Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 148

Talk:Gay Dog Food#Notability_dispute
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am partial to people editing notability off of this article, when there is not any real info on it, or extensive "non-trivial" sources. I've researched it, and if the article were to (in a perfect world) be fixed, it would be nearly entirely based on composition and critical reception.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Adding notability tag, making discussion in talk page explaining my reasoning.

How do you think we can help?

IMO, merge the article to the artist's page.

Talk:Gay Dog Food#Notability_dispute discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Thriller (Michael_Jackson_album)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I strongly disagree with a need to provide an overly broad recording period range in the info box for Michael Jackson's Thriller album and that of the Track Listing section, which is very incorrect for specific reasons I believe. User: Synthwave.94 has been extremely intent on undoing a large of amount music-related edits of mine the past few weeks, even outside of Michael Jackson related content (MC Hammer, etc).

In 1981, Michael Jackson allegedly began working on demos for songs he would later record in 1982 for what became the "Thriller" LP. "Billie Jean" was amongst some of those early examples from 1981. However, the first recording was a duet with Paul McCartney from April 14 to 16, 1982, "The Girl Is Mine".

Despite that, the album project itself has been reported many times (in retrospect) to be an 8-week recording effort during the fall of 1982, ending on Monday, November 8, 1982. I disagree strongly with how the "Track Listing" lists arbitrary and unconfirmed recording dates without verification for 8 of 9 album tracks, yet User: Synthwave.94 seems to be under the impression it is their sole authority to decide what is allowed and what isn't, nor willing to listen to the other side and is dismissive.

Fall 1982 (reported in retrospect on occasion in some documentaries/interviews) very much fits the 8-week period of Monday September 13, 1982 to Monday, November 8, 1982. April 14 to November 8 is not an 8-week recording period nor was the album recorded from April 14 to June 9, 1982, another 8-week period on the front end.

In that case, I wanted to present that general recording for the album itself ran from September to November 8, 1982. Late August is even dismissed from that, as Aug. 31, 1982 to November 8, 1982 already reaches 10 weeks. The fact that narrators in a few Michael Jackson documentaries had stated "Jackson went into the studio in the fall of 1982 to work on his follow-up to Off The Wall for 8 weeks",is why I wanted to add such content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened up a new section on the talk page of Thriller and User: Synthwave.94 has not bothered to respond nor try to seek a resolution on this matter, but seems more intent on reverting any of my contributions to music-related topics.

How do you think we can help?

To review the content I have provided and overall matter at hand, to decide if the contradiction I am addressing is imagined and needs more evidence. Or if what I have provided is satisfactory, to be fully reflected in the Thriller album article and that of recording dates for the singles. They have reverted my content 3 times, essentially violating 3RR in a sense. User:Fishhead2100 might have an idea of what behaviour I am referring to, albeit on a slightly different note.

Summary of dispute by Synthwave.94
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Thriller (Michael_Jackson_album) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Reza Aslan
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Reza Aslan is on the advisory board of an organization called NIAC:

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/

This simple and obvious fact is persistently reverted/deleted as poorly sourced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made every effort to resolve this, including RFc and discussion on Reza Aslan's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I believe a brief explanation to Roscelese pertaining Aslan being on the advisory board of NIAC and the inclusion of that fact on Aslan's page could resolve this unnecessary edit war. The user persistently deletes that reference and argues that it is poorly sourced !

Summary of dispute by Roscelese
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Category talk:Jews#Indigenous peoples of Western Asia
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Whether or not Jews should be cateogrised as an ethnic group within the Middle East, which has led to a degree of edit warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Clarifying categorisation policy on Wikipedia

Summary of dispute by Debresser
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over how to present Singapore's independence in the infobox. This includes whether to note that independence was from a country, and which events to include.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talkpage discussion, this is the next DR step taken.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a fresh look at how the arguments interact, if the participants are talking past each other, and fresh opinions and ideas.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Lemongirl942
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute is about the independence parameter in the infobox. If we go by what most FA and GA are using, the current convention is --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Use the most recent independence event which led to the formation of sovereign state
 * If the latest independence event was obtained from a single entity, use "Independence from...x". Otherwise if the country was independence from multiple occupiers, use "Independence" and link to the event.

Summary of dispute by Wrigleygum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Shiok

 * Singapore has two significant 'Independence' events, unlike most countries – from the UK (after 144 years) and Malaysia (2 years). So it is only logical to have a single word 'Independent' (current Sovereign_type) as the heading to embrace both.
 * As pointed out by another editor, there is also no 'from' parameter in Template:Infobox country. Shiok (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this request and should do so.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Individual talkpages messages in addition to the existing note on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The filing party's overview is brief and did not include reasons in defense of his edits to begin with. A summary of Singapore talk page discussions would also be helpful to the moderators and other editors who may have tired of the long discussions and 'wall of text'. I would include the following in the overview:
 * CMD proposed his bold edit here:
 * Independence from Malaysia
 * British colonisation: 6 February 1819
 * Self-government: 3 June 1959
 * Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963
 * Merger with Malaysia: 16 September 1963
 * Expulsion from Malaysia: 9 August 1965
 * The only change from the previous version is the Sovereign_type parameter, which also serves as title of the section - from 'Formation' to 'Independence from Malaysia'. The dispute is that 4 editors (Shiok, Zhanzhao, Jytdog,Wrigleygum) prefers a single word, either 'Independent' or 'Independence'. 2 editors (CMD, Lemongirl942) has argued to stick with what he proposed. Shiok (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer response Hello, I am KDS4444 and I am willing to take a shot at helping resolve this conflict.  First, it looks like only one of the involved parties has opted to make any summary of the dispute.  This is fine, of course, so long as everyone was notified of the discussion (which, according to CMD, has been done).  I have read over the discussion on the talk page, and want to make sure I understand this issue correctly.  The dispute is with regard to what should be placed in the infobox of the article for the parameter   and whether the nation's independence should refer to its independence from Britain or from Malaysia.  Right now as I look at the article and trace its history back a week or so, I am not even seeing the   parameter anywhere, so I need someone to help me out here with that.  Once I get a sense of where the article currently stands and if my understanding of the issue can be verified by any of the involved parties, I will offer up some thoughts.  Although I can see that there has been a certain amount of tension between the parties, I get the sense that everyone is willing to be very reasonable, which is encouraging to me.  Thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. I kept my initial posting short and succinct and hopefully neutral, apologies if that was not what I was meant to do. The dispute mentioned is actually what to put in the  field, which works alongside the   field (and everyone seems to agree that "Independence" fits the type field), but functionally you're correct. The field has been removed from the article since discussing began. You can see the parameters at Template:Infobox country, and in the version that existed before the change I made linked by Shiok above here. Related to this are disputes over the contents of the subsequent   lines, which were not in the initial edit but emerged during discussion. CMD (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keeping initial postings short is always preferred— no one likes seeing a wall of text. So now... Where do we stand?  The parameter has been removed— what can I help you resolve, specifically?  Obviously I can't tell you anything about the nature of Singapore history or politics...  Where/ On what points do the parties have a specific dispute that there is any chance I can help resolve here?  Thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi the above infobox data needs to be restored at some point and DRN volumteers can help concur that a single word  – 'Independent or Independence' will better embrace both of Singapore's two independences in the key events list. For this, you do not need to know Singapore's history. If you agree on a single-word sovereign_type, then we would appreciate an opinion whether 'Independent' (preferred by Jytdog) or 'Independence' (preferred by Zhanzhao, Wrigleygum) is the more appropriate one to use here. I can go with either term. Thanks.  Shiok (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer response Inasmuch as the parameter  implies an adjective rather than a noun, "independent" strikes me as more appropriate than "independence".  Also, to the extent that this is relevant here, I think that people visiting the page and looking at the infobox want to know whether or not Singapore today is perhaps an independent "country" (city-state) rather than some kind of national subunit or territory of a larger nation— regardless of when or how that status was arrived at.  This is particularly true since it is such a very small place but with such a very large international presence— a reader may well ask themselves, "How can such a tiny place like that be an independent country?  But then again, it is Singapore..."  The details of independence from whom all belong in the article's main body.  To the extent that this thought is relevant here.  KDS4444 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be useful would be to help promote engagement with what is written in discussions. As I noted above in the initial summary and my slightly longer response here, the discussion is not just about the appropriate suffix of independent. The stonewalling with regards to this is unhelpful. CMD (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of engagement on the talk page but your points are mostly irrelevant to infobox and everyone has stopped. As KDS4444 says, those are details for the body. I have been very specific in addressing just your infobox edits already proposed, not additional ones for now or prose which we can engage further in Talk, So do you accept the volunteer's opinion (with 4 other editors) on just 'Independent' and have this DRN closed? Shiok (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They're direct comments on infobox content. What content should be in the infobox is highly relevant to infobox content. CMD (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do they change the use of "Independent" as ?   I'm guessing not, but if you feel they are important, then we should let the volunteers consider. Please consolidate all the relevant comments together so we do not keep introducing new items to discuss as has happened on the talk page. So what are the comments that are 'highly relevant'? Shiok (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is one section, and that is all that was discussed on the talkpage. But yes, considering  forms a sentence with , they do affect each other. The comments can be found on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are being vague by just referring us back to to the talk page. That is a wall of text editors have abandoned - which would not be the case if they find it.to be what you regard as 'highly relevant'. And I note that no one has conceded to your arguments.. I don't see anything relevant myself, so I'm waiting for you to state some of them. Shiok (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it useful for readers to know how Singapore became an independent country and what country they became independent from, as noted in guidance at Template:Infobox country. Sources note this occurred in 1965 as Singapore became independent from Malaysia. This is also why the SG50 celebrations were held two years ago. Relevant talkpage considerations are this one and this one. CMD (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I honestly no longer feel I understand the nature of this dispute. It appears that offering an interpretation of the parameters in the infobox template has not been helpful (that template, by the way, has no documentation explaining exactly what is supposed to go in this parameter or many of the other parameters; I have attempted to expand some of the documentation where I could figure out what was supposed to go where and to provide some examples of entries, but did not make it down to  which remains undefined— this was careless business on the part of whomever created all these parameters). I am prepared to either surrender my part in this discussion and offer it up for another volunteer to consider, or to mark it as a resolution failure as I don't see us getting to an actual resolution, at least not under my guidance. KDS4444 (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The template has some documentation in the syntax section. The parameters are much older than the creation of VisualEditor. CMD (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * KDS4444, can we raise this issue of the template for possible amendments? I could highlight this case for discussion as well. Shiok (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How our independence came about and from which countries (2) is already listed as key events, so no 'sovereignty_note' is needed. In fact readers should know that our colonial history with UK is much longer than the 2 years in Malaysia. I just read through the long paragraphs in talk again that you referred to and still can't make out it's relevance to the Infobox list. Is there a clear message from the dozens of points and how does it affect the infobox heading and content? It seems the more you write, the further the conversation strays from your first edit. So unless you intend to update the body prose with citations where we can debate every sentence and wording, I see no point in more discussions you wanted editors to engage in.

