Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 24

Saini discussion

Here we go again. The usual bollocks about whether caste X is descended from a god, or instead descended from something a dog left behind. I think that the most appropriate response has got to be that for Wikipedia purposes, we don't care. This is the 21st century. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Then delete the page and I'll have absolutely no problem with that! And FYI, there is an entire reservation system built around this, so in the 21st century, it matters very much. --Rajput666 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That was not a particularly helpful response, AndyTheGrump :( If you adopt the "we don't care because it is the 21st century" logic then all historical content would be removed from this project.

The issue should be simple: various sources note that the community claims Rajput status and claims to be connected to an older community, known as the Shoorsaini (there are numerous spellings). Some people want to convert a claim into a undisputed truth but, of course, we should show all sides. I have been trying to dig around the sources a bit more but have a lot of irons in the fire. If people would be prepared to give me a few days then I will commit to it. Someone else can set the time scale, in order that it does not appear that I am filibustering or something. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some examples:

• Mazumder clearly notes a Punjabi commissioner differentiating between Sainis and Rajputs, and in fn. 55 on the same page shows a class return (official publication) from 1925 that differentiates also. He further shows a class return from ::*1919 that also differentiated.

If you read it carefully, English source he quotes also mentions Janjua, Sial, Mahton, etc as different from Rajputs. You can check that in the class returns that you are mentioning. This reasoning could apply to many other Rajput tribes. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that English sources are confused about what constituted a Rajput category and lack consistency in the usage of the term for different tribes of Punjab.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Judge & Bal also make the distinction (note 9). They do so again in lists on pp. 65, 68 and 76.

• Mukherjee & Jayaswal
• Krishan. Also pp. 75, 78, 84.

• M. S. A. Rao. Also p. 70.

• Tamang

Some of the above are better than others, in the context of our article. M. S. A. Rao is particularly significant because of his primary academic focus. Nonetheless, there are clearly a lot of people out there making a distinction between Rajput and Saini. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mahajan. See also p. 16.

• Sarkar & Sarkar

• Chaudhuri
• 1927 Suket State Gazetteer
• Christophe Jaffrelot
• Yadav
• Singer & Cohn

I think that will do. When the likes of Jaffrelot, Singer/Cohn and the Sarkar/Sarkar pairing join in - all published by university presses etc - then I think it should be game over. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What good is any of this, if somebody is just going to revert the changes by claiming "Undoing changes by xxx. Reverting to back to yyy."? Once details are agreed on, this page needs to be locked down in some fashion. --Rajput666 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Once a consensus is obtained, be it here or elsewhere, then certainly for a reasonable length of time and probably until some convincing new information comes to light, we just point people to the consensus. There are general sanctions in place for articles such as this: if they wilfully ignore the consensus then they will likely find themselves in trouble pretty quickly. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have ignored many references where the term Rajput has been used to positively identify Sainis. We need to be honest here (I am afraid you are not being so maybe due to hasty reading). Gahlot and Haryana ASI publication (based on the quotes I read on talk page) explicity identify them as a branch of Rajputs who became agricultural in Muslim era. You could argue that the claim part should also be given some weight a much as a positive identification but do not say that there are no uninvolved sources which positively identify them as a Rajput group. This is false and misrepresentation. If the sources are conflicted , then we need to judge them by their reliablity value and quote both, rather than trying sweep a claim that seems to have some validation, however strong or sparse, under the carpet. We may also need to take cognizance of the fact that different castes could be known by same name in different parts of the country and may not have anything in common despite having same name. In this reference it is important that they be split by geography in subsections or new articles should be started if the groups have little in common beyond name.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just a drive by editor with only a passing interest in this topic. Please note HA Rose and Ibbetson have written patently racist , casteist and downright libelous stuff about a number of castes in their work. Additionally,their work is based on rudimentary census techniques on 19th century which are considered unscientific and based on out-moded race theories of English era which Engilish administrators tried unsuccessfully to superimpose on Indian caste order which was essentially different. Here are some snippet about the kind of comments that are found in Rose's work (copying from another editor's post on another article):

• "They are small of stature, of quite remarkable personal ugliness, and very quarrelsome and litigious", ( "ugly" Mahtons)

• " adds that they are wasteful in marriage expenditure, hospitable to travellers, thievish...." ( "thievish" Kharrals)

Reference: Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, p54 & p 496, H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan, Asian Educational Services

• "...smaller in physique and less intelligent than a Jat". ( "less intelligent" Kambohs)

• "They differ entirely in character from the idle, thievish and cowardly Gujars of the Southern Punjab" ( "thievish and cowardly" Gujars)

• "They are of inferior physisque , envious, secretive, cowardly, lying , great bigots, in offensive and capital cultivators" ( "cowardly and lying" Bannuchi Pathans)"

Reference: A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province: A.-K." H.A. Rose, p445,p36, p63 Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1997

These examples are just a handful. Entire works of these "authorities" are littered with sweeping generalizations about castes that are blatantly racist and would not be accepted anywhere as genuine scholarship by today's standards. Not just a few individuals , entire castes and tribes are termed "criminal", "ugly", "theivish" etc.

