Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 80

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Azerbaijanis in Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Interfase (talk · contribs)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am for adding two historical photos of Azerbaijanis, lived in the territory of the modern Armenia. This one and this one. The first one is the postcard of the Russian empire showing the photo of Azerbaijanis from Gyumri. The second one is the photo of noble Azeris from Erivan (nowadays Yerevan) published in two academic books. But user Hablabar is against these images. He thinks that they are forged photofiles (but still didn't show any reason).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We started the discussion on the talk page but reached the dead end.

How do you think we can help?

Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP

Summary of dispute by

Summary of dispute by OptimusView

I dont know if a have rights for it but I'd like to add few words. The topic of AA relations is sensitive. We have two photoes of uncertain origin. Interfase gives a Livejournal account and an unknown[1] Azeri author as sources. Both pictures are not listed at the Russian specialized catalogues, including the RusCards. Previously there were scandals of photoe's and document's forgery (f.e. related to Khojaly massacre and Ziya Bunyadov). I'd prefer to wait for a more reliable source. OptimusView (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis in Armenia discussion

DRN coordinator's note: Please see the Photo of Azerbaijanis in Gyumri dispute, above, involving this same image. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN volunteer's note: Interfase has recently become subject to a 1RR restriction [2] under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Arbitration case. Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Percy Flowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Martylunsford (talk · contribs)
• thall0515 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User thall0515 appears to have a personal interest in the article about Percy Flowers. The user keeps removing the very information which makes the subject of the article notable. That information might be considered derogatory by some people, but the derogatory information is factual and links to the sources of the information are provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a comment in the edit summary of a prior revision asking them to discuss the revisions on the talk page, and I left a comment on the talk page. They have not responded.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not sure how the process for dispute resolution works, so maybe you can just let me know if I'm starting the process properly.

Summary of dispute by thall0515

Percy Flowers 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Directed-energy weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Radicalmix66 (talk · contribs)
• Batvette (talk · contribs)
• Looie496 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user Batvette is removing a lot of the info I have inserted and repeatedly refuses to go into detail as to why.

1 or 2 other users have similarly removed information without having any proper discussion. The nature of the information is indicative of why they want it removed in my opinion, and it is unsurprising that there are one or two names(maybe the same person or not) doing the same thing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Continuous discussion on an ongoing basis continually inviting those participating to be specific as to why they think information should be removed or is not valid.

How do you think we can help?

Really I think the other user(s) just need to be told that they have to go into detail and they can't just remove things without being civil and discussing finer points. There approach has been dismissive, discourteous and disrespectful.

Summary of dispute by (Radicalmix66-me)

My issues are pretty much as outlined above and mentioned on the talk page.

The users will endlessly repeat inflammatory accusations and say anything bar actually focusing on the nitty gritty of what they believe to be innaccurate.

My references are mostly the military themselves and those that are not are also reliable (That is not to say that what every military says is reliable! But they have given no reason to believe that the information provided by US/Uk military etc is not).

I am continuing constructive discussion on the talk page despite negative and highly repetitive attempts to derail valid pertinent contributions.

I have guided this to focusing on the detail, although whether they join in or not we shall see. Radicalmix66 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok so the last edit by me was yesterday. Since I filed this complaint; the attacks on this article have aggressively expanded. The insulting and subjective language is used by almost all of those who have removed information.

I have tried to present facts (which indicate what meagre details have been released) about what is essentially an untold history of DEWs.

Those who do not want that history to be told are acting extremely aggressively and in numbers. Much of the information they have removed was on the page for months through many edits.

The talk page is out of hand so for the purposes of not making this matter isurmountably long, I am awaiting intervention before making further edits. Radicalmix66 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Batvette

First off it's ridiculous to say I haven't offered reasoning why, I said so on the talk page repeatedly. The material he keeps reinserting is typical conspiracy theory stuff that has no basis in fact and cannot be verified by reliable sources. To wit, it is meant to imply that DEW is actively now being used as "Info Ops" in the US and UK against individuals, and is deployed on satellites in space. The references either don't come close to supporting that or one must take a bit of info from each and synthesize it to a further leap to imagine the claim. I provided a link to the Wiki policy page on original research describing how this tactic is forbidden. It says Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy and it takes about 5 seconds with each claim to see they are not clearly and directly supported. The only reason this content dispute even exists is because nobody has strongly enforced wiki policy yet.I will finally note that I concur with Looie's assessment, noting the paranoid attitude continues even here, with the comment about " nature of the information is indicative of why they want it removed " and implying one editor might be using several names. I broke off discussion when I was accused, by way of 4 years military service 30 years ago, of being a "vested interest". Batvette (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Looie496

This is one of several WP articles that are occasionally subjected to tinfoil-hat style paranoid editing, and that's what's going on here. Let me note that I opened a section about this at WP:FTN before being notified of this post. Looie496 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EEng

I haven't been involved at all but stumbled on this by accident. I left a helpful message on Radicalmix66's talk, which he disposed of this way [3], then accused me [4] of being "one of the pseudonyms of the person/persons now suddenly replicating such activity" i.e. an SPA of the Master Controlling Evil One who is resisting his attempts to Warn Us Of What Is Really Going On. (He also doesn't seem to know what a war college is.) I will not be participating further in this DRN thread, but I will continue to revert addition of nonsense to the page, as time permits. EEng (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page discussion

Ok, I've read the related discussions. I'm seeing one editor who is taking a fringe/conspiracy viewpoint regarding the subject and multiple editors (including ones who are very familiar with the appropriate policies/guidelines/best practices) opposing the inclusion. As Wikipedia works on the Consensus model (where consensus does not have to be uninimity) until the opposition can show sources that sway the consensus, the existing consensus remains in effect. Therefore I would like to suggest that there exists a consensus among editors that there the inclusion of the warred over content is not justified. As this is a consensus revolving around content and in relation to the inclusion of specific content, conduct aspersions and assertions have no justification. That being the case pending a significant content argument for why the content should be included, this thread will be closed in 72 hours with the above proposed solution. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Harvey Milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Related content, some with elements of this discussion as well. Presumably these would need editing as well, and in some cases retitling.

Users involved

• Rebroad (talk · contribs)
• Varnent (talk · contribs)
• Twp (talk · contribs)
• Dmol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A number of users are pushing the viewpoint that Harvey Milk was assassinated. He was certainly murdered, but I do not think the circumstances of his death warrant use of the assassination, which is pushing an agenda. Many other authors online also agree with this viewpoint. I would also argue that even if opinion is divided, the word killed is still the safer word to use as this term would still include assassination.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the article talk pages and on user talk pages. Breaching of the 3RR occurred, so I have chosen to cease these options and instead open up discussion to the wider community.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully bring unbiased views to the table.

Summary of dispute by Varnent

Most of my thoughts in regards to Rebroad's claims have already been made on Talk:Harvey Milk. However, here is a recap from my perspective:

• Rebroad was asked (by me) not to make this edit until consensus had been reach. I undid his attempts to make the edits while the discussion was still taking place.
• The discussion has not gotten contentious or, in my opinion, elevated to a need for moderation. However, I would appreciate more people weighing in as the discussion has been limited thus far.
• The only citation provided to support the change is a film critic's personal opinion posted on their website. I have not been able to find any reliable sources indicating that assassination is an invalid term to use.
• Others provided around a dozen citations from reliable sources that support the existing language.
• A case could certainly be made that the incident is most often referred to as an assassination (yes - sometimes interchangeably with murder).[5][6][7]
• Generally WP policies indicate that changes like this need better justification than "some think this is a bad wording" - something more to the effect of "here is proof that this is factually inaccurate" would be better. So far that has not been submitted - beyond a non-cited dictionary definition and film critic's essay.
• Wiktionary's definition says "political motives" - not "gain or payment". I think you could logically argue that even if a broader Wikipedia definition of assassination did not apply - there is plenty of reason to believe that the assassinations were politically motivated. Implying that both Milk and Moscone were killed while working in a political role in a government building by a fellow politician over a political disagreement (White staying in office or not) seems to be ignoring the word "political" way too many times.
• The definitions offered by The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Random House, or Oxford do not match the one Rebroad provided.

I will repeat my questions as well:

• Can someone please cite your source for the change? "Many other authors online also agree with this viewpoint." Who? So far you have not provided enough evidence to help anyone make a decision on this change - beyond your own claims that not supporting this change "is pushing an agenda." Itself a pretty bold statement that lacks any further evidence.
• Can Rebroad please cite the dictionary definition that this claim is working from?
• Please help list exactly which articles you are proposing this change for.
• What breach of WP:3RR was made? I count two reverts by me, one revert by Rebroad, all of them over about six days. 3RR is "more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." That claim does not apply here.

Note: I have a stated interest in matters related to Harvey Milk. I believe my edits have been within policies, and not based on opinion, and have asked that any changes be made after consensus. If consensus is reached that a change should be made, I would obviously not revert the change. However, I do not believe a change of that scale should be made without discussion. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twp

Rebroad's basic point seems to be that Harvey Milk's murder shouldn't be called an assassination because Dan White killed Harvey Milk out of a personal grudge, rather than for political reasons. I just don't think the distinction between "assassination" and "murder" is really all that hard and fast. One of the most notorious assassination attempts ever in the U.S. -- the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan -- was also not politically motivated, but instead was driven by the gunman's psychotic belief that killing Reagan would impress Jodie Foster. Yet we still refer to it as an "assassination attempt". Our own article on assassination defines it as "the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons ... it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance ..." So I think that referring to Harvey Milk's murder as an "assassination" is both consistent with our own guidelines and is the best reflection of the conventional wisdom on the matter. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dmol

I do not agree with the change from "assassination" to "murder" for the following reasons.

The word assassination is used in the two main articles from the very beginning. (Harvey Milk 2006, and Moscone–Milk Assassinations 2008)

A consensus has long been established on this issue, with only 1 or 2 editors arguing against that consensus.

It is very easy to find references that describe the killing as assassination, which I also think is the correct term. In a quick search, I have found [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], all of which refer to an assassination.

That some websites, books, or even Wikipedia articles, refer to "killings" or "murders", does not take from the fact that "assasination" is in widespread use. As an aside, it is easy to find mention of President Kennedy being "murdered" also.

User Mwelch raised two very good points on the M-M A talk page, namely –

1/ But what specifically do you think disqualifies this from that term? The fact that they were co-workers? Why would that make a difference? Indira Gandhi was killed by two men who worked directly for her. So that means it was not an assassination?

2/As for the specific crime for which the person was (or in some cases, was not) convicted, that seems a rather inadequate criterion upon which to base the determination. John Hinckley was not convicted of anything, and his motive was even less political that were Dan White's. Nonetheless, Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan is almost universally referred to as an attempted assassination. (End quote)

No user has found a reliable source to show that the term "assassination" is incorrect. It is all coming down to personal and subjective opinion, which has no place on Wikipedia. Thanks for the right of reply.--Dmol (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Milk and related articles discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also a DRN volunteer and I'd like to throw this out for consideration: The mission of DRN is to handle disputes, but no dispute exists if consensus already exists and one or more editors are merely arguing against consensus. In this case, the assassination language has been in the Harvey Milk article for many, many months. I've not gone back to see when it was first introduced or to see if it was introduced through a positive consensus or was just put in and no one objected, but either way it's clearly been there long enough to indicate silent consensus. We now have four editors — the three listed above plus Protonk — who feel that the assassination language is appropriate. In light of the long history of the term in the article, four editors who currently feel that the term is appropriate and back up their opinions with sources which refer to the event as an assassination looks an awful lot like a consensus to me. (And that point will be even stronger if the term was introduced pursuant to a consensus discussion, but I think that it's strong enough as it is.) I do not have any problem whatsoever with an editor arguing at the article talk page for a different term — consensus can change — but it has to change and unless there is a very clear-cut demonstration that the term plainly and beyond dispute violates Wikipedia policy I don't see that seeking dispute resolution is particularly appropriate in this case. The talk page and RFC are the places to seek to change an existing consensus. (And even if there is a clear policy objection, someone will need to go back to see if the term was inserted as a local exception to policy.) My suggestion would be to close or withdraw this DRN filing and to continue the discussion at the article talk page and to perhaps file a RFC to draw more editors into the discussion, but I'll leave it up to my colleague Guy Macon to decide whether to close this request for that reason.