Next, I checked the article's history for the past decade and found the following version of the infobox sovereignty section to be stable for several years since 2009. Note that the last event was "Separation from Malaysia". That is correct because it was a negotiated "Separation Agreement" which the Malaysian parliament voted to pass. So we need to revert to that, with appropriate refs.
 * Formation. (-->Independent)
 * Founding: 6 February 1819 (-->British colonisation)
 * Self-government: 3 June 1959
 * Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963
 * Merger with Malaysia: 16 September 1963
 * Separation from Malaysia: 9 August 1965

Shiok (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer response Shiok, you are welcome to raise this issue on the infobox talk page, and if you believe your suggestions are straightforward ones then I encourage you to go ahead and edit the templatedata section and provide some useful examples for those parameters that you feel are vague or confusing. In doing that, you will probably want to make sure that your examples come from specific instances where a given parameter is actually filled in for a country's existing infobox somewhere.  That aside (I am not supposed to be giving advice anyway!), I am still not sure where the remaining dispute now lies between the parties... or if there still is one.  I do not feel like the participants have reach consensus on any specific conclusion, though that is not technically necessary in order for me to close this case.  KDS4444 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For a start "Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963" is incorrect. This was an unilateral declaration which was not recognized by the British nor by the Malayan leadership. This should never be there in the infobox. The independence from British happened together with the merger with Malaysia. It was a combined event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We are trying to determine the best way to summarise part of the closing scene of the movie Planet of the Apes (2001). The original wording is strongly preferred by one party, and some alternative wordings have been suggested by some other parties. The alternative wordings attempt to clarify what appears to have occurred in the scene, but supporters of the original wording suggest that it bears a bias for a particular interpretation of the scene. Likewise, the supporters of alternative wordings suggest that the original wording bears a bias for a particular interpretation of the scene. We would like to arrive at some consensus that allows for the widest possible range of interpretations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not noticing the original discussion from a year ago, an edit was made to the sentence which was reverted almost immediately by one of the people originally involved. The discussion was opened up again on the talk page, and it quickly became apparent that a third party would be needed to help find a compromise.

How do you think we can help?

Determine the core of the arguments, figure out what each perspective is trying to say, and help find a wording that will be as acceptable as possible to people of as many perspectives as possible.

Summary of dispute by SonOfThornhill
The original and current wording reflects what is actually shown in the film. As MOS PLOT it states - "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". The other wordings suggest that it is somehow an alternate earth or Washington DC. That is no where evident in the film or script. That is only personal opinion and interpretation. When asked on numerous occasions to support this interpretation with a primary source, none was presented. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ommnomnomgulp
My original contention--which matches OP's, from what I can tell--is that the film's ending is ambiguous and the Wiki should reflect this. The original change I made allows for this ambiguity without changing the truth value of the current wording that is strongly supported by SOT. In the film, one simply cannot determine if the geography shown at the film's conclusion is actually Washington DC that has been changed to suit the apes's world or if it is an original creation of the apes. My original wording and the wording provided by OP correctly takes this ambiguity into account while still leaving open the potential for either reality.

In my view, the Lincoln Memorial always _appears to be_ the Lincoln Memorial, but the audience can't be sure if the memorial was changed or if it's an original creation original to the apes. Also, at the end of the movie, the edifice simply can't be the Lincoln Memorial, anymore, since the individual memorialized within is Thade, and not Lincoln. As such, it's wrong to call the structure the Lincoln Memorial, regardless of what it maybe had once been. The same issue applies to the statue. It is a statue of Thade, not Lincoln, although it may or may not have been a statue that included Lincoln's countenance at one time in the past. No one can know from the limited information provided in the film. As the viewer sees it, the memorial is to Thade, and Thade clearly is the figure that is memorialized. These objects together may have been the memorial we now know as the Lincoln Memorial, but the viewer cannot be sure, and the language provided originally by myself and then, independently by OP, take this into account. SOT has called this analysis an "opinion," whereas I believe it is based on sound philological principles.

SOT believes that the script should be the ultimate arbiter in this matter--or "primary source" as he calls it (neglecting the film as a primary source, apparently)--but the script also includes references to Wahlberg's character being physically held by apes at the end of the film, when, in the movie, he was not. As such, the script is unreliable and does not reflect the final product that appeared in theaters. In any case, the scripts usually serve as a guide and, as such, does not mean that it, in itself, is the story Burton actually provided to audiences on screen. In any case, the original wordings provided by myself and OP (I assume independently of me) takes care of this, as these sentences allow for SOT's interpretation as well as any ambiguities that arose between the script and the final version of the film.


 * Please don't misrepresent my views. I've always said the film or the script, never said just the script. And the film itself is not at all ambiguous as to that Leo is on earth and in Washington DC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ZJ0F8Ik9E SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Although the filing editor did not notify the other editors, the other editors have commented, so notifying them is not necessary.  This case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion by a volunteer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I notified them immediately on the article talk page, and followed up with one of them on his user talk page when it seemed he might have missed my note on the article talk page. —Firespeaker (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Firespeaker did notify me on my Talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I will be opening this case for moderated discussion. Please see User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules, because those are the ground rules for moderated discussion. To repeat what is said there, be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Participants are expected to comment with 48 hours after I post. Now: Will each participant state in one or two sentences what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

First statements by participating editors
The scene makes it clear that Leo crashes on Earth in Washington, D.C. He then deboards his craft on the steps of what should be the Lincoln Memorial; however, what otherwise looks like the Lincoln Memorial includes (instead?) a statue commemorating General Thade. How this came to be is left open—viewers can come to many conclusions about the timeline, universe, mental state of Leo, etc. to explain this—so the wording should only reflect the scene as it plays out. My current preference is for something like "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade", but I suppose something (which I'm not understanding) about how it relates to the ontology of the scene is objectionable. Other proposals have seemed objectionable to me for similar sorts of reasons, which suggests that there's a disconnect between various people's understandings of the scene that we're failing to communicate to one another. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is fine by me. As was stated on the article's talk page several days ago. I thought this matter has been resolved then. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Has this dispute been resolved? Is the wording about a monument to General Thade acceptable to all? If not, please state what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
There were other wordings that I find better in various ways, but I can certainly live with this one. It sounded like the other participants felt similarly. So yes, pending any comments from User:Ommnomnomgulp, I believe this issue is basically resolved. (I was surprised that it was opened for moderated discussion right as it seemed like we were coming to a consensus.) On the other hand, I'm a little uneasy about the fact that I still don't understand User:SonOfThornhill's issues with the somewhat more accurate (imho) reading "He looks up to see that what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade", even after a week of back-and-forth trying to figure it out. I guess the fact that he was adamantly opposed to it in the first place is reason enough not to go with it, but I feel really stupid after all his explanations that I just never understood. The wording he accepts I basically just stumbled across by accident while I was fumbling around with other ways to express things. Would it be appropriate to ask for his opinion on why the "actually" wording is better than the "appears to be" wording? —Firespeaker (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've explained this several time but will try once again. The wording "otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is an alternate Earth and/or Washington DC which is not at all evident in the film. It is only more accurate in your opinion and is merely a personal interpretation which violates MOS:PLOT. Hope that clears things up for you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in agreement with Firespeaker on this issue and believe that "appears to be" is more accurate given that "the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is, indeed, the Lincoln Memorial, when the person memorialized therein is Thade, not Lincoln. It may or may not have been the Lincoln Memorial at one time, but the film proves that, in that moment, it is not the Lincoln Memorial no matter what it may have been in the past. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that it isn't necessarily an alternate Earth/whatever, but the explanation provided makes a leap that I'm having trouble making. Namely, how does the wording "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" imply that it is another universe?  As I see it, it's just saying that this monument resembles the Lincoln Memorial in all possible ways up to that point—location relative to other landmarks, the steps, etc.  It's just that it appears different from the Lincoln Memorial in that it shows General Thade instead.  This makes no indication of what it "truly is" or how it got that way.  Unless I'm really just missing something—in which case, could someone please fill me in? —Firespeaker (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC
 * "Appears to be" implies that it is not and never was, thus an alternate earth or Washington. Therefore, in violation of MOS:PLOT SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not. Even our Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. If I were driving along the road, and pointed to it, I could, without problem, say "that appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha, I think we might be getting to the heart of the matter. I wholeheartedly second what User:Ommnomnomgulp said.  Anything can appear to be the Lincoln Memorial, including (especially!) the actual Lincoln Memorial. —Firespeaker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, let me show you what we're trying to say. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Appears to be Lincoln Memorial.svg
 * The point of the Venn diagramme above is to demonstrate how the range of interpretations available from the "appears to be" wording is much wider, and in no way narrower. In fact, it seems to be the "actually" wording that is imposing more of an interpretation on the scene.  —Firespeaker (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, you two playing semantical games. You know that the phrase "appears to be" implies that it is an alternate earth or Washington dc which is why you're both pushing for it. But sorry any wording that implies what is a personal interpretation or opinion is in violation of MOS:PLOT. So give it up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it implies that at all--it doesn't appear to me that it does. I can't speak for Firespeaker, but I for one, would appreciate some good faith. I don't know what we're seeing at the end of this movie (other than a film that needs to be burned, salted, and irradiated so that it can never harm anyone, ever again) other than a monument to Thade that appears to be similar in appearance to the Lincoln Memorial.  You might have to allow myself and others to feel that we're right in a manner that has nothing to do with "opinion," as you keep wanting to push on us. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