By any manner you look at it Rose/Ibbeton and any work derived from their authority will go under what Wikipedia calls questionable source. Any secondary source which traces to this source also needs to be treated as questionable source only. Not all secondary sources on Indian ethnography are reliable even if they happen to be university publications. This has been a gray area which academics need to address. Meanwhile, wikipedia needs to have a policy which does not grant automatic legitimacy to a secondary source work (even published by a source otherwise considered credible) which traces to a British era literature whose accuracy and intent are both widely disputed. My two cents.--129.42.208.187 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to consider the following comment by Kevin Hobson while citing any British era source on Indian ethnography:

" By establishing themselves as authorities on the caste system they could then tell the British what they believed the British wanted to hear and also what would most enhance their own position. The British would then take this information, received through the filter of the Brahmans, and interpret it based on their own experience and their own cultural concepts. Thus, information was filtered at least twice before publication. Therefore, it seems certain that the information that was finally published was filled with conceptions that would seem to be downright deceitful to those about whom the information was written. The flood of petitions protesting caste rankings following the 1901 census would appear to bear witness to this"

-The Indian Caste System and The British - Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India , Kevin Hobson

This criticism would directly apply works such as Ibbetson's and Rose's and any secondary work quoting their authority. So these sources should not be considered kosher for wikipedia, given an overwhelming evidence of dispute regarding their accurarcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.187 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the major contributor to many of the biographies involving British Raj "ethnologists". From James Tod, through H.H. Risley and on to H. A. Rose etc. Not forgetting Edgar Thurston and William Crooke. With the possible exception of Risley, most of those articles still need some work and they will get some time from me if sideshows such as this did not pop up quite so often.

They are all pretty much next to useless for our purposes, per the current academic thinking. And, yes, many were imbued with or even primary proponents of the discredited concept of scientific racism. We can cite them for their opinion but not as fact. No-one is saying that the claim should not be mentioned. What is being said is that there is an alternate viewpoint and that there are some contributors who are not particularly willing to allow that viewpoint to be shown. Honestly, this is really a very simple situation: show both sides. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your solution sounds fine to me, but I would like one more change. As noted under "Dispute Overview", the article incorrectly claims by a citing a source that "As with other Rajput origin tribes of the then Punjab region [...]". This should be removed because there is no such mention in the source being cited.--Rajput666 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that proposed removal. Of the named parties to the dispute, only two have contributed recently. The IP did so last on 29 February and quite probably was editing while logged out (this is not an accusation: I've inadvertently done the same myself on the odd occasion, usually when the 30 day log-in suddenly times out). The other recent contributions are those of Garry Singh Girn, who has been told time and again about this discussion but seems to be ignoring it in favour of pushing the Saini Rajput claim into other articles. This being the case, I am wondering whether it would be possible for some non-involved person to summarise and close this thread. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sainis along with other Rajput clans of Punjab such as Mahtons, Kambohs etc are of Rajput origin. Please visit this link http://www.sikhcastes.com/saini-sikh-subcastes and read each and every line carefully. I think the information which is provided in this link will remove all your doubts regarding Sainis as Rajputs. Fact is fact. Thanks! Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Singh Girn (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite. I have just removed that link from the Saini article, within a few minutes of it being added by an IP. As per my edit summary, please read the disclaimer here. Even regardless of this, you are misunderstanding how Wikipedia works: we have plenty of sources that dispute this alleged "fact". We have to show them. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The disclaimer at that site makes it clear it contains unmoderated user submissions which are not subject to editorial control - it is therefore not a reliable source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

SS Gehlot has cleared mentioned that "In Punjab the sub mountanous region the community came to be called Saini . It maintained its Rajput character despite migration". KS Singh clearly has opening line on Saini article that they claim to have originated from Maharja ShuraSen and Rajputs who were defeated. Sainis became Malis to escape from the onslaught of Muslims TM Dak also writes that "Many of them(sainis) are large landowners. Besides during the past, the Malis had served the royal courts and were mainly working as gardners;but the Sainis did not serve others; rather they were independent agriculturists. Arain, Rain, Baghban, the Mali and the Maliar constitute a mixed body of men denoting occupation rather than caste...1) The Malis are not as rigid as the Sainis in accepting food from members of other castes; 2) Mali women were found working as agricultural labourers which is not the case with Saini women; 3) Educationally, occupationally, and economically, the Sainis are far better placed than are the Malis, and 4) Sainis are landownders and own large lands as compared to the Malis." He also adds the following. It connects both Saini and Shoorsaini and says how people of Shoorsaini community ended up with different names. It also clearly identifies them as Saini Rajputs. "Many of the of these clans , in the past, had established their rule in different parts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and were named after powerful kings. For different periods, the community was then known by its clans or segments rather than Shoorsainis. Thus the community came to be known by different names in different areas depdending upon the area of origin, name of the king that ruled the area, or occupation they pursued. In due course these became caste or subcaste names. Thus, one can notice that Sainis are known by different names such as Sarsaini, Rajput Saini..."

People of India: Haryana, pp 430-434, Author: T.M. Dak, Editors: Kumar Suresh Singh, Madan Lal Sharma, A. K. Bhatia, Anthropological Survey of India, Published by Published on behalf of Anthropological Survey of India by Manohar Publishers, 1994

Gahlot has linked the linked the origin of Sainis with the Rajput soldiers of Prithvi Raj Chauhan. 

While he says that certain Rajputs became Malis to avoid conversion but he makes clear exception for the defeated Rajputs who came to Punjab. He says that they maintained Rajput character. This community that has originated from Rajputs and has maintained its Rajput character can only be called Rajput no matter how one looks at it. In any case Rajput origin of Sainis remains incontrovertible. Please note that SS Gahlot is not a fringe author but a reputed mainstream academic who is quoted even by Encyclopedia Britannica which scrutinizes the references much more rigorously than amateur editors driven Wikipedia ever could.

HA Travekis is positively identifying Sainis as a Rajput group because he mentions them in a passage devoted to the dispersal of Rajput clans and no where expresses doubt about "Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan" part. He accepts the claim as genuine . The acknowlegent of the veracity of claim is is impicit but positive.. This Rajput clan was called Shoorsaini . It is apparently clear that the "adventurers" being referred are the Sainis . The is no WP:SYN involved if this reference is considered a positive identifications as a Rajput descent group.