An RFC might also be an appropriate means, if done properly and proper notices are given, to raise the issue across the range of articles mentioned above. Since each Wikipedia article stands on its own, the term may be adopted by consensus in some articles and not in others and discussion must take place separately for and about each article; the WP:CONLIMITED policy says that editors involved at one article or wikiproject — such as DRN — cannot make "rules" which apply to other articles.

As a last note, if this does go forward, Protonk probably ought to be added as a party.

Regards (and a tip 'o the hat to my colleague, Guy), TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that everyone has made their initial statements, I am opening this up for discussion. The way I like to work on resolving disputes (and of course how we want to work on resolving this dispute is open for discussion) is to focus on one issue at a time by asking questions. If it seems that I am only challenging one side, that's because I want to focus on one question. Wait a while and the other side will be in the hot seat. Also, feel free to continue discussing anything you want on the article talk page.

I am going to start with a couple of questions for Rebroad just to clarify the request being made here.

First, you don't want the word assassinate. Must it be replaced with killed or is murdered or some other word acceptable?

Second, there are two possible reasons for not wanting to not use assassinate, and I want to clarify which argument you are making.

You could argue that we can't use it. This would require you to provide citations to reliable sources supporting that. If the citations are overwhelming (quality counts as well as numbers) and most of the sources say that it is a killing or that it isn't an assassination -- or if they say the opposite -- I would expect you to all to follow the sources.

You could argue that the sources do not force us to use one term or the other, but rather that this is up to editorial judgement and that your choice of words is clearer, more accurate, etc. If you want to make this argument, you need to convince other editors and get a consensus for your version. Usually it is pretty clear what the consensus is, but if there is a serious question we can post an RfC.

So please let us know which argument you are making, because each has a completely different counterargument and would lead me to ask different kinds of question. I would ask the rest of you to hold off a bit until we clarify the above points. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm not that attached the the outcome, but I do want the article to be "not misleading", and currently I believe it is. Most people upon hearing the word "assassination" imagine that it is a) planned, and b) involving more than 1 person, i.e. a conspiracy, and c) politically motivated. Milk's death was none of these. To argue that it was politically motivated because he was a politician and his killer was too is a very weak argument - and conflates correlation with causation. I even spoke to several staff (including the manager) of the Harvey Milk Diner in San Diego yesterday to ask if they felt "assassination" was the correct term, and they felt it was not. I suggest that rather than refer to other articles that incorrect use the term, it may be prudent to ask members of the public what their understanding of the term is. It does seem that the word assassination has been incorrect used for other murders and attempted murders. Overall, if we're going to start using the word assassination for everyone involved in politics who is killed or attempted to be killed, then it will eventually render the word to mean little more than "a politician who was killed". If that's what we want the word to mean, then I suggest we keep the article as it is. I do however advise against this, and suggest we use the word as it's currently 1) understood, and 2) defined by dictionaries. Thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. OK, let me address those who disagree with Rebroad on this; first of all, we can drop all talk about what the sources say unless the source actually says that assassination can not be used or another term must be used. That's because this is not a "hey folks, the sources say X so the article has to say X no matter what your opinion is" argument. Instead, this is a question of editorial judgement and thus Rebroad needs to convince a significant number of editors to agree as explained in WP:CONSENSUS. Of course he is always free to post an RfC (See WP:RfC) and see if getting outside editors to weigh in will turn the consensus his way, but first I want to verify that everybody understands his argument and are not convinced by it. As I said before, I am going to do the same for the arguments on the other side a bit later, so don't assume that I support either side.

Rebroad, you state "Most people upon hearing the word "assassination" imagine that it is a) planned, and b) involving more than 1 person, i.e. a conspiracy, and c) politically motivated." I don't think that the first two are at all convincing. If assassinations involve more that one person, then President Garfield wasn't assassinated and there is a serious debate about whether the deaths of President McKinley and President Kennedy were assassinations. Likewise, if you want to argue that the Milk killing wasn't planned, you would have to explain why White had a gun, why he entered City Hall through a first floor window, thus avoiding City Hall's metal detectors, and why he was charged with first-degree (planned) murder. I really don't think you are going to convince anyone that it wasn't planned.

So that leaves us with the "assassinations are always politically motivated" argument. First off, your anecdote about the Harvey Milk Diner must be disregarded under Wikipedia's rules. It was original research, the patrons of the diner are not reliable sources, and the sample is biased and too small.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary[13] gives us the following definition:

1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously

2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

The terms "a usually prominent person" and "often for political reasons" argues against assassinations always being politically motivated.

On the other hand, Wiktionary[14] defines it as

1: Killing or murder for political reasons

...which would tend to support the argument (Please note that Merriam-Webster is a more reliable source than Wiktionary).

Of course what I think (pretend to think, actually; in a day or so I will be doing my best to refute the arguments on the other side) doesn't matter. What matters is consensus. Have you been able to convince anyone? Do you have a good reason to believe that the editors that have been working on the page have a systemic bias (conscious or unconscious) and that an RfC is likely to go your way? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Call to close as no dispute. This venue is not where you attempt to change a long standing consensus with little to no challengers, nor is it the place to debate the differences between what some think and others think. Agree with transportationman to kick this back to the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is a clear consensus in favor of the current wording, and no policy-based reasons to change it. Closing mow.

---

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Scott Joplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PennyLane415 (talk · contribs)
• Hoops gza (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I need help deciding which kind of grammar to use, American or British. I was under the impression that the grammar used was specific to the origin of the subject. In this case the subject is Scott Joplin, an American, therefore I deviated to American grammar and its practices with regard to quotation marks. I'd love someone who is familiar with both types of grammar to give their input as well as best practice involving American/British disputes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Described the changes I made and why.

How do you think we can help?

I need someone to be a mediator. I've looked up the correct use of grammar on Wikipedia and I could only gather what I mentioned above, that the grammar used is specific to the origin of the subject.

Summary of dispute by Hoops gza

Scott Joplin discussion

• Uninvolved editor Binksternet: This DRN request is too soon. OP should have discussed the matter on the article talk page at a minimum. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• NaturalNews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Michael0156 (talk · contribs)
• Jinkinson (talk · contribs)
• brangifer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Jinkinson is personally attacking me, reverting my edits and stalking me. There is no chance of resolving this through the Talk Page with Jinkinson or Brangifer. Brangifer has reverted one of my edits and in Talk he is ignoring jinkinson's persnol attacks and insults.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have sent an email to wikipedia and wikimedia with details. I have responded to the talk on the Talk Page, but not in any belief that there could be rational discussion, only to defend myself from Jinkinson's personal attacks and insults.

How do you think we can help?

It would take an objective viewing of the versions of the Natural News website as well as both versions of the Wiki page that is in dispute. I don;t know if you have the personnell or time necessary to do that

Summary of dispute by Jinkinson

I assume by "personal attack" Michael0156 means I referred to him as an "anti-vaccine troll", which I should not have done and for which I apologize. As for charges of stalking, I would argue that they have no basis in reality--all I did was post on his talk page and open a thread on WP:ANEW regarding this page, and I know about his YouTube channel only because I was briefly involved in a dispute with him on YouTube in 2012. However, I remain convinced that Michael0156's version of the article NaturalNews does not assign due weight to the evidence, and I feel that while it is true that criticism sections are bad writing, that criticism should be included in the article, as not doing so would violate NPOV. If Michael0156 wants to add information where people are saying positive things about NaturalNews in reliable sources, that would not be so bad, but removing text is another thing entirely.

Summary of dispute by brangifer

NaturalNews

---

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 2Awwsome (talk · contribs)
• Toccata quarta (talk · contribs)
• 178.222.192.243 (talk · contribs)
• Nihil novi (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute about whether Chopin was Polish or Polish-French. The first compromise was reverted and sources not supporting the view that he was Polish removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, sources found, compromise in the article saying it is disputed (which was reverted and sources removed).

How do you think we can help?

Create a compromise, or find the generally accepted nationality

Summary of dispute by Toccata quarta

Summary of dispute by 178.222.192.243

Summary of dispute by Nihil novi

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Frédéric Chopin discussion

Please note: I have added @Volunteer Marek: to this DRN as it is clear he should have been listed by the filing party as involved. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see this has been a bit of a back-and-forth for a while. Lets, for the sake of discussion, clear the slate and work from the ground up. There seems to be two camps:

1) That Chopin was born in Poland and is thusly Polish with Polish-French ancestory. He also aquired French citizenship through his father however he was still, in terms of national identiy, Polish.

2) That Chopin was born in Poland to Polish and French parents and is thusly Polish-French. The fact that he was also a French citizen confirms this.

Is that a fair assessment of the situation? If so, I'd ask proponents of either side to state and cite the case for their view in the areas below. Please try avoid commenting directly on the opposite views, discuss below if necessary. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Please see my comment under the "Polish-French" heading. Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The case for Polish

In google books:

Chopin "French-Polish composer" - 23 results. Note this includes hits with or without the hyphen.

Chopin "Polish-French composer" - 53 results. Note this includes hits with or without the hyphen.

Chopin "Polish composer" - ... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... 8420 hits. And for this one I subtracted off the hits which include the words "wikipedia" or "llc" (but not for the above to searches).

So in sources Chopin is more frequently described as a "Polish composer" relative to other phrasings by a factor of 110. Or in percent terms, about 10900% more.

There's just no comparison. There is no reason for controversy. There's several pages of archives of the talk page where this has been discussed. To death. Consensus has been reached. It is a complete and utter waste of time to open this up again on a whim of a single random Wikipedia editor. Who apparently can't be bothered to read the archives, even after he's been directed towards them. Or maybe has read them but suffers from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Volunteer Marek  07:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The archive you directed me to had consensus for Polish-French, it's you who isn't hearing it. If him being just Polish really is believed by the vast majority of people, it should be easy to find sources, you're just selectively picking one from the three already there. And a Google search is not a reliable source. See WP:RS, which is a policy, and WP:GHITS, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, although is also relevant elsewhere on Wikipedia. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the archive you are discussing. Can I ask that when people refer to past discussions, sources, etc they provide a link at the same time to ensure complete clarity in what is being referred to. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's one of the many discussions [15]. Note that the user there got banned [16] as a sock puppet. There are other discussions but that was most recent. Volunteer Marek  13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That one seems to be 3 vs 3, plus the sockpuppet. Note that the sockpuppeteer was not involved in it with any other accounts. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Out of those "3" one got convinced the other way, one was a bit vague, and one was a sockpuppet of a disruptive user.

