Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 75

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government
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

In recent weeks, I've been working on it, as has TJRC. We've made some improvements, and conflicted a lot. Then again, I've given him a barnstar in the past. I've noticed that TJRC has been reluctant to discuss matters, and accusations of incivility have been made both ways. I just noticed the TJRC has been deleting several of my questions from the talk page, and ignoring others. It's hard to have a civil discussion if my questions are being flat out deleted. That sort of manipulation feels rather like hits below the belt, so to speak. Maybe there's some sort of underlying motivation that I'm not able to detect but someone else can. TJRC claims to be an attorney, but has made a number of confident assertions that turned out to be wrong, e.g. that PD-FLGov should just be turned into a fair-use template. I sometimes feel like the right of citizens to free use of the works of government in Florida and California is being buried, as so many efforts have been made to deny, diminish, delete or move the relevant information documenting that they are, by and large, in the Public Domain. I'd given up on efforts to include the content in the article, settling for just a tag indicating that there was an intractable issue, as to the accuracy of the information in the article, but TJRC has been repeatedly deleting even that.

How do you think we can help?

Can an uninvolved editor help us reach consensus or compromise and focus on the content issues and improving the encyclopedia?

Dennis Donaghy
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

Pinkbeast COI-tagged the page on me by me and Revent and the entire wikipedia community 99/9% of which don't care to challenge, since there really is no fair challenge just bully-harrass tactics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Donaghy). What the merits of the tag I don't get. I fixed something and took the chance to reduce unnec. stuff, then went around to random pages and helped on those (please see my Phaedrx contribbutions history if you wish). I have gotten pages up by myself with no problem on other topics (see Button King). Please help a good fair (and notable) wiki person stop someone from being a problem.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Anything and everything reasonable. This person has been nothing but a pain in the butt as far as I'm concerned though I see other edits that look fine. I am a good fair positive contributor. This person has a memory of me sockpuppeting early on but that was b/c I didn't know you shouldn't sign in anonymously. So all these lashes out are in response to what PB wrongly remembers about me, that I am a sockpuppeter or whatever. It's not true it never was. I fixed my actions as soon as I realized

How do you think we can help?

Go over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Donaghy and see that REVENT user already neutralized it. Then it was untouched and sitting there neutral and fine since like June 5th. Then I spoke to Mr. MacKay and he made me realize the sentence was wrong & needed updating (this has been my job in counterterrorism, on Wall Street in NY and in the real estate and cellphone sales industries I used to edit and upddate info for a living) so I actually removed excess stuff (albeit about me)& fixed wrong

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

Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title
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 has been a precedent manner in the manual of style in presenting a member of the Royal family's style upon birth and thereon. Across all Royal Family Members' bios, and has been conventionally followed. As such a bulleted manner of presenting the style of Prince George of Cambridge was patterned from all else (that includine Elizabeth II, Charles of Wales, Prince Willia, Prince Harry, etc.) The dispute is that others propose to present it in a prose/statement rather than a bulleted form, whereas, most would want to conform to features for royals under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, and would want it on status quo, rather than veer off from what has been a precedent in the manner of presenting the subsection.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a constant revert/edit, trying to push their stance over the other, as such a greater venue to conform to the precedent manner must be agreed on.

How do you think we can help?

What we want to do is either make a convincing argument as to why this article alone should buck the precedent and be exempt from the format used on those of the subject's other family members or take this to a larger venue, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, to get a consensus for a new convention that bans starting lists of titles and honours until [insert random number] has been acquired by whomever it is the article is about. Until you've succeeded at either, this article should fall in line with the others.

Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Preliminary points
1_"There has been a precedent manner in the manual of style... " please give link to place relevant to the specific point here, namely, the use of a bullet format for a non-list intruded at the top of the section on Titles in the newly created article for Prince George of Cambridge where it would not be, except for the claimed ruling by proponents that it must be.

2_"The dispute is that others propose to present it in a prose/statement rather than a bulleted form". Please correct this to the sspecific non-list in the article Prince George of Cambridge. Using bulleted lists in other articles where there is a list is not in question.

3_"...rather than veer off from what has been a precedent in the manner of presenting the subsection." Please amend this inaccurate and loaded statement, which is an extension of the dubious way in which this "overview" has been composed, and the manner of the comments on Talk of proponents of the non-list bullet format and of their edits (eg 2 above) Qexigator (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per 2: That is exactly the dispute.
 * Per 3: It is the precedent. It has been that way for years. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I am Amadscientist a volunteer. Let me make a few points before the discussion gets too far. As I understand the dispute there are multiple editors that wish to present this information in a manner that goes against a WikiProject guide that has been used in previous articles under the projects scope, but with the creation of the new article, editors wish to use a different approach. All content is a matter of consensus. If the dispute is to continue here, the strength of the arguments will be used to determine how to proceed. Please be aware that project guides cannot be required and how much weight is given towards such things as precedence and length of time the other articles existed, may not be strong arguments.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "There has been a precedent manner in the manual of style in presenting a member of the Royal family's style upon birth and thereon." Could you link this MOS guideline or precedence and how it applies to the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary proposal
This is to propose letting the process here be suspended indefinitely to allow further connsideration to be given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty to the question pinpointed by Mies., about how to reconcile the list format which has been used in Titles sections for years with non-lists of one item, in articles such as Prince George. (Note, some of the earlier discussion has been botted to []) --Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, I can support this proposal. There is not likely to be a resolution at this location.Deb (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is another Dispute resolution venue already being used, I can support the closing of this filing as too early, and if need be returned at some further point, that is very common. As the issue has been raised at the project level as part of dispute resolution I think we can close this DR/N filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:30 Seconds_to_Mars
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 author HrZ claims that I am spamming the page. I was simply trying to provide qualified information from the United States Trademark website to prove that the band name should be changed from "30" to "Thirty" Seconds To Mars.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written a comment on the talk page, but the author HrZ has requested that I move the item to the WP:RM. Which I will, but noted that the topic has been made before. This leads me to believe he is not willing to make the official change, based on a Trademark that was filed in the United States.

How do you think we can help?

Can you please ask the Author to look over the information that I provided and read what was said. I don't think it was actually read. I don't understand how a US trademark would not apply in this situation as qualified info.

Talk:30 Seconds_to_Mars#Please_change_the_band_name_from_30_Seconds_to_Mars_to_THIRTY_SECONDS_to_MARS discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:List of FC Seoul players
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 was a recent AFD related to this article which I started - the result was 'keep', though there was comments/consensus that the article was in need of a clean up. I attempted to do so by removing unreferenced/unencyclopedic content and basically trying to bring it into line with many other similar articles, some of which have been featured. However, I was immediately reverted by Footwiks, the article creator, who has severe OWNership issues. In total he has reverted PeeJay2K3 and myself six times in 3 weeks, believing that our edits (agreed/discussed on the talk page) make us "vandals," although it is his edits which are becoming increasingly disruptive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The matter has been discussed on my talk page, Footwiks' talk page, and the article talk page - but he continues to revert and refuses to engage or discuss the matter in any meaningful way.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to the user:


 * 1) The importance of using talk pages
 * 2) The importance of WP:CONSENSUS
 * 3) Reasons he should not/does not WP:OWN the article.

He believes me to be a "vandal" so will not listen to my advice, however an independent party may get through to him and help resolve the situation.

Talk:List of FC Seoul players discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government
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

In recent weeks, I've been working on it, as has TJRC. We've made some improvements, and conflicted a lot. Then again, I've given him a barnstar in the past. I've noticed that TJRC has been reluctant to discuss matters, and accusations of incivility have been made both ways. I just noticed the TJRC has been deleting several of my questions from the talk page, and ignoring others. It's hard to have a civil discussion if my questions are being flat out deleted. That sort of manipulation feels rather like hits below the belt, so to speak. Maybe there's some sort of underlying motivation that I'm not able to detect but someone else can. TJRC claims to be an attorney, but has made a number of confident assertions that turned out to be wrong, e.g. that PD-FLGov should just be turned into a fair-use template. I sometimes feel like the right of citizens to free use of the works of government in Florida and California is being buried, as so many efforts have been made to deny, diminish, delete or move the relevant information documenting that they are, by and large, in the Public Domain. I'd given up on efforts to include the content in the article, settling for just a tag indicating that there was an intractable issue, as to the accuracy of the information in the article, but TJRC has been repeatedly deleting even that.

How do you think we can help?

Can an uninvolved editor help us reach consensus or compromise and focus on the content issues and improving the encyclopedia?

Perhaps pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has DELETED THE ANSWER would be an appropriate step before resorting to ANI.

Talk:Circumcision
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 feel that the Circumcision article is not fair and balanced. It seems that the article is written with a very pro-circumcision slant and has pushed away all anti-circumcision information either into external articles which are not prominently linked, or off Wikipedia entirely. Similar views have been expressed by many contributors to the talk page, and I think the following comment sums the problem up well:

"This article is patrolled very vigorously at present to maintain a particular view on circumcision and debate here is largely a cosmetic futile exercise which will be of interest primarily to historians."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contributed to a long thread on the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Review the neutrality of the article beyond the usual "verify sources". I believe the verification of sources is being skewed by the militant editors of the article.

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

ModelZone
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 removal of material that I believe to be unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. original research concerning individuals, contentious and uncited material, and general tidy-up and edit to flow) is being reverted by an IP-user without discussing on the talk page, as repeatedly requested. I am not experienced in dealing with disputes, so am unsure how to rectify this in a manner that benefits all concerned.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requests for discussion on the talk page, posted both on the talk page and in comments at the top of the article and in the main section concerned, and attempts to find middle ground, including citing some claims made by the user. None of these have been met with acknowledgement from the other party.

How do you think we can help?

Assisting in resolving the dispute by clarifying whether the content concerned is contentious, and/or advising on any measures that may need to be taken (e.g. action against the IP-user or protection of the page).

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

Pope Benedict XVI
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 have inputted reports made by Italian newspapers about the circumstances of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. User Mathsci keeps reverting my edit.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mathsci opened an Admin Noticeboard/Incident report on me, which went nowhere with no Admin input because there is no violation - rather this is a matter of disagreement over inclusion or exclusion of material.

