourself Up was recorded at the same sessions as the other album tracks, it seems reasonable to include information about it. The balance of how much you include is a point that you must both work out through consensus. (And remember that it is always possible to create an article about the single, if it passes WP:N.) Second, I have reviewed the talk page and the reference that RGCorris provided, and I think I have found the source of the confusion. Actually, I am surprised that neither of you seem to have noticed this. From their discography: 'All the above singles (with the exception of "Renegade") were also issued as both promo singles and as "double-A side" promos.' So it seems like the most probable explanation is that RGCorris owns one of the "double-A side" promos, and your CD booklet refers to the single proper. RGCorris, does this seem like a reasonable explanation to you? Finally, I also agree that just using their website as a reference is not ideal, although I think the information is likely to be correct. (Is the site verified as being operated by Curved Air or their publicists? If not, we can't use it; if so, we can use it with the restrictions noted in WP:PRIMARY.) In this case, I think using both the CD booklet and the website will likely be the best solution. Let me know what you think about my suggestions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry for the belated reply. I strongly agree that "What Happens When You Blow Yourself" should be mentioned in the article, but like I said, I don't see reason to list every variation of the singles it appears on. I've never seen that much discographic detail on any Wikipedia article, even for albums of highest notability. As far as an article on the single itself, I doubt it would pass notability standards, as it didn't chart anywhere and I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned outside of Curved Air bios. I am 99% certain that "double-A side promos" refers to singles which include only one song, appearing on both sides. For example, in this case it would be a single with "It Happened Today" on the a-side, and "It Happened Today" on the b-side as well - hence, "double-A side". Such promo singles are very common, and I've run across dozens if not hundreds of them in my years of record collecting. Of course, that doesn't mean RGCorris couldn't have confused this description with the record he says he has, so he'll have to speak up on that point. The Curved Air website is run by Richard Wynne, who unless I'm forgetting something important is basically just a fan. He does run the website with the explicit approval of most past and present members of Curved Air, and is even good friends with a few of them. I consider the site more than reliable enough for my own uses and would certainly use it as a reference if nothing better was available, but yeah, I don't think it would be considered a WP reliable source.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) That all sounds fair enough to me. I think this dispute has cooled down enough now that we don't need to discuss it here. I suggest that we take this back to Talk:Airconditioning, and if necessary I can intervene to keep the discussion constructive. What do you say? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Sounds good. I'll go there now and try proposing a compromise solution.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Resolution Discussion has calmed down and has been taken back to the article talk page. If anything else comes up feel free to bring it back here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Golden Triangle (UK universities)

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. Golden Triangle (UK universities) (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? Thetruthof2011/Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234 (same user) raised a concern about the number of Nobel Prize winners from Cambridge compared to Columbia University. The article originally said Cambridge had the second highest (with 88) after Columbia. But as Thetruth2011/2012 correctly pointed out from Columbia's official site and the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation article, Columbia only has 70. However, instead of simply correcting the error, Thetruth2011/2012 proceeded to add the entire list of universities by Nobel Prize winners, plus a paragraph of WP:PUFF and WP:PEACOCKery about Cambridge [6] [7]. After numerous reverts between Thetruth2011/2012 and Rangoon11 (who tried to persuade Thetruth2011/2012 to discuss on the talk page [8]), I came across the article and reverted to the version without the puffery and the irrelevant list [9] [10], before making the simple correction myself [11]. The puffery included phrases like With that said, it is arguably considered throughout the world, like Oxford and London, as the very most greatest university in the world and the home of the elite-elite. Thetruth2011/2012 finally began to talk [12] [13], saying the article had incorrect information about the Nobel list (which I think was true). I told him on the article's talk page [14] that it wasn't the only issue, and their edits were reverted because of the puffery and the irrelevant list (also explained in the edit summaries [15] [16] [17]). Thetruth2011/2012 doesn't seem to get the message, posting on my talk page that their edits are sourced and even saying that Rangoon made "intentional" errors to the article [18]. (True, the list is sourced, but it does not belong to the article at all.) Judging from their language, Thetruth2011/2012 has no intention of engaging in a serious discussion about the issues I have raised about the page, and is simply reverting to WP:DISRUPT and make their WP:POINT. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Thetruthof2011 (talk · contribs) Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs) 24.5.132.234 (talk · contribs) Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I've explained to Thetruth2011/2012 about the WP:PEACOCKery and the extraneous list, but they seem keen only on reverting to make their WP:POINT. How do you think we can help? Ask Thetruth2011/2012 to stop his disruptive behavior and discuss why they think the paragraph with the puffery and the list of universities by Nobel Prize winners should be included in the article. If they continue to refuse to discuss, just take them up at WP:AN. Yk3 talk ~ contrib 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Golden Triangle (UK universities) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. It seems clear from the description above that one editor is acting improperly. Making synthetic, subjective value judgments that are not specifically backed up by a source, not directly relevant to the article, or otherwise intended to promote rather than inform is just not what we do. There's not really a dispute here. I recommend you warn one more time, and then seek an administrator to make a necessary intervention, perhaps a short block. Ocaasi t | c 02:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC) "It seems clear from the description above that one editor is acting improperly." Indeed. The editor in question has already violated the 3-revert rule on the article. I have reverted his latest series of edits to the article and left a sternly worded warning on his talk pages. If he reverts again I suggest he simply be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I don't know what relationship this board has to wikiprojects, but in this case it would be really helpful to place a notice on the talk page of WikiProject Universities. The article has not progressed much from a stub except for including summary info about universities that is already covered on their own pages. Few references relate to the "Golden Triangle" concept itself; most are about the individual unis. The article may be a candidate for merger. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC) With respect this isn't the place for a discussion about whether 'Golden Triangle' merits an article - although I am pretty puzzled at the idea that it doesn't (there is a deep mine of potential sources, in addition to the ones already in the artice [19] and [20]). I would agree that the article needs work however. On the point at hand, I have personally found the activities of Thetruthof2011/Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234 very time wasting over the past few days. They have made no effort at engaging in constructive discussion, have posted aggressive and confused messages on my talk page e.g. [21] and [22], have not used edit summaries, and have tried to impose changes to the stable versions of articles purely through repeated edit warring. The article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation in particular is one that I have little interest in personally - and I certainly have no strong views on the number of Nobel winners associated with Columbia - but have felt compelled to get involved in to prevent it being butchered by Thetruthof2011/Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Long comment by User:24.5.132.234 and User:Thetruthnow2012 I've collapsed this comment to keep the noticeboard readable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC) List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, Golden Triangle (UK universities) List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Golden Triangle (UK universities) (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? It has come to my attention that David Wilson failed to warn the other two editors, namely 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk,' of their 4 or 5 edits per day violation of the said 3-Revert Rule. I don't believe that he bothered to even check up on what they claimed either. And it has already been noted on 'rangoon11's own talk page that other University officials have already complained about him in his grossly inaccurate edits (i.e. Her Royal Highness2 or HRH2's warning not to alter the section on King's College, London with gross inaccuracies). My suggestion to Mr. David Wilson is to never take sides unless he has reliable factual foundation for doing so. Otherwise, he himself may be accused of aiding and abetting the erroneous falsehoods perpetuated by both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk'. It has to be remembered here that it is the quality of information by an editor, and not the number of opposing questionable editors, that must be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the subject matter. The entire issue of the said 3-Revert Rule would not have come up had it not been for the improper, but blatantly SPITEFUL actions of both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk'. For both said editors, like a SPITEFUL TAG TEAM, had repeatedly removed my scholarly editions of cites and authorities as well as removed corrections that were made on both web pages entitled the 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)' & the 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'. These two editors acted improperly without just cause, for they both repeatedly removed accurate information supported by a plethora of cites and authorities, while providing none of their own to counter it. Their improper actions runs counter to the notion of encyclopedic scholarship where scholarship must be countered by superior scholarship in order to replace it. Knowledge is never static, for it changes from year to year. Such changes and/or corrections must be made whenever necessary. And I justifiably made them, pursuant to the existing policies of Wikipedia. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs) Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) Yk Yk Yk (talk · contribs) David Wilson (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Initially, all I did was undo the opposing editors changes. But after repeated and unjustified attempts to remove my edited versions of the two said webpages by both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' I decided to post messages to their respective talk pages. Right or wrong, I let them both know what my reasons were for disputing their alterations to my edited versions of the web pages in question. However, both said editors deleted all my postings, ignored my warnings and continued to remove my edited versions. At times, both editors would leave a remark of a few words in undoing my changes that can be seen in the View History page. Words by 'rangoon11' such as 'excessive' or 'doesn't match the table' were used. Whether excessive or not it is not for other editors to decide. Moreover, 'rangoon11's blind reference to tables (albeit, just the one referring to Columbia University) without question on an open and free website is nothing short of stupid. For tables, let alone any information on an open and free website, can be replete with errors as the one regarding the 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'. This is why erroneous information is allowed to be removed and replaced by other editors, so long as they have more accurate and reliable cites, authorities and statistics THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. However, 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' failed to provide any such information in their repeated removals of my edited webpage versions. How do you think we can help? For a start, I would like both of my edited webpage contributions to be fully restored to their original content, without any further unjustified removals by either 'rangoon11' or 'Yk Yk YK' or any other editor for that matter. And until superior scholarly research is provided, then there can be no valid justification for altering my contributions to the said two webpages. Moreover, it is clear that censorship of accurate and more detailed information supported by verifiable cites, authorities and statistics would constitute censorship, which is in violation of my rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 24.5.132.234 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC) List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, Golden Triangle (UK universities) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. After having received Mr. David Wilson's message, I will adhere to the 3-Revert Rule. However, that being said, because the other editors have already broken the said rule (i.e. 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk'), they must also be held accountable as well. Whether or not these other said editors (i.e. 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk') are two different people or one and the same, it is clear that their postings are erroneous. Apart from the fact that both individuals have repeatedly reverted the web page to its former incorrect self, both said individuals have also failed to refute my posted cites and authorities. I am a lawyer and I don't merely give an opinion on an encyclopedic website. What was presented by me is nothing more than factual information based upon reliable and checkable cites and authorities. The other competing editors have provided nothing more than unsupported claims without the benefit of their own cites and authorities. And what was on the website that they reverted it to contains information that was not only wrong, but was proven wrong by the cites and authorities that I had provided. Indeed, after having checked the said editors information against the information provided by various official University websites from throughout the world, I have found that both 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk's information was not confirmed by the said reliable citations that I had relied upon and used as references. As a consequence, one must conclude that these said editors known as 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' have perpetuated erroneous information. However, the said editors 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' appear to be intentional in their perpetuation of falsehood and this will not be tolerated. After having heard the founder of Wikipedia speak at the Berkman Law Center of Harvard University one early evening six years ago it is clear to me what the online encyclopedia is for. Wikipedia is for the dissemination of truth. And although Wikipedia, being a free online encyclopedia, can be edited by anyone on earth it must serve its purpose of disseminating accurate facts that can be checked against existing reliable sources of information. Failing that, it is nothing more than another blog or comment website that is prone to unreliable information. With that said, two wrong editors perpetuating falsehood don't make a right!!!!!!!!!!!!! The grounds provided by both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' for changing the said web pages back to their original inaccurate versions are baseless. For example, although the editor known as 'Yk Yk Yk' stated that she has no real interest in the subject matter at issue, he/she openly admited that I was actually accurate in correcting the information provided by 'rangoon11' and that he/she removed my edited versions of the said web pages anyway because he/she thought my version was too excessive and puffy for explaining a mere concept. That is 'Yk Yk Yk's opinion, but such an opinion reveals a form of SPITEFULNESS on his/her part nonetheless. So if 'Yk Yk Yk' had it her way then the accuracy of knowledge would be sacrificed and butchered for the sake of mere brevity. This cannot be allowed, especially by virtue of the fact that the information provided by the medium of an electronic encyclopedia must be factually and verifiably correct with a breadth and depth of scholarship that would lend more credibility and reliability to the information imparted. The more detailed and accurate the information, the more scholarly that information becomes. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are comprehensive depositories of the world's knowledge. Indeed, according to Webster's New Deal Dictionary, it defines 'encyclopedia' as a 'work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge . . .'. And the Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) defines 'comprehensive' as 'including much; inclusive . . .'. With that said, it can be stated that if one were to explain a concept such as the 'Golden Triangle' universities of the United Kingdom, one must be prepared to explain why it is Golden and what would justify such an assertion. Comprehensive detail supported by reliable citations is necessary to prove such matters to a scholarly level of satisfaction. More general notions of the said concept does not do the subject matter scholarly justice. For example, when one makes a statement as to who is the greatest sports team of all-time, as opposed to who is during a mere current season, one justifies it by providing statistical data across a greater expanse of time that can be reliably checked against existing reliable records. For this reason, many have relied upon statistical data as a concrete basis for proving a statement as to who is the greatest or the best or the highest or the most prolific (i.e. the New York Yankees for baseball, Manchester United for soccer, the Boston Celtics for basketball, the Green Bay Packers for American Football, the Montreal Canadians for ice hockey, Oxford-Cambridge-London Universities for academia, and Mount Everest for mountains, et cetera). The so-called editor known as 'Yk Yk Yk' also claimed that I made unnecessary changes to the web page entitled 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'. Indeed, changes were made by me, but the notion that it was unnecessary or unwarranted is baseless. For the whole concept behind Wikipedia's very creation was to allow changes to be made by people such as myself, so long as individuals such as myself provide the relevant cites and authorities to support and justify such changes. It takes years for hardbound encyclopedias to be amended and/or corrected, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that it can be changed immediately, thereby preventing knowledge from becoming dangerously static, and hence, unreliable. To justify my stated position on this subject matter I have provided the following changes to the two web pages below: 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation': THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE TOP OF THE WEBPAGE - I changed the original statement by 'rangoon11' that falsely asserted that Columbia University had more Nobel laureate affiliates than any other institution in the world, including Cambridge University (see: [[23]]); THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE TOP OF THE WEBPAGE - another change that I made was correcting 'rangoon11's false statement that Cambridge University Noble laureate, Professor Robert G. Edwards, was from Columbia University (see: [[24]]); COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - table changed from 97 affiliates to 72 after checking and comparing against the Columbia University website; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - staff/faculty number when taken in conjunction with student numbers of laureates exceeded the website information provided by Columbia University; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY - 3 affiliates were removed from the 'Attendees or Researcher' category to the 'Graduates' category, since all three are stated alumni of the University; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY - 1 affiliate was initially added to the 'Graduates' category, but later removed by me upon discovering that Henri Bergson had only received an honorary doctor of letters from the University in 1920; UNIVERSITY OF PARIS - 15 affiliates were removed from the 'Graduates' category after discovering that such individuals never attended the University of Paris, but actually attended an independent college in Paris known as the Ecole Normale Superior (see: click on each biography for each individual concerned and also compare to biographies located at [[25]]); and UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY - the numeric value of 4 was deducted from the affiliate count of 46 after discovering that Lee and Chu's names on the University website's current list overlapped with their names on the alumni list, and that Seaborg and Giauque's names on the deceased list overlapped with their names on the alumni list (see: [[26]]). 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)': CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY - more information, cites and authorities added to support university 'Golden Triangle . . .' claim to fame; IMPERIAL COLLEGE, LONDON - more information, cites and authorities added to support university 'Golden Triangle . . .' claim to fame; KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON - information, cites and authorities added to support university 'Golden Triangle . . .' claim to fame; OXFORD UNIVERSITY - information, cites and authorities added to support university 'Golden Triangle . . .' claim to fame; LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS - information, cites and authorities added to support university 'Golden Triangle . . .' claim to fame; and UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON - information, cites and authorities added to support university 'Golden Triangle . . .' claim to fame; (Any existing statistical data provided as further scholarly support). In closing, my aforesaid editions to the said web pages were wrongfully removed by both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' for several reasons: 1) more cites and authorities, and not less as the opposing editors have advocated, are openly encouraged by Wikipedia, as a matter of both stated record and policy; 2) less than accurate data from the tables that 'rangoon11' relied upon so blindly failed to match the data provided by the University websites themselves (i.e. his/her tally based upon the tables providing the total number of alumni, faculty and staff don't match the respective Universities own website count); 3) BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk's repeated removals of my edited versions of the two webpages were done for the sake of brevity, even though they knew their versions of the said web pages were inaccurate and erroneous, thereby constituting SPITE, and not scholarly research; 4) the said editors 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' made such said removals of my editions for the sake of bias as well (i.e. both take offense to the irrefutable fact that Cambridge University has more Nobel laureate affiliates and graduates than Columbia University, while ignoring the fact that I also made CORRECTIONS to the final tally of laureate affiliates from both the University of Paris and the University of California at Berkeley); and 4) all such said changes made by me were supported by reliable cites, authorities and statistics, while editors' 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' improperly removed them without their own verifiable counter cites, authorities and statistics to justify it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthnow2012 (talk • contribs) Hi Thetruthnow2012, and thank you for your long comment! I'm sorry for any distress this may have caused, but I have taken the liberty of collapsing your comment down to make this noticeboard more readable. I can assure you that I have done this with the best of intentions - I'm afraid we need to keep the length of this noticeboard down to make it as accessible as possible for other users who file disputes here. I have read your comments, and there are a lot of things in there that we can talk about. Before we start, though, I was slightly alarmed at some of the language you used. I see that you've characterized the other editors involved in this dispute as "spiteful", and called one of them a "so-called editor". I don't think the other editors involved are going to feel very happy about these accusations. If we are going to find a solution to this dispute that satisfies everyone, then I think it is absolutely vital that we keep discussion focused on the content involved, and not on other editors. Reading the pages "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" should give you a good idea of the kind of interaction that is praised by the Wikipedia community; would you be willing to try sticking to these principles in this discussion? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I will also add that this advice goes for everyone in this discussion - let's avoid labeling other editors and keep comments focused on facts. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC) User_talk:Thetruthnow2012#Dispute_resolution_2 - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I commend Thetruthnow2012 for his resolution to abide by the 3-revert rule and for deciding to engage in dispute resolution rather than continuing to edit war. However his accusation that editor Yk_Yk_Yk has violated the 3-revert rule appears to be mistaken, his insinuation that I should have warned both Yk_Yk_Yk and Rangoon11 for violating the rule is unwarranted, and these contentions seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the 3-revert rule on his part. The 3-revert rule applies to reversions, not edits. The text of the rule explicitly says that "[a] series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." If Yk_Yk_Yk's and Rangoon11's reversions to the article Golden Triangle (UK universities) are counted correctly, neither of them has violated the 3-revert rule on that article at any time during the last moth (although Rangoon11 did come quite close). At the time when I issued my warning to Thetruthnow2012, Yk_Yk_Yk had performed only 2 reverts to the article in the immediately preceding 24 hours, and Rangoon11 had performed only 1. As a consequence, neither of them was in immediate danger of violating the 3-revert rule, and therefore no warning was called for. After I had warned Thetruthnow2012 for violating the 3-revert rule on Golden Triangle (UK universities) I noticed that he had also violated it on the article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, so I thought it advisable to add a footnote to my previous warning informing him that it also applied just as much to his edits on this latter article. At the time I had only checked the first page of that article's history, and Thetruthnow2012 was the only editor who had violated the 3-revert rule on that article during the period covered by that page. I have since checked further back through the history of that article and found that Rangoon11 does appear to have violated the 3-revert rule there between 11:56 on July 3rd and 10:47 on July 4th, with 5 reversions during that period. I will concede that if I had been aware of this at the time I added the footnote to my warning to Thetruthnow2012, I should probably have warned Rangoon11 as well, although I must say his violation was already pretty stale by then. David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC) After receiving 'Yk Yk Yk's posted message it is quite painfully obvious that he/she does't know how to win an argument. He/she is obviously no lawyer. He/she has strayed from the main issues regarding two webpages and focused upon one paragraph from only one of them. How dare she suggest that I have provided irrelevant information. The number one world ranking of Cambridge University this year was indeed stated by other past editors without dispute. Such a ranking is based upon various factors, but they invariably compare such factors AGAINST ALL OTHER UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD. That being said, I took it upon myself to add more statistical data taken from a record that spans 800 straight years of continuous academic achievement in support of a ranking that has only existed for a mere seven years. And I also illustrated quite convincingly how many Noble laureates Cambridge University has had in relation TO THOSE SAME OTHER UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD to further justify not only its ranking, but also its reputation as being the very most greatest university in the world. Such a statement is not made lightly, for it is indeed supported by the statistical facts that spans a time period that greatly exceeds all other universities by many centuries. If a university is to be judged by how great it is based upon how successful its own track record of achievement is (i.e. production record in all categories, including the Nobel laureate category, and in all fields of study) then one can do no better than Oxbridge and London. Indeed, I have found no other record of achievement from any other university that would beat or even come close to the production records of either Cambridge or Oxford or for that matter, even London University. And mind you, this refers to an all-time record, not merely this year!!! Such an assessment applies to all other matters (i.e. sports teams, et cetera) as it does to Universities. When 'Yk Yk Yk' asserts that the trio of Oxford-Cambridge-London is part of a Golden Triangle, he/she must not only explain it, but he/she must prove it for the sake of scholarship as well. What makes this particular trio anymore 'Golden' than the trios of Harvard-Yale-Princeton or Berkeley-Stanford-Caltech? If such a designation is to be distinguished from all others as being 'Golden' she might as well compare them to all others. It is not only a fair argument, but a scholarly one at that. Nonetheless, if 'Yk Yk Yk' is going to gripe about my statements, why doesn't she stop whining and just provide his/her own counter statistical data to disprove it. Until then, 'Yk Yk Yk' has no basis for an argument against my edited webpages anymore than 'rangoon11' does. LASTLY, BY 'YK YK YK's OWN ADMISSION she stated that I was accurate and that I corrected erroneous information provided by 'rangoon11' (i.e. 'rangoon11's false cooking of the statistical data at 97, when it was just barely above 70; said editor's false assertion that Professor Edwards was an affiliate of Columbia University, when he was always and solely an affiliate of Cambridge University; said editor's false assertions that Cambridge University was second to Columbia in overall affiliate Nobel laureates, when the opposite is true - one who lives by the number dies by the number; and 'rangoon11's misuse of references regarding Columbia under the heading of awarded 'staff', when such citations refer to Chicago and Cambridge instead). BY 'YK YK YK's OWN ADMISSION she stated that she only changed my edited webpages and sided with 'rangoon11' on the frivolous basis that it was puffy which flies in the face of Wikipedia's own stated policy of encouraging as much ACCURATE CITES AND AUTHORITIES AS POSSIBLE. And BY 'YK YK YK's OWN ADMISSION she openly sided with a dishonest and disreputable editor that has already been busted in the past by the head administration of King's College, London University for making inaccurate editions to the said webpage. Based upon all of the foregoing, it can safely and legally be said that the editor known as 'YK YK YK' is as dishonest and disreputable as 'rangoon11' and any further statement that he/she decides to post in the future does not rise to the dignity of a proper response. Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Hi again Thetruthnow2012, and thank you for your further comment. Again, before any mediation can take place we need to have a constructive environment for discussion. I see that you have said Yk Yk Yk "gripe[d]" about your statements, that Rangoon11 engaged in "cooking of the statistical data", and that Yk Yk Yk's objections were "frivolous". I also see that you have referred to this noticeboard as the "dispute resolution arena" ([27][28]). I will ask you again - are you willing to abide by the principles of assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks in this discussion, and also on Wikipedia in general? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Thetruthnow2012 wrote: " ... a dishonest and disreputable editor [Rangoon11, allegedly] that has already been busted in the past by the head administration of King's College, London University for making inaccurate editions to the said webpage." This can only be referring to this instruction on Rangoon11's talk page by editor HRH2, since that is the only objection voiced by any editor other than Thetruthnow2012 to Rangoon11's editing of the article Kings College London. The suggestion that editor HRH2 has any official connection to the administration of King's College is patently ludicrous. In fact, that editor has nowhere responded adequately to Rangoon11's reversions of his or her edits to the article Kings College London. HRH2 had been adding overly laudatory and awkwardly phrased material to the Kings College London article, somewhat similar to the material Thetruthnow2012 kept trying to add to the article Golden Triangle (UK universities). After Rangoon11 reverted HRH2's edits, a short edit war ensued, followed by HRH2's issuing the above-mentioned instruction to Rangoon11's talk page. HRH2 then followed these up with increasingly abusive remarks ([29], [30]), the second of which was larded with expletives. As a consequence, HRH2 was blocked, initially for 1 week for making personal attacks, but later indefinitely for the apparent legal threat implicit in his initial instruction to Rangoon11's talk page. Given the nature of Thetruthnow2012's latest remarks it seems increasingly obvious to me that this dispute is unlikely to be resolved on this noticeboard, and needs to be taken elsewhere. What should be the next step? David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I have reported Thetruthnow2012's behavior at WP:AN/I - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 01:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As I said in the ANI thread, if Thetruthnow2012 does not participate here, I think the next logical step is to talk about the content of the article while also keeping an eye on their contributions. The first thing that struck me when reading the Golden Triangle (UK universities) article is that it isn't really about the Golden Triangle; it is about the universities that are claimed to be in the Golden Triangle. What we need is a treatment of the idea of the Golden Triangle, and I think we need to substantially rewrite the article to achieve this. Does this sound like a reasonable assessment to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes I realized that too. In fact, the descriptions of the universities should be much shorter – one paragraph each imo. The weight of the article should be on the idea of the Golden Triangle, as you said, however brief it may be. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I don't believe this is the proper place for a general discussion of how the article could be improved—that's what the article's talk page is for. This dispute is about Thetruthnow2012's behaviour and the quality of the material he is trying to add to the article. In my opinion, the discussion here should be limited to matters directly relevant to those issues. This could include the behaviour of other editors, if relevant, or any supposed problems which Thetruthnow2012's himself raises with the version of the article he disapproves of. However, although he appears to be claiming that that version still contains incorrect information, he has yet to provide a single specific example. The single instance of the incorrect information that he has so far identified (viz. the number of Nobel laureates "affiliated" with Columbia University) had already been corrected before this dispute resolution request was lodged, and is no longer at issue. Moreover, if there is any incorrect information in the version of the article deprecated by Thetruthnow2012, then his edits do nothing whatever to correct it, since they only add material to the article and otherwise do not modify it in any way. Thetruthnow2012 needs to be either persuaded to stop edit warring and take proper notice of other editors' concerns, or blocked from causing further disruption—although I don't think the latter step is quite warranted at the moment. In fact, the deficiencies in his edits are so obvious and numerous (there are many more problems with them than those identified by Yk Yk Yk) that other editors should not have to waste their time explaining them. Nevertheless, I will try to draw up a list with detailed explanations and post it on this noticeboard's talk page. It may take some time howerver. David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I agree, discussion about improving the article should take place at the talk page, and we should keep this space related to conduct issues. The exact way in which we proceed really depends on Thetruthnow2012's next edits. I don't think you need to draw up a list of the things they have done, as it's what they do from now on that will affect the outcome of this dispute. (If you still decide to draw up a list, it should go here with {{cot}} and {{cob}} tags, and not on the talk page, but I think it would just be a waste of your time.) If the only issue that remains is misguided article edits, then enough editors should be watching them now that they will just get reverted. If the edit warring continues with no input from Thetruthnow2012, then I think a short block will start to look more reasonable. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The idea behind drawing up a detailed explanation of what's wrong with Truthnow2012's edits was to try and convince him that other editors' objections to his edits are well-grounded. Although he has continued to edit war, he does at least seem to have slowed down a little, so that he's no longer violating the 3-revert rule. I therefore thought that a calmer and less confrontational explanation of why his edits violate several of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and conventions might have some chance of bearing fruit, though I do agree that this is unlikely, and very probably a waste of time. In the light of your similar opinion, and the possibility of some more serious issues with Thetruthnow2012's behaviour, I have now decided not to proceed with the idea. David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Well, you have probably all noticed this, but Thetruthnow2012 has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Hopefully this should convince them that we are serious here about seeking consensus, and should encourage discussion on the article talk pages. I invite all the participants in this discussion to keep an eye on Thetruthnow2012's contributions when the block expires tomorrow, and to post here if the edit warring continues. We can decide what further action needs taking after that. Thanks for keeping a cool head through all of this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Golden Triangle (UK universities) resolution Thetruthnow2012 has received a further block, this time for two weeks. This will likely be the end of this dispute. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Rozen Maiden characters

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. List of Rozen Maiden characters (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? Although consensus was reached (see talk page), Delta and Dirk continue to remove NFCC images. Island Monkey talk the talk 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Beetstra (talk · contribs) Δ (talk · contribs) Island Monkey (talk · contribs) FleetCommand (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We have discussed on the talk page thoroughly, but Delta/Dirk still remove the images. How do you think we can help? Sort this silly mess up so we can get back to our real work. Island Monkey talk the talk 16:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC) List of Rozen Maiden characters discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. My actions are well within NFCC, the individual files are excessive and also violate WP:NFCC#1 as they are replaceable with a group shot [31] which is standard practice on these lists. ΔT The only constant 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The use of per-character images isn't supported by either WP:NFCC or WP:NFLISTS. As Dirk has shown, there's another language Wikipedia using a group image, and that is what should be done here. There are a lot of options to choose from. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Trouts around To those who want the extra images, you must respect copyright. End of Line. Beestra and Δ know the ins and outs for NFCC (as the screenshots are). Because they work extensiveley with it you should take their advice very seriously. They were not vandalizing or being disruptive. A notice was placed on the talk page a few days ago and the consensus was that there were too many images and that a official group image would have been a better option To those who were removing the extra images, you should have put down your controls and drawn attention to the situation prior to engaging the spirit and practice of Edit Waring. Since all 4 parties to the DRN are blocked for a minimum of 24 hours this will probably re-start then Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Correction, Beetstra is not currently blocked. Nevertheless, I believe the question of when it is and is not okay to use non-free images to identify individual items within a list has never been fully settled by the community so any dispute here can be solved only by consensus (as the guideline currently requires). Any blanket assertion that they are always okay, or always not okay, is a nonstarter because that's not what the guideline says. It may help to see if the community is in a mood to refine and clarify the guideline, or if they would rather leave it up to case-by-case consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I am not blocked either. However, the discussion must halt for a while as arbitration committee has become involved. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) No need to wait for ArbCom, they are not going to decide on this specific case. Wikidemon, there is indeed not a black and white for lists. However, for television series, cartoons or movies there is always an image available where a good selection of the main characters can be found in one screenshot or other official image. Such images are hence always a replacement for having x individual images of the characters. That is also the case here, see zh.wikipedia, that image is clearly available and is hence a replacement for any set of individual images of the characters. Hence, I think this is clear overuse of non-free material, but I am willing to listen to arguments why that image that is used on zh.wikipedia would not be a replacement for most of the most important characters. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I never said we need to wait for ArbCom or anyone. Our discussion was going on in the article talk page a very civil manner. We continue there. This DRN case however, was about Delta's conduct not images. Delta's conduct issue is now out of the purview of this DRN as ArbCom has taken over. Therefore, this DRN case can safely close down. (This DRN never had the power to deal with Delta anyway.) Fleet Command (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the delay in replying to this. I agree that there is no real use for this thread as the talk page discussion has been civil and constructive, and any discussion outside the scope of the page in question is now in the realm of ArbCom and is obviously too big to be dealt with here. The relevant policy in this case seems to be WP:CONLIMITED: any consensus decided by a few editors on the article talk page cannot override the larger community consensus present in WP:NFCC. Using the group shot linked to above seems like a good compromise that falls within the boundary of the NFCC policy, and I recommend it as a solution. If anyone has any objections then I will be happy to hear them, but otherwise I think we should close this discussion and keep the talk to the article talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. No, there is no objection on what you said from my side. Though I must comment that we never tried to violate NFCC (with our without limited consensus). However, our argument is that whether NFCC applies here at all. I don't make an already-long story longer. Piece and love. Fleet Command (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC) List of Rozen Maiden characters resolution There is no real use for this thread any more - discussion on the talk page has been civil and constructive, and any larger issues are being discussed by ArbCom. If you reach an impasse again feel free to bring it back here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of role-playing video games

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. History of role-playing video games (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? Dispute over role of narrative in sub-genres of role-playing games. Sources generally support that one variety (Japanese role-playing games) focus more on scripted narrative, and another (Western role-playing games) focus more on combat rules systems. User:Texasgoldrush disputes this but has not provided any sources. An edit war has come about as a result. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Texasgoldrush (talk · contribs) SharkD (talk · contribs) Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Asked for help on the video games wikiproject Talk page. No one felt inclined to assist. How do you think we can help? Mediate what steps we are to follow in getting past this dispute. SharkD  Talk  12:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC) History of role-playing video games discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Notified Texasgoldrush and Jagged 85. (And SharkD, whoops...) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC) There's also an anon who is involved in the dispute. See [32][33][34]. SharkD  Talk  15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Notified, and also on the article talk page in case it goes unnoticed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I've had a look over the talk page, and I don't really see any need to go through dispute resolution yet. The discussion on the talk page seems to be constructive, and glancing at the article history I don't really see anything that could be called an edit war just yet. If reasonable attempts at discussing differences fail, then you can bring this back here, but otherwise I think it can stay on the talk page. SharkD is also right in that these discussions should be about the views expressed in reliable sources, not the views of individual editors. What's really needed here is some guidance for Texasgoldrush on typical pitfalls for new users, not a dispute resolution thread. (By the way, I tried to look at the article from my old slow laptop at work earlier today, and it couldn't load because it was too long - have you considered splitting it up into smaller pages?) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC) History of role-playing video games resolution It doesn't look like there is a need for any dispute resolution yet. Feel free to post again if such a need arises. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Big Bang Theory