And what part of 23/53/8420 or 10900% is so hard to understand?  Volunteer Marek  18:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding words greatly decreases the number of Google search results. And there were 4 people, 1 was vague, one ended up getting convinced the other way, but only one of the sockpuppets was involved 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So? That's what " " are for. What's your point? And 76 vs. 8420... you're gonna have to spin much harder than that to close *that* gap. Volunteer Marek  07:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The case for Polish-French

Per WP:OPENPARA he should be described as Polish-French, because he spent much of his life in France and was a French citizen. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Such questions of nationality are seen very differently now from how they were seen in the 19th century, when most Europeans were "subjects" rather than "citizens". The fact that after some years in France Chopin was issued with a French passport is interesting, but it seems likely that he could have got a Russian or Polish one if he had wanted to. I don't think Chopin's birthplace is the real issue, either. He was born in 1810 in the Duchy of Warsaw. Was that Poland? In a sense it was, in a sense it wasn't. Chopin grew up (after 1815) in Congress Poland, which was a largely Polish-speaking puppet state of the Russian Empire. In the lead of the article he is now described as "Polish", with a link to Poles. That suggests he was ethnically Polish. In fact, he was ethnically half Polish, and half French. "Polish-French" seems to me correct from two points of view, that of ethnicity and that of his right to live in both countries. Moonraker (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NB, the Frédéric Chopin article of the online Encyclopædia Britannica has "Polish French". Moonraker (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Britannica also describes Copernicus as a "Polish astronomer" [17] but a vocal group of editors at Wikipedia absolutely refuses to even consider putting that in that article. Volunteer Marek  07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you trying to change the article to say that Chopin is Polish then?. See WP:POT. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

? I'm *not* trying to change Copernicus to "Polish astronomer". What you said makes no sense. Volunteer Marek  13:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that I was talking about 'Chopin' makes it pretty obvious that I am talking about the Frédéric Chopin article. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 16:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're still not making sense.  Volunteer Marek  18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer: why are you trying to change the Chopin article so that Chopin was Polish, contradicting Encyclopedia Britannica, but you make an off-topic comment about 'a group of vocal editors' refusing to put Encyclopedia Britannica's opinion of Copernicus's nationality. See WP:POT 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To illustrate the point that EB is only one out of thousands of possible sources we can consult and not deciding factor. And out of those thousands, only 70 or so use your preferred formulation while the rest - thousands - use the current one. Volunteer Marek  07:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The ODNB states he was a composer and pianist, was born at Żelazowa Wola, near Warsaw... the second of Frenchman Nicolas (Mikołaj) Chopin...basically it presents the facts and lets the reader decide. Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If stating the facts, as Tommy Pinball has suggested, isn't an acceptable solution then it seems this is the type of situation where entrenched views are unlikely to be swayed. The established consensus, in my view, seems to be to list him as 'Polish' and make mention of his French citizenship also. If this is the case, why not run an RfC to get an outside view from those not as connected with the article? What do those involved think of an RfC? If one is held it could be used to demonstrate consensus in the future and stop the discussion coming up repeatedly. Thoughts? Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing the mention of the nationality would be a good idea, I have tried to say in the article that his nationality was disputed but it kept getting reverted and sources removed by Volunteer Marek. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's about 8000+ sources which call Chopin a "Polish composer". There's about 70 that call him "French-Polish". As far as sources are concerned, this is a non-issue. And what's the point of holding an RfC just because one disruptive editor suffers from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?  Volunteer Marek  13:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Because that 'one disruptive editor' is you. And reliable sources are more important than Google search results. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 15:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you showed up on the article and started causing trouble, you've been reverted by at least four different editors and you've been told to stop by at least as many. That's why your actions are disruptive. As far as sources go, see WP:UNDUE. If there are 8,000+ sources which use one way of expressing something, and <100 which use a different way, we go with the preponderance of sources. Now take your fingers out of your ears and stop yelling 'la la la'. Volunteer Marek  01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And WP:UNDUE also says that when it is believed by the majority, it should be easy to find sources. And you're lying about the results: it's about 8500 vs exactly 808. And adding words greatly decreases the number of results. How many times do I have to say this? And you should find sources. And removing the mention of his nationality, letting the reader decide for themselves, is not censorship. Give a reason for your reverts. And, for the last time, see WP:NPOV and stop pushing that POV. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 07:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Don't accuse me of lying. You simply don't know how to read Google Books. That's not my fault.

2. There are more than 8,000 sources I've linked to. Pick one. That's a majority over 23+41=64 or so.

3. Adding words in this case means trying your phrasing vs. the long-standing consensus phrasing. Even if you subtract off all the "Polish-French" or "French-Polish" from the 8,000+ hits, that would still leave a hell lotta more than 64.

4. FFS. Even if it were 8,500 vs. 808 (it isn't, it's 8,000+ vs. 64), that's still 10 times as many. Are you just arguing for arguing's sake? You are a textbook example of a disruptive, time-wasting, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT account.  Volunteer Marek  09:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

1. You are either lying or you misread it. Search again.

2. Link to them in the page. I'm surprised an experienced editor like you doesn't understand WP:RS.

3. It's not 'long-standing consensus', it's recent, 3 v 1 on the article. And prove your last sentence there, and also see WP:RS.

4. Those '10 times' are because of the added words. And the words 'Polish composer' could be anywhere in the book. More people are Polish than Polish-French. And you're the one who's not hearing it. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 12:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

4. "Those '10 times' are because of the added words. And the words 'Polish composer' could be anywhere in the book.". No. It's an "AND" search. Volunteer Marek  12:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

5. But looking at the few hits for "Polish French" does indicate some of these are false positives which are about René Leibowitz instead of Chopin. Volunteer Marek  12:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

4. Your sentence just confirms my first point, and does nothing to refute the second.

5. There are false positives in the results for Polish as well. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 12:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

6. And please stop filibustering. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 12:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference in usage is way way way way to large for any of that to matter. Stop being daft. Volunteer Marek  12:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. There are false positives and adding words greatly decreases the number of results. And a Google search is not a source. See WP:RS 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 12:56, 1 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pashtun People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Observerpashtun (talk · contribs)
• Fareed30 (talk · contribs)
• Daonguyen95 (talk · contribs)
• 184.175.27.29 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For a little over a month, there is being a concerted effort made to increase the number of Pashtuns in India from 11,000 to 11 million. For the many years that these articles have been in existence, there has been no issue with the population number. For some reason, the number of Pashtuns in India has gone up by a factor of 1000. I belive there are ulterior motives at play, and that some users are trying to form some form of deep online association between Pashtuns and India.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit battles have taken place. Much discussion conducted between the parties involved in the talk page, Administrators have come in as well.

How do you think we can help?

Bring in neutral parties to look at the competing claims. I will check in periodically and try and respond in as efficient manner as possible.

Summary of dispute by Fareed30

• Pashtuns are known by 2 other names (Pathans and Afghans), the ones in India are referred to as Pathans so please stop using Pashtuns but only use Pathans.
• Pathans are strongly connected to India by history and everything else. This is not something new because people from India and Pathans from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region have moved back and forth for over 1,000 years, without requiring visas or permits. In fact, Pathans even ruled India.
• 11,000 Pathans in India (a country home to 1.2 billion people) is outrageous; the 11 million is realistic although needs to be researched; it's consistent with the 50 million total population of the entire group. There are people who believe the actual number is twice that number. [18] Btw, I didn't add the 11 million, Krisxlowry did so why is my name added in this? Also, who is this Observerpashtun person? Another editor's newly-created additional account? The person behind the anonymous IP from Ontario, Canada?--Fareed30 (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Daonguyen95

Summary of dispute by 184.175.27.29

Im sorry, but just because you say it "seems reasonable" to conclude there are 11 million Pashtun in India, is not sufficient. You cannot just introduce a number like this. Then you claim, it is recorded in the Indian census. I checked and it is not true. There are a small number of Pashtuns in India.

You are here because you and Daonguyen95 keep reverting back to that page. Fine, I will add Krisxlowry to this discussion as well.

P.S. Yes, this is an IP from Ontario Canada.

184.175.27.29 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Pashtun People 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Trick or Treatment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Johntosco (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• Blackguard SF (talk · contribs)
• Pcabotto (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I believe I am being harrassed unnecessarily by Alexbrn who has deleted my contribution to the "Trick or Treatment" page. It is a statement of fact about the book's website. We have discussed it on the talk page, but he refuses to compromise in any way. I believe my statement of fact is important because the article says that the book evaluates the scientific evidence for ... I think that to evaluate scientific evidence, you need to know where that evidence is (i.e. references). There are not many in the book's website as I was pointing out in my contribution. I am willing to change the wording of my contribution to make it as neutral as he wants, but he refuses to even include any comments about the fact I was pointing out.

The contributions of Bobrayner and Blackguard SF are also a problem. Bobrayner was the first to undo my contribution with a laconic "not an improvement". So far, he hasn't given an explanation of why it is not an improvement to explain, clarify and point out that a book which says it is evidence-based doesn't provide much evidence, even when I asked him why in the "Trick or Treatment" talk page and in his own talk page.

Blackguard SF has undone my contribution with an "original research unsupported by third party source" 1) As I have explained, anyone can look at the book's website and see that my contribution was accurate and truthful and 2) He is not telling the truth. Itis not original research. The lack of references for most of the chapters in "Trick or Treatment" was pointed out by the book "Halloween Science" by William Alderson in 2009. It is also freely acknowledged by the authors on the website, which was mentioned in the article before I tried to contribute. Johntosco (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By evaluating my contribution and helping me change the wording, if necessary, so that it is acceptable to Alexbrn and Bobrayner.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Trick or Treatment discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I'm going to recommend to Johntosco, the requesting editor, that you ask for help with this at the Teahouse. John, I'm telling you this from an entirely subject-neutral point of view: You're struggling with basic Wikipedia policies and principles; the other editors are very close to being 100% right and you are very close to being 100% wrong. You're interpreting terms such as "reliable source" and "original research" using what you think they mean from just basic English, but they are in fact very specifically-defined Wikipedia terms with very specific meanings. Until you learn those meanings — and they're very basic, along with a few other policies, to how Wikipedia works — you're just going to become more and more frustrated. It's not just a question of rewording: many things which people feel are Unquestionably True and Vitally Important cannot be included in Wikipedia at all due to Wikipedia's basic restrictions on reliable sourcing and original research. The folks at the Teahouse are experts at helping newcomers deal with the intricacies. Give them a try. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan. Thank you very much. I thought it would be impolite not to reply, and this is the only reason I am doing so. I do not intend to continue with this farce. They have won. I have granted them the victory. They have managed to keep a simple and verifiable truth - for personal reasons, I think - out of wikipedia. I couldn't care less right now. Liepedia, as it should be known, doesn't interest me any more. I am writing about the subject. It is much more interesting and rewarding than presenting simple truths which are rejected because "it is not an improvement". This is what Bobrayner said, isn't it? He never mentioned why it is not an improvement - even when I asked him - and no doubt you will enlighten me on the meaning of improvement in wikipedia. I already have one publisher interested in my writing. I have decided today to include a chapter about how liepedia - oops sorry - wikipedia is about power and not truth. The talk page can reveal what I mean to the whole world. If I took your advice about basic meanings, I could erase the words "and briefly covers 36 other treatments" and " the authors conclude that the dangers of these treatments outweigh any potential benefits." in the article since this could be considered original research - according to wikipedia principles - and has not been confirmed by an independent third party source. Which third party source says that the book says that? Why is not included in the references? I know when I'm beaten. I know when people have friends in liepedia - oops sorry again - wikipedia who have power, they must love it. Bye, bye. Johntosco (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. TransporterMan. I forgot to point out something which wouldbegoodfor the public at large to know. Wikipedia's definition of original research means that if a journalist prints a lie such as "The book presents evidence for ..." when the book doesn't, I can write it in wikipedia. I have - according to wikipedia - a "reliable source". But I am not allowed to say that the book doesn't provide references - the truth - because no journalist or writer has printed the truth. Bravo wikipedia! Let everyone know. In fact, I have come up with a much better name than liepedia, liemedia. Should I set up a blog about it? Something like wikipedia is about the power of the media. Johntosco (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Shiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Eshwar.om (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Discussion going on the Shiva articles talk page.user Abecedare unnecessary wasting my time even i given reliable source. but he removed the content and unnecessary he wasting time in talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i given enough explanation but he is going his track only

How do you think we can help?

see the reference what i add.then do the need full.stop him and his supporter from my editing.

Summary of dispute by

Shiva article 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Major film studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Spshu (talk · contribs)
• 99.46.224.199 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some how the IP editor thinks that I am claim that Liongate Entertainment Incoporated isn't not the subsidiary of Lionsgate Entertainment Corporation and the parent of Liongate Films. In edit summaries and at the talk page, I indicate that there isn't a dispute over that matter and that his reversions are also removing other corrections and a simplied table structure.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made a request for page protection which was denide with a recommendation for sanctions. Requested -help me- to figure out where I should file for sanctions with the responding admin locking the page and directing me here.

How do you think we can help?

Don't know. I was direct here. Perhaps if some one else tells the IP editor there isn't a dispute over content, they might listen. Otherwise, I am at a loss.

Summary of dispute by 99.46.224.199

Major film studio discussion

Hi folks, page protection has been granted for one week. As User:Darkwind has instructed please refrain from editing the article while this dispute resolution process is underway. We will talk together, come to a consensus and then make changes. I also remind both editors to please remain civil and to discuss content only, not editor behavior. Now.....which editor finds the current state of the article objectionable and why? Please be succinct and provide sources. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, is it okay to make my reply here?

Spshu wants things done his way instead of trying to work things out with other users. I cleaned up his mess at what he did on Major film studio because it looks so confusing. Conglomerate and parent company should “not” be listed under the same column. There is a huge difference between both distinctive names and Spshu failed to look them up and compare and contrast both names for ownership of companies or studios.