How do you think we can help?

Settle the matter and avoid an edit war.

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

This request has been filed in bad faith by Cryellow, a highly problematic editor. Please see WP:ANI. Cryellow has attempted to add the same BLP violations to the same article a few days ago: it was removed as a BLP violation by another user, Tbhotch, whom Cryelllow has chosen not to mention. That is evidently a misuse of this noticeboard. The only place to ask is WP:BLPN, if anywhere. Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mathsci evidently enjoys edit wars. He even removed the notification I made on his talk page of this dispute resolution!  This is the proper venue in which to discuss this matter.  Cryellow (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to WP:BRD, when Cryellow made a Bold edit to add this information, and he was Reverted, his next step was to Discuss it on the article's talk page. Instead, he has edit warred to keep the information in the article.  To this date, he has not posted a comment on the article talk page.  Coming to dispute resolution without engaging in talk-age discussion is not a proper use of the DR process.  In addition, since the objection to the material centers around WP:BLP concerns -- which take precedence over almost everything else -- that should be the place to iron out those questions, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at Cryellow's latest edit to the Pope Benedict XVI article, the material added wasn't supported by the sources cited, and on that basis, the material had to be reverted, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer's Suggestion: Cryellow et all. As far as we know Benedict is a living person and the issue is related to his retirement. Based on that and that now 3 editors in good standing are telling you the assertions are a not good idea, I think going over to WP:BLPN would be the best solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cryellow has been blocked for 31 hours. Mathsci (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I think we can handle this one in-house. I've read over the two sources, and the Italian newspaper article that initially published this story. In this case, WP:REDFLAG comes in to play. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and these sources would need to unequivocally state what is written. In this case, we have one newspaper article state that Benedict resigned due to complicity in the sex abuse scandals, where all other mainstream media does not state this. This leads me to think two things - one, putting so much emphasis on one news report out of hundreds would give that newspapers point of view undue weight, and given that it has only been reported in one newspaper leads me to believe the claims are false, or at the very least do not meet the stringent requirements required for BLPs. I therefore agree that insertion of the material is not valid, and that further insertion of similar material should be discussed at an administrative forum. Regards, Steven Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Steven, the issue then becomes whether there are other mainstream media reports of this nature. Then we would have to understand whether this qualifies as a fringe theory in some manner etc. The information need not be flattering of course, but it does need to be verifiable in the manner you described. My question as an uninvolved editor is simply, how do we know this until we have looked further into it. So yes, I agree this could be settled in house. If there are not enough participants, would you like to advocate for the exclusion of the content and I can argue for inclusion? I could not mediate this case and would be considered an involved participant in this manner. I have had interactions with Mathsci, so this would depend on whether object in any way to my participation.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cryellow was blocked for these antics. The blocking administrator gave Cryellow this post-block advice. Cryellow deliberately misrepresented the sources to besmirch the reputation of a living person. The content was concocted by him (a living person was involved in various sex scandals and resigned because he was being blackmailed). Nowhere were statements of that kind made in the sources he was trying to use (English language news services reporting in February about articles in an Italian daily newspaper and an Italian weekly magazine). This is WP:BLPN territory and was an egregious BLP violation. Cryellow made his intentions quite clear in this diff, where he wrote to Tbhotch, "Let's escalate this to a Wikipedia arbitration, or further up the ladder since it bothers you so much that your Pope may have been homosexual." Nothing to do with me, even if Amadscientist wants to make it so. Mathsci (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

David Grann
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 have been back and forth with another editor about the relevance of a dismissed lawsuit as part of a living author's biographical page.

A lawsuit is an instance of a formal allegation, in this case against a prominent journalist. Although wikipedia guidelines do state the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, lawsuits covered in the press do seem relevant of inclusion. And this lawsuit was posted as part of the page.

However, once a lawsuit is dismissed, as it was in this case, then the allegation would seems to lose relevance - being tossed out of court renders the lawsuit devoid of merit. So its continued inclusion upon a wikipedia page casts undue aspirations on a living subject's character. (Particularly to a journalist, whose presumption of fairness is paramount to his reputation.) Innocence ought to be restored to the living person.

After the lawsuit was tossed out of court, it seemed no longer relevant to subject's wikipedia entry and potentially biased(as its appearance conveys a sense of an ongoing dispute when in reality, there is none any longer.) The editor Bednarek keeps trying to reinstate it for reasons unclear since it adds no meaningful or legally clarifying information. His original restoration of the lawsuit represented 33 percent of the subject's entire career profile; an reedited submission still represents more than 10 percent of the information displayed in that section, which is disproportionate as well as irrelevant as no judgement was found against the subject! Wikipedia guidelines state "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association..." and this would seem to be a case of it here.

Wikipedia urges that "special attention be paid to neutrality...regarding living persons" I hope this dispute can be settled.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk pages, notes back and forth in comments, other editors have also tried to modify Bednarek alterations.

How do you think we can help?

I wish this was a case where there was some compromise but it seems naught - the additional information presented on the page is no longer relevant and potentially defamatory to a living person's reputation -- or it is not. Hoping someone can help resolve this, especially as it pertains to wikipedia's guidelines on living persons. Thank you.