brought this DR discussion to my attention. As I said on the talk page, I didn't see a problem with the previous wording. I think the current wording, with changes that no one seemed to specifically object to, have made it understandable for any reader. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with adding "appears to be" or similar, but at the same time I don't see that it adds any clarity to what's probably the most straightforward part of this highly confusing scene. The building shown both is and appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, which is the whole point of the twist. It's a famous building specifically chosen so the audience would recognize it instantly.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It may have been at one time, but at the end of the movie it is not NOT the Lincoln Memorial since Lincoln is not the person memorialized therein. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as a pretty sophistic argument. Very many sources just call it the "Lincoln Memorial", knowing full well that readers will get the picture.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not previously been a participant in this discussion. I support the phrasing "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" because stating that "the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is counterfactual for exactly the reason explained by Ommnomnomgulp; it is a monument to General Thade and therefore is not the Lincoln Memorial.  "Appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" is the most accurate description of what is depicted on the screen, because the filmmakers intentionally created a visual similarity to that structure before showing that it was not that entity.  I wish to refute SonOfThornhill's claim that the phrase "appears to be" violates MOS:PLOT by implying a personal interpretation that this is an alternate Earth.  It does not do that.  The film is ambiguous and doesn't give concrete answers as to how the monument to Thade came to be.  Leo could be further in the future, or in his original time, or even in the past.  And apes could have defaced the Lincoln Memorial to depict Thade, or they could have razed the Lincoln Memorial to build the monument to Thade, or the past could have been changed so that apes built the first and only structure to occupy the space.  In some interpretations, this is the same structure that was once the Lincoln Memorial, but in others it is not.  "Appears to be" allows all of these (and not only these) and doesn't specify any one; the only thing this version of the sentence implies, by its omission of further explanation or specificity, is that the depicted result is unexplained.  It doesn't imply the specific plot interpretation that SOT rejects, that this is an alternate Earth; it only describes the visual experience as I noted above.  It carries no implication about the storyline, and avoids the ontological problem of identifying the non-Lincoln Memorial as "the Lincoln Memorial."  --DavidK93 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As you say, the phrase 'appears to be' allows for different interpretations. Which is exactly why it is in violation of MOS:PLOT which states, "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". Thank you for making my case for me. The film is not at all ambiguous as to Leo being on earth and in Washington DC, so the scene is not open to "interpretation". The current wording is "an obvious recap of the work" and should remain. Alternate wordings proposed by Cúchullain & Ian.thomson are also acceptable. Any wording that implies or supports personal interpretations are not. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
I see that one of the rules in the statement of rules has been disregarded. However, the resulting exchange has been useful. I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, and there has been back-and-forth discussion. I will personally comment that I agree that if General Thade is memorialized in the building that resembles the Parthenon, it is not the Lincoln Memorial any more than it is the Parthenon. If General Thade is memorialized, something has changed, and it isn't the Lincoln Memorial Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the question is how to refer to the building, it appears that there is an impasse. Are the editors willing to agree to use a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
Sure. Why not? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought, does anyone have a copy of the film's novelization. I wonder what wording it uses. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe a request for comments would be an excellent idea at this point. Thanks! —Firespeaker (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate with some amusement. Was going to comment on the Movie's talk page but thought the issue was resolved. Now the dispute has been moved here. I always thought the original wording was the best 'the Lincoln Memorial is now a monument in honor of General Thade'. That is a fair description of the last scene of the movie. The ending a bit confusing. But when you apply Occam's razor it is the best wording. The apes took over and changed the building a monument to Thade. Otherwise you have to believe that the apes built an exact replica of DC and the Lincoln Memorial on the exact spot that humans did. That is a real strength. And to something the moderator said above, Madison Square Garden in NYC was named that because its original site was Madison Square, It has moved several times but retains its original name. The Sofia Mosque in Istanbul is now a museum and has been for years. But it is still called a mosque and still named for the Christian saint Sofia. This because they are the common names that most people refer to them. The same is true here. The Lincoln Memorial is the reference point for the audience. Istanbul was once named Constantinople. If Leo was a time traveler from 1000 AD and landed in modern day Istanbul, you wouldn't say that he landed in what otherwise appears to be Constantinople. You'd say he landed back in Constantinople to find that it was now called Istanbul. That is why the original wording it the best. 149.39.250.11 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
Does anyone object to a Request for Comments? We will probably have one anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If Christian bishops meet in the city that is called Istanbul on maps in modern times, they will refer to their council in Constantinople. (Christian clergy still call it by its ancient name.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors
No. Still wondering if anyone has a copy of the novelizations. Curious what it says. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Istanbul/Constantinople, the difference is that, in this movie, we don't have enough information even to know that, in fact, the structure that was the Lincoln Memorial was physically transformed into the monument to Thade. It's possible that, due to a timeline change, the latter was built instead of the former ever existing. Or it could be that the Thade monument stands where the Lincoln Memorial once stood, but isn't the same structure. In the film, this event is completely unexplained. The article should not purport to explain it, and therefore should not definitively identify the structure as the Lincoln Memorial. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Article is not purporting to explain it with the current wording. The current wording is neutral. In the movie, the audience knows that Leo is back on Earth in Washington. There is no doubt about that. What you're purporting is a lot of what ifs that are no where evident in the film. Those are personal interpretations and don't belong in the plot summary per [MOS:PLOT]]. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, yes; that's why I don't suggest putting an interpretation in the summary. The wording I support doesn't exclude some interpretations that yours does, but that is not equivalent to actually putting any interpretations in the summary.  --DavidK93 (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The wordings that I suggested tried to be as neutral as possible. Once the phrase 'otherwise appears to be' is inserted, the implication is that it never was the Lincoln Memorial. That is drawing a conclusion based on a specific interpretation that has no source. And thus, is in violation of [MOS:PLOT]. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
Will each editor please propose their wording of the description of the last scene, so that we can compose the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors
I'm fine with the current wording by Cúchullain, "He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade." which is a straight forward depiction of the scene in the film. Or "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" which I think Ian.thomson proposed. Also, a straight forward depiction of what is in the film. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Here is a third alternative, "He walks into the Memorial and sees a monument to General Thade instead of President Lincoln". SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My current preferred wording for the sentence in question (which is only part of the last scene) is something like "He looks up to see a statue of General Thade in what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." —Firespeaker (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the phrase, 'what otherwise appears to be' has been the core of the issue, that is a total non-starter. Several compromise wordings have been offered. Choose one of them or offer one of your own. But as long as you continue to push for the inclusion of that phrase, this issue will never be resolved. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought the whole point was for us to specify our ideal wordings and then get comments from outside. It's possible I misunderstood what RFC was for and what User:Robert McClenon was asking for.  Could someone please clarify? —Firespeaker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My preferred wording it is the original, "He looks up to see the Lincoln Memorial is now a monument in honor of General Thade". But I'm trying to find a compromise that will achieve a consensus and satisfy all parties. You seem to be in 'my way or the highway' mode which explains why you ran here after the issue had been resolved on the film's talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been doing my best not to let myself be baited by these messages, but I've had just about enough of the accusatory tone and strong-arm tactics you've been using. I'm doing my best to look for a compromise (you may notice that I'm not simply "sticking to" my originally proposed wording), but this doesn't mean I'm any more keen on the wording you're proposing.  And the fact that I'm not going along with it doesn't mean I'm not looking for a compromise.  As I understood it, right now we're supposed to be presenting our preferred wording and not something we think is a compromise, and these proposals will be collected and discussed for their individual merits.  Strong-arm tactics and accusatory messages have no place in any of this, so please stop it.  I apologise to the moderator if I'm out of line here, but I feel like every message User:SonOfThornhill sends is a troll attack :(  Could we please have clarification on the process (as I requested earlier) ASAP? —Firespeaker (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting the someone who engaged in WP:Votestacking and who after the issue was resolved on the Talk page ran here because they didn't get their way there is accusing anyone of strong-arm tactics. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop making accusations here. This is not the place for it.  As I've told you numerous times before, if you suspect that I have done anything wrong (and ideally if you have evidence to back up your claim), please report it through the appropriate channel.  (Also, I came here because there was a lack of agreement and it was clear that we weren't going to resolve this between ourselves—not because I "didn't get [my] way".)  —Firespeaker (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to get your way. You're the one who initiated all of this. You made the change without any discussion on the Talk page and when it was reverted you ran to notify another editor who agreed with you. Then when the issue was discussed on the talk page and you couldn't get your way on there, you brought the dispute here. You refuse to accept any compromise on the issue despite several being offered. The objection to the wording "otherwise appears to be" was explained to you several times yet you kept asking for an explanation for it. You're the one who has kept pushing this dispute and dragged it out for two weeks now when you had several opportunities to shut it down. I'll also point out that you have failed to produce any source that supports your personal interpretation. While several have been produced that dispute it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator
What I had asked was that each participant provide their own preference for the wording of the last line or last paragraph. The purpose is to offer them as alternatives for the RFC. Back-and-forth discussion is forbidden. If there is any back-and-forth discussion, this thread will be failed, and the editor or editors who engage in the back-and-forth discussion will be given a Level 3 warning. Now: Please each editor provide their preferred version of the concluding sentence or paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors
My current preferred wording for the sentence in question (which is only part of the last scene) is something like "He looks up to see a statue of General Thade in what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." While I am open to modification of the surrounding sentences as well, I do not believe that that would be necessary with this wording. I hope this statement of my preference is in no way seen as uncooperative or trying to "force" my agenda on other contributors. It is simply my preferred wording based on reasoning that has already been stated. I look forward to seeing what other contributors suggest, and coming to a compromise that works for everyone. —Firespeaker (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess since we are throwing any attempt at compromise in order to reach a consensus out the window, I'll go with the current wording, "He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade". This was the consensus wording on the Talk page before the issue was dragged over here. This is the wording that doesn't violate MOS:PLOT which states, 'Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work'. This is also the wording that doesn't indulge in any fanboy theories that are not evident in the film and is supported by sources, including the script I'll also add that the phrase 'otherwise appears to be' is drawing the conclusion that the structure was never the Lincoln Memorial. There is no evidence of this in the film. Nor are there any sources that support this interpretation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with Firespeaker's interpretation or otherwise, if there's still some room for merging the two sentences: "Leo crashes in front of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., only to find that it is a monument in honor of General Thade." The semi-redundant "Washington, D.C," could be pulled to make a more concise sentence. The most concise version would be "Leo crashes in front of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument honoring General Thade."" Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator
A Request for Comments is being posted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The participants in this discussion should take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors
The RFC seems a little unclear. It talks about this being the last sentence of the article, which isn't right. Also, I think the extra sentence that C would be replacing should be added to the wording of A and B. And is the quotation mark in C significant? One more thing: are we (the original editors involved in this issue) encouraged to participate in the survey or exclude ourselves from the survey? —Firespeaker (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

HAL Light_Combat_Helicopter
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User MBlaze Lightning has repeatedly undid my edits and threatened me with wikipedia rules.

My edits have actual web links and isnt personal. MBlaze Lightning is taking it personally.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I had tried to message him in talk but he undid my message. He is refusing to communicate.

How do you think we can help?

MBlaze lightning should not be allowed to further edit the page stated.

Summary of dispute by MBlaze Lightning
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by

 * Close as no action. This is an angry new editor, abusing all who go near them, whether they edit the article or not. They're currently blocked for edit-warring, but an indef ban under WP:COMPETENCE would be no loss to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User talk:Timothyjosephwood
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am trying to edit the Norwalk, Connecticut article and there is another editor ignoring an inuse template I placed and is currently virtually destroying that article. When I place a peaceful and courteous request to stop, that user reverts my contributions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

What more can I do? I do not want an editing war.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know what can be done. I don't want to cause any harm or get anyone in trouble. I just want to resume my work in peace.

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

Talk:Wish You_Were_Here_(Once_Upon_a_Time)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An IP user and I disagree over how to describe a quote from the episode as a "Cultural Reference" in the article. The IP user reverted my version, a compromise version I proposed, and the same compromise version with a better source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked for a third opinion. When one was provided, it suggested using a secondary source to avoid either of us interpreting the primary source, which is the episode itself. That led to my most recent edit, which was still not acceptable to the other editor.

How do you think we can help?

Assess if any version of the content meets Wikipedia standards, and engage the other user in conversation (as he or she has continued to edit the article but has stopped engaging in the discussion).

Summary of dispute by 96.19.112.107
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Wish You_Were_Here_(Once_Upon_a_Time) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note It appears that there has been adequate discussion on the talk page, including the involvement of a third opinion. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There does not appear to have been any recent discussion either here or at the article talk page. Unless the parties express a continued interest in discussion, this case will be closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm confused by the process here. The section states "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer." so I thought I was supposed to wait until I saw a "volunteer response," rather than a "volunteer note."  I expected a volunteer to initiate discussion and instruct me what to do.  So please let me know in what manner I'm supposed to continue the discussion beyond the information I provided in filing this item.  --DavidK93 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - Do both editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do, but I don't know if the IP user does. He or she has engaged in discussion on the issue, but not recently.  I did post a notification on the user's Talk page about filing an item here.  --DavidK93 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I now believe this item can be closed. I had refrained from editing the article since February 7, the last time my edit to it was reverted, as I was waiting for a response on the article's Talk page.  I just looked, and realized that another editor restored my edit on February 10, before I even filed this item, and it has stood since.  --DavidK93 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Bohemian Grove
Location of dispute here

Dispute Overview: 96.59.162.50 saw discussion for inclusion of "homosexual activity" into the Bohemiam Grove article, in a 2010 comment by User:Binksternet. He said in talk he agreed & gave notice of intent to edit. Thereafter, he edited ending here. Neutrality reverted, claiming "obviously not reliable sources." The IP reverted, claiming vandalism, alleging at least 3 sources were reliable. I clicked on his sources & they seem OK: Wikipedia often cites to itself. 2 sources were actual recordings of a former president to verify this. The 4th was an unknown (but apparently long-time) news website (which I think is unreliable by itself). The IP didn't try to talk to Neutrality to resolve this, instead reporting him on admin vandal board. Drmies deleted the IP's report & blocked him on 02:58, 26 Feb 2017 here, which was upheld by another editor, claiming that it would do no good to remove block if his IP changes.