As I told him, Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation is the corporate parent and Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. is formerly known as “Artisan Entertainment, Inc.”. I don’t know why he added those names under each other on the table under the same column where it doesn’t need to be. He said that his version is proper, where it’s not proper, where it’ll lead to a whole mess of confusion.

I added the following on the talk page:

• First source
• Second source
• Third source
• Fourth source
• Fifth and final source

He's quick to ask for a page protection for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.199 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Sources:

• Bloomberg BusinessWeek -- Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.
• SEC filing 2012 for Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp
• SEC filing 2013 (via Yahoo) for Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp
• Reuters Profile on Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp
• Forbes profile on Beeks; COO of Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one confused. I have multiple times indicated agreement in regards to the Lionsgate conglomerate's structure.

• first time] "LGEC/LCEI relation doesn't change their order" (OK, not very clear)
• second time: "My edit matches the above sources if you bother to look. Also, my previous edit indicated there was no change in LGEI's position to LGEC & LGF. "
• third time: "TWICE I have said that LGEI is the subsidiary of LGEC. You still act like I oppose that."
• fourth time: "Some how the IP editor thinks that I am claim that Liongate Entertainment Incoporated isn't not the subsidiary of Lionsgate Entertainment Corporation and the parent of Liongate Films. In edit summaries and at the talk page, I indicate that there isn't a dispute over that matter ..."

This will be the fifth time, there is no argument over Lionsgate's corporate structure. I told you that not all mini-majors (only 2) have parent units and they are easily represented where they do by the "double stacked" field. It also makes the tables more difficult to see all at once with more columns. His reverting continues to reintroduce errors. For example, DisneyNature (nature), Lucasfilms (sci-fi) and Marvel Studios (superheroes) are all genre labels for Disney, but his revisions remove them from that category to the "other" category. But some how, the Lionsgate corporate argument some how dictates Disney's genre brands not being genre brands?! Spshu (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I remind both parties in this dispute that we are here to discuss content and sources, not what another editor has done in the past. Please do not personalize your comments. Just discuss the content and sources. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 99.46.224.199, Spshu says that he agrees with your statement that: "Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation is the corporate parent and Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc" the subsidiary. So there is no dispute there. What is the next issue we need to discuss?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Part II

Disney's and Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions film brands' classification. DisneyNature (nature), Lucasfilms (sci-fi) and Marvel Studios (superheroes) are all genre labels/divisions for Disney, but his categorizes them to the "other" category. Not sure how the Liongate source negate those classifications.

Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions film brands although have genre and Arthouse/"indie" brands, some how they are "other" brands via the Lionsgate sources. The Lionsgate sources are the only sources given to supposedly refute these edits. Spshu (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can I say something about this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do, but please be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~, even if you're editing without signing in. (Better yet, create a logon and sign in and sign them with your login.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Hi Spshu, thanks for your response. Is this the chart we are discussing? If so, is the discussion concerning the content in the lines (left to right) that begin with Walt Disney? and Sony/Sony Pictures Entertainment?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean to be mean, rude, or anything, but Spshu likes to start edit wars with users so he can get it his way instead of everyone's way to work it out at the same time. I've been watching him ever since I've started contributing here for a while this year. He want to get others in trouble just like how he's doing right now. For instance, and forgive me for bringing up the past: he started an edit war over the Tribune Entertainment page saying that it was renamed to Tribune Studios. Two other users told him on Talk:Tribune_Entertainment, which is still on-going, saying it's not and there are sources out there indicating it's not the same company. And about the Major film studio table? I saw Spshu messed up the table where it was properly fixed by another user in which he's getting told on in this discussion. Every time when something like that goes on with other users, he asks to have the page protected because of edit wars and then sends a warning to other users about edit warring. I think he had one registered user blocked for a few days months ago because of an edit war. But back to the Major Film Studio discussion, the way how it was fixed by a non-registered user made sense and it was less confusing, but Spshu on the other hand messed it back up instead of looking in other pages on different words. Again, sorry about all of this, but Spshu should point the finger(s) where it needed to be pointed at and I think he should be banned from this site. Thank you. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HI IP 99.46.224.17, this noticeboard is for the discussion of content only (just like article talk pages and many of the noticeboards) if you have an issue with an editor's behavior you may want to consider filing a case at WP:ANI. Therefore, ranting about another editor in this forum is especially unproductive and has the flavor of a personal attack which is prohibited on WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Keithbob. Spshu (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK good. Have you or IP 99.46.224.199 located any relevant sources that uphold your respective views of which companies or subsidiaries are related, and in what way?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Since, the different conglomerate have different structure, the Conglomerate-Parent unit-Major studio unit is really the only structural part of the table which isn't in dispute in this issue. The rest of the columns deal with other units that also produce films with in the conglomerate and are sorted by type. Beyond, the Lionsgate source, no, the IP editor has not offer any. DisneyNature, Marvel Studios and LucasFilms seem so straight forward that they are genre film units that I have only request why he thinks those are not genre units but "other" units or indie/arthouse for DisneyNature. 224.199 has only indicated that the Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions (SPWA) banners shouldn't be list any where but "other" because they are SPWA units/banners. SPWA was place in its "sub"-row position of major studio of Sony given the diversity of its hand full of divisions/banners but with paranethis () to indicated that it isn't a major film studio but hold the other divisions.

• Disneynature Disney gets back to nature: "Disneynature to make feature-length documentaries about animals and the environment."
• LucasFilms How Disney Bought Lucasfilm—and Its Plans for 'Star Wars': "Beyond the movies, Iger needed to know Lucasfilm had a stockpile of similarly rich material—aka intellectual property—for more Star Wars installments. As any serious aficionado knows, there were always supposed to be nine. But how would Disney assess the value of an imaginary galaxy?" Clearly Sci-Fi.
• Marvel Entertainment/Studios Marvel to Make Movies Based on Comic Books: "Look out, Red Skull, the company that owns Marvel comics has raised enough money to fund a movie about your archenemy, Captain America, and nine other superhero adventures."
• "AFFIRM Films is the industry leader in faith-based film with such upcoming and recent releases including Abel’s Field, The Note 3, Soul Surfer, Courageous and The Bible Collection ..." faith based genre label
• Stage 6 Films Sony launches new production division Stage 6 Films "Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group (SPWAG) has officially moved into production with the formation of Stage 6 Films, a new division that will acquire and produce genre films with an eye for sequels and prequels of existing properties." Genre films but unspecfied.
• Desination Films sonypicturesworldwideacquisitions.com/about/: SPWA "acquires and distributes films under the TriStar, Stage 6 Films and AFFIRM Films labels." So Desination nor Triumph doesn't seem to operating any more. Sony Pictures Entertainment divisions: Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group: "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group (CTMPG) encompasses Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics and Screen Gems in addition to releasing groups, Sony Pictures Releasing and Sony Pictures Releasing International" Spshu (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a lie. Destination is still in operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I found is this. It may not be news source, but that's evidence that it is still in operation. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Spshu for taking the time to provide sources and for assembling them in such an accessible and coherent way. Some of the sources are more conclusive than others. But generally they are good. I would suggest that when this discussion is over that you place those sources as citation in the Today's Big Six chart. You also might consider using this as a source for Sony. Its pretty comprehensive.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 99.46.224.17, the URL you have given doesn't appear to contain any information about Destination Films. Is Destination Films the only listing that you are disputing?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, Destination Films (DF) is credited in the trailer "Destination Films presents" with a SPWA 2012 copyright year. 224.17, "doesn't seem" isn't an absolute statement just a recognizing that evidence wasn't found to support them via Sony websites, Sony PR or by search. SPWA could have dropped DF label in late 2012 or some time in 2013 or even earlier with that movie already in the works. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Spshu, bottom line. It's still in operation. SPE is still using that name and label. You wrong, you wrong. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2013

So it appears that the Destination Films thing is the only remaining issue. Thanks for pointing out that Destination Films is mentioned in the trailer I didn't see that. IP99.46.224 I think that your source gives an indication that Destination Films exists or existed, but its not definitive in any way. Likewise the Sony website which does not list Destination Films as a subsidiary also gives and indication its not around anymore but it is also not definitive. Since this information is contentious and there are no conclusive sources, the usual course of action would be to leave out any info about Destination Films until conclusive, reliable sources can be found. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

With out 99.46.224.199 posting, we will not know for sure if Destination Films is the only remain issue in this part. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll wait a few days, sometimes people get busy, especially on the weekends.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If the IP does not respond by tomorrow I'm going to close this case. Let's see what happens.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Part III

99.46.224.199 has issues with the formating of the table for both the list of Majors and the Mini-Majors. He doesn't like the conglomerate and parent unit in the same box seperated by an line. He claims it is confusing. While I point out that it is easiler to see the whole table since less rap-around accur in the various cells forcing the table off screen even further. Some columns were remove on the Mini-Major table if there were few that have units of that catagories comparison with the Majors' table as to increase reability, so How how sure it is confusing as the table lines mimic the header line with the line showing up there. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 99.46.224.199, can you please explain your concerns regarding the formatting of the table as described above? Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan I think this case has reached a conclusion and I suggest closure. Do you agree?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's your call, but I tend to agree. Go ahead and close. (If you need help with the syntax, give me a holler.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 6 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Z07x10 (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)
• Julian Herzog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The original press release stated the maximum speed of the Eurofighter as Mach 2.0+ in 2003. Several magazines and other sources have reprinted this figure in the interim.

These do not class as secondary sources in my view because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 From from the above: "Characteristics of a secondary source: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia." The mags fulfill none of the criteria mentioned above wrt the Typhoon Mach figure and have remained stagnant (not updated) since 2003.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain: "Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source? The answer is: not always. If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source. The text and images of the proclamation always remain primary sources."

More recently the Austria Airforce has quoted the Typhoon at 2,495kph at 10,975m. This calculates as Mach 2.35 at ISA conditions (see old DRN). This capability has been confirmed by the manufacturer Eurofighter GmbH as possible with a given fuel load etc. (see old DRN). In light of the fact that these are two good primary sources and in the absence of any true secondary sources (with independent analysis or verification) I move to edit the Mach figure '2.35' or add a note added explaining that 2,495kph@10,975m calculates as Mach 2.35.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Previous DR which was archived before resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_78#Eurofighter_Typhoon

How do you think we can help?

By looking at this from the perspective of new information from a valid source verified by the manufacturer rather than simply counting reprints of legacy data.

Summary of dispute by McSly

Summary of dispute by Julian Herzog

Eurofighter Typhoon 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Blade-of-the-South (talk · contribs)
• EkoGraf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi I hope this is the right place. We are discussing whether Face Book is an RS. I say no. Has this been covered before, surely it has but I cant find it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking.

How do you think we can help?

Clear cut policy ?

Summary of dispute by

There is a reference SOHR [19] on a Face Book page. I thought its not good enough for WP. People need an account to see it for starters. It seemed to me to be not notable.

Ghouta chemical attack discussion

Has FB been generally covered in RS policy? Can someone help clear this up?

Facebook falls under the self published sources umbrella = generally NOT reliable, except for accounts that are known to be official representations of the individual (or sometimes organization) which is the subject of the article they are being used to source, in which case the posts can be used ONLY for content that is ONLY about the subject of the article and is not unduly self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, just to clarify one point: Was this usage not RS: In this case the FB ref in WP article was used to talk about a specific event that occurred in Syria, (Gas attack) while the FB page talks about Syria in general. Is that what you were saying? Usage like that above is not RS?