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

Genetically modified food controversies
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 Taco Bell GMO recall was a controversial health recall of GMO food. I tried to add it to Genetically_modified_food_controversies and it was reverted. I then created it as a stand alone article. Adding a wikilink to the health section of controversies is now being edit warred. It has been discussed on both talk pages and discussions are going nowhere. There is a mention of it in Genetically_modified_food_controversies with a wikilink. It was not an environmental issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked why they feel it wasn't a health related link at both article talk pages with no response, just reverts. diff 1 rationale from a 3rd editor-Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Which section of the Genetically modified food controversies should the material and wikilink be placed in from our reader's point of view? Ask if the other editors will answer here with their rationale for only including it in the environmental section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here I am not taking this dispute at this time, but only want to note that I have relisted this via the listing form from a manual listing due to the listing editor's inability to use the form. 'No other assistance will be provided by a volunteer, however, until the "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" and "How do you think we can help?" sections, above, have been completed by Canoe1967' since those sections would have to be completed in order to use the listing form. Regards, TransporterMan  (TALK ) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ✅ —  TransporterMan  (TALK ) 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment from involved user. Short answer: there is no "dispute" yet because the issue has not been discussed on the relevant Talk page - I do not agree that we need dispute resolution.  Please check it here. Long answer.  This has been a strange interaction. User:Canoe1967 introduced content to the GM controversies article, on what he/she terms the "taco bell recall", in the "health" section, which duplicated content that was already present in the article in the "escape" section.  The content was introduced by Canoe with this set of difs.  I reverted that addition in the next dif, explaining in my edit note that the content was duplicative and noting that I was retaining one of the useful sources that had been introduced.  Canoe did not follow WP:BRD and instead re-added the content in this set of difs.  I again reverted in this dif, and in my edit note asked Canoe not to edit war, but rather to bring to Talk as per WP:BRD.  I then opened a Talk section here to try to get a conversation going.  Canoe came and made several COI-related accusations against me.   In response, I a) asked Canoe not to attack me and b) responded to the substance of what he/she wrote.   Canoe then kindly apologized but then stopped talking about it on that page.  We had other conversations on the user's Talk page here in which I was attacked yet more, and on the Talk page for the Taco Bell GMO Recall article here, again where Canoe spent as much energy, if not more, attacking me than in dealing with substance.   In short, I don't see that there is a "dispute" over content because we have hardly discussed this - the ball is in Canoe's court on the Talk page of the relevant article, here.  In that discussion, he/she presented the reason why the content should be under "health", I responded why it should not be, and there has been no further conversation on that page.  As you can tell, I do have some issues with Canoe's conduct toward me, but I have not chosen to bring that to any board yet.  I have emphasized it here to point out that I think Canoe's issue is not over content (as Canoe has not continued the discussion on the relevant page) but is rather more generally with me, as an editor - that I have a COI or am a POV-pusher as per his/her several comments along those lines.  There you go. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading "I work at a university. I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both." on the user's talk page and his editing I still feel his POV is influencing Wikipedia articles. I no longer refer to him as COI after other discussions with the community. (my bold)--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this right, both Canoe1967 and Jytdog are saying that there has not been extensive discussion of the content issue involved in this matter at a talk page, though there may have been extensive discussion about conduct, bias, and COI. If that is indeed the case, then this listing must be closed per the rules of this noticeboard. Unless someone can, within the next 24 hours, point us to a place where the content issue has been extensively discussed, then I or another volunteer will close this request. Regards, TransporterMan  (TALK ) 20:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion can't move much further. The reason for this is because the contaminated food 'escaped'. After this escape then a 'health recall' happened. The recall article is notable for the health issue and not containment/escape. We may be able to include it in both if that closes the case. Feel free to close this section if you think we can discuss it further. I doubt I can as on the recall talk page an editor refuses to discuss it. If you do close then I can move it to RfC or another drama board. Some of the underlying issues may eventually be taken to Arbcom. I was going to that but need to wait. This is because a deeply involved editor has been blocked for three months. These three months will give us time to investigate further both on and off the projects. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This comment is part of what is bizarre to me. Canoe abruptly stopped talking about the issues on the Talk page and I still do not know why. The only thing I can guess it that he/she had some preconceived idea about what to expect and hasn't actually tried talking through the issue in the relevant space.  He she said X, I said Y, and there has been no response.  Dialogue is dialogue, working toward a synthesis, and Canoe is not working the process.  Instead, it seems to be a binary game with him/her, where if the other party doesn't immediately agree there is an irresolveable dispute and the other party must be a bad actor.  Again, this is not a real dispute yet. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe, I think that opening a content WP:RFC would be a good idea for you. You would get more editors to look at the content issues. Please just accept that editors who respond to the RfC are doing so in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that RfC has good faith and this board doesn't? I am discussing it on both pages. This one and the one where Jytdog refuses to discuss it. We are just repeating ourselves with the wrong version protected by reverts. There is no reason we can't add both links until a consensus is reached. The version now does not give the reader a link to the health issue that was minimized to one person because of the health recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying. You haven't opened an RfC yet. You should assume good faith at DRN and you should assume good faith in a future RfC. If you don't understand that, you will run into trouble as the dispute resolution continues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't open an RfC until this one is closed. I doubt RfC will find consensus either. It will just be the same back and forth. I may skip that and go straight to Arbcom to save the storage of the same repeated bytes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand that a big part of the purpose of DRN is to "point you in the right direction" about the dispute resolution process, and that is what I am trying to do. If you look at WP:RFC, you will see the instructions there. You are free to do that any time, and you don't need anyone's permission here at DRN to do it. As for ArbCom, they will decline your request for arbitration unless you have already gone through all the lower steps on the dispute resolution ladder. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been watching what is going on with this dispute. The Taco Bell page is linked from the text in the GMO page, in a section about product "escapes". There seem to me to be two specific issues. One is whether it should (also) be present in the health effects section, and I do not see a good reason to do that, because it really isn't about health effects. Nowhere on the Taco Bell page is there anything about people suffering adverse health effects because of the taco shells. Speculation that health effects could have resulted seems to me to be WP:SYNTH. The other is whether the existing link should be either replaced by or supplemented by a hatnote at the top of the section. The edit warring is really about whether or not a prominent hatnote is needed. Let me suggest going without the hatnote, because it's just one part of the content in that section, but devoting a little more text within the section to the Taco Bell incident, especially so that the internal link can be written as the full page name. I think that Canoe is in part concerned that the link is not prominent enough, and it really wouldn't be a big deal to make it a little more visible. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The recall article is notable because it was a health recall. Whether the food was healthy or not was decided by the FDA as not being fit for human consumption in the legal sense. If it had been the recall of a chimney or a truck muffler they would go in the environment section and not the health section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but the FDA decision, as I read it on the page here, seems to be that, as a matter of public policy, we should not risk having it in human food, as opposed to a finding that there were such-and-such health effects in humans. The corn was intended as agricultural animal feed. I imagine the same thing would have happened if there had been pet food in the tacos, but it wouldn't have been a finding that the pet food was dangerous for pets. Is there any sourcing that the corn in the taco shells has had adverse health effects in farm animals? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "....the taco shells has had adverse health effects in farm animals?" The FDA has found health problems in humans and thus the recall for health reasons. I don't know why I keep answering the same repeated questions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I only asked you once. What were those health problems in humans? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The FDA was not involved in approval or lack thereof for Starlink, nor in the recall. I also don't think a consensus between the Trypto and Canoe here, is going to be meaningful in the article, where there are many more participants.  As there was no dispute because there had been no discussion (one back and forth does not a discussion make), let's move this back to Talk and let the Admins work on actual disputes.  We may end up back here but we should do after a real discussion has taken place on Talk.   Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That talk page won't seek consensus anymore than this one will. You told me there were health concerns mentioned in the environment section as well as the escape section. I edited the article to reflect that to our readers. That edit was reverted without discussion and an edit summary about this discussion. If you don't revert so our readers can find the health issues in both sections then I will ask the volunteers to close this section so I can re-open it at either ANI or Arbcom. At ANI, I may ask if it should go straight to Arbcom. This is the same as telling our readers that there are no other health concerns in this article so don't look in other sections for them. Would you like to revert back to my mention of it and then discuss it further? If not then we need to move on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The recall is not a health issue, it is a containment issue and is and has always been mentioned in the article. Canoe has made a new article which is great but it does not need to be linked as a further reading hatnote twice or even once, especially as the article contains not much more further reading than what can be found here. Much better to just link to the new article within the text of the section (as it is now). As a further note his accusations against Jytdog regarding a COI are ridiculous and need to stop. He has admitted to expressing an interest in an area as most editors who edit topics here do. If that is a conflict of interest then I would image most people here are guilty of having one. AIR corn (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When the wrong GMO loses containment then it becomes a health concern. If it gets into the human food chain it becomes a health threat. A container of rat poison broken in a food factory is not a containment issue, it is a health issue in the food chain. Sources say it was a health recall for a health risk. They do not say it was a containment recall for a containment failure. This is just going to go back and forth until it is closed here and moved on. You have health in two sections of the article when they belong in one. The readers should not expect to find health issues in the environment section the same as they shouldn't expect to find other issues in the health section. They should either be combined or the health section should direct readers to the other health concerns of the containment section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this the wrong GMO? You can't compare it to rat poison as despite what some people think it isn't poison. And actually all the reliable sources say that there were no health effects in humans from the escape. There is a whole section on escapes where this fits in. It doesn't fit in to the health section and will not add anything meaningful there. AIR corn (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There were no known health effects in humans because the health recall prevented them. That is what health recalls do. They protect health not the environment where this health recall is the article. It was not a containment recall. I have never heard of a containment recall. It was a wrong GMO for the human food chain because it isn't considered healthy for humans. We can keep repeating ourselves or close this as stalled out and move on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As you opened the DR I imagine you could withdraw it. It seems to me you are repeating yourself because everyone is bringing up the same disagreements. That probably means there is consensus, but I guess a RFC is a way to get broader input. There are already two running, so why not add a third. AIR corn (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this DR is opened yet because a volunteer has not taken it on. I don't think we were supposed to discuss it until they do. We probably just scared them all away with so much repeated text. I doubt an RfC will find consensus either. It will probably be the same back an forth repetition. The talk pages have stalled in the same way with Jytdog admitting he won't even discuss it any more on one of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sasanian Empire#The_map_of_the_Sassanid_Empire
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 have seen that there have been many arguments about the map of the Sasanian Empire and they usually do not get resolved. I proposed a map that I thought would satisfy everyone, but one user was angry in response because I "rehashed" the same topic again. So I proposed another map which was a massive improvement of the last map and even had as many sources as possible to back it up, yet he still gets angry and we continue to clash on the talk page about the map. A few other users have gotten involved, but they have left. I simply want to put a more accurate map of the Sasanian Empire as the infobox image without anyone making a fuss over it and that is all, but still users refuse to aknowledge that, most prominently Constantine.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have proposed 2 maps as the infobox image of the Sasanian Empire: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_from_602-620_A.D.png, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png First map depicts the core territory of the Sasanian Empire prior to the Byzantine-Sassanid War with core territory shown in brown and territories occupied by Sasanian Armies shown in Orange. The second map simply shows the Empire at it's zenith altogether.

How do you think we can help?

Have as many Administrators possible to come onto the talk page and decide which map will be the infobox image of the article OR take a vote on having a brand new map being made by one of the Administrators or from somewhere on the internet.

Talk:Sasanian Empire#The_map_of_the_Sassanid_Empire discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Well, the issue is simple: the "new and improved" maps are simply grossly inaccurate. They depict a situation which never existed, and include territories never occupied by the Sasanians for any significant period of time. Maps which include Cyprus, Rhodes, Chios, Samos and Lesbos, which even the most die-hard Iranian nationalist does not claim were ever seized during this time, can not be taken seriously. Let alone the much-debated question of Persian control over Anatolia (for which I refer to a careful reading of the well-referenced Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 article and my comments here) or Central Asia beyond the Oxus River (for which see, or ). I also note that this is an endemic problem: Wikimedia Commons swarms with "super-Sasanian Empire" maps depicting wildly unrealistic borders, whereas every single map coming from professional historial atlases or academic institutions is far more modest. Compare the maps found here, especially the map here on the period in question with any one of Keeby's maps. Keeby, like many other users, confuses the question of "campaigning", "raiding", "invading", "overruning" etc an area with exercising actual control over it. Yes, the Persians invaded Anatolia on at least three occasions and even got as far as Chalcedon, yes they crossed the Oxus and defeated the Turks, in 619, but that does not translate into making these areas part of the Persian Empire, any more that the Romans' campaigning beyond the Rhine or the Arabs' raids into Anatolia for over two centuries does. Constantine  ✍  07:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by User:Cplakidas

Unschooling
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

Since July 13, I have been reverting the edits of an amorphous cloud of limited-edit and single-issue focused users and IP addresses relating to the inclusion of the name Dayna Martin in the Unschooling article. So far as I understand it, Dayna Martin doesn't reflect particularly well on the unschooling philosophy, and these editors were prefer her name not appear. I believe the name should remain, given that she is a prominent and notable advocate, this is an encylopedia, etc. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but to no avail–the edits continue. At this point, I'm bordering on violating 3RR, and I'm not really sure what the next step is to resolve this dispute. I am happy to compromise, but that requires at least one of these editors to talk to me. Any help would be appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Started discussion on talk page (no responses); posted to Starsuncloud's user talk page (the most recent of the users)

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I've never been in a dispute before, so I'm not sure what the next step is. Any help notifying the users of the dispute resolution policies would be appreciated. Also, clarifying for me what the next steps are would be appreciated as well.

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

Talk:Digvijaya Singh
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:Sitush has changed the existing edit for the section 'Batla House Encounter' in  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh (please scroll down to the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit' in the talk page of the main article for the discussion on this edit). Both the new edit and the original edit can be read in the 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit' section in the talk page (please scroll down). My objection to User:Sitush's modified edit is present in the talk page and i repeat it here: "The use of the word "reportedly' was because on the one hand we have reports of Singh stating that the encounter was fake and on the other hand we also have reports of Singh having denied reports of his calling the encounter "fake" on the ground that he cannot verify the authenticity of the incident. WP:NPOV being disregarded completed by User:Sitush. Singh's full clarification on this issue (that he had not called the encounter 'fake' but had only asked for a judicial probe) was also removed by User:Sitush for his own reasons.Soham321 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Additionally, the words of the journalist from the TOI article need to be removed because it violates the 'Impartial Tone' clause in WP:NPOV". I will also point out that Sitush has not tried to disguise his animosity/dislike for Singh. Additionally,the following demonstrates the fallacy in Sitush's approach: If a public personality is accused of rape or murder, User:Sitush would prefer the accusation to appear on the wikipedia page of that person along with a tendentious quotation of some journalist slamming the person. Further, any clarification of the accused would not be permitted to appear on the wikipedia page of the accused person if we go along with the logic being used by User:Sitush in the edit under consideration.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried engaging with User:Sitush on the article talk page but instead of discussing the edit itself, he prefers talking about all kinds of extraneous things like how often i have gone for dispute resolution or how often Singh--according to Sitush-- claims he has been misquoted.