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions." -The land of the five rivers; an economic history of the Punjab from the earliest times to the year of grace 1890, pp 100, Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, [London] Oxford University press, 1928

SS Shashi has mentioned that there were Saini rulers in Bayana area and they would have come from Brij

Elliot wrote about Gurdan Saini a General of Rajput army. He has his book published in 1971 way before Ibbetson’s work.

ABO study did not reveal any difference amongst Sainis and Rajputs but significant difference from Jats, Chamars.

Ibbetson’s work is disputed and most of the work done on the castes is based upon Ibbetosn. Most of the references mentioned by Sitush did not say that Sainis are not Rajputs and Majority have mentioned Ibbetson as the reference such as

Majumadar puts Jats, Rajputs, sainis et al in agriculture tribes and also calssifies them into martial race but nowhere does he mention that sainis are or are not Rajputs. Moreover he has given Ibbetson as the reference.

Judge and Bal did not anywhere mention that Sainis are not Rajputs and again Ibbetson has been used as reference.

Singer and Cohn have also used Ibbetson as the reference.

Gopal Kishan talks about unemployment and underemployment in various castes. He did not say that sainis are or are not Rajputs. He puts jats, Rajputs and Sainis in landowning cultivating castes and it does not mean that Rajputs being ubder the heading of cultivating castes are less of Rajputs and sainis being under Rajputs are not Rajputs. It does not approve or disapprove that Sainis are Rajputs.

The official category of Rajput is riddled with confusion both in the academic literature as well as government literature. For example, refer to the following document which is the most important document of British Punjab.: The Punjab alienation of land act, XIII of 1900 , pp vi-Xi Sir Shadi Lal Most of the caste categories of Punjab used by academics and subequent government records are derived from this document. If you look at the Schedule of castes. It mentions the following Rajput groups also to be separate form Rajputs the caste: Bhatti, Mahton, Chauhan, Chib, Janjua , Panwar Are all of the above not Rajputs either? The point is Rajput is very disputed and hotly debated category. A caste cannot simply be excluded from the category based on a single source or multiple sources tracing back to a single questionable source . Such an approach is unscholarly and is discredited in academics as Information Cascade. Just as in the above case there is no universally accepted list of Rajput groups which is beyond reproach. If you accept this , then you will have to exclude Bhatti, Mahton, Chauhan, Chib, Janjua and Panwar from Rajput category as well. In the ultimate analysis, the references have to be weighed NOT counted. Faulty theories get legitimacy because of information cascades. Most of the references quoted by SITUSH are result of this information cascade. We need to weigh refereneces in terms of their credibility and source., not blindly count them. An Encyclopedia Britannica cited work (Gahlot, 1989) cannot simply be set aside. It must be given more weight than the others.

Tamang talks about foods and does not say whether Sainis are Rajputs or not. This book does not have any references, so is a weak source.

So I think based upon these references, majority of which did not prove that sainis are not Rajputs and then suggesting to change the article amounts to Synthesis as per Wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

SS Gehlot has cleared mentioned that "In Punjab the sub mountanous region the community came to be called Saini . It maintained its Rajput character despite migration". KS Singh clearly has opening line on Saini article that they claim to have originated from Maharja ShuraSen and Rajputs who were defeated. Sainis became Malis to escape from the onslaught of Muslims TM Dak also writes that "Many of them(sainis) are large landowners. Besides during the past, the Malis had served the royal courts and were mainly working as gardners;but the Sainis did not serve others; rather they were independent agriculturists. Arain, Rain, Baghban, the Mali and the Maliar constitute a mixed body of men denoting occupation rather than caste...1) The Malis are not as rigid as the Sainis in accepting food from members of other castes; 2) Mali women were found working as agricultural labourers which is not the case with Saini women; 3) Educationally, occupationally, and economically, the Sainis are far better placed than are the Malis, and 4) Sainis are landownders and own large lands as compared to the Malis." He also adds the following. It connects both Saini and Shoorsaini and says how people of Shoorsaini community ended up with different names. It also clearly identifies them as Saini Rajputs. "Many of the of these clans , in the past, had established their rule in different parts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and were named after powerful kings. For different periods, the community was then known by its clans or segments rather than Shoorsainis. Thus the community came to be known by different names in different areas depdending upon the area of origin, name of the king that ruled the area, or occupation they pursued. In due course these became caste or subcaste names. Thus, one can notice that Sainis are known by different names such as Sarsaini, Rajput Saini..."

People of India: Haryana, pp 430-434, Author: T.M. Dak, Editors: Kumar Suresh Singh, Madan Lal Sharma, A. K. Bhatia, Anthropological Survey of India, Published by Published on behalf of Anthropological Survey of India by Manohar Publishers, 1994

Gahlot has linked the linked the origin of Sainis with the Rajput soldiers of Prithvi Raj Chauhan. While he says that certain Rajputs became Malis to avoid conversion but he makes clear exception for the defeated Rajputs who came to Punjab. He says that they maintained Rajput character. This community that has originated from Rajputs and has maintained its Rajput character can only be called Rajput no matter how one looks at it. In any case Rajput origin of Sainis remains incontrovertible. Please note that SS Gahlot is not a fringe author but a reputed mainstream academic who is quoted even by Encyclopedia Britannica which scrutinizes the references much more rigorously than amateur editors driven Wikipedia ever could.

HA Travekis is positively identifying Sainis as a Rajput group because he mentions them in a passage devoted to the dispersal of Rajput clans and no where expresses doubt about "Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan" part. He accepts the claim as genuine . The acknowlegent of the veracity of claim is is impicit but positive.. This Rajput clan was called Shoorsaini . It is apparently clear that the "adventurers" being referred are the Sainis . The is no WP:SYN involved if this reference is considered a positive identifications as a Rajput descent group.