I took a look: The IP was emotional & probably should've tried talking with Neutrality first, but he made no disruptive editing, reverting only once. Moreover, Drmies didn't give a warning first. While the IP should've been more proactive in talking, himself, he seems to have had 'good faith' making what seem good edits & reporting instead of edit-warring. I think he didn't talk to Neutrality for fear of being blocked & his mistreatment verifies his fears. OK y'all resolve it.

Users involved: 96.59.131.65, Neutrality, Drmies, Boing!_said_Zebedee

What other steps, if any, have you tried to resolve this dispute? ANSWER: The IP in question tried posting to a talk page, but says he was blocked from the talk pages in question.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? ANSWER: Other editors can do like the IP wanted and discuss it in the talk pages before taking drastic measures like blocking someone. Sure, the IP was hotheaded, but: he 1) made a good edit, 2) tried talking in the talk page first, and 3) tried getting help on the admin vandal board instead of edit-warring. I think he was mistreated and this things like this are why Wikipedia is thought of as juvenile. I agree: you all handle your dispute: I did my part & loath wasting more time here. Thank you.47.192.18.128 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not clear on what exactly is going on here, but I note that the reporting IP has just been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was for block evasion, so this can probably be removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Leksijensen sandbox
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

My very correct sandbox has been deleted by other users as you can see.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

no, don't think they will listen at all. The article a did a new version on in my sandbox is deeply flawed by wireless fans or industry trolls

How do you think we can help?

Bring back my own sandbox content on my profile

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

Playerunknown%27s Battlegrounds
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dissident93 is keeping reverting changes to the Wiki page of a video game. He marked it as deletion, when it had 'little of info' about the game. I added info and he keep reverting the changes to info that shows 'little info' about the game.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I told him if he keeps reverting it, I would report him and here I am.

How do you think we can help?

By forcing him to follow and see that I'm trying to provide info for the game, which he doesn't see that.

Playerunknown%27s Battlegrounds discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. First, this noticeboard is not a forum to "report" anyone for anything, but to hold moderated discussion of content issues.  Second, the article in question has been nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion.  It seems pointless to have a discussion of content issues here while there is discussion on whether to keep the article.  Third, the filing editor, while naming the other editor, has not listed them properly and has not notified them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian House_of_Commons_Special_Committee_on_Electoral_Reform
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Basically, the issue at hand is the recommendations of the report. The committee had several members from several parties on it. Each member could make recommendations. The user I am discussing it with cherry picks the sections that support PR for the electoral system. The over-all view of the report, which has not been acted on, is to NOT bring in a PR system, but rather a system that rates a certain level on a scale, which in no way proclaims one voting system or another.

Almost off the bat, this person has insulted my intelligence or my knowledge on the matter, which is fairly extensive. He out-right rejects any proof I provide and solely focuses on the sections that fit his narrative. When bias was pointed out, he doubled-down on insults, refused to understand how the report was compiled and refuted his bias by just stating that he is not, when clearly he has been. I asked him to recuse himself from further edits, given said bias, made more personal attacks and said he would not. We are at an impasse.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I recused myself from editing, requested the other user do the same. They out-right refused, and continued to engage in personal attacks instead of addressing the sourced concerns I had with his interpretation of the report.

How do you think we can help?

A third party review the case, one with governmental experience in Canada could not hurt, though it does seem that the PR people seem pretty out-of-gear on making sure this article says "Canada proclaims PR is the way to go". In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Nor will their be a referendum. One recommendation is to NOT have one, another one is TO have one. At best, the report is un-reliable, at worse, contradictory. So someone who could sort out that mess.

Summary of dispute by RA0808
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My interest with this article has been to make the relevant section reflect the contents of the report as clearly and concisely as possible. The report's recommendation for a proportional electoral system and holding a referendum on the subject is clearly stated and has also been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources (see the article).

When User:Moeburn disagreed with the other user's removal of content stating the report recommended a proportional representation system and holding a referendum on the subject and suggested that the other user was splitting hairs and/or misunderstanding the usage of the term "proportional representation", I concurred and restored the content. The user responded with unfounded accusations of bias directed at both of us. I chose to assume good faith and provided the other user a brief summary of how proportional representation is a descriptor of multiple systems, not a system itself, and provided the specific recommendation in the report (Recommendation 12) which recommended a referendum. The user then claimed the recommendations beyond Recommendations 1 and 2 were "tacked-on" representations which were somehow not valid, and accused me of being "incredibly biased". The user's later responses included claims that 4-5 of the recommendations in the report contradict each other (not specifying which), stating I was cherry-picking from the report, comparing the interpretations of results to Islam, and again claiming that the report was contradictory.

As for the user's claims of personal attacks, I disagree that I have attacked them. I concede that my comment about the user disregarding "sections of the report because [they] don't understand the topic" could have been better-phrased, but I don't believe they constitute a personal attack because I genuinely believe there is misinterpretation of the report. After reading the comments above I continue to maintain that belief. RA 0808 talkcontribs 21:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian House_of_Commons_Special_Committee_on_Electoral_Reform discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and proper notice has been given. This case can be opened by a moderator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Do the parties want to engage in moderated discussion with a moderator who knows little of Canadian politics? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution: For convienence, reccomendations can be found here. I am using the primary source in this case because taking information as it was presented is far more reliable than taking information from how somebody else has interpreted it. The more interpretations, the more unreliable a source can get - this avoids a he-said-she-said situation. Also, explicit information is better than implicit - implicit information can be interpreted in many ways and should not be presented as fact. I can see from the source in Recommendation 12 that The Committee acknowledges that, of those who wanted change, the overwhelming majority of testimony was in favour of proportional representation. This is not a recommendation that PR should be used, merely it is a statement of fact. I also disagree with the assertion When the committee says they're recommending an electoral system with a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they're recommending a proportional system from that talk page. Instant-runoff voting or AV is a system that can be fairer, with a low Gallagher score. However, then the recommendation extends to:

''The Committee recommends that:
 * 1) The Government hold a referendum, in which the current system is on the ballot;
 * 2) That the referendum propose a proportional electoral system that achieves a Gallagher Index score of 5 or less''

This is an explicit proposal that a proportional system is used.

There was also some dispute around the recommendation 1. It says that ''The Committee recommends that the Government should, as it develops a new electoral system, use the Gallagher index in order to minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament. The government should seek to design a system that achieves a Gallagher score of 5 or less.'' This does not mention PR, or a non-PR system. It just recognises the current problem, with unfair elections, and recommends a system change. I can see no way of reading any recommendation of specific system. In any case, any implicit information is overshadowed by the explicit recommendation later on in (12).

Thirdly, there was dispute over the use of the term PR. From reading the first 3 sources given in the Proportional representation article, it is clear that there are many PR systems that could be implemented; PR just means that x% of the vote gets x% of the seats. Party lists are features of some PR systems, but not all PR systems, for example Single transferable vote.

To summarise, the report recommends that a referendum be for a PR system referendum, featuring a PR system that does not have only party lists. Nowhere in the report does it exclude a PR system, as Kirkoconnell suggested. If he feels there is implicit information, he is welcome to point it out below, but I would say that the explicit statement in (12) covers it. There are many such examples of this system that could be used. Therefore the statement included in the article On December 1, 2016, the committee released its report recommending that a form of proportional representation be adopted, and that a referendum be held on the issue. can be proved correct. The words, a form of are key here - these acknowledge that all systems may not be suitable. The summary of the report is basically, hold a referendum, on a PR system, that keeps Local MPs and avoids party lists. However, to avoid ambiguity in the text, some more information or footnotes could be added to clearly define terms. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input on this User:TheMagikCow. It's good to have a third party look over both sides to come up with a solution to disputes. From this, I take it that the text of article as it stands now is OK... but can be improved by further cited information? RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The explanations is very good, and goes into the right amount of depth I feel. However, to avoid any doubt or dispute in the future, you might like to add a just after the first instance if proportional representation, defining that this is a term to encompass many systems. Apart from that - It looks great! TheMagikCow (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added an efn to that effect (incidentally, thank you for bringing that template to my attention... I've been doing notes the old-fashioned way) which hopefully clarifies things. I suppose we wait for the other user to respond as well? RA 0808  talkcontribs 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks much better now! Yes, now wee wait for the other party to comment on the findings, and I will be more than happy to explain why I have concluded what I have. Both sides are very welcome to ask questions about what has been said. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess my issues come from the fact that I have read the whole report and I know how the Recommendations are done. If you read the actual chapters apart from the whole, like Chapter 4, which goes into great detail arguing against what would ultimately be the recommendation. This is due to the committee make-up being no major party having a majority, therefore majority votes from other parties influencing the recommended by-lines, even if they are refuted consistently within the report, and are contradicted directly by other recommendations. (Chapter four is a great example, Chapter 9 features a rather continuous attack on referendums in general). I am satisfied with some of the changes but I feel the political realities of the committee make-up (which rendered the Committee useless to begin with) and the fact that the report is being distilled down to the tacked-on recommendations as opposed to the content of the report itself, make whatever views expressed poor representations of what happened. I could get into all the contradictory points but I simply no longer care. I remember when Wikipedia editing was fun and about getting to the holistic truth. It appears to have turned into a vindictive place for biased people to ensure their views get out. I'm happy to stop caring again. Thanks for making it easy, RR0808. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on, let's be civil about this. I have read the chapters and know how a report works. It takes views from all sides of the political scale and reports what they have said. Chapter four acknowledges that some people do not like PR, and equally outlines the positives. The attacks you mention are attacks that members of the public have made on PR and referendums, and the report must cover this. That is what a report does, it presents an argument (both sides) and then makes recommendations. The fact that some people do not like PR, is equally as important as those that do. This preambulatory section is designed to outline all options. Then the report will give what the authors think, in the recommendations section. This is the section that outlines what the authors think should be done, taking into consideration all of the facts and views expressed. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it has more to do with how the committee was done generally that lead to this issue, if I am honest. I knew off the bat that this would be the outcome. I am rather uncertain how you have could read Chapter 4 in particular and took away that the case was even for both, but I accept your outcome. The results were achieved, the article better reflects what happened and the incredibly partisan lean has been softened. May be the process will be broken down in a later section at a later time, so overall I am not displeased. I just find it exhausting to explain myself on an edit page, get completely dismissed, try again, get insulted and dismissed, and have to go to DRN for a resolution. I tried to be civil, I purposefully stopped updating. This may be spill over from years of edit wars. But still I do see a lack of holistic understanding of the committee, why it failed and why these recommendations were produced. It was political, straight up, no chaser. At least this committee did eventually get to the nowhere it was destined to get to. I sign off on the changes if you need it, but this article is still very incomplete if you ask me. But it isn't being nominated for front page so I am not that concerned either. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns raised here, and still do feel that the report can be interpreted in many ways, the ambiguity does not help in cases like these. However, I believe that I have gone with the most obvious explicit information in the report - and my logic is explained above. If you feel that this has come to an end, I am happy to close the case now, but as always further comments between the parties are welcome. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I don't think there is anything further to be said. RA 0808  talkcontribs 17:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bertrand Russell#Nationality in categories
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Bertrand Russell was born in 1872 in Monmouthshire, which at that time was not universally regarded as being within Wales - the area's status was ambiguous (see Monmouthshire (historic)). The long-established consensus among article editors (see archived article talk page discussions) has been to describe Russell as British, rather than Welsh - there is no evidence at all that he ever self-identified as Welsh. This approach was generally adopted in the categories in which Russell was included - that is, British rather than Welsh, until these edits on 25 February by. In discussions with other editors, Apollo has simply claimed that "this is how it is done", and is now proactively seeking to reinstate their preferred wording despite objections. I have also raised the broader issue of how to categorise UK people in similar situations at WT:UK and at Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, without response so far. The latter page is widely used as advice on how best to describe UK people whose "nationality" is ambiguous or contested.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised at User talk:Apollo The Logician, Talk:Bertrand Russell, WT:UK, and Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

How do you think we can help?