How do you think we can help?

Please do whatever you think is appropriate under the circumstances keeping in mind wikipedia rules and guidelines. My own understanding is that Sitush's edit is in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines as i have explained here and also in the relevant section in the talk page of the article.

Opening comments by Sitush
I have commented here. This report, as I suggested on the article talk page when it was mooted, is yet another premature example. I note the recusals of MM and TM below and would like to stress that I would not consider any past involvements with me to be a bar to their participation in this process. It is probably fairly well known that I don't have a great deal of faith in DRN as a process when it comes to India-related stuff but I do trust those who regularly participate here to do so in an impartial manner. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Digvijaya Singh discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello and welcome to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm Mark and I am a regular volunteer. I will be recusing myself from the request because I have had previous interactions with Sitush. However, as an involved editor, I would have to wonder if that is extensive enough discussion.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 09:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also recused because of prior interactions with both editors, but also feel that there's been insufficient discussion and I'd also like to correct an error stated on the article talk page. One editor said, "As per wikipedia rules, if there is a fundamental disagreement on an edit it has to be taken for DRN." That is incorrect: Both asking for and participating in content dispute resolution is always discretionary, never mandatory. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've read over the discussion on the talk page. Long story short, I agree with the comments made by Sitush. The issue here is largely due to a misunderstanding of policy on the part of Soham321. Policies have been explained to them, both by admins on their talk page and ANI. I think the boomerang effect applies here, and would suggest that if this sort of conduct continues, that Sitush should consider ANI. I see no valid content dispute here, thus I am closing the thread. Regards, Steven Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 15:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won
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, an agreement cannot be reached regarding which honors to include and which honors to exclude on the table this article is about.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page resolution, and page protection to foster it

How do you think we can help?

At this point, any kind of dispute resolution from uninvolved editors can be a good thing.

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

User talk:Werieth
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:Werieth mass removes images in various articles stating WP:NFG and its variations. I reversed Vrak.TV, and we now reached limits to the "The three-revert rule", even after discussion in talk page that leads to nowhere.

Problem: WP:TVS is aware of WP:NFCC policies and recommends prudence, but User:Werieth doesn't agree with keeping the television station's old logos before rebranding, wanting to follow NFCC rule to the letter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User talk only. I tried the most civil way, I got biblical references and threats.

How do you think we can help?

Since historical logos of television channels and stations are mostly non-free and fair-use, is it in the best interest of wikipedia to remove any past history logos and keep only the current ones? Flexibility and rationale or strict rules?

User talk:Werieth discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Actually if WP:NFCC was met I wouldn't have an issue, however this user is not in compliance with either WP:NFC or WP:TVS. If the user thinks that this should be exempt from policy I suggested taking it to WP:NFCR (AKA Non-Free Content Review). But the over-use of non-free files is not acceptable. This user has also thrown multiple personal attacks directed at myself because they do not like policy. Werieth (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation
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

1. Contribution based on latest development on the article is no being allowed and being deleted by cerain users, although contribution fulfill all wikipedia policies eg verifiability, reliability, truth, noticability.2. Issue is about a written affidavit given in a law court by an Indian Home Minister about an information passed to him by a high level CBI Officer for involvment of Inidan Govt. in the subject of article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Editing of artilce and extensive discussion on article talk page with reasons

How do you think we can help?

Make a decisive statement from neutral point of view.

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but with no participation here by any of the other users this appears to be futile. This request will be closed after 14:00 UST on August 15, 2013, unless a substantial number of participants indicate that they wish for it to remain open and move forward. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley's Research on the Boston Church of Christ
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

Dr Flavil Yeakley conducted research in 1985 on the Boston Church of Christ. He had his book published by 'Gospel Adovocate'. There was some dispute over Gospel Advocate as a reliable source and the DRN ruled here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73 that: (1) that Yeakley's publisher, The Gospel Advocate Company, is not a high quality source, because there is no evidence of fact checking, (2) that Yeakley's research may be cited in the article because it's referred to by other high quality secondary sources, (3) that it's preferable to cite the secondary sources to refer to the aforementioned material if they cover enough ground. Discussion has deadlocked with whether the reliable secondary sources "cover enough ground".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate on the Talk page over a number of weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Can you guide us to resolve whether the secondary reliable sources cover enough ground or whether material from 'Gospel Advocate' needs to included in the article?

Do the reliable secondary sources cover enough ground on Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ

 * Have you considered that taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard might be a more appropriate course of action? My first instinct is to close this with that recommendation but I'd like another volunteers opinion.  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue might be a little more complex as 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as an unreliable source but Yeakley's research as admissible because it was referred to in reliable secondary sources. Two editors are happy to use the secondary sources and one is insisting in keeping the 'Gospel Advocate' material in the article, his assessment is the reliable secondary sources "don't cover enough ground" hence the deadlock. Guidance would be appreciated.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok in 200 words or less, those stating the seconady sources don't cover enough ground: please explain your rational behind it.  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I've read over the material again. It seems to me that Gospel Advocate is an unreliable primary source (something seemingly agreed upon) however the material has been cited by reliable secondary sources. In Wikipedia we much prefer secondary sources because they do the analysis for us. The policy on primary sources states: be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]. It looks like the Yeakley source contains some fairly big claims ("highly manipulative" sects) which are not covered in secondary sources. This is the primary source drawing conclusions from its own statements. Generally we prefer a secondary source to cover these and do the analysis of the data presented by the primary source. Would I be correct in saying that there is no secondary analysis that makes the same claims (e.g. the bit about the sects, unhealthy ways)?  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is that those claims shouldn't be included as their is no reliable source for those parts explicitly. Considering the weight of what is being said I would say not to cite the GA source and remove those statements. In the interest of fairness I'll wait and see what the remaining editors opinions on the matter are. I am open to having my opinion changed.  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I agree that the strength and nature of the Gospel Advocate claims are not in line with RS and BLP policy. The secondary sources definitely cover the gist of Yeakley's research (although as you know from the talk page I still find the quality of these secondary sources questionable if they choose to see Gospel Advocate as reliable enough for their use). My opinion is that Yeakley is not relaible enough for the article since the primary data is so unreliable but, should it be kept by consensus, the secondary sources are preferable and adequate if used properly. I have been querying @Nietzsche's constant push to have such inflammatory (almost tabloid like) data included but other than continual reverts am still not sure why this is so. I would also like to propose that the title be changed to "Flavil Yeakley's 1985 Research on the Boston Church of Christ" as Yeakley's book is given a separate section (as opposed to being contained in the "history"). Since it was nearly 30 years ago and only in a single congregation of what is today around 430 congregations in 170 countries it is misleading to indirectly project these findings on the current entire ICOC. By qualifying it as much as possible in the title it would be better reflected. JamesLappeman (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct,  TransporterMan  on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources.  This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly.  I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground.  Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39).  JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".  My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier.  Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either.  The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".  I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like.  These are serious charges that come from a reputable source.  The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough?  As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way.  What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the point isn't it, where the reliable secondary sources reference or quote Yeakley, that material is preferred to using a primary source on Wikipedia, especially a low quality one. Since Cabe's request is for the editors who feel the secondary sources don't cover enough ground to fully explain their rationale, I wont interrupt again until that is complete.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources." No. As volunteers we speak only for ourselves and not the entire board. It isn't a ruling. It is simply the opinion of one volunteer and has no authority. Having said that, it might be advisable to put a good deal of weight on Transportationman's opinion as they do know what they are talking about. But, this is an informal process at DR/N.-- Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark and <font face="Verdana"> Cabe  6403  thanks again for your input. As you can see we have struggled to find  consensus. I still find it strange that a source can be seen as unreliable according to WP guidelines but then legitimised because it is quoted in a few secondary sources. I guess I'm not convinced that because a few niche journals chose to include material from a family business publisher it means that it is of encyclopaedia quality. It is such a minute and debatable slice of research that seems to take up a large amount of space (more space than some other more significant and relevant sections). I think that Gospel Advocate is not a reliable source and should be removed BUT if we decide to keep it then a few short measured sentences from secondary sources would be the most balanced option. JamesLappeman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. Basically, the bits of GA that have received critical commentary can be cited in the article. My own feeling is that you are able to make claims in the article if they can be cited by the secondary sources. If a claim you wish to make is only covered by the primary source then it wouldn't be appropriate to cover it. The only time its appropriate to cite the primary source is when directly quoting it to clarify a claim made by a secondary source. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe & Mark  Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I'm a little confused. On June 14th (DRN archive 73)  TransporterMan  wrote that "with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory".  From this and more statements he wrote I gather that it is  TransporterMan 's opinion that (1) Yeakley is a reliable source, that (2) Yeakley may be directly referred to in the WP article, and that (3) secondary sources are preferable to directly citing Yeakley if they cover enough ground.  I concur with this opinion.  While The Gospel Advocate Company doesn't seem to be reliable source, the Yeakley material does seem to be a reliable source since it's referred to by multiple high quality sources.  The secondary sources fail to cover the normative ground Yeakley does.  This shouldn't be surprising: for various reasons academic presses in general tend to shy away from making normative claims, especially about religious groups. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding link to archived discussion related to this dispute: Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73 for convenience.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nietzsche123, I feel we should show the full statement from the DR/N volunteer to better understand their intent. This in no way should be seen as agreement with any participant. This is just for convenience to understand the opinion of the volunteer from the past filing:

--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally I dislike trying to interpret another volunteers words, but it appears to me that what is being said here is that the Yeakley material can be used as a primary source when used with secondary sources that are confirmed to be reliable to Wikipedia standards. Multiple sources are required for BLP group articles as we are talking about living people. Thoughts?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I previously stated my take on TransporterMan 's opinion, namely, that while 1) secondary sources (and the higher quality Norton sources in particular) are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, it's permissible to do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground.  The secondary sources fail to mention the normative claims Yeakley makes.  It's not just several Cultic Studies Journal articles that refer to Yeakley; rather, at least two other high quality secondary sources do: 1) a Norton text edited by Michael Langone and 2) a Pastoral Psychology article by written Lewis Rambo.  Yeakley's CV may be found here: http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf.  He was a professor for over 17 years, earning awards for teaching at Harding University and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Award for Research in the year he published his work on the BCC.  I'm not sure on what grounds JamesLappeman declares that Yeakley isn't a psychologist since he has a BA in psychology and a PhD in speech communication (and has published in a number of psychology journals).  Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So Cabe & Mark  we are back to the same place we started. @Nietzsche has a predetermined disposition to wanting to use the primary Gospel Advocate material, even though everyone agrees that the GA book of Yeakley's research is regarded as unreliable for Wikipedia (no professional journalists, no editorial board, no evidence of fact checking) yet because @Nietzsche choses to interpret  TransporterMan 's  comments to legitimise the primary GA source, therefore for all practical purposes, anything found in the primary GA book that is not covered in the reliable secondary sources is fair game because the "secondary sources do not cover enough ground". Hence @Nietzsche can conclude above:

Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let me ping the participants and see if I can sort this threw enough to further the discussion., and , I would like to make a few observations.