One other problem I just found while looking around the SOHR FB page was the specific point (Gas Attack) on the SOHR FB page is now gone. Is that part of the self published sources FB problem? Things come and go. Blade-of-the-South talk 01:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved editor here. A WP:DEADLINK is not the same thing as failed verification; the source still exists even if it is not available online. TRPoD, in this case the cited statement is the SOHR's death toll estimate (I think, pending confirmation from Blade or Eko), which identifies the source as SOHR in the infobox. This seems like an acceptable use of a primary source to me provided the authenticity of the FB account is not in question, correct? What is the actual diff being supported by the primary source? VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, Eko said he has given up trying to use SOHR FB as an RS. Since we had dispute over it, and others did earlier as well I said to him I will find out the Status of FB as RS. Im fairly happy now its self published sources umbrella = generally NOT reliable. Blade-of-the-South talk 06:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Except for certain statements about itself; the context still therefore matters. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

well no ones using it for now, so Im not sure what you are referring to. Blade-of-the-South talk 09:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting on FB as a RS but on SOHR FB, on which multiple Syria war editors agreed to use as a source, since they were official posts of a reliable source and not individual ones of unknown individuals. In any case I withdrew my insistance on the introduction of the source, for now, so the discussion is moot. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: If I understand what Blade is saying, it would appear that this listing is moot since the Facebook source is no longer being put forth. EkoGraf was not, however, formally notified of this dispute until I did so just a few seconds ago. Unless someone objects, this listing will be closed as moot after 14:00 UTC on 1 November 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (as current DRN coordinator)

Objective achieved. BTW I did mention to EkoGraf on Ghouta talk I would take FB as RS to a board to clarify for future work, and posted the link to here on same talk thread, (thats how VQuakr came here I suppose) and included EkoGraf as an involved editor. And TRPoD provided the answer. Thks again TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Blade-of-the-South talk 03:23, 1 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Republic of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IJA (talk · contribs)
• Neljack (talk · contribs)
• Danlaycock (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• Cognoscerapo (talk · contribs)
• Silvio1973 (talk · contribs)
• Zavtek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute has arisen over the lead sentence and it has gone on for far too long and I think it is time for admin intervention to help mediate. Certain users have been over looking what has been suggested and avoiding commenting on things they don't like which have been brought up on the talk page as it doesn't fit in with their argument / opinion.

My view is that it is POV to say that Kosovo is a "Sovereign State" as that is disputed and Serbia contests this. However the term "state" means "a community living under a government" therefore it isn't POV to use the term "state" as many things can be a "state" such as a country, a city, a province, a territory ect. I propose that we use the "Politic State" as it is status neutral as it shows to our reader/ audience that there is a "community living under a Government" (regardless of whether that Government be autonomous or independent). Also with the use of the word "politic" it doesn't take into account or leave out the disputed "sovereignty" or hegemony". I feel that uses here seem to think that users in this dispute seem to think that the word "state" only means "sovereign state" and that is not the case. A "sovereign state" is a country under international law, this is why Serbia disputes in international law that Kosovo is a "state". When it says "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law" it is fairly obvious that it is in the context of a 'sovereign state' as a "A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system" Other states don't claim to exist under international law. Only sovereign states claim to exist under international law. I think it would be POV to describe Kosovo as a sovereign state in international law but it is not POV to portray Kosovo as a community living under a government aka "state". And to distinguish "state" from "sovereign state" I have proposed the status neutral term "politic state".

_{Material talking about other editors stuck out. We at DRN have found that the best way of resolving disputes is to talk about article content, not about user conduct. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It has been discussed thoroughly for ages and many propositions have been made. No success.

How do you think we can help?

Just general mediation and guidance.

Summary of dispute by Neljack

I thank IJA for bringing this here, because it feels like we've been going round in circles and not making any progress. My position is that we cannot say that the Republic of Kosovo is a state because that is a "seriously contested assertion" and therefore not NPOV (see the sources that Danlaycock has helpfully provided). The current wording that it is a "partially recognised state" suggests that it is a state, albeit one that isn't recognised by some other states. Therefore I believe it violates NPOV.

It feels like we're often being talking past each other. One of the problems, I think, is the ambiguity of some of the words involved. For instance, IJA has argued that "state" means something quite different to "sovereign state", whereas I would say in this context it would usually be taken as meaning "sovereign state".

Compromise proposals I've made are:

• "The Republic of Kosovo, which is located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe, is recognised as a state by the majority of countries."
• "The Republic of Kosovo is a de facto independent country located in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe. It is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world."

I've made a real effort to compromise and I believe others have made a good-faith effort too, but despite seeming close sometimes we've never managed to come to agreement.

Thanks, Neljack (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Danlaycock

The first sentence currently describes the Republic of Kosovo (RoK) as a "partially recognised state". The problem is that RS make clear that whether or not the RoK is a "state" is in dispute:

• "it is debated whether Kosovo is a State under international law"
• "Kosovo is such an example. With 98 recognitions to date, it is impossible objectively to determine its legal status. For some it is a State, for others it is not."
• "...Kosvo's statehood does not seem to be disputed only on the basis of the absence of the consent of the parent state and lack of universally-granted recognition. It is also obvious that Kosovo does not satisfy all of the statehood criteria and that it was created not as a fully sovereign but rather as a protected state"
• "Before the number of recognitions was granted, it was clear that Kosovo was not a state. This is now unclear and remains unclear even after the Kosovo Opinion"
• "it is at least debatable whether Kosovo is a state"

The government of Serbia, which still claims the territory for its own, has argued that "...the so-called Republic of Kosovo does not fulfill the constituent requirements of a State". Many other states support Serbia on this position.

Since there is a dispute among sources whether the RoK is a state, WP:NPOV demands that we should not claim that it is without some sort of qualification to give WP:DUE weight to the alternative POV.

This argues that "'contested state' is an even better term inasmuch as it neatly captures the full political and legal problems faced by these territories."

Britannica uses "self-declared independent country"

Other suggestions I have made are the more general, status neutral polity. TDL (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bobrayner

Note: Starting without comment from this editor. Feel free to add your openinng statement at your convenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DIREKTOR

Bah... not really a "dispute" at all. IJA is imo just WP:STONEWALLING edits completely supported by sources to push a pro-RoK point of view (shocking for a Kosovo article, I know). His position is so weak I think any objective review will see it in a similar light. Essentially Serbia is disputing that the RoK is a state ("the RoK is not a state because it isn't independent"). IJA claims this is not so, and with reasoning so convoluted I can't even faithfully convey it here. I think he claims it is "impossible" for Serbia to deny the RoK is a state on such grounds (even though they do!)... His position is kind of like "the RoK's status as a state is not disputed by Serbia, because Serbia can't dispute that the RoK is a state on the grounds that it does". So, even though Serbia does contend the RoK is not a "state", User:IJA does not accept their reasoning and wants to pretend as if they do not dispute what they do. Its really just WP:STONEWALL...

One more note: User:Silvio1973 should in my view not be taken as a serious participant here, due to having followed my contribs here with malicious intent (WP:WIKIHOUNDING). I suspect his only motivation is to oppose my own position and you can expect him to do exactly that, no matter the situation. I estimate he has little understanding of the complex Kosovo issue, no understanding of the subject of this specific dispute, and is here just to WP:HARASS me as a sort of "revenge" for opposing his edits elsewhere. You may also have noticed his grasp of English is somewhat less than perfect. He just sort of "added" himself into the thread [20] :). -- Director (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

_{Material talking about other editor stuck out. We at DRN have found that the best way of resolving disputes is to talk about article content, not about user conduct. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}

Summary of dispute by Cognoscerapo

IMHO it is perfectly alright to call Kosovo a "sovereign state" or a country, we don't want weasel terms that serve to deny the facts on the ground. For more than a year Kosovo has ruled itself without supervision. Sovereignty is not in question. From 2008-2012 the country was 'supervised' but that supervision was lifted and now Kosovo is the same type of fully fledged legal state as Albania, Belgium and Sweden. Serbia likes to make it's own criteria as to what constitutes a "state" but if their personal definition carried any weight, I hardly think all western democracies would have recognized Kosovo on virtually Day 1 (US, UK, Germany etc). Those governments have advisors and know what makes a 'state'. As for not all countries recognizing Kosovo, please, give me a break! Not all countries recognize Israel but does that mean it's not s sovereign state? Not all countries recognize People's Republic of China because some choose Taiwan, so is China not a state? Please, it is 2013, get over it. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Silvio1973

I bumped in this discussion almost by chance but honestly I could not resist to get into it. I must be very ignorant because in my eyes there is almost no issue. Perhaps the issue is so simple to be not to everyone's taste. Perhaps, when it comes to the Balkans there is always too much politics to make things simple.

The Republic of Kosovo (ROK) is at least a state with partial recognition. Very simplistically because over 100 states in the world recognised it (including three of the five countries of the UNSC). Face to this evidence, how can be proposed that the ROK is anything les than a state with partial (or limited) recognition? It is not a self-recognised state, such as the Republic of Northern Cyprus (the UN considers it as territory of the Republic of Cyprus under unlawful Turkish military occupation). Indeed, technically the ROK is even more recognised than the Republic of Taiwan, which is formally recognised only by a handful of (small) countries.

Serbia has a different position, but how much this is more relevant than the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state by over 100 countries this is very arguable. Serbia's arguments are relevant enough to be reported in the lead, but not relevant enough to reduce the right of the RoK to be considered a state. Someone might claim there is an issue of OR in this approach. Well not less than in the other proposed formulations.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Side note: User:Direktor should not export here the (various) issues he had with many users. I won't reply, because I do not want to deviate from the objective of this DR. Going across the talk page of Republic of Kosovo one can have the reasonable doubt that some users are making use of technicalities (bordering to sophism) to impose a POV. For this reason I posted a brief contribution. If the other users consider my knowledge of this issue insufficient or my English too poor to contribute, I will not pretend to be listened. However, all participants to this discussion should consider that the ICJ concluded unanimously in 2010 that Kosovo's declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law.^[1] Hence, in order to avoid the OR, any discussion made in this DR about the conformity to the international law of the RoK's status of sovereign state should be supported by sources equally reputable than the advisory opinion of the ICJ.

_{Material talking about other editor stuck out. We at DRN have found that the best way of resolving disputes is to talk about article content, not about user conduct. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}

Summary of dispute by Zavtek

Note: Starting without comment from this editor. Feel free to add your openinng statement at your convenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with proposal per Guy Macon's description, "state" has enough meanings to explain the actual situation. 106 current recognitions warrants something more important than North Cyprus and Transdniester but caution should still be exercised both in lede and elsewhere. Zavtek (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to take part in this too (but I will be away from Wikipedia very soon for some weeks.) Zavtek (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Name added. Try to find time to at least post an initial statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Three editors have not commented. I am going to give them until tomorrow morning (PST) then open this up for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One addition thing: if anyone is not satisfied with the way I am attempting to help resolve this, fell free to ask for another dispute resolution volunteer. Unless someone is obviously trying to game the system, I am usually happy to step down and let someone else try -Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

---

OK, I am opening this up for discussion. Before we go any farther, I would like to draw to your attention the instructions at the top of this page: "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please." I have stricken out those portions of your initial statements that talk about other editors. Feel free to remove those parts and to edit your comments so that they only talk about article content and sources. If you see someone talking about other editors, do not respond. Let me handle it.

On to the important stuff. I would like you to post the one or perhaps two references that you think are the most compelling, and the exact wording that you want to be in the article that is supported by the reference. Whoever happens to read this and responds first will be the first one we analyze. I am not at this time looking for a bunch of comments/responses -- there is plenty of that on the article talk page and it hasn't resulted in the dispute being resolved. Instead I want to focus on the one citation. Don't worry, everyone will get their turn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguments

Thank you Guy Macon, The wording I propose is:

The Republic of Kosovo is a state, partially recognised within the international community, in the Balkans...

It can be claimed that what I am writing is OR, but the RoK objectively fulfills the 4 criteria of the 1933 Montevideo Convention to be qualified as a state: 1) Permanent population, 2) Defined territory, 3) Government, 4) Capacity to enter into relations with the other states. And concerning the recognition, the article 3 of the aforementioned convention says that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states". And the RoK is recognised by 106 UN members...

Now, it is unlikely that on a recent and controversial issue such as the Independence of the RoK that any major academical institution will be so assertive to write that the Kosovo is a state (or conversely that it is not). On the Web there are plenty of opinions in support of one or the other view. But at the end of the day what can be stronger argument than the actual formal recognition of the RoK from other UN members? And please note that every year more and more UN members recognise the RoK as an independent state.--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I am not taking sides. I am analyzing/criticizing the above because Silvio1973 happened to post first. I will do the same to the other side later. When I say "not clear cut" I am not implying "wrong".