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. The Big Bang Theory (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 infobox contains all the starring actors (past and present). In my opinion, presenting all the starring actors without any additional information is misleading because 5 of the actors have appeared in all the episodes, while others were first guest and then promoted to starring roles. One editor (AussieLegend) has stated that additional information in the infobox "isn't necessary" and is vehemetly opposing any notes in the infobox, even though I have demostrated to him that many other television articles exist (Just Shoot Me!, Parks and Recreation, Two and a Half Men) with additional notes in the infobox. Another editor (Edokter) objected to the additional information in the infobox on the ground that it was duplicative. I therefore proposed making the information as footnotes (see this revision of the article), so that it would not be duplicative. It seems to have satisfied him/her, as he/she has not brought up any more objections since. AussieLegend on the other hand, reverted me and has sought a page protection on the article. Talking with him/her has reached a dead end with his response of "it's not necessary" and him refusing to acknowledge that having a list of actors without any notes is misleading. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) However whatever (talk · contribs) AussieLegend (talk · contribs) Edokter (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Issue discussed extensively in the talk page How do you think we can help? Need more opinions. The dispute is essentially between two editors (myself and AussieLegend, Edokter's concerns seemed to have been resolved), and I feel that AussieLegend is using WP:IDONTLIKEIT style argument when he wrote "it isn't necessary". However whatever (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The Big Bang Theory discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The situation at The Big Bang Theory has not been fully explained and my opinion is certainly not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's based on significant previous experience with this article and a knowledge of what has and hasn't worked there. For some time various editors persisted in removing Sara Gilbert from the "|starring=" field in the infobox because she was no longer a main cast member. This is contradictory to MOS:TV#Cast information and she was restored accordingly. (MOS:TV says "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." (emphasis added)) The matter is complicated by the fact that Gilbert appeared in the series in seasons 1-3 as a recurring character but was credited in a starring role for only the first few episodes of season 2. The last time this was an issue was in October 2010. After that discussion another editor expanded the cast sections of The Big Bang Theory and List of The Big Bang Theory characters to include more information about Gilbert's status. We also added a note to the infobox requesting that Gilbert not be removed, with direction to the talk page for more information on why she shouldn't be removed and there were no further issues for eight months. Last month, However whatever removed the note and added season information that, in the past, has been found to be misleading and confusing. It still confuses editors, as this IP edit, made after However whatever made his additions, demonstrates. Subsequent edits by him, after reversions by Edokter and I made it clear that However whatever wasn't understanding what he was being told, so I opened a discussion on the talk page.[35] During the discussion it became clear by his statements that However whatever wasn't willing to abide by or work towards consensus,[36][37] and indeed demonstrated that more than once.[38][39] I requested full protection of the page in the hope that this would force However whatever back to the table but since then he has shown little in discussing, posting only every couple of days (despite being very active prior to then), making discussion difficult although, until I happened upon this I thought we still were discussing it. Getting to However whatever's edits, MOS:TV says that popularity or screen time is not criteria for being listed as main cast. Therefore, there is no need to mention this in the infobox where there is limited space, especially as it has been shown to be problematic in the past. The information is fully explained in the prose, not the infobox which is only a summary of information. However whatever's initial edits added seasons, then years to the infobox. When there was opposition to that, he added footnotes, duplicating content that was already in the prose.[40] When this was reverted because of the duplication,[41] he restored the edits, removing the content from the prose, using footnotes for that.[42] This introduced readability issues, especially for sight impaired readers. The previous version had all of the necessary information in one spot in the prose. Addition of the footnotes meant that every reader was now forced to look elsewhere for the information. Initially the footnotes were at the bottom of the article, but they were then moved into the bottom of the cast section. Location at the bottom of the article is fine for footnotes linked to from the infobox but it's distracting for the prose section, where footnotes really aren't necessary. Location in the cast section is better for readers reading the cast section but jumping to the middle of the document is distracting for people reading the infobox. The better compromise for this article is the status quo - full information in the cast section and a list of starring characters in the infobox. Despite However whatever's not-so-civil assertion[43], season information in the infobox, which is what this discussion is really about, is not a standard. It's certainly used at some articles but that doesn't make it mandatory. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I have agreed that because the producers of the show promote and demote actors, it is confusing (as demonstrated by this IP edit referenced above) to have season information in the infobox, which is why I have proposed footnotes, per this revision of the article, where everything can be fully explained without any space constraints. AussieLegend reverted me, and after a lengthy discussion in the talk page, it has boiled down to him/her thinking that the footnotes are "not necessary", and I'm thinking that they are. It is therefore desired to have more editors weigh in on this issue. However whatever (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The footnotes detract from readability, as explained above. Regarding Edokter, his last words on the matter were "Wikipedia is built on consensus; I didn't fail... you failed to get consensus, and that is why you were reverted. But I guess that means nothing to you, as you keep forcing your version in anyway. I'm not going to editwar over this. I just don't get why you feel the need to duplicate the information that is already in the Cast section."[44] I don't think any conclusions can be drawn as to whether or not his concerns have been resolved.[45] He really needs to be asked. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The article is good is it stands now as far as I'm concerned. All the necessary information regarding starring status is addressed in the Cast section. Moving them to footnotes is only fragmenting the information, and the infobox is not ment to hold any details which is much better served in prose. However whatever's edits have no basis in any MOS and his only argument for the inclusion in the infobox is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Edokter (talk) — 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC) "However whatever's edits have no basis in any MOS and his only argument for the inclusion in the infobox is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS." No, my argument is that without the footnotes the list of actors is deceptive. I am using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to fix what I claim is a deception. However whatever (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I also want to point out that the footnotes allow for far more detailed information that could possibly be given as a paranthesis in the prose (again, please see this revision of the article). However whatever (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hi everyone, and thank you for your comments so far. As I see it, there are two levels to this dispute: that informed by existing policies and guidelines and that which you must work out by consensus. I see you have discussed MOS:TV at length, but there is also relevant information to be found in the "Purpose of an infobox" section of WP:IBX. I'll quote it in full here: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. The last line seems particularly relevant. Including any link to a footnote in the infobox is obviously strongly discouraged by this guideline. Also of relevance here is the recommendation to exclude any unnecessary content. Although MOS:TV says it is the TV show producers who decide who we include in the "cast" section, there is no particular wording about who we should include in the infobox. It seems entirely possible to omit less-important members of the "starring" cast from the infobox, particularly if there are many such cast members recognised by the producers. In my view, this is where the consensus-building process kicks in, and as such I would like to hear your views on this before I give you any recommendations. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Seems to me that having footnotes is in the spirit of what you just quoted, since it shows all the information in a compact form and lets the reader know in a quick glance that there is something different with 3 of the starring actresses. Readers who care can look at the footnotes. However whatever (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't believe that the wording "Do not include links to sections within the article" allows much room for manoeuvre here. Any comments by other regulars on this board? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC) "Readers who care can look at the footnotes" - Readers who care can look in the prose and that's where they would normally look. Not all articles have infoboxes; the prose is the main source for information. There is no limit as to how much relevant information can be included in the prose, which is why another of your statements, "footnotes allow for far more detailed information that could possibly be given as a paranthesis in the prose" is not actually correct. At the moment, parentheses are used because there's not much information on the period in which Gilbert and the others are in starring roles but there is nothing stopping this being expanded upon in the prose, if there's seen to be a need to do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Here's my take on this dispute. Important things to keep in mind: The infobox is not the absolute most important part of this article, and leaving detailed information out in the infobox should not be perceived as severely damaging the article's accuracy. The footnote suggestion is out of the question as Wikipedia's guideline on infoboxes specifically discourages it. There is no exceptional reason to ignore this. Therefore, the discussion should be whether it is necessary to add the seasons in which the actors starred in parentheses in the infobox. Having read AussieLegend's rationale here that adding the seasons would only complicate matters, I have to concur with them that it's probably best to leave out the seasons from the infobox. After all, listing the actors in the infobox without qualifying which seasons they starred in does not mean that all of them starred from seasons one through four. It's a simple list of which actors have been listed as stars in the show's history. I understand editors of other similar articles have taken the initiative to do what However whatever initially suggested, but it cannot be applied here without being extraneous because of Sara Gilbert's partially starring in season 2. Having made my point, I also want to say that this is really NOT a big issue and whichever editors ending up on the dissenting side of consensus should promptly move on and forget about this. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 17:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) The Big Bang Theory resolution Discussion and editing has stopped on this page and on the article talk page, so I'm closing this as stale. Feel free to post here again if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

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. Comments retracted by author Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment As a technically competent user, I am not at all sure what, if anything, could be done by anyone associated with Wikipedia regarding a possible cyber-attack against your workstation. The nature of the Internet is such that any such attack could be launched from anywhere, routed via multiple pathways, and arrive at your IP address without once encountering a server or router associated with Wikipedia. And while a dispute between yourself and another user may well have origins on Wikipedia, it is far beyond Wikipedia's scope of control to attempt to "police" the actions of users outside Wikipedia itself. If a cyber-attack did in fact target your workstation, the only action anyone on Wikipedia can take is what I'm about to: offer advice. Namely, ensure your antivirus software and definitions are up to date, keep your firewall locked down, and don't open emails with unexpected attachments. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 resolution I agree with Alan's assessment - there is not much we can do here without evidence that this came from Wikipedia's servers themselves, which is unlikely. Just to be sure, I checked the subpages of your user account, but there doesn't appear to be anything unusual there at all. I'm closing this now as there doesn't appear to be any action that we can take at this time. Also leaving a note on user talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CVSNT, Apache_Subversion