By clarifying whether or not an established consensus between editors on how to describe a person's nationality in article text should also be taken to apply to the categories in which that person is placed.

Summary of dispute by Apollo The Logician
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Bastun
Russell wasn't Welsh in exactly the same way that James Connolly wasn't Scottish - i.e., Russell identified as "British" while James Connolly identified as "Irish". As pointed out when making the linked edit, how a person identified is what counts. ATL needs to get agreement to alter the consensus version, which s/he has failed to do. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bertrand Russell#Nationality in categories discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page and elsewhere, and the other editors have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I will be opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read and follow the rules in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. I have one initial question. Are there any issues to be resolved other than whether to categorize Bertrand Russell as British or as Welsh? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors
The wider issue arising, and raised at WT:UK, is whether the same approach should be adopted across British biography articles - that is, that if editors determine by consensus that an individual is best described as either British or English/Scottish/Welsh, the same description should be used in the categories. So, for example, if the consensus is that David Lloyd George is best described in text as British (because his primary notability is as a UK statesman), rather than either Welsh (his heritage) or English (his birthplace), he should be categorised as British rather than as either Welsh or English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Do other editors think that Russell should be listed in the same way (whether as British or as Welsh) in his BLP text as in the categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Milli Vanilli#Skandal.3F
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am one of the original singers for Milli Vanilli. My name is spelled wrong on this page and my information is missing on other parts of the page. This information is part of my biological and actual information. Not allowing this truthful information, my name and the name of my twin who sang all the backing vocals with me, to be displayed is misleading and incorrect. My claim is easily confirmed by googling my name. I have tried to edit the information three times today only to have it reverted by someone who is clearly not a Milli Vanilli fan. Please help me resolve this issue. Thank you Jodie Rocco

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have left signed messages on the discussion page. I don't know of any other way to contact this user.

How do you think we can help?

Allow my biographical and actual information to remain on the page. I know more than most anyone about Milli Vanilli as I was there.... Jodie Rocco

Summary of dispute by Ronomu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Milli Vanilli#Skandal.3F discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

(Reverted to revision 769438046 by Arjayay (talk):
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

i am editing Ho people with reliable govermment documents, but user;-Arjayay is reverting all my editings.Please help

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

please protect my editing

How do you think we can help?

by giving warning to user-Arjayay and protect my editing

Summary of dispute by User-Arjayay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

(Reverted to revision 769438046 by Arjayay (talk): discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:The Wrong_Man#Patricia_Morrow_or_Tuesday_Weld
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Tuesday Weld is wrongly attributed as being in a scene with Bonnie Franklin as one of the "giggly girls" in Alfred Hitchcock's "The Wrong Man". This is not Tuesday Weld; it is a young Patricia Morrow in an uncredited small role. It is an injustice to attribute one artist's performance to another. The ultimate primary source, the film itself, plainly shows that this is Patricia Morrow and not Tuesday Weld. Attempts to flag this as "disputed" are continually deleted. Let readers view the film and see for themselves; by allowing the "disputed -- see talk" tag, your readers will be alerted that there is a dispute and are encouraged to resolve the matter by simply viewing the scene. That's not Tuesday Weld with Bonnie Franklin; it's Patricia Morrow.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I want the tag "disputed" left on the improper crediting of this scene to Tuesday Weld. It is wrong to attribute one artist's performance to another artist. Anyone with eyes can go to the ultimate primary source --the film itself !-- and clearly see that Tuesday Weld is not in this scene with Bonnie Franklin. It is Patricia Morrow.

How do you think we can help?

Allow the "disputed" tag to be left intact on the sentence wrongly attributing this performance to Tuesday Weld. Tuesday Weld does not appear in the picture "The Wrong Man" directed by Alfred Hitchcock. She is being confused with a very young Patricia Morrow. It is wrong to attribute one artist's performance to another artist. With the "disputed" tag left on, your readers will be alerted that there's a dispute and will rush to see for themselves if that is Patricia Morrow or Tuesday Weld.

Summary of dispute by Quandolaluna ; Justeditingtoday
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:The Wrong_Man#Patricia_Morrow_or_Tuesday_Weld discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Tel Dan_Stele#Unrelated_sources
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Two citations have been added to support a sentence in the article "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel...". This sentence previously had an adequate citation, so the dispute relates to the two additional citations only. Although I have no objection to the citations per se, they do not support the specific sentence they have been placed against and therefore I have objected to their inclusion in their current form.

I have asked the same question of where these two sources make the claim they are being used to cite a total of twelve times over the past three months, but the editor who added the citations has not attempted to answer it. He believes the inclusion has consensus from two other editors on the talk page and is supported by a discussion at RSN. However, the other editor talk page comments and the RSN thread only established the answer to a straw man question as to whether the citations were reliable or appropriate for the wider article, which has never been in question. All of this muddle has distracted from the original objection, and we appear to have reached a communication breakdown.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only discussion at the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Mediation / the provision of an outside view will satisfy us.

Summary of dispute by Drsmoo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hi, there is no real "dispute" here, only disruptive editing by Oncenawhile. There is clear and unanimous consensus in favor of keeping the sources. After the sources were added, Oncenawhile immediately refused to accept them and began personally attacking me and cursing me out. (“If you answer with more general bullshit I will have no choice but to remove your sources.”) In response, I went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and directly asked "Is this a reliable source for the text?" (clearly specifying "the text" and "the phrase" contrary to Oncenawhile's incorrect assertion), to which I received an affirmative answer. After that, another editor, came in and excoriated Oncenawhile for making personal attacks and acting in a manner consistent with WP:OWN. Oncenawhile responded by personally attacking him and calling him "close minded". Two other editors, and  then came in and supported the inclusion of the sources, and Oncenawhile disregarded their opinions and laid out more personal attacks. He called Shrike "a fraud" and said he "should be ashamed" (note that Oncenawhile struck this comment over a month later). After finding out about the noticeboard opinion, he replied that it was "invalid" because he hadn't been notified of it, which obviously makes no sense. Additionally, a fifth editor, publicly thanked me for reverting Oncenawhile's removal of the sources. The Fleming source has been stable on the main Israel article (which gets no shortage of traffic) for three weeks and other editors have engaged positively with it. Despite the unanimous consensus, Oncenawhile has continued to unilaterally remove the sources (doing so in a manner consistent with disruptive editing, ie, going weeks between edits before arbitrarily popping up and removing reliable sources), and claiming that his points have not been addressed. (We have in fact, he's just disregarded the answers and insulted everyone). For some reason, he has tried to make this seem as if it were a two-person dispute, when in fact there is overwhelming and unanimous consensus. I am notifying the other involved editors, who, incorrectly, have not been notified of this discussion. Drsmoo (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy
I endorse what Drsmoo said 100%. Oncenawhile is a disruptive editor who tries repeatedly to sneak edits he knows he has no consensus for into articles. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him. He also tends to falsify sources. I am not at all surprised he did not notify all parties to the dispute. His behavior is exactly of the sort that should not be allowed on Wikipedia, but can continue because the admins have abandoned the topic area he likes to edit in. Please don't ping me again in relation to this DR since it's a complete waste of time and nothing productive will come of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tel Dan_Stele#Unrelated_sources discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Continue discussion on the article talk page before asking for assistance here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert, the reason we are here is because the other editor has stopped responding on the talk page. On 4 February he wrote "This is my final response" and has stopped engaging, but continues to add back his citations on the article itself (20 Feb and 24 Feb). I asked him in this talk thread to respond on 5 Feb and 19 Feb, but there has been only silence.
 * If you would be willing to help us here, all that is needed is to review the two citation quotes and provide a view as to whether they support the sentence being cited. Drsmoo says they do, I say they don't. So it's not a complex dispute and shouldn't be time consuming to resolve.
 * Yours hopefully, Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, a consensus across multiple pages supports the sources, only Oncenawhile opposes them. No one is responding to Oncenawhile per consensus being achieved and per the advice given by part of that consensus on the talk page. "'I agree with Drsmoo that these sources are not only appropriate, but required per NPOV. We can't quote only Lemche knowing he does not necessarily represent scholarly consensus. Count me as supporting the removal of 'only' as well. Experience tells me there is no point in arguing with Oncenawhile when he comes back and threatens to make edits he knows he has no consensus for, so I will not be participating in this discussion further unless another editors shows up to support Once's proposals. I may revert and report edits that go against an explicit consensus, though.' - No More Mr Nice Guy" Along with "'This is his regular MO. He will come back every few weeks threatening to make an edit he knows he has no consensus for. If by chance nobody pays attention and objects, he goes ahead and makes the edit, hoping again nobody will notice. Ping me if he does it here and I will provide you with several past examples for an AE report.' - No More Mr Nice Guy" In those two months, only a short-lived sockpuppet has supported Oncenawhile's edits, hence no response. I also have to say that it is extremely disturbing that Oncenawhile continues to ignore consensus and the contributions of the other editors in this discussion and present this as a dispute between two editors. Drsmoo (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If considered useful, I will provide evidence from the last few years of editing to illustrate the behaviour of Drsmoo and No More Mr Nice Guy, which will contextualize their above attempts to attack my reputation. Suffice to say, we have long term relationships across a perceived Israel-Palestine editing divide.
 * I would much rather focus on the content, and keep this dispute down to the very simple question at its core.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As was said earlier, there's no dispute here. There is overwhelming consensus across both the article's talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard that the source is reliable, while a disruptive editor tries to disregard that consensus. I will not be participating here. Drsmoo (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this was true, you would have answered the question and we wouldn't be here after three months of argument. Your ad hominem attacks and claims of consensus on straw man issues have not and will not result in progress. If you can point me to where the citations support the sentence, the discussion will be over. But since you continue to engage in question dodging, we are in desparate need of a neutral third party. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Tuesday Weld in The Wrong Man
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * User_talk:Justeditingtoday
 * User_talk:Justeditingtoday
 * User_talk:Justeditingtoday

Tuesday Weld is listed as appearing in the Alfred Hitchcock film "The Wrong Man". There are written sources that also say this. But it is wrong. Patricia Morrow is being mistaken for Tuesday Weld. It is a fundamental injustice to attribute an artist's work to someone else. Merely viewing the film itself, the primary source, clearly shows it is Patricia Morrow and not a single frame has Tuesday Weld in it. Someone decades ago in a book misattributed Ms. Morrow's performance to Tuesday Weld and it keeps being repeated. I am not conversant in how Wikipedia works but this is an injustice. I hope we could have third party outsourcing of this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to put "disputed" next to the improper credit but it keeps getting deleted. I would like "disputed" placed back so that third parties can research for themselves. If I could just get the public to look into this matter it will prove I'm right and the written sources are wrong. Just view the film and it's plain and clear.