 * The material in question is: "Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118". The issue; is this reliable enough for Wikipedia standards to use in any way to source content if there are secondary (third party) sources, that should suffice. One editor believes that the secondary mentions are not enough and wishes to source directly from the Yeakley, Gospel Advocate (YGA) source where the secondary sources fall short. A sort of broad interpretation of the dispute, so feel free to correct any mistakes I might make.


 * Some of this has been slightly misperceived I think on both sides and that is not a bad thing. But let me try this.


 * The strength of sources is determined by several factors and in the last DR we seem to have had enough consensus from editors that the YGA was at least good enough to be a primary source, specifically because it had mention in multiple references in third party sources. That in itself means that we are able to at least show the primary source as illustration along with the secondary source references. Now, if there is something that is being cited directly from the secondary source, such as Yeakley's opinion, a quote could perhaps be used from the primary source, if it expands on the secondary mentions, but not if we are interpreting the primary source ourselves independent of the secondary (third party) sources. Thoughts.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so, here is where I think we had left off. On 07:50, 8 August 2013, in a reply to JamesLappeman, Cabe6403 responded with clarification about secondary sources not necessarily "legitimizing" a primary source. I believe I have recapped much of what the DR volunteer stated about primary source use with the secondary sources. At 15:08, 8 August 2013, the editor that requested the DR/N stated that they were prepared to return to the talk page to continue discussion on the secondary sources-excluding the primary source being used, which was responded to by Nietzsche123 with concern that they felt Transportationman had indeed clarified that the YGA was a "reliable source" and therefore could be directly cited, "especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground".

Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA. I actually think we are still where we left off, when JamieBrown2011 suggested that this could be closed and taken back to the talk page to discuss. But we just do not need to exclude YGA entirely from the article, it's use just hinges on the secondary sources for any material used. Perhaps a quote from YGA that is covered by commentary in secondary sources? Just a suggestion, not a recommendation. In other words there must be a way to get a consensus for content no matter what it is, and the DR/N won't really tell you what you have to do hear.

We could continue to discuss the content dispute and hash out eactly what is used from YGA if editors even agree that something should be at all. Thoughts?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to accept only quoting from YGA if a secondary source has already advanced the information and if the quotes don't go beyond what is advanced by the reliable secondary sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is Mark 's and Cabe's opinion that YGA be cited directly only if high quality secondary sources cover the same ground, since YGA by itself is not necessarily a reliable source.  But I also understand that it is  TransporterMan 's opinion that YGA may be cited directly, even if secondary sources don't cover the same ground, since YGA is a reliable source (since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources).   TransporterMan, please correct me if I'm wrong.  As I see it, we have two different "rulings" by the DRN board.  If we may only cite YGA directly when the secondary sources cover the same ground, I'm in favor of something like the following summation of Yeakley's research.
 * In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley citation). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).
 * What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me at least. I am stating what Transportationman has already helped establish, that the primary source (the YGA) could only be mentioned through secondary sources. Could you demonstrate how you are interpreting Transportationman to be saying what you claim?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I may also be misunderstanding this from : "[T]he Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". That sounds like we are defining YGA as a RS to be cited when the third party sources do not cover it. So we are saying that there are enough multiple references that YGA is not a primary source in itself and has enough notability to at least allow some use to reference content. Not sure how I feel about referencing any facts though.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark  05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nietzsche I am not sure where you are getting your information that Yeakley conducted his tests over an extended period of time, on pg 30 of Yeakley's book he says he conducted his research over 10 days and participants were asked 3 questions and asked to give answers how they perceived their personalities to be before conversion, currently and what they imagined they would be like in 5 years time. Here is the quote: "They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years." So stating that the majority of the members changed their personality types is factually incorrect. This was not a longitudinal study. So please word that part correctly. Not sure what @JamesLappeman thinks? Also, I am going to remove all the current GA material from the ICOC article until we reach consensus here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, if this is true then either it must be explicitly mentioned as Nietzsches current suggested wording is, therefore, factually incorrect or it mustn't be mentioned at all. I don't have access to the source currently, would you be able to quote the relevant sections directly for me here? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe


 * I don't see where Yeakley discusses the duration of his research on page 30 of his work; rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days. On page 24 he goes on to say that the focus of his chapter (and our present discussion) is "a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation".  Regardless, I cannot find where I got my "extended periods of time" from.  In light of that, I'm comfortable dropping the phrase from the summation.  What do you think?
 * <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark, I think the following quotes from  TransporterMan  are relevant.
 * In my eyes, the first quote suggests that while GA is not a reliable source, Yeakley may be, so long as his work is referenced by high quality secondary sources. And as I read the last two quotes, they suggest that while high quality secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may cite Yeakley directly, especially where the secondary literature doesn't cover the territory Yeakley does.  -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nietzsche I think you are missing the point somewhat, the more important misrepresentation in your description of the Yeakley study is not so much in the 10 day timeline of the study but in your comment that "A majority of the members changed their personality types". The reliable secondary sources and Yeakley himself states that the forms were handed out to the 835 church members at a midweek church service and they were asked to answer the questions three times; 1) How they think they would have been before their conversion - or five years ago, 2) How they perceive themselves now (at the time of the study) and 3) How they think they will answer the questions in five years time... Your description is a significant distortion of the facts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, there is no distortion on my part. I ask that you be more careful with your use of language in the future.  Again, you were wrong to assert that Yeakley's research was conducted over a 10-day period; contrary to what you wrote, Yeakley took 10 days to initially gather data, not to conduct his study of over 900 members.  Both Yeakley and the Langone Norton source state that "a great majority" of members changed their personality types (see previous citations).  So I'm not sure what your concern is. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche123, you say yourself: "rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days.". From my understanding of the source, the "initial data-gathering" is the questionaires/forms he handed out. Any analysis of the data produced from that may have taken longer, he may have continued to revisit the data and further analyse it for years but the surveys were conducted over a short period of time, this needs to be clear in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm."  On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) and <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark  are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm."  On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) and <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark  are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the claim being made can be defined as an extraordinary claim, or one that directly refers to living persons or BLPGROUPS, then it requires more than s single reference.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In pages 23-24 of his text Yeakley clearly distinguishes the 10-day initial data-gathering stage of his research from the larger psychological study he conducted with over 900 BCC members. The data gathering consists of sitting in on leadership meetings, observing training classes, "Bible Talks", house church meetings, and Sunday worship services.  So where's the distortion on my part?  Again, I'm ready to drop the "over an extended period of time" bit.  JamieBrown2011, as I repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, your quote from page 37 of Yeakley's text is a qualification he makes.  Yeakley's discusses his method on page 24:
 * The following is from pp. 20-21 of his text, where he states the conclusion of his research.
 * Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.
 * In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34).  After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).  Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.
 * In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34).  After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).  Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government
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 Elvey has continued to edit within my comments when I have requested him not to, and is undoing the reversions I made pursuant to WP:TPO.

Under WP:TPO, "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I have reverted these interruption. Elvey refuses to allow me to do that.

This all stems from my attempts to find out what is confusing to Elvey that made him mark a section as confusing. However, Elvey insists, not only on reinstating his interruptions contrary to TPO, but deleting the comments trying to get to the bottom of his issue to get the article into a state that no longer confuses him.

See, for example,.

This has been discussed at a previous An/I; see here. Despite the counsel there to Elvey to try to work in good faith to resolve the issue, and his promise to do so, he still persists.

It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter and his hostile tone not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO. I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end om my patience. He categorized the most innocuous comments as "accusations," for example. He's very much a hothead, and I would like some help dealing with him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, discussion on user's talk page.

Note, since Elvey has deleted my note to him about TPO, a pointer to it is here. Please note my attempt at civility here and elsewhere, and feel free to compare and contrast with Elvey's comments.

How do you think we can help?

I'm open to ideas here; Elvey does not seem to be.

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump
See the note at the top of the page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." This issue appears to be currently under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Elvey did not notify me that he opened that.  I will follow up there. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above is untrue. diff - Proof I notified over an hour earlier.  But WP:IDHT is SOP for this user.--Elvey (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government
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 Elvey has continued to edit within my comments when I have requested him not to, and is undoing the reversions I made pursuant to WP:TPO.

Under WP:TPO, "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I have reverted these interruption. Elvey refuses to allow me to do that.

This all stems from my attempts to find out what is confusing to Elvey that made him mark a section as confusing. However, Elvey insists, not only on reinstating his interruptions contrary to TPO, but deleting the comments trying to get to the bottom of his issue to get the article into a state that no longer confuses him.

See, for example,.

This has been discussed at a previous An/I; see here. Despite the counsel there to Elvey to try to work in good faith to resolve the issue, and his promise to do so, he still persists.

It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter and his hostile tone not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO. I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end om my patience. He categorized the most innocuous comments as "accusations," for example. He's very much a hothead, and I would like some help dealing with him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, discussion on user's talk page.