As detailed in International recognition of Kosovo, it isn't as clear cut as you suggest. Whether the Republic of Kosovo "objectively fulfills" the criteria of the Montevideo Convention is itself a matter of controversy. I searched International recognition of Kosovo for the word "Montevideo" and came up with two citations (Antigua/Barbuda and Zambia) that don't think the Republic of Kosovo meets the criteria set forth in the Montevideo Convention and none that do. In fact, of the 16 states that have ratified the Montevideo Convention (all in the Americas) most of them do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo. As for the "what can be stronger argument than the actual formal recognition of the RoK from other UN members" argument, 54.9% of United Nations member states recognize the Republic of Kosovo, but on the other hand 45.1% do not. Then again, our List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia article lists the Republic of Kosovo under "States with limited recognition" along with Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, Taiwan, and Transnistria. "States with limited recognition" sounds an awfully lot like "...is a state, partially recognised within the international community". Of course we are not bound by what the editors of that page chose, but it is a factor to consider. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Guy Macon's response is spot on. RS don't support the claims made by Silvio1973. See for example: "solely on the basis of the classical criteria, it would be difficult to find that Kosovo had attained statehood" and that "recognition of Kosovo's statehood would likely draw on additional considerations." States choose to recognize each other for political reasons, not based on objective facts.

Also, NPOV isn't majority rule. A year ago it would have been inappropriate to claim the RoK was "not a state" even though they were only recognized by 49% UN members, because there was a "significant view" that it was a state. It is equally inappropriate to take sides today just because the percentage is slightly on the other side of 50%. TDL (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The majority of other states regard the Republic of Kosovo as a sovereign state, and we should state that, but we cannot make this claim that it is state ourselves because it is a seriously contested assertion and therefor violates NPOV. A substantial number of states support Serbia's position. Plenty of scholars of international law also either support the Serbian view or consider the matter arguable. Neljack (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find some wording that everyone can live with. Suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the four main participants in this whole discussion (IJA, Director, Danlaycock and I) have all agreed to a compromise proposal by IJA: "The Republic of Kosovo is the Government and Civil Authority which administrates most of the territory of Kosovo". But new or less involved editors have objected - they think we should say the the Republic of Kosovo is a state. And if they think that it's difficult to imagine any compromise proposal that they would accept. So I'm not sure what to propose - I've already had a couple of goes and don't really have any better ideas. Neljack (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If we cannot reach an agreement here, the next step would be to post an RfC. An uninvolved administrator will close the RfC with a determination of what the consensus is. After that, the issue is settled and anyone editing against the consensus will be warned and then blocked. But let's see if we can come to a decision here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as I found Silvio1973's calling it a state to have problems, I see some problems with calling it a Government and Civil Authority which administrates most of a territory. First of all, it's wordy; why not just call it a territory? It's also controversial -- it says it isn't a state -- and leaves the reader wondering "a territory of what?" If you say Serbia, that's really controversial.

How about looking at how the editors of other disputed patches of dirt handled this? Maybe one of those would be an acceptable compromise:
Abkhazia
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Northern Cyprus
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Somaliland
South Ossetia
Taiwan
Transnistria
There are a lot of variations there. Is there any chance that we can agree on one? I can pretty much say right now that Wikipedia saying The Republic of Kosovo is definitely a state or definitely not a state is not going to fly, but a quick summary of who says what about it probably will. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we have several different articles on Kosovo: Kosovo for the geographic region, Republic of Kosovo for the entity which governs most of the territory of Kosovo, and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija for the entity under the Serbian constitution for Kosovo. So Republic of Kosovo is supposed to be about the government, and not the territory. Perhaps some of the controversy could be eliminated by replacing "territory" with "region" in the compromise suggested above. I think the idea would be to wikilink Kosovo, so that the issue of "what territory" could be explained elsewhere (at least in the first sentence.) This is similar to how Taiwan deals with it: "the Republic of China now governs the island of Taiwan..." Another suggestion would be to replace "government" with "autonomous government" to get across the fact that it isn't subject to Serbian authority. TDL (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I have major discomfort in putting the RoK in the same basket with Transnistria and Northern Cyprus. Transnistria has not been recognised by anyone (even not Russia!), Northern Cyprus has been recognised only by Turkey, the country occupying the Northern part of the Republic of Cyprus (Turkey). They are all partially recognised, but there is a difference between 0/183, 1/183 and 106/183. With a passport issued by the RoK it is possible to travel to over 100 countries and to some of them without a visa. There are even 6 countries not recognising Kosovo but accepting a Kosovan passport. Apparently (although I have a doubt) a Kosovan passport would be accepted even by the People's Republic of China.

We all know that the recognition of the RoK was driven almost exclusively by reasons of political nature but this has nothing to do with the present situation. On the other hand it looks that here we do not give enough weight to the fact that the recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States or Governments may grant or withhold [[21]].

Also, going across the discussion it looks that the actual number of UN members recognising the RoK is not the key point. If instead of 106, 130 or 140 countries were recognising the RoK, we would probably have the same discussion. Indeed, I do not think a RfC would help in anyway. I see Guy Macon's and Danlaycock's arguments and actually tend to agree, but how do we deal with the fact that for many Governments in the World, the RoK is a state? There is no risk of assuming a clear POV not writing that the RoK is a state, albeit with a limited recognition?

However, it is unlikely that we will find a consensus for state (BTW the position of the RoK can only get stronger with the time). One possibility could be to replace the word state with country as the last is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Silvio makes a fair point about comparing the RoK to the likes of Transnistria and Northern Cyprus. I agree that their situation is quite different, in that hardly anyone recognises their sovereignty and their claim to statehood is considerably weaker than the RoK's claim.

I suppose the objection with "country" would be that the article is not focused on the territory but on the government - it's not the article on "Kosovo". Which takes us back to what was mentioned above - the difficulties inherent in having different articles for the territory and the government.

Another possible compromise, drawing on a mixture of IJA's recent proposal and one of my earlier ones, could be: "The Republic of Kosovo is the government administering most of Kosovo and is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world." That might satisfy those of felt we weren't giving sufficient weight to the fact that the majority of states support the RoK's position. Neljack (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the Government and Civil Authority formulation says that the RoK isn't a state; as far as I can see it takes no position on that question. If I thought it did I would certainly not have agreed to it, since saying the RoK isn't a state is just as impermissible as saying that it is.

However, the criticism that is is wordy has force. Frankly I was prepared to agree with virtually anything that complied (in my mind) with NPOV and appeared like it might end the dispute. I suppose eliminating the "Civil Authority" part could address that (and the capitalisation, incidentally, appears to be unnecessary too). Neljack (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

{EC] Territory says "Territory (country subdivision), a non-sovereign geographic region" and Merriam-Webster[22] has a similar definition. I think "Region" would be a better choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And what is, exactly, wrong with the current (or recent) formulation that "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state", or a variation thereof? Even if we perceive the "state" as POV, it is not an unqualified, blanket statement. RoK surely aspires to be a full-blown state, and, since the article is about that entity, it is normal to spare a word in the lead sentence to that effect. On the other hand, "partially recognized" is stronger than "self declared state" as in Northern Cyprus, but weaker than just unqualified "country" or "state", as in UN members. Third, using formulations in similar vein (XY is a <disclaimer> state) is pretty much de facto standard for similar cases. Looking for an alternative wording, when we are pretty much sure we will not find an ideal one, to me looks like a solution in search of a problem. No such user (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong is that Sovereign state contains theories other than constitutive theory, yet you are acting as if the concepts of declarative theory and De facto and de jure states don't exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? And how does this refute my argument? The statement that "RoK is a [...] state" exactly conforms with the declarative theory, and even its fiercest opponents must agree that it has [much of attributes of] de facto statehood. The disclaimer that it's "partially recognized" also affirms the constitutive theory, as its sovereignty is not [near-]universally accepted across the world. No such user (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Incorporating some of what has been discussed above, how about:

“

The Republic of Kosovo is the governing authority over most of the region of Kosovo in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe and is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world, though its status is disputed.

”

Alternatively, we could replace "majority" with the exact number. Is this acceptable to others? TDL (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, but my opinion isn't important here. We will have to see if any of the other editors object. (You need to replace "It's" with "Its".) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Once replaced majority with 106 UN members I am OK with this proposal.--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with it, and with Silvio's proposed amendment if that would help us reach agreement. Neljack (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, can we agree and wrap-up the full thig so that we move to something else? Silvio1973 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to give this until the end of today to give everyone a last chance to object and then mark it as being resolved. I would like to thank you all for being so patient and cooperative as we tried to resolve this. It really has been a pleasure working with you.

Now of course we all know that this is a controversial topic and that we will no doubt see more editors insisting that we say -- in Wikipedia's voice -- that it is definitely a nation or definitely not a nation instead of listing who says what and giving each view the proper weight. If that happens, I suggest going immediately to an WP:RfC. Once you have a determination by an independent closer you can tell everyone that they have to follow the consensus and take them to WP:ANI if they refuse. Drop me a line on my talk page if there is any further trouble in the future and I will advise you as to what to do next. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing now. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xan81 (talk · contribs)
• John Reaves (talk · contribs)
• EuroCarGT (talk · contribs)
• Mann jess (talk · contribs)
• Rhododendrites (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Atheism claims to have verifiable information to support the base-definition of "no god/s".

However, there is no information covering A.) time/continuum prior to the Big Bang; nor what triggered it. As the theory goes, the Universe expanded from a 1-dimensional, infinitely small and infinitely dense point - uniform.

The question as to what initiated this expansion is not clearly addressed; as it should be - even if the resolution is more doubt (the question as to what was before the current cosmological model was never addressed or considered prior to Edwin Hubble's theories and observations).

Is the article (Atheism) suggesting that the idea that there are no gods (absence of gods or dismissal of belief - not unlike the absence in the belief that Merlin makes Sol rise) is without logical holes? As far as the evidence (or lack of evidence) suggests, the question of, "can a universe can be initiated without outside effort?" has not yet been varifiably answered nor addressed - how can anyone bring "reliable citation" for something such as a belief?

All I want added is a clarification that there is a large, logical gap in any cosmological model which doesn't include pre-"creation" or the initiation of "creation". The article poses valid arguments against theism - but does not provide many or any counterarguments, or arguments yet unresolved.

As the article (Atheism) stands, it is biased towards the assertion of "atheism" rather than an objective argument against 'gods' as 'creators'. If what is being claimed is something similar to apatheism, then perhaps the articles should be merged. But "a-theism" is a claim - and claims that are unresolved must consider any opposing viewpoints or concepts. As testimate to the bias of the Atheism article, it should be pointed out that even the Christianity article has a section for "Criticisms'; while Atheism does not. Xan81 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Atheism Talk page, user talk pages

How do you think we can help?

As another theory or as an indication of gaps in the theory (Big Bang) The unresolved aspects of cosmology. This deficiency should be added to the controversy section of the Atheism article - or a section added to address gaps in the logic.

Essentially, there are many classical arguments for atheism while not or hardly addressing remaining variables and temporal gaps - but following Hubble's observations and the philosophies involved, little mention by atheists.

Summary of dispute by John Reaves

Summary of dispute by EuroCarGT

Summary of dispute by Mann jess

Summary of dispute by Rhododendrites

1. For background, see Xan81's talk page. Mann jess (talk · contribs) and I both tried to explain WP:NOTAFORUM and the proper ways to effect change and/or contribute to Wikipedia. Xan81 responded by edit warring, for which he was temporarily blocked. I don't think Xan81 is acting in bad faith, but it would be good if he could channel his passion for the subject towards more productive edits.
2. As far as I can tell he understands the article atheism to be an argument in favor of atheism that does not fully explain all of his own criticisms of the subject. The article reflects what reliable sources say; it does not validate or reject their claims except insofar as other reliable, cited sources have done so. It would be a violation of WP:NOR and WP:V for editors to give their own analysis of specifically what reliable sources don't say (or their opinions as to the origin of the universe).
3. Xan81 should feel free to find reliable sources that argue his points and add them to the page where appropriate -- or bring them up on the talk page. (PS: Criticism of atheism may be a better venue for the finer critical details). --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Atheism 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Duck typing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wiki Tesis (talk · contribs)
• Paddy3118 (talk · contribs)
• many others scattered over the talk page of the article (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The views of a single editor are continuously opposing the views of other editors. While this is not any issue in itself, it let to repeated deleting by this user of works by others - based on his specific view on the subject. While there does not seem to be any need to suppress any of the views provided (including the view by the editor in question), the article appears biased at the moment due to the persistent deletions of contributions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple attempts have been made (via editorial comments and on talk pages) to convince the editor in question about the existence of other valid views on the subject.