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions." -The land of the five rivers; an economic history of the Punjab from the earliest times to the year of grace 1890, pp 100, Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, [London] Oxford University press, 1928

SS Shashi has mentioned that there were Saini rulers in Bayana area and they would have come from Brij

Elliot wrote about Gurdan Saini a General of Rajput army. He has his book published in 1971 way before Ibbetson’s work.

ABO study did not reveal any difference amongst Sainis and Rajputs but significant difference from Jats, Chamars.

Ibbetson’s work is disputed and most of the work done on the castes is based upon Ibbetosn. Most of the references mentioned by Sitush did not say that Sainis are not Rajputs and Majority have mentioned Ibbetson as the reference such as

Majumadar puts Jats, Rajputs, sainis et al in agriculture tribes and also calssifies them into martial race but nowhere does he mention that sainis are or are not Rajputs. Moreover he has given Ibbetson as the reference.

Judge and Bal did not anywhere mention that Sainis are not Rajputs and again Ibbetson has been used as reference.

Singer and Cohn have also used Ibbetson as the reference.

Gopal Kishan talks about unemployment and underemployment in various castes. He did not say that sainis are or are not Rajputs. He puts jats, Rajputs and Sainis in landowning cultivating castes and it does not mean that Rajputs being ubder the heading of cultivating castes are less of Rajputs and sainis being under Rajputs are not Rajputs. It does not approve or disapprove that Sainis are Rajputs.

The official category of Rajput is riddled with confusion both in the academic literature as well as government literature. For example, refer to the following document which is the most important document of British Punjab.: The Punjab alienation of land act, XIII of 1900 , pp vi-Xi Sir Shadi Lal Most of the caste categories of Punjab used by academics and subequent government records are derived from this document. If you look at the Schedule of castes. It mentions the following Rajput groups also to be separate form Rajputs the caste: Bhatti, Mahton, Chauhan, Chib, Janjua , Panwar Are all of the above not Rajputs either? The point is Rajput is very disputed and hotly debated category. A caste cannot simply be excluded from the category based on a single source or multiple sources tracing back to a single questionable source . Such an approach is unscholarly and is discredited in academics as Information Cascade. Just as in the above case there is no universally accepted list of Rajput groups which is beyond reproach. If you accept this , then you will have to exclude Bhatti, Mahton, Chauhan, Chib, Janjua and Panwar from Rajput category as well. In the ultimate analysis, the references have to be weighed NOT counted. Faulty theories get legitimacy because of information cascades. Most of the references quoted by SITUSH are result of this information cascade. We need to weigh refereneces in terms of their credibility and source., not blindly count them. An Encyclopedia Britannica cited work (Gahlot, 1989) cannot simply be set aside. It must be given more weight than the others.

Tamang talks about foods and does not say whether Sainis are Rajputs or not. This book does not have any references, so is a weak source.

So I think based upon these references, majority of which did not prove that sainis are not Rajputs and then suggesting to change the article amounts to Synthesis as per wiki policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.71.241.254 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Rinat Akhmetov discussion

Opening Comment by Sleddog116:

Okay, I'm going to weigh in here just to make a few preliminary remarks. First, it seems like you two are the primary editors of this article. I'm not saying that to construe any ownership, merely to point out the fact that most of the article's content (at least recently; I haven't looked terribly far back in the history) comes from you. Also, you two seem to be the main ones discussing things on the talk page. My point in all of this is that you two have been dealing with each other for some time, so I shouldn't need to say anything that you already know - I just want everyone to get along here. Orekhova, before we can really go any further with this, you need to inform Lvivske of this dispute (you can use the template listed above).

As far as the neutrality is concerned, I've taken a look at both the article and (especially) the talk page, and I think both of you misunderstand what WP:NPOV means. Neutral POV is not about adding a bunch of point-of-view statements and then balancing them with a bunch of equally point-of-view statements from the other side (I'm looking especially here and here). Neutral point of view is about using neutral language throughout the article and, if the language is not neutral, attributing the language to its original source using quotes. For instance, this is non-neutral:

John Doe has been called a thug because of his ties to organized crime.^reference

This is neutral:

Joe Brown, (state significance of Joe Brown), categorized John Doe as a "thug," citing his connection to organized crime.^reference

See the difference? Another important thing to remember in this kind of discussion is that (especially since we're dealing with BLP issues here) we cannot give undue weight to matters that have not been given significant, main-stream media coverage. In other words, anything added to this article that is likely to be contentious must be not only sourced but very well sourced.

Bearing all of that in mind, what exactly are the perceived lapses in neutrality? (By the way, guys, citing a few of the diffs in question would be fabulous. Thanks.) Sleddog116 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this into consideration and try to fix the tone at some point. I understand this is a hot issue, but if my tone was off, it wasn't intentional.--Львівське (говорити) 17:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sleddog, I added some new info based on another book I dug up, let me know if this is poor in tone, I tried to mimic how you wrote above. --Львівське (говорити) 05:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Lvivske:

Orekhova has been doing this dog & pony show for a while now. It's suspected she's a PR rep for Akmetov (in some fashion), based on her article scope and youtube channel, etc. and that she's at the very least too close to the material.