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. CVSNT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Apache Subversion (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? New 50 x citation_needed marks on this computing article, including 6 in the first 56 words. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) ArthurBarrett (talk · contribs) Qworty (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Qworty had deleted the sections several times, I asked why on talk page, and then restored them several times. After several repeats Qworty discussed the issue on talk page and the resolution is these 50 x citation_needed How do you think we can help? I think 50 x citation_needed is excessive. Either Unreferenced_section, or a reasonable number of citation_needed seems to be all that is required. User:Qworty appears to have a lot of experience on Wikipedia, but not much with computing articles. Just because the Apache_Subversion or Apache_HTTP_Server or PVCS or ClearCase articles do not appear to require this many citations, I accept that maybe CVSNT does - but I am a little bit surprised so I thought it was worth checking first. I can find references for all these things easily, but in most cases a single web page or page in a reference book is going to be the same reference for almost every citation_needed as it stands. I work for the vendor of the software described in the article, and so I avoid editing the article, however I do help provide citations and try and resolve disputes over technical issues when I can. Can you offer any sage advice on this issue of 50 x citation_needed? Should I just add 50 citations, all pointing to a single web page or a single page of the reference manual (as requested)? Or should the 50 x citation_needed be replaced with a single Unreferenced_section? Arthur (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) CVSNT, Apache_Subversion discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. WP:POINT comes to mind. I work in the domain space (use SVN and GIT for software development) and Qworty is disrupting the article to make a point. In my viewpoint they need to remove those fact/citation needed tags and request citations on the more audacious claims individually and do a unreferenced_section header. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC) You also forgot to notify Qworty about this report. I have done this for you. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I have made the bulk of my comments on the talk page [46], so I am not going to repeat all of them here. In summary, Arthur Barrett is an employee of the company, and thus has WP:COI. I became aware of him through the COIN [47]. Article talk page also reveals that this COI has been an ongoing problem. He has issues of WP:OWN, and reverts against consensus on every edit that he doesn't like. He is a WP:SPA. He will not listen to policy discussions regarding the necessity of WP:RS. His purpose is to maintain a promotional article without references, and to revert every single policy edit made to it. The only reason I asked for the citations in the article is because he ASKED me to, and this was our "compromise" from the talk page. But he always reverts compromise--even the ones he has agreed to--and thus we have him coming to dispute resolution in the hope that others will support his WP:COI WP:SPA WP:OWN approach to the article. The material he has been championing has been in dispute for well over a year, without his ever referencing it, despite the multiple efforts of several editors to get him to do it. Well, this is Wikipedia--if the material isn't referenced after such a long time, and so many arguments back and forth involving multiple editors on the talk page, then it is finally time for the material to be removed, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument. Qworty (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC) So in addition to POINT, can I assume that you've also considered WP:TAGBOMB and WP:OVERTAGGING? I really think limiting yourself to the top 5 fantastical claims for the citation requesting would be the best way to deal with this. Otherwise it becomes a giant distraction that detracts from the purpose of improving the article and the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks User talk:Hasteur. I put a comment on the CVSNT:Talk page to notify Quorty, I take it from your comment that there is another way to do this that I am unaware of...? As for Quorty's comments above: I'm disinclined to respond to his vitriol, but am happy to offer a clear and reasoned response if you think it would help this discussion here. Note: I was not aware of Ldsandon's COIN from over a year ago, however Ldsandon is well known to me outside of Wikipedia, and runs a blog which is highly critical of the product described by the article- I have attempted to work with him and the discussion is preserved on the CVSNT:talk page and revolves around the use of a single word: "free" versus "zero-dollar". I am not sure why Quorty is raising a 1 year old COIN here when the issue I raised is merely unreferenced_section vs. 50 x citation_needed. Arthur (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC) When there's a "You must notify a user" type comment, it means on their User talk page. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Arthur and Qworty, and thanks for posting to the board. This dispute strikes me as a misunderstanding that could be sorted out quite easily with some clear communication. Qworty is quite right in all the policies and guidelines that they have cited, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. All those statements in the article really do need to be sourced, and editors can indeed challenge and remove anything that is unsourced. I think the number of "citation needed" tags on CVSNT is excessive though. As an example, let's take this text from the article as it stands: Users unhappy with the limitations of CVS 1.10.8 began the development of CVSNT[citation needed]. The original limitations addressed were related to running CVS server on Windows and handling filenames for case-insensitive platforms.[citation needed] Any source that discusses the history of CVSNT will very likely include both of these points, so if I were to add a source for this it would seem perfectly reasonable to me to just add it to the end of the second sentence. Because of this, it also seems to me that the "citation needed" tag after the first sentence is redundant. I think I will go through the article and remove some of the redundant tags - that will look much nicer for readers of the article. Also, Arthur, the purpose of an "unreferenced section" banner tag is to encourage editors to add references to a section - it is not meant as an excuse for leaving a section with no references and then considering it finished. What you really need to do is add the references, and this will solve all of your problems. You mentioned that all the references would be to the same few websites and reference books. This is absolutely fine - encouraged, even - as long as they pass our reliable sources test. As I see it has not been used yet in either article, I should point out that it is technically possible to reference two different sentences in the article using the same reference text, and have that reference text only appear once in the references section. Have a look at this page to see how. About the conflict of interest: I think we should not forget the main purpose of this policy, and that is to keep our articles neutral. As long as the articles are kept neutral, I see no problem in having the help of someone close to the projects in question. However, Arthur, if you delete the work of other users or otherwise attempt to alter the balance of the articles, then most users will see that as a conflict of interest problem, and there is a chance you could receive sanctions. Here are my suggestions for how you can contribute: I think that for purely factual information, it is perfectly acceptable for you to add sources directly to the article. For sources backing up opinions, I suggest instead that you post them to the article talk page and wait for another editor to vet them for inclusion. Also, I encourage you to contribute content to the article as well. Again, what you should do is add your proposed edits to the talk page, and let someone else add them after evaluating them. If you do this then your conflict of interest will cease to be a problem, and the articles will be vastly improved as well. Let me hear your thoughts on my suggestions. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Mr. Stradivarius. I think your suggestions are great, spot on. In fact that is exactly what I thought I had been doing... It's been years since I added content 'content' to that page - in fact probably just at the very very beginning , and then I did as you suggested - put in in talk for prior discussion and allowed another editor to move it across. Most of the people that have contributed stuff recently seem to be 'drive by editors' - so they add something, that then gets flagged and never come back to 'fix' it, so I take some responsibility for 'fixing' things that the original authors don't seem able to, eg: removing things like 'prices', and adding references. Off Topic; but since Qworty raised it: LDsandon did complain that I changed 'freely-downloadable' for 'zero-dollar' and I now know the dispute resolution process that I should have pointed him at. Because in the 'GPL' license world 'free' has a particular well-defined meaning, I still think this was a factual change. If you can see something in the edit history that I did that you think is a good example of what I should have abstained from, please do point it out to me. Finally I want to clarify that I wasn't suggesting 'unreferenced_section' so it could be ignored, but so that I (or anyone else) could see what needed referencing. I think the good outcome of all of this comes form Qworty ignoring my suggestions and instead using 50 x citation_needed, it clarified the different expectations of the amount of referencing and got me to come here to get other opinions. If Qworty had merely added unreferenced_section I probably would have reviewed it and seen the need for 1 or maybe 2 additional references. Now after this I'm leaning more towards maybe finding 5, if Qworty does as Hasteur suggested. My concern was and still is purely that 50 citations for such a short and (previously/recently) uncontested article (in terms of facts) seems very very odd (to me). Ah just noticed you've gone ahead and followed your own suggestion. Looks good to me. I'm on the road at the moment, different city every day of the week, so I'm going to leave the citation_needed markers and intend to add any references noone else has decided to resolve when I'm home in a few weeks time. I'll not close this dispute yet since Qworty should have an opportunity to reply. Arthur (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the reply, Arthur. It's good to see that you've already been following the suggestion to post suggested edits on the talk page, rather than adding them directly. I would also add that it's possible for you to change content this way too - there's no need for you to put up with anything you see as bad writing, as long as you suggest that change on the talk page and don't edit the page yourself. I consider changing "freely downloadable" to "zero-dollar" to be over the line here. A better way would probably have been to put that suggestion on the talk page and see what other editors thought. If you think that something should really be included but the editors at the article don't think it should, then it is probably a good idea to post here again rather than risking a conflict-of-interest problem and an edit war by editing the article directly. As for the referencing, it might be enlightening for you to look at some of our best articles and the level of referencing that is expected of them. Some of the ones I found on computer software were Opera (web browser) and Rosetta@home. The guideline is to have an inline citation after every fact that could be disputed. This can be confusing to some, as it's a lot more citations than are required in academia. This all stems from the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia - citations are the way we establish accuracy, whereas in academia this can be done through reputation. There's no rush to add them - just do it when you have a chance. If anything gets removed in the meantime, you can always ask on the talk page for it to be reinstated when you have found references for it. Hope this reply helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC) CVSNT, Apache_Subversion resolution Removal of many fact tags has brought this article to a more manageable level. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Media Matters for America

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. Talk:Media Matters for America (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Need uninvolved admin review and closure of RfC results here, which is a narrowing of a previous RfC here. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Drrll (talk · contribs) Drrll (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes. Initial RfC with a number of options, followed by an RfC with narrowed options. How do you think we can help? Determine if a result can be determined from the responses given. Drrll (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Media Matters for America discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. As I responded on the RFC, with 17 days up on RfC and no clear consensus, it would probably be a good idea for people to discuss and try to convince others of a more unified consensus. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) This board is not meant for disputes that have already been listed in another place, so there's not much we can actually do right here. I agree with Hasteur - at the moment there is no clear consensus in the RfC, and your best bet might be to find a middle path between the versions you have now. If you don't think this is possible, then in my opinion this is a good candidate for formal mediation, or the Mediation Cabal if you prefer something a little less formal. Let me know what your thoughts are. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC) This has been under discussion for roughly 2 1/2 months, with two separate RfCs (not by choice) and we still can't come to a clear agreement. To achieve a level of finality (as much as is possible with WP), I think formal mediation would be the best choice. I have no idea if the other participants would go for this. Drrll (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC) In that case, the first thing to do would be to ask all the involved editors if they would be willing to go through the formal mediation process. If everyone is willing, then you can follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to file a report. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Media Matters for America resolution I'm closing this, as there doesn't appear to be much more we can do here. Let me know if you need any more advice on the dispute. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aafia Siddiqui, File:Siddiqui2.PNG

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. Aafia Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) File:Siddiqui2.PNG (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 an ongoing dispute on Talk:Aafia Siddiqui and now WP:BLP/N over whether the image File:Siddiqui2.PNG, which is a facial composite created by the FBI, is appropriate for an infobox where we usually have actual photographs to illustrate the subject. See WP:BLP/N#Facial composite as infobox image of a BLP. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Epeefleche (talk · contribs) Iqinn (talk · contribs) Greg L (talk · contribs) Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) There was some edit warring over the placement of the image, and later, over whether {{NPOV}} should be on the article until the dispute is resolved. However, I would characterize this as a content dispute and tend to ignore user conduct issues. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? When I saw the edit war, I fully protected the article and referred the dispute to WP:BLP/N for more eyes. That resulted in some interesting and productive discussion, but the original disputants seem as committed to their positions as ever and if anything the dispute is now more polarized than ever. How do you think we can help? Another uninvolved administrator should review the discussion and close it. causa sui (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Aafia Siddiqui, File:Siddiqui2.PNG discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment by Epeefleche This is interesting. I brought Causa to this noticeboard, at which he was roundly admonished and some asked that he be de-sysopped. It makes interesting reading; the facts were noted by many as being outrageous. The closer wrote: "An RFC/U or possibly an Arbcom motion would be the way to pursue this any further - but I would strongly urge the key parties to instead consider how they can contribute to everyone putting this behind them and getting back to editing constructively." Causa took a break. Back now, he appeared at a conversation in which I was having a dispute with one other editor. How did he find himself there -- Causa, are you wikihounding me? This seems too odd to be coincidental. And not in keeping with the close of the AN/I. Then, in the discussion Causa suggested "without objection" he would bring the matter here. And asked "any objections"? I objected, clearly, with rationale. He ignored me. I suggest this be closed, under the circumstances. And I would ask that Causa not wikihound me.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment from involved party, User:Greg L This started with an editor over on that article editing against consensus and editwarring. It was four to one, with a clear and consistent rationale by the majority that there was no violation of WP:MUG (which discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard has validated) and the editwarring editor, who has previously been sanctioned for abusing {POV} tags, should have been blocked for 24 hours. I haven’t participated on the Talk:Aafia Siddiqui page for 24 hours and don’t intend to. My objective is only that whatever consensus is arrived at on that page is abided by. That’s all; I don’t have time for even more wikidrama borne out of a refusal by one single editor to respect consensus. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. I don’t remember everything I ever participated in and didn’t remember the name of causa sui. I certainly forgot about the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui issue that Epeefleche mentions below. But I see I made 34 posts there. (Perhaps that wasn’t wise.) Oh well. I commend causa sui for washing his hands of this one now; that was wise as it has turned into a hot potato. I would suggest that the only remedy needed here is for an eye be kept on Talk:Aafia Siddiqui. When (or if) the next declaration is made there that a consensus exists, and if there is a denial that the consensus exists and contrary editing starts, I think all that is required is for an uninvolved admin to weigh in as to whether or not a consensus exists. If one does exist and it is clear that the contrary editing is against consensus, that the offending editor be either admonished or blocked depending on the severity of the infraction. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment bly Cla68 I am, as far as I know, uninvolved with this article. The discussion on this issue at BLPN was productive, as it appears that a majority of uninvolved editors have agreed that the image should be moved from the infobox, or else removed from the article altogether. There are some editor conduct issues here. Several editors edit-warred. Iqinn was the worst offender [48] [49] [50] [51], followed by Wikireader [52] [53] [54], Epeefleche [55], and GregL [56]. Edit warring, especially with regard to a possible BLP issue, is unacceptable. Iqinn's placement of the POV tag was incorrect, since the issue in dispute was a possible BLP violation, but editors still should not have edit-warred over it. The editors involved should have immediately taken the dispute to BLPN instead of revert warring. To correct the behavior in question, I recommend 24-hour blocks for Iqinn, Wikireader, Epeefleche, and GregL. Since the discussion at the BLPN has apparently supported Iqinn's position that there was a real BLP issue, Iqinn's block should be the same length as the others for edit warring over the POV tag. Also, I see nothing wrong with Causa's actions with regard to this issue. Causa appears to have followed proper procedures to the letter, so it doesn't matter if Epeefleche believes there is animosity between the two of them. I think Epeefleche owes Causa an apology. Actually, my stricken statement is probably a little too strong. Epeefleche, if Causa is following the procedures to the letter, and you've been caught possibly violating our BLP guidelines, I think it's more productive to reflect on what you could have done better rather than trying to blame the admin who helped clean up the mess. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC) My disinclination to pursue user conduct concerns stems from the fact that both sides were equally responsible for the edit war, and protection solved it. Since the article is protected I would tend to view that issue as moot for the time being, and as blocks are not punitive it would be inappropriate to block either party unless they resume edit warring when protection is removed. However, I will yield to the judgment of whatever brave admin picks this up. Regards, causa sui (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) comment by Collect The BLP/N discussion was substantially in favour of putting a properly described image at best into the body of the BLP, and not having it in the infobox. The dispute, as far as I am concerned, shows a real consensus that the picture not be in the infobox. Collect (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment involved party, Wikireader41 All I would like to add was this controversy involved an "Image" that had been part of the said article for more than a year[57]. during this time dozens of editors had edited the article without seeing any problem and countless other read it without seeing a problem. For no particular reason Iquinn decided that the image was so inappropriate that it needed to be taken out without a proper discussion. Subsequently when consensus on the talk page seemed firmly against this he sought another forum and started another discussion[58] My views on this issue are on the Talk page and on BLPN. I have no problem with moving or removing the image if consensus demands that though I myself still feel it is OK and does not violate any policies. however disregarding WP:FORUMSHOP needs to be discouraged. If people think that that is unimportant then maybe someone can suggest another forum we can open a discussion since we clearly don't have a clear consensus on BLPN.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment This is not RFC/U, ANI, AN, RfArb, or any other shaming board. this is a location for people to seek a non-binding 3rd opinion of the content. Please present the conversations in a threaded manner without the individual "Hopelessly Involved Statement by User:Example". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Further, this is a non-binding page staffed by editor volunteers. While some of the volunteers may be administrators, they are not wielding their administrative powers. From what I can tell. Casusa sui: Extending the page protection after you initially set a 3 day protection seems excessive. If the page gets edit-warred back and forth about the image, preventativeley suspend privilages to the editors doing the warring, not all editors in general Hasteur (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I agree, this is definitely not the right place to start a formal proposal on this issue. This dispute seems like the kind that could affect policy when it is resolved, and as such it is obviously too big for this board. Having said that, it has not yet been debated enough to go to formal mediation. I suggest starting an RfC to get the ball rolling. There are three obvious positions for an RfC that I can think of: image in infobox, image in article body, and no image. Can anyone think of any other possible positions? The more that we can brainstorm here the better chance that an RfC will be successful. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC) It's good to be back. I think the point about page protection extension is fair, though I persist in my belief that I was correct to do it, in the circumstances. In the interest of keeping discussion on topic, and since I would welcome any administrator removing the protection on his or her own rationale, I would prefer to address my rationale for use of sysop tools via my talk page or email. I think Mr. Stradivarius also makes a perceptive point that this issue may have brought out vagueness in WP:MUG and the BLP policy generally, so it may be a good test case for an amplification of the policy. However, since I feel that (especially given my history with the participants) I've already done enough to try to resolve this, I'll leave it to others to take it from here. Regards, causa sui (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I applaud Causa Sui for disassociating himself from this case given his history with some of the disputants per WP:INVOLVED. I would agree that this case should be used to clarify and amplify WP:MUG as clearly this is not the only article using mug shots. if we are going to take the position that mug shots and/or facial composites from concerned Law Enforcement agencies are never acceptable on BLPs this needs to be explicitly stated in WP:MUG. several other BLPs on WP use similar Images like Zacarias Moussaoui,Glen Stewart Godwin,Whitey Bulger,Ted Kaczynski & Richard Reid. I would support an RfC on this issue to get further input from broad wikipedia community.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC) As an aside, WP:INVOLVED is unrelated to my decision, since I'm not a party to the content dispute, and there is no conflict of interest. Note the second paragraph. Also, the dispute (as I understand it) is mainly over whether the composite should be in the infobox, rather than elsewhere in the article. --causa sui (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC) To Wikireader's point, he is correct as to Causa being involved, as reflected in the above discussion. It's poor form -- both the indicated above sequence of following those who bring an AN/I about Causa re his misuse of tools, Causa's failure to be his word as pointed out earlier in this string, and Causa's failure to adhere to wp:admin in this string by ignoring an editor's question.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) @ Causa. The dispute started when Iquinn removed the image from the article, got reverted and then persisted in removing the image ( without any discussion on talk page). It did not occur because the image was moved within the article. At the time Iquinn wanted the image removed not moved within the article. He persisted in reverting several editors even when the consensus on the talk page at that time was against his removal of the image. Let us be very clear on the facts. IMO not requiring consensus for ones own actions while demanding consensus for actions of other editors opposing you in a debate is a subtle and sophisticated form of POV pushing which needs to be discouraged. Also per WP:INVOLVED "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." This discussion is not about you so I wont say anything more and in general I do respect your work here on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC) To Epeefleche - I realise that you might not be completely happy with Causa right now, but I think this space is best served by discussion of the content of this dispute. As this issue has already been commented on by so many people at the BLP/N, I don't think we can realistically say that it is just about the behaviour of one or two editors any more. What would you say to the RfC idea that I outlined above? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC) My 2¢, to Mr. Stradivarius and Epeefleche, is that we ought to just close this one out. Tensions were high and much time has elapsed. I won’t mince words here; I think IQinn’s edits are chronically biased out of the mainstream view, he baits and taunts other editors, and cheats to high heaven when he knows better. He had been blocked before for tag-bombing articles and—I think—was wikilawyering by pointing to the the {{POV}}-tag documentation and how it said the tag could be removed, among other reasons, if all editors involved in the dispute agreed that it should be removed. Per this discussion on WT:NPOV dispute, that goof has been corrected (∆ edit here). The tag itself points to the proper governing policy regarding its use and removal, and the documentation to the tag is now in conformance with Wikipedia policy. No one may edit against consensus. No one may tag-bomb articles after losing a consensus decision as a way to force continued discussion on the issue. And no one may restore tags when there is a consensus to remove them. Discussion is now restarting on Talk:Aafia Siddiqui. The next time someone edits against consensus in any fashion—including *creative* use of tags after losing to a consensus opinion, I’ll do my best to see that they are taken to ANI in a New York second. If I get my way, there will be a clearly documented discussion thread like this to point the admins too. Hopefully, an admin at ANI will deal with the problem decisively… Greg L (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Well, Greg you are easily proven wrong. WP:BLP/N#Facial composite as infobox image of a BLP where the great majority of un-involved editors agree with my position to move or remove the image from the infobox. IQinn (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Greg, Iqinn did "win" the argument at BLPN. Iqinn, you did edit war over the POV tag. So, you're both wrong. I suggest that you two start working together better. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC) No. This is a no-spin zone. IQinn was wrong and lost. He claimed WP:MUG required that it be deleted and started deleting the image (∆ edit here). He editwared over that, lost to consensus, addressed that loss by tagbombing the article (∆ edit here)., and then editwared over the tag when he didn’t get his way. Now the image is still in the article, only moved. News of this conflict has spread across the land and awakened the community. Next time IQinn, the community will deal with your disruption using the only language you seem to understand and respond to. Greg L (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC) @ Cla68. Iquinn's position ( when the dispute broke out) was to remove the picture from the article not moving it out of infobox. In not one of his multiple edits did he move the image within the article. Down the road an RfC may decide that It is OK to leave the image as is so it is too early to proclaim a "winner" here. Forum shopping and "believing" the forum where you get a result that you want is clearly against WP policy and is blatant POV pushing. I personally don't see a consensus to remove the image anywhere including BLPN.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I don't think it would be an unfair compromise reading of that discussion that the image should be moved out of the infobox, but not removed from the article. Would that satisfy everyone? --causa sui (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I thought you sort of washed your hands of this, causa sui. By the way (I’m curious now): just how old are you? Other, non-involved editors like Mr. Stradivarius quoted Wikipedia policy that reads Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Any admin who involved himself in that dispute (you in this case) merely should have lowered the boom on any editor who was editing against consensus. After Epeefleche has been accusing you of stalking him and got into your face with an RfC asking you to hang up your admin hat, you should have known better than to wade into that dispute. But you did. And what did you do with that golden opportunity? You conducted your affairs in a manner that amounted to escalating bickering rather than deflating it. What could not possibly be clearer from what has been written above is that the consensus here is that this not the venue to try to solve that edit dispute. Decisions are (once again) being made on the Aafia Siddiqui talk page, where all discussion pertaining to the disposition of that photo are, and will, be made and where the consensus opinion will rule like everywhere else on Wikipedia; either that or editors who disrupt in any fashion—particularly by editing against consensus—will have the boom lowered on them. So… It’s over now. The picture has already been moved (which I have a hard time believing you didn’t already know). This is contrary to what IQinn wanted (he insisted it be deleted). Please drop it now and leave Epeefleche alone from hereon. If you have a jones about something he’s doing, just go find one of the other 6,917,046 articles Wikipedia has to worry about. The Aafia Siddiqui wikidrama ship has sailed. Time to move on. I suggest you drop this PDQ because your behavior here no longer impresses. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Aafia Siddiqui, File:Siddiqui2.PNG resolution Extended page protection expired, local editors moved the image in question to the body of the article, predicted edit warring has not resumed. Admonishments against administrators are best resolved at WP:AN or via a RFC/U Hasteur (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linda McMahon