Note, since Elvey has deleted my note to him about TPO, a pointer to it is here. Please note my attempt at civility here and elsewhere, and feel free to compare and contrast with Elvey's comments.

How do you think we can help?

I'm open to ideas here; Elvey does not seem to be.

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump
See the note at the top of the page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." This issue appears to be currently under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Elvey did not notify me that he opened that.  I will follow up there. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above is untrue. diff - Proof I notified over an hour earlier.  But WP:IDHT is SOP for this user.--Elvey (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Yuilop
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

Many articles about software, up until a few days ago, use the word "free" to describe the product. I assume this is because many primary and independent secondary sources do so. Recently, a question has been raised as to whether or not these articles belong in categories whose definitions are described by articles on Wikipedia. For instance, Freemium or Freeware.

The question posed is, do we use a definition made in another article to define a category to define the subject of another article? Do we do so even if that definition is different than the way that several secondary sources describe the subject?

Palosirkka posted help templates a few places but eventually, an RFC was started. I've tried to discuss this with the other listed editors but they have provided no evidence for their claims.

Furthermore, they have decided that consensus has been reached and edited the article to support their beliefs which they have provided no evidence for.

Codename Lisa also made a statement that the references that I added that call the software "free", don't support the claim made, which is patently false. When I asked him/her to correct themselves, they said that, "as long as you agree this computer program does not fall within the domain of Category:Free instant messaging clients and Category:Free VoIP software, I can safely withdraw that objection."

Codename Lisa now feels that I'm calling them a liar (a personal attack) when I simply asked them to either clarify their statement or correct themselves.

Today, I've been called a kid and accused of personal attacks. I think we've run off the tracks here when there was really no need to do so.

Lastly, an anonymous WP:SPA has recently entered the discussion, right when things seem to have really blown up.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I think that we're having trouble communicating with each other, which I told them yesterday and asked that we start over.

Today, I log on to see Codename Lisa calling me a kid and accusing me of making a person attack.

How do you think we can help?

As usual, I think that more outside attention is always productive and dispute resolution may help us come to a conclusion on this issue by helping us get the discussion back on track.

Talk:Yuilop discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I was going to make a post on WP:NORN but I decided to wait until this case was addressed before inviting anyone else into a conflict. WCS100 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
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

In this page, 2 users are trying to prove that Saudi Arabia and United States played no military role in the whole conflict, in fact these users had the Rfc in the page Bangladesh Liberation War, but what i see is, that those who didn't wanted such removal of "Saudi Arabia" and "United States" from the infobox had poorly defended the case.

It's documented by the multiple reliable sources that both of the nations have played role in the conflict. I sourced such information on the talk page as "Reverting/adding of US and Saudi Arabia as Belligerents in the infobox". "USSR" and "china" as unofficial supporter should be added as unofficial supporters as well.


 * The concerned RfC was meant only for 'United States' and not for Saudi Arabia or Soviet Union. I second Capitals' edits, only because the RfC did not endorse the removal of anything other than 'United States'. Fai  zan  07:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on talk pages of the page, as well as User's own talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if the sourced content is added back, which can be viewed in the 2nd last revert of the page.

Opening comments by Yintan
Very surprised to see this here, as far as I'm concerned there's no need for DRN. The matter is discussed on the article's Talk page. Also, the overview by Capitals00 above is incorrect. He didn't list SA and the US as 'unofficial supporters' but repeatedly as 'belligerents'. Big difference. I've tried to explain his error to Capitals00, and so has Smsarmad, but it's like talking to a wall and I've given up. He completely fails to see the point, calls sourced WP content "your made up theory", etcetera. I can't be bothered with that level of ignorance anymore. For some reason Capitals00 sees my decision not to waste more time on him as proof that he's right (see edit summary here). Go figure. Smsarmad is still trying to reason with Capitals00, he is obviously more patient than I am. Not that it helps much, Capitals00's beliefs appear to be set in concrete. See the Talk page mentioned above. To make my position clear: I have no horse in the India/Pakistan race. I happened to come across Capitals00's edits on Recent Changes Patrol. Yinta n  15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Just added some more information and sources on the talk page. OwnDealers (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC) This user is a sock of User:Capitals00.
 * And like Capitals00's sources, they don't prove a thing. See Talk. Yinta n   01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You just don't like them, but not even a matter for real. Looks like, soon we will see you claiming like pakistan played no role in USSR's war of afghanistan. Capitals00 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Get real. Yinta n   11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better you, now i got to see that the removal of US was only meant for Bangladesh liberation war, you and your friend edited just every related page, which is wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's been explained to you before. Like basically everything in the thread has been explained to you before. God, this is boring. Yinta n   12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest reversion to the last undisputed and agreed upon revision. Fai  zan  07:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw your comment on the talk page, i agree 100% that this US had no involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War, but if we talk about the whole Indo-Pakistan war, they had the military presence and involvement. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Show they declared war and you're right: they would be belligerents. But they didn't. By listing Russia and the US as opponents in the belligerents section, you're basically saying they declared war on eachother. That's, without any doubt, wrong. Again, see Talk. Yinta n   12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * US went there because their base in pakistan was attacked by India. USSR had given only training and supplies, same way China had to pakistan, so they were added as "unofficial supporters", which made sense. Capitals00 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to DRN. I'll do what I can to help with this dispute to resolve it but, keep in mind, I have no more authority over the article or user conduct than any other editor involved.
 * Firstly, the term beligerent has a definition when referring to international law and that definition is: "A nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.". Emphasis mine. The US / USSR were not beligerents in this context and, as such, should most certainly not be listed as beligerents in the infobox.
 * Secondly, they supported their respective allies for various political reasons but this does not bring them into the war in the legal sense according to the Laws of War. A good example to follow is the Syrian civil war where "supported by" lists entities that were involved in combat in one way or another (e.g. Turkey is listed as they are actively sheltering the rebels, offering them a safe zone as well as providing them with weapons and supplies)
 * Finally, it seems to me that the best way to proceed would be to remove all references to the US/USSR etc in the infobox as "beligerants" or "co-supporters". The "Foreign reaction" section could be renamed "Foreign reaction and involvement" (similar to the Syrian article) and expanded if necessary. Thoughts? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. Yinta n   22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cabe's suggestion, and I ammaking the changes as suggested. Fai  zan  06:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The same apply should for China and Saudi Arabia, whose political and diplomatic positions cannot be misinterpreted and exaggerated into unofficial belligerents.--Bazaan (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Capitals00 is going to be blocked soon for sockpuppetry, he had three socks on the go. I reccomend this thread be archived due to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am, like Cabe, a regular volunteer here at DRN. The SPI investigation is being monitored and if any participants in this discussion are blocked, a volunteer will consider that fact and take appropriate action depending on the length of the block and other factors, but now that the SPI investigation has been noted all participants should refrain from further discussion of that matter until the investigation is closed and a volunteer proposes or takes action here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With Capitals00 blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry, there's nothing more here to do. Closing. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes! 13:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascism 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

Capitalismojo refuses to allow Fascism to be defined as a rightwing movement. Yet all existing dictionaries and encyclopedias characterize it in that way. Here are two. The first is the Oxford English Dictionary: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." Here is the google definition: "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.  (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." The list could go on and on. The entire first section of the Fascism entry has always been up for debate. This is just one small part of the problems with it. In general, the first section seems to being used for propagandistic ends. It seems written with a libertarian conservative bias. Libertarian conservatives would be interested in making leftwing socialism and rightwing fascism seem interchangeable. As part of that effort, it would be important not to hae fascism be identified as "rightwing." The Fascism entry strives to blur the boundaries between socialism and fascism. That is out of step with all existing encyclopedias.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requesting third party comment.

How do you think we can help?

Capitalismojo should be advised to respect existing definitions of Fascism in dictionaries and encyclopedias. If they characterize F as "rightwing," Wikipedia has a duty to do so as well. He should be requested to stop undoing attempts to insert that word into the definition in the entry.

Fascism Talk discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Please note: I have fixed the malformed submission template and notified two additional editors who were involved in the discussion. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is extremely premature DRN. A new editor made a bold revision of a lead that appeared to be stable. I reverted and suggested moving to talk. (My only edit ever on the article.) This issue has been discussed since at least 2009 according to my viewing of the article archives. The new discussion started by this editor has barely begun (1 or 2 days?) on the article talk page. I don't think this has even risen to the level of a dispute. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have had only one comment on the talk page as yet. I think perhaps this should be shelved until the talk page discussion (likely) resolves the issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Cabe6403 I am a regular DRN volunteer, but I am neither "taking" nor opening this request for discussion at this time. I've looked at the discussion at the article talk page and at Capitalismojo's comments about this being premature and want to comment that, first, there has been sufficient discussion there to prevent this listing from being closed under DRN's requirement that extensive talk page discussion occur before listing here but, second, that if Capitalismojo is saying that he will not participate here (which is his right: participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary) and if Mryan1451 sees this dispute as mainly being between Mryan and Capitalismojo, then there's not much we can do here. Is that what you both mean? Just as a personal observation, I kind of tend to agree with Capitalismojo that it seems to me that the discussion at the article talk page has really just started, not stalled, and has room to grow. Next, I'd like to note to Mryan that his response to "How do you think we can help?" seems to suggest that he may have a false belief that we are judges or administrators or other enforcers or decision-makers here at DRN. We're not, we're just regular editors who try to help folks work out their differences. We can certainly "advise" or "request" but our advice and requests are only opinions and carry no more weight than those made by any other editor, except perhaps that they come from a neutral position. No one here at Wikipedia has the right to make binding decisions about article content: that's decided exclusively by collaboration and consensus. Regards, TransporterMan  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)  Would you mind answering my question, above, about your intent here? —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to discuss this here or elsewhere. Five or six editors at the article talk page have been gently urging this editor to take a more moderate and incremental approach to the talk page and editing this article, which has been described as disruptive. He seems now to have agreed and has begun editing in a more ususual fashion. The article talk page has had the beginning of movement towards an improved lead using some or Mryan's proposed additions. I'd be willing to talk here if it would be helpful. I do think it is clear that this was started by someone who was unfamiliar with and just learning Wikipedia's processes. Capitalismojo 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion could continue on the Fascism talk page, but bear in mind it's been going on for several years. That suggests there is a problem. Thanks for trying to help. I will continue to propose revisions to the other editors. But I think the problem is not going to go away. And I think we will need outside mediation. Now that you've pitched in, we can move on to that next DRN step if need be. Mryan1451 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451


 * Observation: It looks like we can close this DRN request as premature for now as the editors are working together on the talk page. I'll close it within 24 hours if no one objects. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Toledo Express_Airport
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

Dispute escalated into an edit was as parties didn't agree on the formating/wording on content on the article. Warnings were issued and it was recommended to discuss on the talk page to come to a compromise. The other party has since becoming unyielding and will not offer any suggestions as far as a compromise. The goal is to come to an agreement on acceptable wording for the article that doesn't remove important details that the other party considers useless and makes the judgement for the reader.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted continued dialog through the talk page. Would prefer to discuss this properly and come to an agreeable resolution to everyone involved. Unfortunately Tim Zukas refuses to to compromise on their position. They have a long track record of similar activities of visiting pages to remove content they feel is unnecessary.