The page itself has been plagued with sock accounts who carry on in a similar way as her; calling things "libel" and section blanking, but it just appears to be only her doing the editing at the moment. One of her big things is filing complaints, rfcs, and the like, and going on about "libel" "neutrality" and "unsourced claims" but not providing diffs, citing specific examples, or anything concrete - essentially she's taking a scatter gun approach in hopes that if she complains loud and numerous enough, someone will side with her and do her work for her. Another thing she does is insert erroneous {dubious} or pov tags, or section dispute headers, and then not actually bring up the problems on the talk page at all. (As see in her numerous RfC campaigns that went nowhere) Otherwise, this boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. She filed a BLPN and nothing really came of it outside of some cursory editing. She requested page protection, on usual ambiguous grounds and was granted a month, during which she avoided the talk page completely. (In my recommendation, page protection will do nothing but postpone the arguing, not give it time to sort itself out, since she considers it a victory to get it locked)

Now, I've been more than happy to rejig the content so that it conveys the information in a neutral manner. I've stuck to reliable sources (news articles, scholarly journals, published books, etc.) As an editor, I don't really know what else to do here other than use the talk page to discuss problematic content and keep things sourced properly.

Regarding the complaint: "Львівське has been outraging Wiki BLP policy via POV pushing in the mentioned article, namely flooding the article with rumours, POV statements and unproved allegations served as facts. He's been putting criminal accusations almost everywhere in the article, grounding mostly on external sources, disputing at he same time my contributions."

My response to this is that I am not pushing a particular POV, it's just juicy stuff like mob makes for good reading and has become a topic of interest for myself; if I'm unbalance, it's because I could care less about the coal industry. I am unaware of any POV statement which Orekhova is speaking of in particular, but if there are any, I'd openly accommodate editing the tone to keep things neutral. With regards to using "unproved allegations served as facts", most statements inserted are qualified with "alleged" or are made clear where the information is coming from. As far as using "external sources" is concerned...well, external (secondary?) sources are the best kind of sources! The contributions by Orekhova that I have disputed have been focused on a POV push to whitewash the content she disagrees with, and going about the article as if it were a promo. Some content I deleted included a giant list of glowing philanthropic quotes, or every red cent the guy ever donated to a charity - which IMO broke WP:LISTS and WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

SIDE NOTE: Since we're discussing problems here, she keeps inserting this material. Now, on the talk page I explained the problems and she's dodging the questions. The problem is a) she's inserting content about the source book in the article to discredit the sources, but the material doesn't relate to the Akhmetov article. b) she's blatantly making up stuff with "regarded as copy-paste compilation of Intenet publications and declared the plagiarism" and "deliberately misleading reporting of committing offense and extortion and was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment" (in reality, the book aleggedly had plagiarized parts from another book, but not "copy paste of internet publications" and that's nowhere in her sources, she just made it up; and in the other, her source says 4 years was commuted to community service while she says "6 years imprisonment" (a lie), furthermore, this guy's personal legal life has NOTHING to do with Akmetov or the article). Her POV push and bad faith editing here is astounding.--Львівське (говорити) 17:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Message by Orekhova

Okay, let's just call the book the plagiarism from the book by Kuchinsky, though his book was the primary (but not the single) source from which Kuzin has copied his "Donetsk mafia" - if this makes you happier. I also wonder why you are leaning so rampageously on "evidences" of a man (I mean Penchuk here) who was under custody and officially sentenced for "knowingly making a false report of a crime", "knowingly false testimony" and extortion . He was really sentenced to 8 years for those crimes (the Prosecutor demanded 10 years) and later the Supreme Court reduced term of imprisonment from eight to four years - if this makes him more innocent in your eyes. This story really goes beyond Rinat Akhmetov, but to my mind it doesn't contribute to reliability of the book issued by Penchuk. --Orekhova (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I'm reading now that I'm digging into it, the prosecutor wanted 8-10 years, he got 6, and was then acquitted of the extortion charges. He then got 5, which was later commuted to 4 years for perjury or some such crime. Having said that, this story goes much deeper. This is related to when Borys Kolesnikov was arrested in 2005 for extortion; however, once the power shift occurred he wanted payback so he did the old switcheroo and had Penchuk thrown in on the same trumped up charges once they started cracking down on the opposition. This whole ordeal would make great reading fodder for the Kolesnikov article, but I still don't see how it relates to Akhmetov in any way. Saying "Joe Smith said John Q was a phoney. Joe smith was later found guilty of extortion" is WP:SYN