How do you think we can help?

I could imagine that stating quality and neutrality standards by an uninvolved party might refocus the issue at hand back towards overall quality of Wikipedia and away from fighting over which views are "more correct".

Summary of dispute by Paddy3118

Summary of dispute by many others scattered over the talk page of the article

Duck typing 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gary Kubiak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

The "Personal" section for Gary Kubiak is totally inappropriate!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Delete the inappropriate content.

Summary of dispute by null

Summary of dispute by

Gary Kubiak 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Halloween around the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mouseinphilly (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

AussieLegend keeps on deleting content that has sources. He thinks that they don't have the addressed information. They actually explain how Halloween is celebrated in this region. I have also been to this region in October before, so I know how it works.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking about it on his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

You can protect the page for about a week or so.

Summary of dispute by AussieLegend

Halloween around the world 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Improper_use_of_rollback

Users involved

• RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

I reported an editor for an improper rollback which was dealt with. But a series of unsubstantiated posts which impinged my reputation were added. To these I added the subheading, hoping that those who had made the unsupported disparaging comments would at least apologise. There have been no steps taken to either support the comments or withdraw them. Can you advise me how this problem can be resolved? At the same time Jim Sweeney reported me for an edit war here [23] which has been linked back to the rollback discussion. I pointed out the weakness of the links used to support this report, but once the link back to the rollback discussion happened this issue also has remained unresolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from the comments on the discussions I have not done anything else.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know, but I think its very worrying that these events have occurred on Administrators' noticeboards, and I would be grateful for any advice you can give.

Summary of dispute by

Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#Improper_use_of_rollback 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Thomas Szasz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Anotherpseudonym (talk · contribs)
• FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Thomas Szasz's page is being dominated by an individual, Anotherpseudonym, assisted by FreeKnowledgeCreator, who subscribe to the 'mental illness denier' mentality (whatever that means) who show little understanding of the work of Thomas Szasz and are merely providing a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Szasz's work - motivated by his association with the Scientolgy group CCHR. All attempts at reasoning, as demonstrated by the talk page, have been dismissed and censored.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been many discussions on the talk page by numerous people to attempt to resolve this dispute.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to see a third party intervene and adjudicate. If possible one who has knowledge of the philosophy of psychiatry, an understanding of the conflicts between psychologists and biological psychiatry and/or of science.

Summary of dispute by Anotherpseudonym

Summary of dispute by FreeKnowledgeCreator

Thomas Szasz 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tim Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Santamoly (talk · contribs)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've looked for information on two topics which had articles on Wikipedia, but the articles have been deleted by others for "lack of notability". A good example is "Tim Ball" (Timothy F.Ball, PhD academic). The Tim Ball article was debated as to notability, and a majority decided he wasn't notable enough for Wikipedia in spite of over 2,200,000 Google hits & hundreds of WP hits in the case of Tim Ball. It appears that some editors simply dislike Tim Ball and worked together to delete the article.

How can we users object to deletion of a Wikipedia article that is a useful resource? Deletion of an article really inconveniences readers in a big way. How can an article be restored so we can use it again, even if other editors simply dislike the subject enough to declare that it's "not notable"?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for advice here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#Timothy_F._Ball

How do you think we can help?

A significant article on a notable subject can be deleted by a group of editors for any reason, depriving WP users of a useful resource. In this case, William M. Connolley, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Stephan Schulz, and Guettarda appear to be able to work together to force a delete. Once the article has been deleted, no more discussion is possible. Can you help us users to find a way to block organized deletes of useful content?

Summary of dispute by William M. Connolley

Summary of dispute by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Summary of dispute by Stephan Schulz

I have a somewhat hard time assuming good faith on this request. The AfD for the page is here. It was closed by User:David Gerard. None of the 4 people allegedly responsible for the deletion has !voted or even commented on the proposal. And I really don't appreciate being called "an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda". That said, Tim Ball is primarily known as a so-called sceptical commentator on the topic of climate change. He writes plenty of opinion pieces (generating GHits), but very little science. Last time I checked, no-one had written about him, reducing sources to passing references without substance, and self-published blurbs. I don't see how it's possible to write a balanced, well-sourced article about Ball. Again referencing this edit by the OP, being somewhat fluent in German, I checked, and I found no article on Ball on the German Wikipedia, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I was referring to the 2013 deletion discussion for Tim Ball. The OP seems to mix up Timothy Ball and Tim Ball, two different articles about the same living person that were deleted in different and largely independent AfDs, the first in 2011 (in which the alleged cabal did indeed comment) and the more current one in 2013. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guettarda

Tim Ball discussion

Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball Comment: The above is the 2011 discussion for Timothy Ball. The latest instance of the article was at Tim Ball and was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ball, a largely independent discussion in 2013. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two AfD's:

• Timothy Ball --Closed as delete on Oct 4, 2010 by NW [24]
• Tim Ball -- Closed as delete on April 14, 2013 by David Gerard [25]

They appear to be the same person, yes? In either case, the correct venue for an "appeal" of the AfD finding would be WP:DRV. On that basis User:TransporterMan (the DRN page coordinator) may want to consider closing this proposed case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 7 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kingdom of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jingiby (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several changes were made a lot of days ago by User:James Lindberg on the article Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He insisted on the existence of ethnic Macedonians and separate Macedonian language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but they (the edits) were simply unsourced POV and thus I have removed them. I have provided reliable sources and discussed the issue on the talk page. On the next day the changes were reverted by User:Direktor. His motivation was very strange: "Eveybody knows all this, Jingiby, but to put it simply: we don't write our articles with contemporary terminology - we use modern, up-to-date terms." I have explained that even sources that were in the article do not support the changes made by User:James Lindberg, etc. My exoplaination was followed by several reverts made by the same User. Even the tag added by me on the running dispupe was removed. The answeres I have received on talk page were like: 'I am not going to waste time here" and "I am very familiar with this issue". No one source was provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided a lot of additional historical academic sources on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute can be resolved on the base of the historical leading view with the help of provided sources and NPOV can be reached, I belive.

Summary of dispute by Director

Jingiby appears to be very proud of the fact that he understands some basic facts about the emergence of the modern Macedonian nation, and occasionally likes to lecture people on how Macedonians didn't really exist until relatively recently. He doesn't seem able to understand that, if the Macedonian nationality didn't officially form prior to a certain date - that certainly doesn't mean we're now going to effectively erase mention of the nationality up to that point. Very few nations can be said to have existed in the manner discussed by Jingiby prior to the age of nationalism in the late 18th and 19th centuries; and in interwar Yugoslavia (the subject of the dispute), no nations (including Serbs, Croats, etc) officially existed besides the enforced "Yugoslav nation" and the "Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene nation" (singular).

Frankly I am very concerned what damage of this sort Jingiby has done all over the project, and am tempted to start following his contribs. His edits and POV-pushing run essentially in-line with Greater Bulgarian claims on Macedonia, and are targeted towards downplaying the independence of the Macedonian nationality (as separate from Bulgarian nationality).

The sources quoted by Jingiby are reliable and fine, but all they do is explain how and at what point the Macedonian nationality formed. And none of that is disputed. What is disputed, however, is Jingiby's insistence that here on Wikipedia we must effectively erase mention of Macedonians as a nationality prior to when it was officially recognized (i.e. replace it with some OR term like "Macedonian Slavs"). And for the record, I'm not Macedonian... :) -- Director (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ramaksoud2000 (talk · contribs)
• Redrose64 (talk · contribs)
• me_and (talk · contribs)
• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Basically, a while back, I went through all of the user warning templates and manually linked the images that require attribution in their licenses to their image page, in order to fulfill the attribution requirement. I randomly decided to check on Template:uw-vandalism1, and found an unrelated edit war started by User:Codename Lisa who solely kept trying to remove the hidden comment in the template that is used by bots and scripts to know what template is on the user talk page because the templates are substituted. It was on the basis that someone might be offended or something by knowing what the template is called. Three different users reverted the three edits by User:Codename Lisa trying to implement the change. Right before the full protection, User:DavidLeighEllis randomly unlinked the image. I took it the talk page and User:Redrose64 and User:me_and agreed with me that it requires attribution currently. User:Codename Lisa believes that it is not original enough in the eyes of the law to qualify for copyright protection. I invited User:Codename Lisa to discuss the image license down at Commons:Image:Information.svg because as User:me_and put it "either it gets tagged as public domain or it gets attribution; since the former hasn't happened, the latter should." Codename Lisa thought that this would be disruptive editing for some reason. I take no position on whether or not it is original enough, just that right now, without consensus, it needs attribution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing it on the talk page. Offering ways to implement the change with consensus that Codename Lisa seeks.

How do you think we can help?

Offer an outside opinion. See whether there is a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Redrose64

I'm in England, where the clocks currently follow UTC, so I was fast asleep at the time that the thread Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Edit Request was first raised, but the page was already on my watchlist, so I first saw it when reviewing my watchlist that morning; this was several hours after Codename Lisa had first responded. If I had got there first, I would have proceeded with Ramaksoud2000's request, for the reasons that I gave in my post of 11:39, 8 November 2013: basically, that all images whose licenses begin with the letters CC-BY require attribution, without exception. I offer no arguments as to the applicability of the license(s) borne by the image in question, but I am certain that we should comply with the license currently applied to the image, not with the license that should have been applied.

I am aware of the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Flagging templates in the source code, which I consider to be unrelated; but I have not (yet) contributed to that. Were I to do so, it would be in favour of retaining the hidden <!--Template:uw-vandalism1--> comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by me_and

(I am not going to discuss the dispute which led to the template being locked; I don't think it's immediately relevant to this dispute.)

The talk page discussion as it stands has myself, Ramaksoud2000 and Redrose64 in favour of re-linking the image, with Codename Lisa opposed. As such, Beeblebrox refused to make the edit and suggested dispute resolution. Given Beeblebrox wasn't willing to consider this sufficient consensus, I disagree with Codename Lisa and think dispute resolution is a sensible next step.

The question here is whether that image should, right now, have a link to provide attribution. Right now, that image is marked with a licence that requires attribution, and so I believe it should. If at some point in the future the image is decided to be public domain I'd be happy to remove the link. But we're talking about what we should do now, not at some point in the indefinite future when Commons have decided the image is PD.

I'm confused why Codename Lisa objects to the image link; I understand why they think it's unnecessary, but not why "unnecessary" translates to "objectionable". I also do not understand why Codename Lisa states it would be "gross disruptive editing" to propose the image get a PD tag at Commons.

Given the four editors supporting relinking (including DavidLeighEllis by my reading of his comment below: "I have no objection to relinking it if necessary for copyright reasons, which does appear to be the case"), the only objector is Codename Lisa. I'd call that consensus for returning the link.

—me_and 11:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Codename Lisa

Hello. I read the dispute overview above and I am afraid I do not believe this discussion merit a mediation in DRN. For the start, the initiator has started the discussion by argumentum ad hominem, directly accusing me of having edit warred in an unrelated discussion. (Note that even the involved admin did not say so.) As for discussing it on Commons:File talk:Information.svg or File talk:Information.svg, I never said no. There is just no such discussion to participate in. Overall, the correct course of action would have been to take the image for a license review because one single editor saying oppose in good faith never merits a DRN discussion.

As such, I am afraid I have to turn down your polite offer to have a chat in this venue, as it is the wrong venue.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DavidLeighEllis

Although I unlinked the image, I have no objection to relinking it if necessary for copyright reasons, which does appear to be the case. Also, I support having the template name in a wikitext comment, since this is clearly needed for copyright reasons, so that substitutions of the template are properly identified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lane splitting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jusjih (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs)
• CáliKewlKid (talk · contribs)
• Rracecarr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Dennis Bratland is engaging in reverting war to his "preferred" version, i.e. the same as 15:03, 19 October 2013 and 03:10, 10 November 2013‎, while also restoring some dead links that others have attempted to fix, without regard to others' good-faith edits. Yet he would restore parts of Europe and Japan unsourced in intro but be so strict on others.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss at Talk:Lane splitting unsuccessfully, as User:Dennis Bratland remains so aggressive and self-centered, without regard to others' good-faith edits.

How do you think we can help?