How do you think we can help?

Need help just to get things back on a calm and level playing field so a solution can be reached. There are many updates to the article that are planned but I don't want to proceed until this is completed.

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

There's no disagreement on the info in the article. One version has much useless verbiage and the other has less; if a jury of twelve read each version and voted, the verdict would be clear (I hope). But no way to do that? Tim Zukas (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Tim Zukas has removed uncited claims which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. E.g. "The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region." - I see no citations for this anywhere in the article. In fact, the statistics given later in the article seem to say the opposite: "3,241 of which TOL only captures 5.7%. Detroit Metro captures the most of 64.3%".
 * The burden would be on whomever wanted that statement included to provide a citation for that claim. Additionally, your "jury of twelve" is pretty much how a request for comment works on wikipedia.
 * On the flip side ""The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's" is a perfectly valid statement as opposed to just mentioning that it is a base. At this point in the article the reader doesn't know if it is primarily a military base or not. By removing the first part and leaving only "The airport is a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons;" you're introducing confusion by implying its primary use.
 * Basically, you both have valid points. Neither of your versions is perfect, work together and come up with a comprimise <font face="Verdana"> Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of hard to do when one side is unwilling to do so... PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 07:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We could definitely reword the secondary airport wording utilizing details in the recent True Market Study that shows the overlap of markets for Detroit and Toledo. It would probably be better word that it is a secondary airport for the Lake Erie West region instead of naming Detroit specifically first. Like Panther said though, working to a compromise is the goal here but it is hard to do when the other side is unwilling. Dfw79 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you say "the other side is unwilling". I'm assuming you are referring to Tim Zukas. Tim, see my comment above, are you prepared to work on a compromise? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Compare the two versions of the first paragraph:


 * "Toledo Express Airport is a joint civil-military airport located in the townships of Swanton and Monclova situated 10 miles (16 km) to the west of the city of Toledo in Western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport was opened in 1955 as a replacement to then Toledo Municipal Airport located to the southeast of Toledo. TOL is located near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."


 * After we delete some useless stuff we have


 * "Toledo Express Airport is a civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."


 * Which of the useless stuff needs to be compromised back in?


 * Likewise with most of the rest of the deletions-- it's impossible to guess why any writer would prefer the long version. Certainly no reader would.


 * (The reader doesn't need to be told what county and township it's in, once he knows its lat-lon and where it is in relation to Toledo. That too is useless info, but we know Dfw79 will fight to his last breath to keep it. So there's a compromise.) Tim Zukas (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As mentioned on the talk page for the article, this specific revision is already mentioned as acceptable except for changing the terminology of "joint civil-military" to "civil-military" since the first is the current language used on all airport pages that haven't been altered by Tim Zukas. The rest of the modification though are already fine, but they were meant by further disparaging remarks from Tim Zukas instead of simply being implemented. The other modifications can be cleaned up some. Removing content that states Toledo Express serves the Detroit market (which I will go back and cite sources for), the specific roles of the airport, and specific passenger statistics is where the remaining dispute remains and where Tim Zukas has either refused to compromise or has completely disregarded any suggestions and in turn followed the path of demeaning commentary. Dfw79 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So Dfw79, you are happy with the first paragraph Tim Zukas has proposed except from the removal of joint in joint civil-military airport? Is this correct? Personally, I see nothing wrong with putting joint in the lead as makes it clearer for those who, perhaps, don't know much about the topic. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe, yes it is fine with me as long as joint remains in. This is probably one of the more minor change disagreements. Dfw79 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case I propose the following for the opening paragraph. If everyone is happy with this we can move onto the next bit of disputed text. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Toledo Express Airport is a joint civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52).

How about this instead:

Toledo Express Airport is a joint civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in the west side of Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52). Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Either seem pretty acceptable. I tend to favor the wording of the of Cabe's. Dfw79 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Next paragraph-- Dfw79's version:

"The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft. The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region. It is frequently used as the primary diversion point for arriving traffic to Detroit Metro Airport as well as other regional hubs. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo."

Leaving in some unnecessary info, we can still cut it to

"Passenger and cargo airlines and general aviation use TOL, and Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons is based there. The airport is a secondary airport for Detroit and the surrounding region; aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport and other hubs use it as an alternate. The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority operates the airport on a lease agreement with the City."


 * Previous post was made by Tim Zukas but wasn't signed in case anyone wonders. Keeping in mind that the version isn't all mine, I would go further to better improve it.


 * Suggestion: "TOL is used by passenger and cargo airlines, general aviation, and is home to the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing. The airport is a secondary airport for Detroit and surround region, including as a primary diversion point for aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo. The airport also serves as headquarters and ground cargo hub for BX Solutions."


 * "Passenger and cargo airlines and general aviation use TOL and the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing is based there; the airport is a secondary airport for the Detroit area and flights to Detroit Metro Airport use it as an alternate. It is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement with the City of Toledo. The airport is also headquarters and a ground cargo hub for BX Solutions." Tim Zukas (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Flow of the paragraph seems very awkward with the semicolons being put in. To me that is an unnecessary change and is just there to have a change. I'll defer to others for opinions, but I'm not seeing any need for additional changes. Dfw79 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, the semicolons are unnecessary and disrupt the flow Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also say we could probably look at the last two paragraphs remaining since there isn't much left and we seem to be finally making progress.


 * Current:In 2012, Toledo Express served 143,383 passengers which was a 0.9% drop from 2011 (144,076). American Airlines, operated by American Connection, was the largest operator in 2012 with 79,619 passengers (up 12% from 2011–70,939 and 58,540 in 2010) and reported a load factor of 66%. Allegiant Air carrier 54,412 passengers in 2012 for a 91.5% load factor. The remaining passengers were carried by charter outfits Direct Air (operated by Xtra Airways) with service to Punta Gorda and Vision Airlines with service to Myrtle Beach. Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air.


 * Tim Zukas Change:In 2012 Toledo Express served 143,383 passengers, a 0.9% drop from 2011. American Connection (American Airlines' affiliate) was the largest airline in 2012 with 79,619 passengers (70,939 in 2011 and 58,540 in 2010) and a load factor of 66%. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers in 2012 for a 91.5% load factor. The remaining passengers were carried by charter outfits Direct Air (operated by Xtra Airways) with service to Punta Gorda and Vision Airlines with service to Myrtle Beach. Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air.


 * Suggestion:In 2012 the airport served 143,383 passengers versus 144,076 compared to 2011, a 0.9% drop. American Airlines, operated by American Connection carrier Chautauqua Airlines, was the largest airline with 79,619 passengers to Chicago O'Hare. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers to Sanford and St. Petersburg. Direct Air and Vision Airlines were accountable for the remaining passengers to Punta Gorda and Myrtle Beach respectfully. Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air which added service to Punta Gorda.


 * "143,383 passengers used the airport in 2012 versus 144,076 in 2011. Chautauqua Airlines, an American affiliate, was the largest airline with 79,619 passengers on its Chicago O'Hare flights. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers to/from Sanford and St. Petersburg; the rest were on Direct Air's Punta Gorda flights and Vision Airlines' Myrtle Beach flights. In the first half of 2013 TOL had 3.6% more passengers than in Jan-June 2012; Allegiant Air added flights to Punta Gorda and carried 80% more passengers." Tim Zukas (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously the main issue I have in this one is starting sentence/paragraph with a number not typed out. No real need to modify the first sentence I proposed. At this point it seems the edits are just for the same of having an edit and the flow of the paragraph is very choppy and doesn't read correctly. I'll let others post feedback and see what is suggested there so we can finally close this out. Dfw79 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "No real need to modify the first sentence"


 * Indeed, no one will die if the article tells people AA flies to Toledo, though it doesn't. No one will die if the article says flights to Chicago carried 79619 passengers, even if that's the total both ways. Ditto for flights elsewhere. No one will die if the article tells them 143383 is 0.9% less than 144076, though it isn't. No one will die if told 143383 is 0.480996% less than 144076-- so the article should tell them that? Or would it be better with still more decimals?


 * "it seems the edits are just for the same of having an edit"


 * Do you make edits "just for the same of having an edit"? If not, why do you imagine anyone else does? Tim Zukas (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire to streamline the article but remember Wikipedia is not paper, we essentially don't have any maximum page length or prose length. You should write the article from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about aviation, airports, the US etc. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Current:Toledo Express also serves as a cargo hub for BX Solutions, a freight handling company started by former BAX Global executives that use to maintain an air cargo hub at the airport.


 * Tim Zukas Change:Toledo Express is an air cargo hub for BX Solutions, a freight handling company started by former BAX Global executives.