Oh, that's for sure, conspiracy etc... Just as funny as I'm a PR agent of Rinat Akhmetov. This relates to Akhmetov in only way - reliability of the accusations issued by a man who was prosecuted for false testimonies. Just a propos. --Orekhova (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't the place to question the reliability of a source, that's for the talk page - or here. Like I said above, inserting extraneous factoids like this is WP:SYN--Львівське (говорити) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify though, are there any other sources in the article you have an issue with? --Львівське (говорити) 15:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: Okay, before we go further, everyone needs to back up. We are done with this little "he did this"/"she did that" mess. From now on, we're going to address edits, not editors. Lvivske, this is not the place to raise potential conflict-of-interest concerns. If you believe that Orekhova has a possible conflict-of-interest, we have a COI noticeboard for that. Orekhova, we are not here to evaluate the truth (or perceived truth) of any of the information in the article. The only way to ensure factual accuracy is to present what the sources say and attribute them properly, without giving undue weight to sources that are on the "fringe". Remember, this noticeboard is for addressing content problems, not conduct. That being said, has the content in question received a lot of mainstream media coverage? (Being an American, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter.) If something has received mainstream media coverage, then flattering or unflattering as it may be for the subject, it is fair game here. (Also, when I say "mainstream media" I mean reputable media outlets, not some angry blogger's political webspace.) One last thing - Orekhova, you might want to be careful with your choice of words in addressing these edits; using terms like "libel", "defamation", and "plagiarism" could be construed as you making/implying threats of legal action, which is one of the fastest possible ways to get yourself blocked from Wikipedia. (I'm not saying that as a threat, just as a caution.) Sleddog116 (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood! Anyway, as far as media coverage is concerned, things are mentioned in the Kyiv Post (the top english language newspaper in the country) and a few other outlets. A lot of the 'meat' of the content is from books and journal articles that deal more in depth with the situation over there. As you can see in the article, several news outlets that have given the topic coverage have had to issue retractions after the 'libel hammer' gets dropped. To my knowledge, zero blogs or RS-failing sources are used in the article.--Львівське (говорити) 17:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Outside comment by somebody who does not enjoy writing on Wikipedia:Arbitration or similar pages: I am not sure if this should be put here since I am not a part of this dispute... But I started an discussion on the talkpage of the article in which I advice to restructure the article. I think a restruction (as I have in mind) should solve most "neutrality" content issues.... Hope I am not making things more complicated now.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but upon closer inspection of the situation, I think it might be wiser to suspend any extensive editing (and perhaps this discussion, too) until this is no longer outstanding. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No problemo, what's the statute of limitations on that listing, though? (in case it goes untouched for a while) --Львівське (говорити) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as Sleddog116 I too was worried my efforts came at the wrong time; I will do no extensive editing on the article untill the dust has settled... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing Comments:I'm closing this discussion because it is already being discussed in multiple locations (including the BLP noticeboard). There is significant discussion already on the article's talk page where a potentially useful third opinion has come to light; also, the article has generated an OTRS complaint, meaning that the article will potentially require a complete rewrite in any case. Since the primary dispute seems to be between two editors with clearly opposite points of view (one pro-Akhmetov, one anti-Akhmetov, and neither neutral), I'm going to suggest that the Mediation Cabal might be a more useful venue in this dispute. In any case, the problem here is likely far, far beyond the scope of this particular noticeboard. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

IPad (3rd generation), 4G discussion

Have it cite one of the LTE articles that is on Wiki if you know which one Apple is using for it or don't cite it at all. Having it just say LTE is too broad. Having it say "LTE (marketed as 4G LTE by Apple)" is a bit pointless since it is using 4G LTE, just not 4G. This is a trivial issue at best and it seems the dispute is more of just one guy wanting to win the argument over another.--iGeMiNix 05:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that LTE cannot be classified as 4G because it doesn't meet the requirements so logically it would fit into the 3G category. LTE is not too broad because it labels the exact protocol supported by this device whereas I said before, 4G is a classification which LTE at this point does not fit in. At this point there is no commercially available "4G LTE" device, 4G LTE implies LTE Advance, I chose to suggest the usage of "marketed as 4G by Apple" instead of simply saying 3G LTE because 3G LTE would seem like a typo or misinformation to some. To reiterate my point, 4G LTE is not a mobile protocol at all, LTE is the protocol, 4G is the classification so the device doesn't actually use 4G LTE, it technically uses LTE. I agree that this is a bit of a trivial debate but it's an issue nonetheless, we need to keep Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Not that this should have any basis on your argument but you have dealt with Acp110 several times before - I hope there is no conflict of interest here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