How do you think we can help?

Get third parties involved. At least let me place "disputed" near the improper credit so that people will be alerted to the error and can see for themselves. Show me one frame of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Wrong Man" that has Tuesday Weld in it and I will stand corrected. But it is Patricia Morrow, not Tuesday Weld, who is in the film. Misattribution of an artist's work is a grave injustice.

Summary of dispute by Quandolaluna
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Written sources have misattributed the performance in a very small, uncredited part of Patricia Morrow to Tuesday Weld. Viewing the film itself, it is clear that Tuesday Weld is not in the film "The Wrong Man." People should be alerted. If we could just place the tag "disputed" then people will be encouraged to decide for themselves. It is unjust to have an artist's work attributed to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quandolaluna (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Justeditingtoday
I have explained this numerous times to Quandolaluna: claiming "watch the movie yourself" is original research. Valid and reliable sources state that Tuesday Weld was in The Wrong Man. First, Quandolaluna simply deleted references because they disagree with them and now they think claiming watching the movie is a valid way to refute references. They can provide absolutely no references to corroborate their assertion that Weld was not in The Wrong Man so this dispute simply boils down to WP:RS on one side and an editors stubborn personal opinion on the other. Justeditingtoday (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Tuesday Weld in The Wrong Man discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - While there has been some discussion on the article talk page, it has not been enough to warrant opening a thread here. Continue discussion at the article talk page.  Be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Reddotparty#Response_to_Mostestargue
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The following user Mostestargue accused me of being a sockpuppet, vandalism. I am accusing the user of removing publicly reported content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reddotparty#Response_to_Mostestargue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivian_Balakrishnan&action=history

(cur | prev) 02:34, 17 March 2017‎ Mostestargue (talk | contribs)‎. . (24,270 bytes) (-1,474)‎. . (Undid revision 770701725 by Reddotparty (talk) due to failure to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:VD) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:02, 16 March 2017‎ Mostestargue (talk | contribs)‎. . (24,270 bytes) (-1,474)‎. . (Removed politically motivated entries by reddotparty who is clearly a sockpuppet created a few days ago to vandalise.) (undo | thank)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Please refer to both user's Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Review the accusation

WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:VD based on my article the user deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivian_Balakrishnan&diff=770708827&oldid=770701725

Summary of dispute by Mostestargue
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Reddotparty#Response_to_Mostestargue discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Silicon photonics#Fiber Optics & Silicon photonics
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

My point is Fiber optics is part of Silicon photonics. User Srleffler says that Fiber optics is not part of Silicon photonics.

All sources point to Fiber optics being an integral part of Silicon photonics. (Silicon photonics uses Optical Fiber to interconnect between CPU & memory, storage, screen/monitor, speaker, microphone, etc.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page

How do you think we can help?

determine who is right

Summary of dispute by Srleffler
Ne0 doesn't seem to be clear on the distinction between silicon and silicon dioxide, and thinks therefore that technology based on silicon dioxide (glass; quartz) therefore counts as "silicon photonics". Besides the fact that these are distinct materials, that's just not how the term is used.

Above, he writes "Silicon photonics uses Optical Fiber to interconnect between CPU & memory, storage, screen/monitor, speaker, microphone, etc." He may have been misled here by a misreading of a poorly written source, which he cited on the talk page. The system described is not "silicon photonics". Rather, it's an interconnect system that uses silicon photonics as well as optical fiber to connect different elements. The "silicon photonics" in the system are the laser sources and detectors used, not the system as a whole and certainly not the optical fiber.

Ultimately, categorization of articles must be verifiable. A prerequisite for categorizing fiber optics in "silicon photonics" would be provision of a reference to a reliable source that explicitly says that fiber optics is "silicon photonics". A source that merely describes a system that uses both is not going to be sufficient.--Srleffler (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Silicon photonics discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The purpose of this noticeboard is not for a moderator to "determine who is right", but for the parties to discuss.  I suggest that a third opinion provide a non-binding outside view to see who the third party agrees with.  If the parties want to discuss, that is what this noticeboard is for.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

NHS Digital
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Hi, I'd like to make some further changes to this page to improve its factual correctness. In particular adding links to existing Wikipedia pages on areas of work by this organization that I work for. I previously suggested the changes and then made them when no one else did and was thanked by BurritoBazooka. But I think as a consequence I was banned by DinosaursLoveExistence for several months. CAn you please tell me how I can go about legitimately making further amends without this happening again please. I can find no way of contacting these editors directly.

Thanks

Sally

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've posted on the talk page for the article and on my talk page

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps if an existing editor was made aware that changes are being proposed to this page and they could work with me to make sure they're accurate and unbiased

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

Talk:Tel Dan_Stele#Attempt_to_resolve
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Two citations have been added to support a sentence in the article "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel...". This sentence previously had an adequate citation, so the dispute relates to the two additional citations only. Although I have no objection to the citations per se, they do not support the specific sentence they have been placed against and therefore I have objected to their inclusion in their current form.

I have asked the same question of where these two sources make the claim they are being used to cite more than twelve times over the past three months, but the editor who added the citations has not attempted to answer it. He believes the inclusion has consensus from two other editors on the talk page and is supported by a discussion at RSN. However, the other editor talk page comments and the RSN thread only established the answer to a straw man question as to whether the citations were reliable or appropriate for the wider article, which has never been in question. All of this muddle has distracted from the original objection, and we appear to have reached a communication breakdown.

I opened a DRN (linked below) a week ago, which descended into more ad hominem attacks and claims of consensus on straw man issues, without any attempt to resolve the actual content concern. The DRN was closed, with the intention that we would keep talking. Unfortunately, the other editor has refused to have any further conversation on the topic (see article talk page thread and his talk page also linked below)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?


 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_148
 * Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele
 * User_talk:Drsmoo

How do you think we can help?

Provide an independent view on a single question that the other editor is refusing to address

Summary of dispute by Drsmoo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Tel Dan_Stele#Attempt_to_resolve discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. If an editor thinks that another editor is not discussing collaboratively, see WP:DISCFAIL.  This noticeboard is not a useful option if an editor thinks that another editor is failing to discuss the subject, because this noticeboard is voluntary.  If discussion fails, consider a Request for Comments, or, if there really are conduct issues, first, read the boomerang essay and then consider WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert, I must say I feel hard done by here. A week ago I filed a DRN and your closing comment was "the editors are discussing, so it's not for this noticeboard". Now your comment is "the editors are not discussing, so it's not for this noticeboard". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Drsmoo note - Just a comment that it is now over 24 hours after this report was filed and Oncenawhile, in violation of wikipedia rules, has still not notified me or the other involved editors. I will not be participating in this DRN as the issue has already been resolved and a consensus has been established. I suggested to Oncenawhile that he reach out to the other involved editors, but he has refused to do so. This is forum shopping by an editor who for months now has refused to accept consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over how to present Singapore's independence in the infobox. This includes whether to note that independence was from a country, and which events to include.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talkpage discussion, this is the next DR step taken.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a fresh look at how the arguments interact, if the participants are talking past each other, and fresh opinions and ideas.

The last comment was as follows:


 * For a start "Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963" is incorrect. This was an unilateral declaration which was not recognized by the British nor by the Malayan leadership. This should never be there in the infobox. The independence from British happened together with the merger with Malaysia. It was a combined event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * British High Commissioner, Singapore - Antony Phillipson:
 * "On 9th August 2015 Singapore will celebrate 50 years as an independent nation [..] But a key moment in the journey to the events of 1965 came on 31st August 1963, 50 years ago today, when Singapore declared its independence from the United Kingdom." (published 31 August 2013)
 * "Last September I wrote an article for Lianhe Zaobao on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of a key moment in Singapore’s path to independence, its separation from the UK in 1963.
 * I wrote then that "50 years on from Singapore’s declaration of independence from the UK the relationship between us is both strong and deep. The ties that bind us now are those of friendship, partnership and respect; and they provide a platform on which we can work together for mutual benefit, for the good of all our people, in the years to come."
 * Shiok (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The original DRN discussions was prematurely archived at Archive 148 but I have copied my last post here (and edited for relevance). :
 * How our independence came about and from which countries (2) is already listed as key events, so 'sovereignty_note' is not needed.
 * Next, I checked the article's history for the past decade and found the following version of the infobox sovereignty section to be stable for several years since 2009.
 * Formation
 * Founding: 6 February 1819
 * Self-government: 3 June 1959
 * Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963
 * Merger with Malaysia: 16 September 1963
 * Separation from Malaysia: 9 August 1965
 * The last event was described as "Separation from Malaysia" all those years - this is correct because it was a negotiated "Separation Agreement" which the Malaysian parliament voted to pass. So we need to revert to that, with appropriate refs. Shiok (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC).


 * I note the non-response to my last post above as tacit agreement and move to the next change that is needed - the wording of "Merger with Malaysia" should be "Formation/Establishment of Malaysia" because it did not exist before the merger. So the final Sovereignty section should be the following:
 * Independent
 * British colonisation: 6 February 1819
 * Self-government: 3 June 1959
 * Independence from the UK (by Declaration): 31 August 1963
 * Formation of Malaysia: 16 September 1963
 * Separation from Malaysia: 9 August 1965
 * Requesting filing editor CMD to comment on changes for resolution. Shiok (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A notice of this DRN has been placed at Singapore Talk page for final comments on the proposed changes. Shiok (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * you went ahead and implemented your proposed resolution, Shiok, but I don't see consensus here or at the Talk page for this formulation. DNR moderators, not sure what the proper format is, in this re-opened thread.  My apologies if this is out of line. DRN moderators, please remove this if it is not appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I did so because after another week here by myself, it was clear that no further response is forthcoming. I anticipate that DRN bot will auto-archive in 24 hours without proper closure (after the first 2 weeks). So with still a few hours left at DRN, I thought posting the edits to the article will allow editors like yourself – who have decided not to be involved earlier for whatever reasons – to come in immediately if you object. Jytdog, besides the process do you have any comments on the content itself? Else I may request early closure here so we do not need to check back daily. The extension was my idea anyway. Shiok (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I've redone the header on this listing because it appears to have been breaking our listing bot. Part of that was to remove the volunteer comment that was part of the header, so I'm reposting it below. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note: this case was recently archived by Lowercase sigmabot III before its conclusion. I am now attempting to continue the discussion, as there are at least two and possibly three editors who appear interested in doing this. It was not marked as either "Resolved" or "General close" by me or any other volunteer. I am uncertain as to the correct way to do this, but am taking a shot at the process. KDS4444 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan, KDS4444: Hi thanks for helping restore the Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty" discussion. It has been a good experience though frustrating at times. Since my last posts and citations 6–12 days back, the only two opposing editors has been silent. And for the fourth day, the notice I placed at Singapore talk page to alert all editors to comment on the proposed edits at DRN also drew no interest/objections, so likely tacit agreement. Would either of you be able to close this as resolved, instead of letting it expire? - these are essential infobox data for countries. In any case, if there are new objections or evidence later, a new case can be raised here again. Shiok (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * fwiw, in my view the now-archived initial DRN thread quickly devolved into the same argument at the article talk page. It might be useful to start over with more... rigorous moderation?  With regard to this re-opened thread, I am not sure where to post or what the specific question I should address is.... Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes mediated discussion can be useful to keep discussions on track or like determining if a party has conceded when they stop discussing - and to be realistic we should not expect many to say 'I concede' or 'you are right'. So in our case (without mediation) I believe the volunteers may have some hesitation to declare a resolution. Jytdog, I note that at Talk:Singapore, initially you also tried to mediate by asking focused questions but stopped doing so when the conversation strayed from there. If you had continued, it might have turned out differently.