 * Suggestion:Removed and added to second airport utilization paragraph. Main thing here is that Tim Zukas changed it to "air cargo hub" which is incorrect as BX Solutions does not have any air operations currently - it is all ground at this point.
 * Dfw79 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
The editors involved here have all shown a willingness to engage in discussion and come to reasonable consensus. I would propse then that this DRN be closed and discussion is moved to the talk page of the article itself. If editors involved feel that this is an incorrect summation please indicate Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cabe I agree we are probably at the place where nothing more can be accomplished here. It seems the solution I presented brings in a lot of the changes everyone wanted. I think there is probably still some disagreement from the point of view of Tim Zukas, but I'm not really sure what more we can do on that end. Cutting words for the sake of cutting words does not equal a good article. As you said, Wikipedia is a resource and should be targeted to those that are coming here for information that are going to be unfamiliar with a lot of specifics. It isn't proper to chop articles down so much to where they are difficult to read and gut out details one person thinks is irrelevant. I definitely appreciate the feedback here and feel its time for everyone to move on to the next project. Dfw79 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mayor of Casterbridge
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 have edited the article "The Mayor of Casterbridge" to include content about the 2001 ITV film version, and the edit is promptly deleted without discussion by a small group of editors who appear to be acquainted with each other. Their common complaint is that my edit is POV and entitled to revert without discussion. Since I'm adding useful content, I feel that discussion on the article's Talk Page would sort out any differences and improve the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried asking the 3 users to discuss any issues before reverting, but their uniform response is to threaten to have me blocked for posting "POV" content. They're not willing to discuss any of their concerns, so I'm unable to help sort out any differences.

How do you think we can help?

Remind the 3 users that discussion is required before reverting, and that reverting is a clumsy, brute-force remedy that is inappropriate except in cases such as vandalism.

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

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

Summary of dispute by PaleCloudedWhite
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Santamoly shouldn't have brought this here - there hasn't yet been any discussion on the talk page, as Santamoly hasn't replied to the concern raised by David J Johnson. Santamoly also has made some incorrect claims in the statements above. For instance, the claim "their uniform response is to threaten to have me blocked" is untrue - all I have done is make one revert and inform Santamoly not to revert again or they would contravene 3RR. Similarly, the claim "They're not willing to discuss any of their concerns" is again untrue - where's the evidence for this? David J Johnson spelled out concerns quite clearly, to which Santamoly hasn't responded. Furthermore, Santamoly's instruction to "Remind the 3 users that discussion is required before reverting" doesn't appear to me to be based on an understanding of normal Wikipedia practice - it's "Bold, revert, discuss", not "Bold, discuss". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mayor of Casterbridge discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I'm Theodore!, and will be assisting you with this case. I'll wait for all concerned to give opening comments before offering any ideas.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, disputes must be discussed "extensively" (see the instructions at thee top of this page) before they are brought to DRN. I am only seeing discussions at Talk:The Mayor of Casterbridge and at User talk:Santamoly.  Neither discussion seems particularly long.  However, they do seem heated.  To all concerned in the matter - what are your opinions regarding the amount of discussion? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to wait a few hours, to see if anyone else contributes to this. Otherwise, I am inclined to close it for a procedural reason, as the issue has not been sufficiently discussed on talk pages. In addition, I realize that this may not be an appropriate way to use DRN, and am conscious of that. I do want to give the others a chance to respond, though, before this is closed. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that David J Johnson is on vacation at the moment and is therefore perhaps not likely to be aware of this discussion. In the meantime Santamoly has reverted the article for the 4th time, without responding to David's concerns on the talk page, nor indeed to anything written here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving this update. I'm fairly doubtful anything good will come of this discussion; it seems as if the three editors mentioned by User:Santamoly are merely trying to prevent unreliably sourced content from being added to the article.  There is no legitimate dispute here; while I would encourage all parties to make use of discussion pages, reversion of original research is understandable and appropriate.  I will close this shortly. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For information: after Santamoly's most recent and 4th reversion of the article, I filed a report against them at WP:AN3, and they have been blocked for 48 hours. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will close this thread. It's pointless to leave it open, and it's quite apparent that there's no real dispute here.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:North Korea%27s_cult_of_personality
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

Continual disputes over the inclusion of content between myself and another editor. I have been expanding an article using multiple sources for the content, the opposing editor rejects the validity of the sources and the importance of the content. We are at a stalemate. A third editor has given his opinions as well, but the "edit war" continues between myself and the opposing editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain myself and my justifications, we have had extensive talk page discussions (for a full month).

How do you think we can help?

By breaking the stalemate. Either helping us to craft the language of the content so that the opposing editor can accept it, or by bringing in multiple opinions and reach some form of consensus to finally resolve the issue.

Summary of dispute by BlueSalix
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It's not possible for me to respond to this dispute at this time. Dispute initiator, Coinmanj, will need to provide details about the nature of the edit war he believes we're involved in first, with specifics beyond "continual disputes over the inclusion of content between myself and another editor." The process of editing wikipedia is a collaborative one that often involves disagreement and discussion. I appreciate that entries being "sat on / guarded" by the original creator of the entry - particularly those that have had little previous attention from persons other than that creator - sometimes come to be perceived by the creator as their "turf." If I have not been sensitive enough to this dynamic I am happy to accept the counsel of other editors as to ways in which I can more gently assuage Coinmanj's concerns about including others in collaborating on his entry. Beyond that I can't offer a more formative reply to this complaint without further details as to its nature. To the best of my knowledge, processes of discussion, disagreement, accommodation and editing is the manner of operation of Wikipedia, they are not violations warranting complaint and intervention. I invite anyone viewing this dispute entry to review the Talk page and edit history as I'm certain it will show a rather routine and unremarkable - at times, passionate - edit process at work, and not what would be correctly described as an "edit war." I was frankly surprised to see this complaint opened. BlueSalix (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:North Korea%27s_cult_of_personality discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I am a regular volunteer here. The following response to BlueSalix's request, above, is copied from Talk:North_Korea's_cult_of_personality, verbatim except for correction of the paragraph numbering. BlueSalix should feel free to respond, point by point, below the box. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - who added the "non-italic texts for explanation?" TransporterMan or Coinmanj? In the history of the Talk page on this issue, Coinmanj has repeatedly used a very unconventional style of editing in which he rearranges other editors comments, injects mid-sentence invections into editors comments and leaves large blocks of white spaces. This has been the source of much confusion in discussion and might be a genesis of some of his anger with regard to this entry; the Talk page has become very difficult to follow.
 * In any case, there are two parts to the above post: (a) the correctness of my opinions, expressed on Talk page of the entry in question, and, (b) a newly injected allegation there have been "constant reverts."
 * To the first point, here are my point-by-point responses to specific items of content discussion: Talk:North_Korea%27s_cult_of_personality.
 * To the second point, there have been exactly 3 "undid revisions" and "reverted to revisions" in the the last four months of this entry (the time period during which I've participated) - I have initiated 1, Coinmanj has done 1, and a third editor has initiated 1. I believe this indicates a healthy discussion/dialog and not an "edit war."
 * Again, I appreciate Coinmanj ideated, crafted, and built this very verbose entry from the ground up by himself with little outside participation. I appreciate entry creators can become territorial and react with offense when a person disagrees with their manner of editing or alerts them to issues of WP:SYNTH, etc. Regardless of individual editors feelings, these are items that can - and were being - resolved in normal Talk discussion. Rather than trying to summon the palace guard to defend his castle, Coinmanj's efforts might be better spent in choosing to engage in constructive dialog on the Talk page and spending more time carefully editing his comments to allow a more logical and easy-to-follow progression of discussion. If Coinmanj would like to make entries that are not subject to comment or collaborative editing, he could always create a blog. Wikipedia is not an archive of individual editors monologues. BlueSalix (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything in the box is from Coinmanj, except for the paragraph numbering (which I re-did because there were two #1's), I just copied it verbatim from the article talk page. The "constant reverts" and edit war allegations are conduct matters which will not be dealt with here directly (just like everything in your "Again, I appreciate" paragraph, above, which are also conduct allegations). DRN is only to help to try to work out content disputes. Whatever may have gone before, Coinmanj appears to have very clearly summarized the edits and sources which are in dispute. If you wish to copy over your point-by-point responses, please feel free to do so, but merely pointing to the article talk page and expecting a DRN volunteer to dig them out of the wall-o-text there is not reasonable. I get the distinct impression that you may not want to participate here. If that's so, that's okay and is your prerogative since participating here at DRN is always voluntary. If that's the case, just say so and a DRN volunteer will close this request and make recommendations about what to do next. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not address this summary offered by Coinmanj; as I explained on the Talk page: "I dispute, and totally reject, the accuracy of the summary of my objections crafted by Coinmanj. It does not accurately represent my position and obliterates and ignores my repeated cautions to him about WP:SYNTH, a central issue I've raised with this problematic entry. I will not address this summary since it is an independent argument created by Coinmanj and not a summary of anything I have positioned. My positions can be read above, here, on the Talk page. I thank Coinmanj for offering to abridge my comments, but kindly request he not do so."
 * Further, the Talk Page provides context and depth to the discussion that Coinmanj's perception of the situation (described by him as "summaries") do not. Persons monitoring this thread who feel Coinmanj's position is correct are welcome to join the discussion on the Talk page; this would be warmly welcomed by me as it would break the 1-vs-1 loggerhead we currently have going on and help achieve consensus. Recreating the Talk page discussion on the Noticeboard, however, is not a constructive use of editor time and is not in the spirit of the Noticeboard. To maintain the spirit of the Noticeboard, I will not address any content-oriented discussions here (those can be broached on the Talk page - the correct venue), only concerns about the "edit war" Coinmanj believes is occurring. To that point, I have addressed that concern (above) totally and completely (see: there have been exactly 3 "undid revisions" and "reverted to revisions" in the last four months of this entry - I have initiated 1 ...). Anything else? BlueSalix (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A look at the articles history will show approximately 6 distinct instances (representing around 12 individual edits in total) of content being added (by myself) and then removed, either via the "undo" button or manual removal since July 17. This constitutes an edit war. My summary was only showing the *specific content* that has been added (by me) and then removed (by BuleSalix), e.g. the controversial content. Another editor (User:Richard BB) had given his opinion on the matter and concluded that the information should remain, he also reverted the removal by BlueSalix. Despite this, the content was removed again by BlueSalix. Coinmanj (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)