All the sources I can find about the forthcoming auction in the UK call LTE 4G. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it not possible to rely sources that are not direct? The mobile regulatory committee says that an a protocol must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot hence the iPad (3rd generation) does not use 4G LTE but instead just simply LTE which is marketed as 4G LTE by Apple which can be overcome by using the suggestion I put forth above. I know, I might look like a bit of a intransigent insular fool here, but I am will to agree to keep it as it is if someone can provide me with reasons why instead of claiming that Apple says it is or news sources quoting Apple says it is, lets look beyond direct sources here about the iPad. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it use the regular 3GPP LTE as LTE? I am not the most tech savy guy out there but if it does, it should cited to that page instead of the 4G one.--iGeMiNix 06:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The LTE protocol that the iPad uses fits well within the requirements for 3G set out by the International Telecommunications Union but is still quite far from the requirements of 4G which is set by the same international union. If citing is required in the iPad (3rd generation) article then I am happy to do so if Acps110 and DreamFieldArts both agree that this should be the course take to resolve the dispute. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few sources stating 4G must be required to have a bandwidth of 1gbit/s or more, they quote from International Telecommunication Union. 1 2YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOR? So far everything I've seen suggests that you are trying to build an argument based on sources that don't actually clearly state what you are trying to put forward as your conclusion. We can only go by what sources explicitly state about the subject. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? LTE is not 4G because doesn't fit the regulatory union's requirements, I found a source that explicitly says that Apple is now marketing their HSDP+ devices as 4G but unfortunately this does not apply for LTE devices. In the other talk page, I have sources that claim that LTE is not 4G but it does not explicitly refer to the iPad. If that is the case, then this policy is a clear limitation of the content we can add and verify on Wikipedia. WP:IAR anyone? :D It's not like I'm jumping all over the internet and trying to find 5 sources to substantiate my claim and refute theirs, I'm just adding 1 to 1 here even if that constitutes WP:OR. If it's okay with you DougWeller, after the discussion takes it course, I would like to host a consensus to see whether editors agree that WP:IAR should be the appropriate course of action based on the evidence given above, in the forthcoming discussion and the ipad talk page regardless of whether the issue being trivial or how minor it is unless a judgement regarding an issue in my argument other than Wikipedia policy has been made. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR apply here, and if reliable sources call LTE 4G (and they do in the UK), you can't use IAR or local consensus to get around that. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources that includes information about sources saying that 4G protocols must be over 1gbit/s must directly refer the iPad right? So practically you can't join two sources together and let logic work out the rest? Even if my attempts to change 4G LTE to just LTE fails, a contradiction to the 4G article still exist, do we just ignore the contradiction that exists in the 4G article that specifically say that LTE doesn't meet 4G requirements. In response to your edit summary - Despite most new sources labeling LTE as 4G, this source provides direct evidence saying that LTE is not 4G by quoting ITU's requirements or do we need one that directly refers to the iPad? Just need a final confirmation from you and I'm willing to take down the tag on the iPad article and make amends with the two other editors as well as a final conclusion message on the iPad talk page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, Acps110 and I did not agree to this what so ever. Two, your wrong everyone just said you were. Just deal with it, we all have to at some point. DreamFieldArts (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said LTE is 4G, I still disagree that LTE is classed as 4G and no one cares whether you agreed to a debate resolution, you and Acps110 arguments were invalid and had no merit whatsoever and were going in loops. My arguments are still valid unless you or Acps can prove otherwise. Technically it's still not classed as 4G but apparently you can't pair up two sources so unfortunately that's the limitation that I'm stuck with. You and Acps110 were both saying how Apple called it 4G and gave me references to the Apple manual while saying 4G and LTE are two different things. No one said my arguments were wrong, just that I couldn't pair up two sources as that constitutes WP:OR, I accept that and am willing to take down the tags but I'm sure you did that already. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 22:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's helpful. YuMa, I can see the debate about 4G and LTE, but if the two networks mentioned in the iPad article say "4G LTE networks" then that's what we call them. Unless the debate about whether LTE is actually 4G mentions the new iPad, I can't see how we can mention the debate in the article. I checked to make sure that 4G is linked in the article, and it is, although our article on 4G isn't exactly brilliant. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the debate about marketing HSPA+ as 4G was controversial in the latest iOS 5.1 update, so I guess you could mention the LTE debate under critical reception. Zach Vega (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Last time I check, consensus is meaningless in most cases especially when only 2 -3 editors were involved, 1 initially agreed in my favour and 2 opposed. Thought that rationale was all that matter (Taking out the fact that my sources constitute WP:OR out of consideration). No disruptions were made, the contradiction tag was placed with a valid reason and was supposed to be discussed in the talk and settled. No one at that point, pointed out that my arguments constituted WP:OR, Acps110, did once mention once in the 2nd reply of the discussion but did not repeat it again throughout the argument so I didn't take any notice of it as I thought the sources I supplied did not constitute WP:OR (pairing sources). YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If majority of the claim in this dispute is based on original research, have any of you brought this to the original research noticeboard. If not, it should be brought there and this thread would be closed. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources I provided were quoting from the ITU, I also had a source stating that LTE is not 4G, I understand that ignorance is not an excuse but the sources I provided pretty much substantiates my claim despite the fact that the iPad was not explicitly quoted in those sources. As there is not documented protocol known as 4G LTE, i assumed that my claim could be suitably sourced in the article. Judging by all of the sources you have seen me produced, would it be worth appealing this case to the Original research noticeboard? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the original research noticeboard is the proper forum for your sources (i.e. appleinsider and apple user guide). I rather suggest going to the reliable sources noticeboard instead. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure, this debate will arise in other articles again and again, in my opinion we should set a precedent about this issue. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Any decision that is made here is not binding in anyway. I still suggest that you bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard, they will have the expertise to look at the sources that you have suggested and determine whether or not they are notable. Once that's been resolved, all the parties can see whether the sources and text that you want to add are reliable or not. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and escalate the case to the reliable sources noticeboard. The same issue is being raised by another editor who recently added a comment onto the iPad 3 talk page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

List of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary discussion

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

Ring (jewellery) discussion

The list in question is a list of styles of rings, not notable rings. Show me some rings cited as being in the "Brass Rat" style. --JaGa^talk 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note We don't issue binding decisions here. DRN is used to negotiate a resolution that is acceptable to everyone. Please remember this when posting here and on the article. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Question Can any sources be added to demonstrate how the MIT ring is of the same level of importance as the other types of rings? If I look at the title of the article it says "Massachusetts Institute of Technology's class ring" and includes a link to the Class ring article in the second sentence. How is MIT's ring more important than Stanford's, CalTech's, Harvard's, or Cambridge's? Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This seems self evident to me: whilst the MIT graduate ring is a type of signet ring, and is most certainly a college class ring, it is unique and distinctive. For that alone it is significant and it is noteworthy. We may juggle the classifications a bit, but I insist it belongs on that list. This ring is also unique in that it even has its own name, the Brass Rat. It is wrong to have some sort of campaign against a noteworthy item in an article!—Djathinkimacowboy 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur: I thought WP's rules were binding. You can therefore look at this issue and declare what WP ruling is. Am I in error?—Djathinkimacowboy 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the Noticeboard's instructions It is not a place that issues binding decisions on content. The focus here is on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See the page on closing discussions for general background to this principle. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to JaGa: Firstly, "notable" is for an article subject. In any article's details we are dealing with facts that are "significant" or "noteworthy". In reply to your "question": I cannot cough up a citation at the moment but the Harvard graduate ring is in the same category of style. Is that clear enough?—Djathinkimacowboy 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The Brass Rat is a class ring, a style covered in the list. Brass Rat should be excluded because it is an instance, and not a category. --JaGa^talk 02:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-threading this comment so it's obvious to everyone the relation of replies. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Brass Rat is not an official name of the ring, simply a nickname (as evidenced by the article title). How is this class ring more deserving than the X-Ring? I do not see why a specific college's ring should be featured in a Styles section about rings unless multiple other colleges have used the same design for their class rings. I do think it qualifies for a view in the class ring page or to represent the category of class rings (which is lacking an image), but not to have it's own category. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: First of all, I think the involved editors need to cool down a bit. DJ, it seems like you're taking this personally when what we're really dealing with here is a simple matter of academic rivalry establishing notability. Notability applies to everything in the article - not just the subject. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That includes both articles themselves and material in articles. Also, to clarify what Hasteur said above, you stated that you wanted "administrative relief" - that is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. The administrator's noticeboard is that-a-way. I don't think it needs to go that far, though, if all of the editors can discuss it calmly. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Previosly mal-threaded comment from above was here Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Brass Rat has its own article....Curb Chain (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