 * The DRN is rather straightforward now and I'm surprised it dragged on so long. Previously the filing editor agreed at talk page that there is no dispute Sovereignty_type should be 'Independent/Independence'. So this DRN is merely about the Sovereignty_note which he wanted to add and has stopped objecting two weeks ago. And regardless of the DRN outcome, the Sovereignty section can be restored with just the sovereignty_type.


 * Next, the proposed changes to the following events are actually not part of this dispute (unless editors want it to be so), but I raised it here for convenience :
 * Formation of Malaysia
 * Separation from Malaysia (or a longer "Independence from Malaysia (Separation Agreement) "
 * If anyone object to these changes, they can bring it up at Talk:Singapore. If you prefer adding them to mediation here, we can continue with it. Shiok (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * i am looking for input from DRN volunteers to mediate the discussion. Please stop repeating your position Shiok; this is either an actual, mediated DRN thread, or it isn't, and if it isn't a) it should be closed by volunteers here and we will need to move to another means of resolving the dispute' or b) this is a valid DRN thread and we need to wait for a volunteer to start mediating. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Outside party's note: I'd just decided to come back to Wikipedia for a while, and this was at the top of the noticeboard, so this was where I wound up! I'm hesitant to offer myself as a mediator, though, because this seems like an incredibly straightforward case and I'm baffled by the dispute. I am from the United States, and know little of Singapore's history, but my understanding (from our articles on Singapore and from the dispute threads) is that the Malaysia Act 1963 ended British sovereignty over all of those possessions which would go on to form Malaysia, on the explicit premise that they would go on to form Malaysia. This took effect on 31 July, but Malaysia wasn't officially formed for another month and a half. If that's correct, we're talking about a six week period during which arrangements were made to solidify the new nation. It seems misleading to imply that Singapore was a fully sovereign, autonomous nation for six weeks in 1963, unless Singapore acted as a sovereign nation in such a meaningful way as warrants discussion. In my view, it'd be like saying, "I lived in Kansas from 2005 - Jan 12, 2016. From Jan 12 - 13, 2016, I was driving to Chicago. I have lived in Chicago since Jan 13, 2016." It's just superfluous, no? I might be able to offer a more mediated response (so to speak) if someone could explain to me what's so important about those six weeks. Moralis (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi I hope you will stay to moderate the discussion as you have an interest in our history. Those 6 weeks you mentioned are replete with details, especially with regards to Lee Kuan Yew's 'brinkmanship' in declaring Singapore's independence. I can expand on it at Talk:Singapore if you like, as it does not affect the current DRN (reasons given earlier). This dispute is just about the Sovereignty_note in the infobox (which I oppose). May I ask if the U.S. articles about Singapore you referred to available online? Shiok (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Precisely. There is absolutely no source which says that on 31 August 1963, Singapore became a sovereign nation. Sure, there was a declaration done, but it wasn't recognised by anyone - the US, British or Malaya. And it would be misleading to imply this in the infobox. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Before I answer your comment, can you explain how this topic would affect the main dispute - that is, whether a "sovereignty_note" parameter ("from Malaysia") should be used in the infobox? Shiok (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there are no volunteers at this board moderating, I suggest that we abandon this effort and turn to other methods to resolve this content dispute. I think an RfC is a good next step. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no response, so let me comment on your proposed RFC. Previously you stated with strong conviction that — '.. the current sovereignty_type of the country… in the case of Singapore, it is simply "independent". It will take an RfC to use (sovereignty_note) "independence from" here and the likelihood of that succeeding is about zero. So please just drop that.' - so I do not see how another 30-60 days of RFC will help. If you have a change of opinion which you intend to post in your proposed RFC, then just put it here, the mediators may yet weigh in. They may be hesitant because everyone is commenting on different things previously. If you are objective and keen to get this over with, you should also be asking other editors not to stray from the main dispute - it is too difficult to resolve more than one topic at a time. Shiok (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC]
 * the other matter is that your revert of my recent restoration of the Infobox Sovereignty section is unfounded. It correctly shows the sovereignty_type as "Independent" which the filing editor CMD and others do not dispute — 'That Singapore became independent of the UK in 1963 was not the matter under dispute' and "Independent" depicts our nation's current status. 'And not a single person has suggested otherwise'. Thus it is not part of the current dispute and can be restored even without closure of this DRN. Shiok (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've asked generally, and now will ask specifically. User:TransporterMan and User:Robert McClenon, will you please either start moderating, or close this thread?  The dispute is heating up again and we need to move to other forms of DR if nothing is going to happen here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at DRN (though, admittedly, it's been quite some time). My style is somewhat different than others, but I found it's worked well in the past. Having a look at this dispute, I feel it's best if I mediate this on the article talk page going forward. Can you all let me know if you're happy to move the discussion there, and I will start the mediation process there. Cheers. Steven   Crossin  22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Steven Crossin see note below from Robert. he is on this already. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I see the note from Robert below - it is my assessment though that structured mediation, where a mediator (myself) works with the parties and provides guidance and input, rather than just a moderated discussion which provides structure, would be more effective here, having experience with similar disputes in the past. I also feel that the style this needs is more suitable to be done on the talk page, rather than at DRN, hence my suggestion. Steven   Crossin  23:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi this is alright with me as Robert has done his best but no one is responding. Shall I copy my last statement below to Talk:Singapore or will you be starting a new section there? Shiok (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by new moderator
I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read and adhere to the rules in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be in the infobox? If there are any other issues, please also state them in one paragraph. If you have any questions about what the rules are, ask on this noticeboard's talk page, or here, or on my talk page. (Don't reply to other editors. Address your comments to the moderator and the community.  Be civil and concise.  Comment on content, not contributors.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by Shok

 * Proposed:
 * Independent
 * British colonisation: 6 February 1819
 * Self-government: 3 June 1959
 * Independence from the UK: 31 August 1963
 * Formation of Malaysia: 16 September 1963
 * Independence from Malaysia (Separation Agreement): 9 August 1965
 * [alternatives: "Independence of Singapore Agreement", "Separation from Malaysia" ]


 * Briefly, the first parameter of the infobox Sovereignty section, Sovereignty_type, is "Independent" – which no one objects to. The two countries Singapore gained its independence from (UK, Malaysia) are already listed as key events, so Sovereignty_note is redundant. Our colonial history with Britain (140 years) is also much longer than 2 years in Malaysia. The last event "Expulsion from Malaysia" has to be reverted back to "Independence/Separation from Malaysia" – it was a negotiated "Separation Agreement" which the Malaysian parliament voted to pass in order to allow Singapore to leave Malaysia. Shiok (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by outgoing moderator
I will let User:Steven Crossin facilitate this discussion on the article talk page. This case will remain open here briefly, and then I will probably close it as being resolved through outside discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, I'm one of the editors alerted by Steven Crossin about mediation on the article talk page but nothing has started there yet. In the meantime, if you are able to continue here I shall put up my first statement. Ihave been busy on assignment but seeing the DRN has expanded to other events in the infobox I would like to be involved. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Pekin_Duck#Previous_and_current_revisions
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We are disputing over which version of the article should be kept.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Help find a version of the article or a combination of the versions that we can agree on.

Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers
The page has been on my watchlist since we started WikiProject Poultry. This disagreement is fully documented on the talk-page, which I fear anyone trying to resolve it will have to read through, starting at Wow, where three editors had complained at the state of the page. One was, who also complained at Incorrect / Unsourced Information. I responded to those requests and rewrote the page with nine or ten new sources, just as I have done for many other poultry and other animal breed articles over the years. My changes were reverted by the OP, who is a fairly new editor who may have an incomplete understanding of what sources we call reliable, what content is suitable for inclusion in an article, and also incidentally of our handling of article titles. I've left him/her an invitation to the Teahouse.

My proposal is: (a) revert to, (b) incorporate any subsequent helpful edits, and then (c) rewrite where necessary to make this specifically about the American Pekin breed, for which I would use a couple of useful (and reliable!) sources I found while writing German Pekin. I understand that the other two editors cited as parties to the disagreement support that proposal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by George Ho
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I did some edits with the article, but I just didn't realize the article was undergoing changes until the revert to the other version. The current version has some quality issues. I don't want this filing as an attempt to push for the current (poorly written) version or as an attempt to favor the previous version. I hope things work out for all of us. Currently, the title is discussed via RM, so we must put the titling aside and focus on the main content instead. --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You know what? I'll favor Justlettersandnumbers's version. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PigeonIP
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sorry, I am not familiar with this precedure. Can't add anything new to the arguments of Justlettersandnumbers. When it comes to editing an article about poultry/duck-articles I do trust authors who are familiar with the topic. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Pekin_Duck#Previous_and_current_revisions discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - See duck test (for sockpuppetry. However, in this case an American Pekin walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck because an American Pekin really is a mallard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read and adhere to the rules in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. If there are any questions, please ask now. Now: Will each editor please state, in no more than three sentences, what each of them thinks is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors
The article should have a better quality with a lot of reliable sources. Also, the article should not be edited for expertise and original research on the topic. Pinging EditSafe, PigeonIP, and Justlettersandnumbers about this round. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference of opinion hinges on three things: quality of sourcing; scope of the article; and length. I'm not happy with the low-grade sources and off-topic generic content introduced by EditSafe, EditSafe is not happy with the brevity of the version I propose. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Stating that the article should have a better quality with more reliable sources is not an issue unless there is disagreement as to how to improve the quality. Will each editor please state how they think the quality should be improved? (It may be that there isn't any disagreement.) Comment on content, not on contributors. Do not respond to the comments of other editors; address your comments to the moderator and the community. How should the article be improved? (You may state that particular sources are low-grade or that particular content is off-topic, but, if so, name the sources or the off-topic content without attribution to editors.) Robert McClenon (talk)

Second statements by editors
The article's current version should be reverted back to one of the previous versions. If that happens, the article can be expanded some other time freely with better sources than metzerfarms.com, beautyofbirds.com and duckhealth.com. Even when info is true, the current version's Characteristics and Use sections suffer from verifiability issues. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second statement by George Ho

Highly reputable sources, like Justlettersandnumbers said, are recommended. Accuracy is appreciated, but "original research" and poor sourcing are discouraged. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't know much about ducks, but I know their quack sounds and had some duck meal ;). --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Second statement by Justlettersandnumbers
 * Unreliable sources which should be removed include metzerfarms.com, beautyofbirds.com and duckhealth.com; the ahdc.vet.cornell.edu may perhaps be reliable, but is purely generic and has no specific relevance to this breed.
 * Generic content which has no particular relevance to this specific breed of duck includes (but is not limited to): the whole of the sub-sections on Hatching, Hatchlings and Ducklings, Sexing; the last four paragraphs of the sub-section Adults; and the image of duck eggs – there's no reason to suppose that those are American Pekin eggs. Some of the generic content might be an appropriate addition to Domestic duck.
 * All unreferenced content should be removed, whether or not tagged with "citation needed" – it's been challenged, but no reference has been provided.
 * The article contains incorrect statements. Example: "The Pekin duck was domesticated from the mallard in China": no, the American Pekin was bred in the United States from ducks imported from China; all domestic ducks (except the Muscovy) descend from the Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos, but individual breeds do not arise from separate domestication events.
 * The article was until recently about Pekin ducks in general, without distinction between the European and American breeds. That's partly my fault, and I apologise for it – I even incorrectly moved the page to a generic title, Pekin (duck). It now needs to be expanded with specific detail of the American breed, and its similarities to, and distinction from, the German one (which now has its own article). Useful sources for this might include
 * Chris Ashton, Mike Ashton (2001). The Domestic Duck. Ramsbury, Marlborough: The Crowood Press. ISBN 9781847979704.
 * Kenneth Broekman (December 2009). The German Pekin Duck. Aviculture Europe. 5 (6), article 12.