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. Linda McMahon (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? His most recent edit has been reverting her title as a magnate in the professional wrestling industry. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Collect (talk · contribs) Screwball23 (talk · contribs) User:Collect is vandalizing the page again. Me and him go back very far and he knows how to game the system very well. I'll be blunt : he's one of the most destructive editors I've ever come across. He has been battling me on Linda McMahon and Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 ever since I started editing them. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? me and him discussed the issue again and again, but he has a habit of losing an argument, and getting bitter, and then other editors will go against him and he'll give up, only to come back to the page weeks or months later. I know he gets into disputes with a lot of editors, so maybe he was blocked or had to defend some offensive comments he made to other editors. How do you think we can help? look through the history of the article and especially the talk page for Linda McMahon extensively. A lot can be learned from the interactions between me and Collect. Collect also follows my history of edits and followed me onto Carl Paladino, Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010, and the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut, 2010 pages. Screwball23 talk 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Linda McMahon discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Note: Screwball did not notify me of this. Cheers. The issue is whether a word "magnate" in the lede of an article, where the sentence is cited to the New York Times, and where the New York Times did not use the word, is an improper misuse of a cite to make a claim not supported by the source in a BLP. I consider using a source to make a claim not supported by the source to be improper, Screwball does not. Meanwhile "chief executive" is a neutral term, used by vastkly more news sources than "magnate." Collect (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC) BTW, there is no way whatsoever that removing a claim not made by the source cited is "vandalism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) The argument is bogus. The idea that someone is a professional wrestling chief executive is an example of synergizing sources. WP:SYN The term doesn't even make sense. How can someone say that they are a chief executive of an industry? It makes much more sense to say magnate, which is grammatically correct in explaining her position in the industry. Grammatically, a person can be a pro wrestling magnate, which makes sense because magnate can be attached to an industry. Furthermore, given that there are so few wrestling companies with established executive roles like WWE and TNA, it is also much more difficult to state that she is a pro wrestling chief executive, as she is in a class of her own. I am actually surprised Collect has come back to this page again, considering the entire case had been discussed on the talk page (it is archived now, but look at the talk page on Linda McMahon and you will see a clear argument for magnate) and it was closed already. True, she was the Chief Executive of a wrestling company, but she was also in addition, a CEO, President, and Business Manager, often in inextricable roles because she is married to Vince McMahon. The notability guidelines of Wikipedia are in favor of magnate, considering the fact that she gained prominence and wealth in the wrestling industry (which is the definition of magnate). Former titles, which are not nearly as notable or descriptive of her biographically, simply are not as notable. Collect is being devious in saying that the NY Times source supports him : it doesn't. It states that she was a pro wrestling mogul but never a pro wrestling chief executive. Not only that, but it seems he has neglected to mention that there are many sources that use magnate, and Collect has not put any rationale behind why in his perspective, magnate is not a neutral term. Again, all of these had been discussed, and Collect had never come up with a good reason. All he did was lose interest, went on to other edit wars, and came back to spite me with grammatically incorrect nonsense.--Screwball23 talk 02:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The two major changes I've seen here are, which are both linked to the New York Times source are a) novice politician to politician and b) Chief executive to magnate. The main issue I can see here is that the text you are adding is not in the source referred to. Nowhere in the New York Times source does it mention the word magnate, only chief executive. We don't add personal assessments into articles or synthesise a number of sources to do so. Source A says chief executive, so we add chief executive into the article. If source B says magnate, we possibly can add that in as well, as long as doing so does not give that source undue weight. If 20 reputable sources says chief executive, and one says magnate, it would be inappropriate to add it in. No sources that I've seen on the talk page use the word magnate to describe her, so unless there are numerous sources that do so, then it should be left out. What's in the source, in black and white, is what should be added, not what you think the source is saying. For the other point, novice politician to politician, we need to remember that this is a lead section for an article. Most of the time in featured articles, there are few, if any, sources in the lead, the lead should be a summary of the article in general. The New York times does say "novice politician", whether adding it to the lead as opposed to simply politician is something that should be left to editorial discussion, but I think it might be best served in a section lower in the article. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) The novice issue is not being discussed here.--Screwball23 talk 02:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC) You made a vandalism accusation. And still have never even had the basic courtesy of notifying me about it. Other editors here have the right and duty to examine the issues - not just your apparent complaint that I actually stick to the sources in WP:BLP articles. Cheers, and please note than I have no actual intent of interacting with you unnecessarily. Meanwhile, read WP:BOOMERANG again. The other editors may even look at [59] where it took other editors to inform you of your behaviour issues. [60] indicates possible POV issues in an article I have nothing whatever to do with. [61] shows an unwillingness to actually read the article talk pages. [62] shows yet another use of dispute resolution without informing the person mentioned - and where he did not even have the courtesy of responding on that page. [63] shows a preternatural peocuppation with me. [64] shows further the nature of edits he has made, [65] how he regards a current Arbitrator, [66] that he has the dsame combative attitude to others and uses SYNTH and OR routinely. Time to see how Australians act. Collect (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Screwball23 and Collect, and thanks for posting to the noticeboard. To make any progress here, I think you should both avoid bolding text in your comments, as it looks an awful lot like shouting. To resolve this dispute to everyone's satisfaction we will need to keep things calm and reasonable, and bolding text isn't going help very much there. I think this situation may have risen above AGF - what's needed here is some IPAT. Commenting on content can come after that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I have been very civil about this, and I am arguing my points with facts. I have no understanding why Collect has the right to Game the system, search through my edit history, and use selective edits with his own personal attacks. Collect has run these type of arguments again and again, trying to prove points by saying I posted too many times on a page, or that I was using mediation that he disagreed with. Collect was warned by previous editors to leave the Linda McMahon page alone because he was getting too heated and personal before.--Screwball23 talk 02:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC) I am sure that you intended to be civil in your posts here, but I am afraid it is not coming off like that. For example, in your comment you said Collect has been "Gam[ing] the system", and in your initial report here you accused them of "vandalizing the page". These are serious accusations and you have provided no evidence, something which is considered a personal attack as per WP:NPA. As that page says, serious accusations require serious evidence. These kind of comments are not helping your cause, and I advise you to stop them. If you are serious about making these accusations you need to provide diffs, and you should be prepared to follow the process through to the end. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) For what it is worth, I found a few hits in lexis/nexis listing her as a magnate for pro wrestling, but about 100 hits on her with "chief executive". I didn't wade through them, but it seems that the magnate is used by New York Magazine, for example, but wire services and sources like Politico call her a chief executive. My suggestion would be to use the latter and specify her other roles in the company, which avoids the issue Screwball23 brings up about the phrasing and meets Collects concerns about the term. Could that work? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I see where you're coming from, but I want to make it very clear that the number of hits a person can generate is not the end-all of a discussion. We are human beings, and we need to assign the most accurate terms to understand what is significant and notable about a person. A person can generate 1,000s of hits for "Jacko is wacko" and may argue that wacko was a title for Michael Jackson. A person can generate 1,000s of hits of Donald Trump and "president" and that won't justify the term. A person can similarly look up Linda McMahon and "executive", which is misleading because the search is not descript enough to weed out news regarding Lowell Weicker, CEO news and changes, and jumbled groupings that may include the term but not necessarily referring to her. True, she was chief executive in the company, which again, was but one of many titles she held while in WWE. All the same, she could have been called CEO, which she was at the time of her departure, or President, which she was for several years, and some may argue was a higher leadership role over the WWF/E. The number of hits per term, which I believe Collect ran as "Linda McMahon" and "chief executive" still does not make her title notable or significant. The reason people are looking up her name is because she was a wrestling magnate, that is, a person whose wealth and influence is derived from a certain industry - in this case, pro wrestling. Considering the fact that the McMahon name is nearly-synonymous with WWE and pro wrestling in general, I am shocked that anyone would want to remove the pro wrestling and just call her a businesswoman or a CEO. There are lots of CEOs that are not notable enough to have wikipedia pages. Calling someone a businessperson is an insult to the readers on wikipedia, who will then never be able to know a person's business from the lead, which is blatant censorship at worst and highly unnecessary at best. She is a pro wrestling magnate, and I thank User:Nuujin for generating those sources. I also would like to make it clear that she is not even a chief executive at this time, and the term will never have any major significance ; her legacy as a wrestling magnate will survive, and will endure even if she never returns to wrestling. Also, a major discussion on this was handled previously on Linda McMahon talk page, and can be accessed in the archives.--Screwball23 talk 02:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (od)I have avoided any interactions with you. You seem bent on trying to make disputes with me. I suggest that this has been shown repeatedly, and you seem not to hear what the others have said - that claims must be properly sourced, and that the claim I removed was, in fact, not only not properly sourced, but was not sourced at all. I think the dispute was resolved, but it looks like yo wish to make this a cause celebre of some sort. I would point out that you have been repeatedly warned about this sort of behaviour in the past, and it is posssible that an admin here might actually act upon those warnings now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Ok, do you have a factual argument, because I've been on-point here again and again. I have yet to see that from you. Again and again, I see faulty "consensus" arguments, bogus google searches, and grammatically-incorrect terms that disrupt the factual accuracy of the page. Your personal attacks and threats absolutely need to stop too. We've been through this before, in a similar argument where you wanted to censor her net worth.--Screwball23 talk 02:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC) In September 2010, Collect lost this argument and agreed with magnate.[[67]] He was even told (I am not good at searching) to lay off the McMahon page (I think the editor's name was King of Hearts, but I can't remember who told him. Now, he's come back to the same page with the same argument. He takes delight in gaming the system and getting into forums like this.Why he would agree with magnate a few months ago, and then suddenly come back and fight this again, is beyond me. Read the archive, because you will see I have been extremely civil again and again in handling his vandalism and personal attacks.--Screwball23 talk 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I have warned you about making personal attacks above, but I fear that I need to be more blunt. You said in this comment that Collect "takes delight in gaming the system". This is a serious accusation with no evidence, and serious accusations with no evidence are considered personal attacks as per WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and if repeated may result in you being blocked from editing. (You can see the exact wording here.) It is really in your best interest to stop making personal attacks if you want to avoid sanctions here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I'll throw in a grammatical concern. Magnate is really an uncommon and rarely appropriate term for an objective description. "Magnate", like "mogul", "honcho", "big man", or other mammoth label conveys a subjective judgment about a person's relative importance. We don't use terms like this for the same reason we don't call celebrities 'popular' or artists 'well-respected' or athletes 'famous'. It's not a quantifiable, factual term. On the merits, a person can indeed be a CEO in an industry, though perhaps not of and industry (of a company, sure). Also, Screwball, stop saying other editors are gaming the system. Focus only on the content of the discussion, not the other editor or what you suppose their motivations to be. Ocaasi t | c 10:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC) How is magnate subjective? It has been referenced in reliable sources and the rationale for magnate is very clear. The connotations to words like "honcho" and "big man" are not relevant here : No one is arguing for any of those terms, and I do not support "honcho", "big man" or any of those mammoth labels. Please lets stay on point because the word magnate is being discussed here, and magnate status is not under doubt here. Businessperson is not a good term or a precise term because it does not describe her well. She worked in the wrestling industry, and her status, influence, and wealth have been derived from there. It is not sensible to reduce her to a businessperson because, for one, there is strong evidence for magnate, and in any case, the businessperson term is not durable. Her notability and influence are well-linked to her association with professional wrestling, and that status is carried throughout the McMahon family name. For that reason, it is absolutely factual, and you and I both are aware of that. She is also not involved in pro wrestling now, but her status, notability, etc. are all still linked to wrestling. That again would mean she is no longer described by those terms, but is still known for being a pro wrestling magnate. I also would advise you to think twice about what Collect is talking about, because Collect, who brought up this entire edit war, supported the word magnate a few months ago, and then decided to revert it back now. I currently have him following me to the Muammar Gaddafi page, so please do not blame the victim here.--Screwball23 talk 22:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Nope - Gaddafi is an excessively long BLP page - shortening the lede is "following you" in what manner precisely? I subnit ny work on Joseph Widney was proper. Are you upset at shortening that page? I honestly made no attempt to undo your editorial position there at all -- sometimes you will have to accept that you are not the centre of the universe. Really. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I'll give you an opportunity to prove you're not following me: tell me why you [to call her a business magnate months ago], only to change your mind now? I also remember you were told to leave the McMahon page alone and to stop your attacks towards me, but honestly, I don't know how to use the search system as well as you do, so I'll have to ask you to remember which admin spoke with you last time. Was it Kingofhearts?