Please check if reverting to 28 October 2013‎ ChrisGualtieri's version is feasible, but with the sortable table of lane splitting legality into a collapsible table as at China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945-1971.29 where a collapsible and sortable table titled "Voting records of the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 505 and 2758" accommodates those who do and do not wish to read it. Or there must be certain other wiki to host the table. Wikibooks?

Summary of dispute by Dennis Bratland

The main issue here is reliable sources and no original research: The ones we have are almost all primary sources, which can be OK. But in a case like this, primary sources, directly citing the law code, are a problem, because the law code is contradictory, vague and subject to multiple interpretations. The legal status section of the article explains why using the examples of California and Australia. In the US, many states, like California, used copies of the Uniform Vehicle Code for their laws. All the other states have interpreted this code to mean that lane splitting is not allowed. California is the exception, and nobody knows why. Hough's book goes into specifics here. The linked articles on Australia explain the legal confusion there.

We must have good secondary sources for this list. Judges and police and lawyers don't agree that the law codes cited mean what the Wikipedia articles is claiming that they mean. I would go so far as to say that lane splitting is an excellent example to use to illustrate when it's a mistake to use a primary source.

The other sourcing problem is that this list is doomed to be a kind of permastub. Before we removed it last time, it was all crowdsourced and sat around for years waiting for sources. Many of the entries were wrong because the were based on personal experience -- "I never get ticketed for lane splitting!" or amateur lawyering.

Next is the list of 49 US States. We have at least three high quality sources that say California is the only US state that allows it. What is the point of enumerating the other 49?

The third issue is that this is how to advice. Note the completely unsourced claim that the necessity defense applies to lane splitting. Why is that original research there if not as legal advice? An encyclopedia cannot be your motorcycle rider's manual. You must refer to your local laws yourself. The only point of this list is to serve as a travel guide or rider's manual.

One theory is that the real purpose of the list is activism and advocacy. There is a lively Internet movement to legalize lane splitting in other US states, but it has received zero coverage in sources that meet Wikipedia's standards. Jushih implied the goal of listing all 49 states was to add links to some of the failed bills to legalize lane splitting. These bills were dead on arrival, few made it out of committee and those few that did never made it out of one house. There is no RL non-Internet movement to legalize lane splitting. If you check Google News, the only articles you'll find are either trying to unmuddy the confusion about California, or reporting on bills to ban lane splitting in California. And those bills got much further than the ones to legalize it. Personally I'd be thrilled to see lane splitting legalized in more places -- especially where I live -- but using this article to raise the profile of this unpopular idea is advocacy, advertising and a violation of WP:UNDUE. A single sentence saying there have been several attempts to legalize it in other states but they didn't get far, is the proper weight that should be given. Not a state-by-state checklist.

CáliKewlKid agreed with me that this is how to advice, original research, and that the list of 49 states is unnecessary. I repeatedly explained on the talk page my objections. Jushih ignored us, and now he's here calling me names, "aggressive" and "self-centered"? I waited days between edits for Jushih to reply to us on the talk page. Is that edit warring? Why didn't Jushih reply to CáliKewlKid? Why did he ignore my last comment on talk page and come here instead?

Let me know which of these thing we might need to to bring out in more detail. I have copies of the books cited in the article that aren't online and can share quotes or scans as needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(I just restored the link and cite fixes Jushih complained about. He could have used the talk page to resolve that simple oversight instead of coming here over it. The disupte here is over the table. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC) )

Summary of dispute by CáliKewlKid

I've never done a dispute resolution, so forgive me if I don't get how this should work. The detailed analysis of my viewpoint are summarized on the Talk Page. I will note that I definitely see value in the table Jusjih added, I wish someone in the world maintained a detailed analysis in a central location but I don't think such a table belongs in the Wikipedia article for a number of reasons. The easiest and least contentious reason is I believe it's just a poor way to relay the information. A table implies a variety of values; for the United States research indicates there is California (allows it) and all other states ban it (by a variety of methods). There's little need for a table in that case.

I realize that Jusjih probably had to work very hard to research and create the table. I hate to see that goto waste, it would be very frustrating if I had worked that hard to gather sources and it was just deleted. However, I think the detailed analysis belongs on a personal website (or perhaps a website with a motorcycle forum).

Hopefully this can be resolved in a positive manner. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rracecarr

Lane splitting 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jack Ruby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 4eyes (talk · contribs)
• 68.196.22.229 (talk · contribs)
• Conti (talk · contribs)
• Jpgordon (talk · contribs)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

After conducting extensive research, I made a serious contribution to this article and cited the appropriate references to source materials. It was my intent to bring the article up to date, since much information has been declassified over the past 50 years.

My contribution was immediately reverted. When I restored it, explaining why, I was accused of engaging in an edit war. I then conducted further research to provide addition backup to my contribution. It was again reverted. Claims of "common sense", "conspiracy theory" and, best of all "zillions of other sources" (the intellectual equivalent of "since everybody says so, so do we") are being used against my solidly referenced and carefully worded contribution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made posted in "Talk" and messaged the reverters. They continue to undo rather than engage in discussion with me.

How do you think we can help?

Please read my contribution, check my references and take whatever measures are necessary to help us all publish the facts, whether people like them or not.

Thank you in advance for your guidance.

Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.196.22.229

Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Conti

Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon

Jack Ruby discussion

In my opinion, 4eyes is attempting to convert Jack Ruby into a coat rack to portray the fringe view that Lee Harvey Oswald should not be called the assassin of John F. Kennedy. Consensus is that Oswald should be described as the assassin as that's how he's described in reliable sources. We should not deviate from that consensus in any related article. Discussion of the many mutually contradictory theories that Oswald did not assassinate Kennedy should be confined to articles about those conspiracy theories, rather than in this main group of articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 24 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

There are two individual editors who has kept reverting edits that had to do with removing the adult genre. The reference for that matter is not reliable, nor it does not fit the content of the show, that's why it has been removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss it in the Reference Desk, but I have received criticism of my edits on the article by AmericanDad86, accusing me of 3RRing when I didn't even pass it that day, in which the user also discuss off topic stuff that had nothing to do with the issue.

How do you think we can help?

We can agree to remove the genre, and not re-add it, as when the day it was a featured article back in 2007, here, there was no genre on the article stating that it was only for adults.

Summary of dispute by AmericanDad86

Summary of dispute by Grapesoda22

The Simpsons 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.

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ananiujitha (talk · contribs)
• Laser_brain (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I found a passage which I personally found unclear. I marked it "huh?" although another editor reverted, I think due to a misunderstanding. On the talk page, there was another discussion of the same paragraph, and I mentioned the passage, and my uncertainty about what it was supposed to mean. Other editors thought it was perfectly clear, though I don't know what they thought it was supposed to mean. One encouraged us to just check the sources and do the edits, rather than asking around on the talk page, so I checked the source, and rewrote the passage so it would be clear.

Later, Laser Brain came across my edit, thought my version was ungrammatical, and reversed it to the version I found unclear. I took this as a mistake, mentioned that mine was grammatical [in AmE it is], and the old version unclear, and reverted. Pretty soon Laser Brain came over to my talk page to accuse me of edit-warring and threaten to block me from editing. I raised the issue on the article talk page.

I feel that we should try to make the passage as clear as possible for as many readers as possible. And if Laser Brain finds my passage unclear, I'd like to find one which is clear. I also feel attacked, and that makes it hard to focus on the editing. I don't know if Laser Brain feels the same way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've discussed this on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Since I think there's a need for clarification, since Laser Brain and I don't agree about the grammar, and since I think we should try to be as clear and as grammatical to as many readers as possible, maybe someone can help hash out a version which satisfies my concerns about the meaning, and Laser Brain's and anyone else's concerns about the grammar.

Summary of dispute by Laser_brain

I'm not sure why Ananiujitha is so impatient. They posted to Talk:Autism with complaints about the wording of the passage in question less than 24 hours ago, tagging it in the article body as needing clarification. SandyGeorgia told Ananiujitha to go read the source for clarification, and Dbrodbeck removed the tag. Ananiujitha then changed the wording to an ungrammatical mess, which I reverted. They changed it again, and then re-added the original tag when I once again reverted the ungrammatical edit. Autism is a Featured Article and we can't have these problems introduced. For the record, I did not threaten to use admin tools against this user; I threatened to report them for edit warring if they persisted in introducing problems into the article. I've asked Ananiujitha to remove the tag they place in the article but they have ignored me. This should be closed as premature and unnecessary. --Laser brain (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Autism discussion

• I'm a Volunteer at DRN, but this is intended as a general comment; I'm not opening this discussion or such. This seems like a case where a third opinion might allow for faster resolution? DonIago (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Plasma Cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Orrerysky (talk · contribs)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A statement is made in the article regarding the sociological status of a scientific paradigm without any polling data or research to support that statement.

Example, it is claimed that a theory is "mostly rejected". This is a sociological and anthropological claim. It has no support, is irrelevant, and should be removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

sociological and anthropological statements on this matter should be omitted. There is no reason to say whether a theory is accepted or rejected unless there is polling data from a polling firm like Zogby to support this assertion.

How do you think we can help?

Inform individual that anthropology and sociological polling does not exist to support his claim and the claim is irrelevant to the topic.

Summary of dispute by Arianewiki1

User Orrerysky seems to be a new Wikipedia editor in the last few days and has only edited this one page.

He Talk:Plasma cosmology writes "@ Arianewiki1, not only are the majority of your comments utterly wrong, a quick check of this topic sees that you are one of the very individuals guilty of the edit warring taking place. I wonder if it my entry that is biased, or your's. In fact, the answer to that question is quite obvious. I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article. Orrerysky (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)"

Already WP:NPA#WHATIS and WP:CIV is in play, and I do openly question the User's motive here.

To this WP:DNR, the user then changes the word "rejected" with "unknown", I explain my reasoning, then he immediately changes the page again, then goes this dispute resolution without any further discussion.

The topic entitled plasma cosmology is placed under Fringe physics and Fringe science.

Here the Fringe science article says; "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline."

Logically, plasma cosmology to most astronomers and cosmologists is therefore correct in saying "Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model,... " I.e. We know plasma cosmology is consider fringe science.

Changing the word "Unknown" is incorrect has a completely different implication. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since writing this, a new user User:Keyriced appeared at Talk:Plasma cosmology, who in his FIRST POST says; "After reviewing the available data I believe that Orrerysky is right to say it should say "mostly unknown" as opposed to "mostly rejected"." Only even minutes later User:Orrerysky again gives a reply to Keyiced supporting his own argument. I do openly question is motive of these actions, who seems to be reinforcing / influencing his views for change. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably jumping the gun here a bit but I'm assuming Keyriced is a sock of Orrerysky. Again this assumption is based on the prevalence of sock accounts being created specifically to gain consensus. Just a thought. -- Jodon | Talk 11:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology discussion

Arianewiki1, I was told that editing wikipedia was a community activity. So, if I inform someone about my doings and they decide to support my efforts, well that appears to be a community effort. This is afterall, a community project, is it not?

Let's go back to your other statements, after making several fallacious arguments saying I should be banned for "edit warring" which even the Admin in our discussion will agree never happened. You seem to be pressing the admin to take action. This is called bullying and peer-pressuring and is threatening behavior. I can only assume that you are opposed to have someone move in on "your turf" that you wish to "camp" in order to enforce "your will" on the article.

Now, let us go back to the classification of fringe, "fringe" does not mean "rejected" it means "fringe". The efforts of a small group. Furthermore, you have no backing to support your claim regarding widespread acceptance or rejection. Which Sociological or Anthropoligical organization conducted the Poll? Was it Zogby? Perhaps another polling agency? These statements of yours have no support in the publications of any organization. Where is the questionairre that was sent out? What is the statistical variance? What was the size of the polling sample? How were participant selected. You are forcing your own bias into the conversation and making statements without any support backing them up. Furthermore, you have no evidence that your model does not fall under the umbrella of Plasma Cosmology. As Plasma Cosmology makes no determination about the age or extent of the universe, models that might study the radiation from cosmic plasma in order to make calculations about the age of the universe, could quite easily fall under the umbrella of Plasma Cosmology.

It is requested that you cease & desist your reversions until you can provide the proper support from a sociological data gathering institute. Orrerysky (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2013 (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.