The initial short paragraph of German Pekin Duck could probably be copied verbatim as a starting-point. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that the content in the article needs to be rewritten. Some of it can be removed if necessary. Reliable sources need to be found and added. I do not think that it should be rewritten from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second statement by EditSafe

Third statement by moderator
There seems to be agreement that the article needs to be improved, with better sources, and that information that is about domestic ducks in general can be moved into the article on domestic ducks. I don't see any actual disagreement. If there is no actual disagreement, this case can be closed, and the editors can discuss improvements on the article talk page. Is there any actual disagreement? Will someone please explain why this case needs to be in dispute resolution? Can the article simply be improved by collaboration? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
the dispute is about
 * what are reliable sources
 * what is relevant in a breeds article (not general information about breeding or hetching)
 * some lack of understanding what a breed is (in general) and the difference between fancy fowl and commercial/fattened poultry
 * unwillingness of one participant in the dispute who is even not able to distinguish two duck breeds, that are part of two very different breed groups (one with an upright bodyposture like the Indian Runners and one a typical landrace-duck-breed with horizontal body posture)

This article American Pekin has to be rewritten new from scratch because former authors did not distinguish between these two breeds eather. Cause neather the PCGB recognizes the American Pekin nor the APA the German Pekin. Within the PCGB the "Pekin" is the German Pekin while the "Pekin" within the APA is the American Pekin. They did not know better, both just wrote about a "Pekin".

Justlettersandnumbers does now. JLnN knows the sources and should be able to rewrite this article based on these very good sources. Befor throwing it over EditSafe (me too) shall suggest and explain modifications befor any alterations in the article itself. His reluctance to contribut constuctively in any discussion on the talkpage let to an one-way communication and nearly to an edit war. EditSafe may have valid reasons, but at the moment no one (not me, nor JLnN to my knowledge) is able to unterstand them because of the lack of explanation (other than "cause I want it that way"). --PigeonIP (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
It appears that some editors think that the article needs to be improved, and that one editor says that it needs to be rewritten, but there do not appear to be any substantive disagreements for which compromise at this noticeboard is appropriate. Are there any specific issues, or is there agreement that the article needs to be improved? If there is agreement that the article needs to be improved, then discussion about it can be continued on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors
Thinking about it, I still think Justlettersandnumbers's version is better than the current version. However, if neither version pleases anybody, maybe we can find experts on the American Pekin. Maybe one of us can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds and ask for help. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poultry is less populated and less visited; I wouldn't recommend it. If we go back to the talk page, then RfC is more likely... unless RfC is unnecessary. However, without RfC, further discussion would be futile as long as EditSafe would attempt to revert the changes made. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
If the issue is whether to revert to a previous version, then a Request for Comments is in order. It doesn't appear that mediation is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Free World# Recent additions and reverts
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Several editors have linked to op/eds calling Angela Merkle 'leader of the free world'. Several others object to use of op/eds as sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion seemed to have helped, but the page quickly became unstable again. I also note edits by several IP users.

How do you think we can help?

The topic is inherently political and subject to POV disagreement. Disinterested editors (to the extent they exist) may be able to find wording that all sides can accept. If that can happen, temporary protection might be warranted.

Summary of dispute by Fireflyfanboy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tataral
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Denarivs
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Frevangelion
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Bsweeney1212
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Darkestshining
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rmulligan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Free World# Recent additions and reverts discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black_Metaphor_(2nd_nomination)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The admin [Sarahj2107] chooses to ignore the criterion for music notability as per [WP:MUSIC]. Also her last message to me stated, @Peacemvmt1: We have discussed this at length previously [3] and there was a DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016 November 12) which closed as endorse. I don't have time to look into this and check your claims that he now meets 7 points in WP:NMUSIC, however I have my doubt about that and at a quick glance I don't see that anything has changed in the last 3 to 4 months, so I won't be restoring it. You are free to take it back to WP:DRV. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I have been told that ONE interview is not an independent source. Since then, I have presented other independent and verifiable sources that promote notability of the subject Black Metaphor according to WP:MUSIC. I also have new source links from within the last 4 months. I feel that admin Sarahj2107 is not acting in good faith and not welcoming to me as a newcomer editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I presented new information to Sarahj2107 about why the sources for the Black Metaphor article are independent, verifiable and how the sources promote notability. Also, I've had a deletion review discussion as well.

How do you think we can help?

Please validate if or if not the Black Metaphor article sources are independent, verifiable and notable according to WP:MUSIC. If so, please undelete or allow recreation of the article. I'm willing to compromise and make improvements. Lastly, I would like this noticeboard to confirm that admin Sarahj2107 is acting in good faith as far as helping to improve the Black Metaphor article versus just deleting a new article for errors.

Summary of dispute by Peacemvmt1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Sarahj2107
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black_Metaphor_(2nd_nomination) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Briarcliff Manor‎
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute over which file to use for the pronunciation of "Briarcliff Manor", on the eponymous article.

ThatGirlTayler's File:En-us-Briarcliff.ogg is preferred by her. Her reasoning: personal preference, that I did not upload a recording until she did, and she says the pronunciation was on the request page for months until she fulfilled it. She said she can barely hear my file (a problem local to her setup) and the pronunciation was for the word Briarcliff only (not relevant; I can cut mine shorter if really desired).

My File:Briarcliff Manor pronunciation.ogg is preferred by me, not only out of personal preference, but as a village resident, it's the more common pronunciation (Briarcliff is usually said as one syllable, her pronunciation has two), and it was spoken by a notable resident of the village. As well, I feel the tone given in this pronunciation is more serious and therefore more in line with this formal encyclopedia, especially for a Featured Article. In my opinion, most of these are more objective reasons to prefer my uploaded file.

It appears she just reverted herself with little explanation. Regardless, I would like outside input as to which file is preferable. I'm not sure at all if this conflict is over, and it could easily resume or reappear.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There were a few reverts back and forth; I tried responding on her talk page, and she seems adamant about keeping her file on the article.

How do you think we can help?

Can you support one file over another here? I don't believe either of us will concede to the other without outside input, based on our conversations.

Summary of dispute by ThatGirlTayler
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I would really like it if both pronounciations were listed in the same article, my pronounciation matches standardized American English compared to the pronounciation posted by MJ which is English with a New York accent. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:ThatGirlTayler‎ discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Why not list both? One specifically as local pronunciation, the other as standardized english?  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only is there no evidence to support her pronunciation as "standardized english", there's nothing to support her pronunciation as correct, i.e. used by people other than her. From my experiences living there and researching Briarcliff Manor and its history, that pronunciation has no precedent, and the historians at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society could back that up as well. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This may be a silly question, but how is it even possible to pronounce "Briarcliff" as one syllable? Also, while I do personally find your version preferable, it is very difficult to hear. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a linguist, so it's hard for me to answer, but the syllables are slurred together, not said like "Briar Cliff". It's an evident difference between the two recordings. Although my version has a bit of noise, it is quite coherent if you have your speakers at a good volume. I don't think that should be an issue. I could try cleaning it up further, but this shouldn't even be necessary. The other recording sounds much less appropriate for this setting. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would really like it if both pronounciations were listed in the same article, my pronounciation matches standardized American English compared to the pronounciation posted by MJ which is English with a New York accent. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * These pronunciation tools are meant to show pronunciation, regardless of accent. Your pronunciation is incorrect, and with no evidence of use by other peoples. The quality of your sound recording is also poor for a formal encyclopedia, especially for well-developed articles ranked to represent the highest quality of content Wikipedia offers. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the correct pronunciation in standardized English, if anything your pronounciation is wrong because it doesn't match standardized English and the audio quality is fine, just because your article is featured doesn't mean you get to bully people who contribute to it. I feel attacked, just because my normal voice sounds informal doesn't mean it's not acceptable. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, just a side note No one told me this discussion was taking place and if I didn't look at MJ's contributions, I wouldn't have known about it. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Attacked"? When have I been anything but civil about this? It's simply true that FAs represent the top quality of content on Wikipedia, and should be maintained to such a standard. As for "It is the correct pronunciation in standardized English" and "it doesn't match standardized English" - please cite your sources, or don't make such claims; they're wrong. And I never said your voice was unacceptable for being "informal" in your words. Audio files are like images: when a more preferable, formal, and encyclopedic copy is found, that should be displayed over a less formal or less encyclopedic copy. As for you finding your individual pronunciation better - where did you read or hear how to pronounce it correctly? Did you learn from a book, or some authority on the subject familiar with the area? Or is it your own idea of how you think it should be pronounced? That's not what we put in articles - in fact we typically use the predominant local pronunciation, for example Worcester, Massachusetts may be pronounced as Worchester, and Houston Street may likewise be pronounced as Hyoo-stun by people outside of those areas. Yet we use the pronunciation people there use - "Wuuss-ter" and "How-sten". So Briarcliff may be incorrectly pronounced a variety of ways, some are "breer-cliff", "briar-cliff", or "brircliff", by people who don't really know. That's why I included the pronunciation guide in the first place. It is always pronounced as one syllable, and with an"eye" sound: "Briarcliff" or "ˈbraɪərklɪf/". ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As for your side note, I told you I would be taking it higher, and this system notifies you when I link your username. I thought that would be sufficient. Regardless, you're here now. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I never got a link and it says at the top of the page, adding usernames doesn't notify them. Regardless, I simply disagree with everything being said and I will not respond again until we get a volunteer assigned. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.howtosay.co.in/pronounce/briarcliff-manor-in-english/ this sounds like two syllables to me. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's well more slurred together than your audio file, which is incorrect. However the intonation even here is wrong; this automated pronunciation website doesn't seem very good. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also to be honest, I don't think an audio file is absolutely necessary. There's a pronunciation guide there already for those who care, but if ThatGirlTayler wants a compromise I might prefer to have no audio file at all. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good compromise to me ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. I hope our further interactions prove less harsh for both of us. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too, have a nice night! :) ThatGirlTayler (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - I have changed the title of this case filing to indicate the actual article. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, at Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York.  I am not closing this filing at this time because the dialogue here, although premature for this noticeboard, appears to be productive.  Continue the discussion either here or at the article talk page.  There does not appear to be any need for mediation.  This case will be closed, but not while there is productive discussion here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not premature - the conversation instead happened at User talk:ThatGirlTayler as I said. The article talk page wasn't the place because the user would less likely see it, and no other users comment at/follow Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York anyway. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)