--Screwball23 talk 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Huh? You ask why I think that words in claims should be supported by the sources? My position on that has not changed one iota. I recalled this article as a result of the Cirt ArbCom case, where I take a strong position about WP:BLP. I think you should read all of that case before leaping headfirst into any conclusions or accusations. I think the Arbitrator you need to complain to is User:jclemens. I am sure he looks forward to renewing your acquaintance <g>. Meanwhile, I rather think all the "attacks" have been directed at me, and without ever doing me the elemental courtesy of notification yet. Cheers, and have a cup of tea. There is no need for this discussion to be interminably continued with your accusations. Collect (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I'm asking a simple question. Why did you agree with magnate on September 7, 2010, clearly stating that magnate was agreed upon on the talk page,[68] only to change your position recently?--Screwball23 talk 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with what Collect thought about this particular word last year; there's nothing I'm aware of in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that says that editors can't change their minds. I think a much better idea would be to concentrate on what we want to do about this dispute from now on. Screwball23, is it absolutely positively vital that you use the word "magnate"? Would you be open to using different wording that means the same thing? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you should still note that the source cited (NYT) does not and never has used the word "magnate" in it. And ask why WP:BLP should be abrogated for any reason here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07 35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) You're still evading the question. Why did you agree with magnate on September 7, 2010, clearly stating that magnate was agreed upon on the talk page,[69] only to change your position now? And yes, User talk:Mr. Stradivarius, this is important, because Collect is beating this NYT article to death. Back in Sept 2010, Collect disagreed with mogul, which is in the NYT article, but said magnate was good.--Screwball23 talk 16:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) If I may comment, I'd like to point out that Wiktionary defines "magnate" as, quote: Metal object with flux. Powerful industrialist; captain of industry. A person of rank, influence or distinction in any sphere. Using this definition, I believe Vince McMahon qualifies more for this term than Linda as he is the mastermind behind WWE. chris†ianrocker90 17:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Mastermind is extremely subjective. I mean, there are sources that could easily prop up Linda as the true mastermind behind WWE.--Screwball23 talk 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC) To Collect and Screwball23 - please try and keep comments here calm and focused on content. As stated at the top of this page, this is not the forum for listing new "beefs" about another editor. If the dialogue here does not become constructive soon I will close this thread and find a more appropriate venue for the dispute. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Outside opinion: Screwball23, the initial questions asked when starting the case don't seem to have direct answers. How exactly do you think someone can help you resolve the issue? What, specifically, other than digging through someone's contributions, do you think can be done to resolve the issue? Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Simple. Keep the page with its most accurate wording: she is a professional wrestling magnate. It never would be an issue, as even Collect agreed with it before, but he suddenly decided to come back and revert it.--Screwball23 talk 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Is there a reliable source that refers to her as a "magnate"? If not, it seems to be subjective phrasing. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Of course. Why would I argue for something if there wasn't so much strong evidence? Check it out: it's in The Week, NY Daily News, NY Magazine, tons and tons of other sources. The NY Times calls her a mogul again and again, and so does the Washington Post, USA Post, MSNBC, Seattle Times, and Huffington Post. mogul magnate.--Screwball23 talk 16:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Can you just link to the source you are using that refers to her as a magnate, rather then send us through Google searches? Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (Edit) Nevermind, I just referenced the source from the article. [70] does not contain the word "magnate". I suggest looking for a more NPOV term. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Again, I sent you the google searches because there are tons of good articles, including the NYT one, that support her status as a magnate in the wrestling industry.--Screwball23 talk 03:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I've already responded to this. Hazardous Matt (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Outside Opinion: Born2cycle Until I read this section and the linked information, I knew nothing about this issue -- I never even heard of Linda McMahon -- and do not recall ever encountering anyone involved in this dispute. We are supposed to accurately reflect what the sources say, but we are under no obligation to use the exact same wording as used in the sources. In fact, we are prohibited from doing so as that would be a copyright violation. That means we are supposed to write these articles in our words, which of course practically must involve expressing ourselves with words not used by the sources that provide the underlying facts and material. The plain dictionary definition of "magnate" is "a wealthy and influential person, esp. in business". Never mind that there are countless reliable sources that refer to her as a magnate, including ABC News [71]. Even if no cited sources used the word "magnate" to describe the subject, if they supported the notion that she is wealthy and influential in the professional wrestling industry (which is blatantly obvious from undisputed information in the article), then it's perfectly accurate, and supported by the cited sources, to refer to her as a professional wrestling magnate. To take someone to task for using the word magnate in this context is completely unwarranted and a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. Yes, WP:CIVIL, which declares that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". This kind of pointless pedantry is both highly inconsiderate and disrespectful. I propose a harsh warning on each of your talk pages, not only Collect but everyone above who agreed with his absurd position, including notification that if you're so uncivil with anyone again, you will be blocked for two weeks. I see no other way to discourage this kind of incivility shrouded in wikilawyering. How shameful. Really. The kind of treatment you've given Screwball should not be tolerated. Along the same lines, in response to a query about sources supporting the usage of "magnate", Screwball replied with a link to the result from an appropriate google search[72], which makes the commonality of referring to her as a magnate in all kinds of sources, including reliable ones, abundantly clear. And yet even this point was not acknowledged. Instead, the request was made for a specific source (as if looking through the google results takes too much time and effort), and then the request was rescinded ("never mind") by noting that since the cited source did not use that word, a different "NPOV" word has to be used. Well then what was the point of asking for "a reliable source" that referred to her has a magnate in the first place? It just pains me to see someone treated so disrespectfully, especially in this kind of forum. And the dismissing of the point that Contact agreed to the word some time ago, and then apparently changed his mind without explanation, is not helpful either. And if anyone believes the objection to using the word is still somehow justified because this involves a BLP, I urge you to read WP:BLPZEALOT, very, very closely, several times. Finally, I'm going to consider adding this to WP:LAME, because this dispute really takes the cake. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC) The reason I asked for a specific instance was because the person insisting on using the term should at least bring something forward, rather than saying "Here, you find it", which is the impression I was getting from Screwball. I still believe "magnate" is a subjective term (as stated above by another party), and in the very least, if Screwball insists there are Reliable Sources that can be used in the article which refer to her as a magnate, as it is a subjective term, then at least use those sources. Hazardous Matt (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC) It took me less than a minute to glance through those search results and the caliber of the websites to learn that "magnate" is obviously commonly used to describe her in reliable sources. What else do you need? What would convince you? And of course "magnate" is a subjective term, to some degree. But that's true for just about any description of any person. That's no reason to object to using it, otherwise we could not use it in any BLP. Is that your position? What do you think of its use at Bill Gates? Andrew Carnegie (under occupation)? Cincinatti Reds (in reference to Powel Crosley, Jr.), Sumner Redstone? Are you opposed to those too? Where do you draw the line if you don't accept it even when dozens of reliable sources use it? Like I said, this is insanity. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Linda McMahon resolution I'm closing this, as the editors involved in the original dispute have not posted here for a few days, and things seem quiet in the article's edit history and on the talk page as well. If this issue becomes a problem in the future, please feel free to post here again. Born2cycle, I can appreciate that you're not completely happy with the responses in this thread. I'm closing it now because I think it should be about resolving the original dispute, but I am still open to discussion about the conduct of the moderators in a different venue. This is a new noticeboard after all, and I'm sure we could all do with some feedback about how we are doing. I suggest continuing the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard - I hope this sounds reasonable to you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ophiuchus, Ophiuchus (astrology)

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. Ophiuchus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ophiuchus (astrology) (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? Zachariel put a large astrology section on Ophiuchus, while putting Ophiuchus (astrology) up for deletion. The article was decided a Keep, so all astrology should go to that article. Yet, Zachariel goes on reverting my changes insisting that the astrology section is "necessary". Refuses to find concensus, hasn't brought a valid argument for days, yet reverts again today saying that "he hasn't changed his mind" (as if that's the criterium for editing WP). Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) MakeSense64 (talk · contribs) Zachariel (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed on Talk page. But Zachariel doesn't address the questions. How do you think we can help? Either Zachariel engages, with proper arguments based on WP policies, or he drops his objections to this self-evident edit. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Ophiuchus, Ophiuchus (astrology) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Response from Zac: It is not "large" nor an "astrology section"; the content, in full, reads as follows: ==Confused association with zodiac signs== See also: Ophiuchus (astrology) Because of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve.[ref given] I have also answered answered all points raised on the discussion page (here). There is currently a complaint against MakeSense64 on ANI for tenditious editing and forcing deliberately divisive comments. For those reasons I have tried to avoid repeating answers to questions that continue to be raised after they have already been addressed, but believe I have answered all relevant questions appropriately. Zac Δ talk 12:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I've left a note on ANI informing them of this thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Ophiuchus, Ophiuchus (astrology) resolution Zachariel has started engaging in discussion. 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.

Prescott, Arizona

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. Prescott, Arizona (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? under the listing of notable residents it read: "Casey Anthony, the child killer who was acquitted of the crime by a Florida jury ion a highly questionable decision, is alleged to be a new resident of Prescott." this was changed to "Casey Anthony, the mother accused of murdering her daughter who was acquitted of the crime by a Florida jury in a landmark decision based on reasonable doubt and lack of prosecution evidence to the dismay of the many who had watched the years of media coverage that assumed guilt, is alleged to be a new resident of Prescott." then changed to "Casey Anthony, the woman who murdered her daughter is alleged to be a new resident of Prescott." and changed again to "Casey Anthony, the mother accused of murdering her daughter who was acquitted of the crime by a Florida jury in a landmark decision based on reasonable doubt and lack of prosecution evidence to the dismay of the many who had watched the years of media coverage that assumed guilt, is alleged to be a new resident of Prescott." The concern is that the first and third posts' language "child killer" and "who murdered her daughter" are under our country's system of laws unfactual, and in could be even construed as hate speech inciting to violence and should be blocked from inflaming tensions via wikipedia. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Mapsharris239 (talk · contribs) Mapsharris239 (talk · contribs) 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? resolve this without exposing me to the lynch mob as I do not want threats and violence against my family for standing up against the mob mentality. Mapsharris239 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Prescott, Arizona discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment I see the word "alleged to be a new resident of Prescott" appearing in all four variants. This runs afoul of WP:V. Because of this, I recommend any reference to Anthony be removed from the article have taken the liberty of removing that material from the article as speculation. If someone wants to restore it, I'd strongly suggest talking about it on the Talk page first...especially since various news reports (also unverifiable) have also speculated she might be living in the San Francisco or Los Angeles areas. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I will add that this also runs afoul of our policy on biographies of living people (which includes all information about living people on Wikipedia, not just in biographies). First, if this information is not sourced with an inline citation, it is to be removed without waiting for debate under this policy. Second, even if it is sourced, the same policy says that we should avoid victimization. I quote: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization". Bearing this in mind, I think it would be wisest to leave this information out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) After reviewing this, my 2 cents is that it is a completely unacceptable addition. It is not only speculative, but intrusive. To include this sort of information goes directly against What Wikipedia is Not. "3.Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." -- Avanu (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Prescott, Arizona resolution Content has been removed as a BLP violation. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.