At the present time the ring article has multiple issues. Once those are resolved I expect the various list aspects to be split off which will solve that problem. Of course if someone wants to create List of ring styles (good luck with that I'm not sure the historians have finished sorting out their classification system yet) and List of specific ring types (or whatever you want to call it) straight away they are free to do so but until then the information should probably stay in the ring article.©Geni 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: My apologies if I show possessiveness toward the article and if I seem to be badly wording what I'd like the outcome to be here. Can we just get past that? My sole concern is the removal of significant fact from an article just because two or three don't like it. Like all the rest, I am prepared to debate it here. I'm worried about articles, that is all. It seems to me that perhaps I am the most flexible: I'm ready to bow to a consensus (if it is ever reached), and am always prepared to accept good advice. (I don't think I need to 'cool down', thank you.) I am seeing more clearly the point everyone is making about that ring. I don't know what the big deal is with keeping it in the article, but I am starting to see why it annoys so many editors. Perhaps we should remove it. But I tend to agree with Geni: we should probably leave the article's details alone until we know what it is we want to see instead. Geni is working very hard to better that article all the time.—Djathinkimacowboy 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Also, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the big problem: what is this avoidance of the article's talk page? We're having it out here when we might have discussed it there. It is that bad habit I appreciate the least, avoidance of talking it out - the edit summary is not a talk page, my dear editors.—Djathinkimacowboy 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Geni: Geni, what "issues" does the article have? You're working very hard at that article as I also have done. I disagree with you that it has "multiple issues". It has multiple needs, yes, and we've been working on those. But I disagree with "multiple issues". You're making it sound as if the article is somehow bad, and it is really very good, only needing some final tweaks and streamlining.—Djathinkimacowboy 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions: What if we put the Brass Rat image in the class ring listing? It wouldn't hurt, and since we have no other example of a college or class ring .... See, I indicate to you another irritating thing, and that is editors who come at an article with one single mission in mind. Why do they not assist with the article as a whole? It would be good work in general and it would be deeply appreciated!—Djathinkimacowboy 14:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: To Djathink... the only substantive comment you have given here to support your view that the MIT ring should be included in the article is "This seems self evident to me: whilst the MIT graduate ring is a type of signet ring, and is most certainly a college class ring, it is unique and distinctive. For that alone it is significant and it is noteworthy." As you will surely admit, that is simply your opinion. Are there published secondary sources (unaffiliated with MIT or the ring's producer, of course) that describe this particular ring as being unique and distinctive in contrast to other schools' class rings? After all, the hallmark for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: To everyone involved - Djathink came to me here and asked me (and I agree) to remind everyone here that we need to keep comments here properly threaded. When you are responding to a post, write your comment under the post to which you are responding and add as many indents (by adding colons) as necessary (one more indent than the post above yours). If you are responding to multiple posts at once, respond at the bottom of the discussion and address the parts of your post to the editor to whose comments you are responding. Try to avoid TL;DR as much as possible, and above all, discuss edits, not editors. Always sign your posts with four tildes so that the timestamp is included.

About the above comments: Djathink said, "I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the big problem: what is this avoidance of the article's talk page? We're having it out here when we might have discussed it there." I absolutely and unequivocally agree 100% - with fireworks, cake, and celebratory clowns. If this had been discussed more on the talk page, it might not have had to come here. On the other hand, Djathink, just because something goes to the talk page does not give you free reign to change the article however you want as the consensus is being decided (I'm not making an accusation, just stating a guideling). Also keep in mind that you may not like the consensus, but there comes a point in every consensus discussion where it's time to just let the consensus be what it is - consensus is not unanimity, after all; it does not necessarily mean that there is no dissent. But it may end in a way you find unfair/don't like/dissent with, and you just need to bow out gracefully. Let's all face it: the world will not end (I promise) just because MIT's class ring isn't/is mentioned in the Ring article. In other words, don't come into this (anyone) as a Crusader who is absolutely convinced that his way is the only acceptable option.

More about the above comments: (if you haven't stopped reading) I believe Djathink has raised what could be an excellent suggestion when he(?) proposed that an image of MIT's class ring be included, perhaps even with a caption. Let's focus on discussing that particular suggestion.

And one final note: Let's please keep the discussion here for now instead of on individual disputants' talk pages. Transparency is part of what makes DRN work. Thanks very much. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

*cough* I would like to raise a few points. 1. I had absolutely no horse in this dispute prior to it being listed here. 2. If anything, Dja's rapidfire responses to their own postings have been more disruptive than Mine or JaGa's as it makes it a absolute nightmare to unwind the levels of whom is responding to what. 3. I made the suggestion in passing of possibly having the image of the Brass Rat for the class ring category or to be on the class ring page. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply, Sleddog: you said, 'Djathink, just because something goes to the talk page does not give you free reign to change the article however you want as the consensus is being decided ... ' and I agree completely. I hope I did not make some sort of impression to the contrary. I think I stated my intent clearly. And I did indeed say I'd be glad just to keep the photo and its description without it necessarily being an individual part of the list. Simply put, I didn't think that list was such a hot-interest item all of a sudden. May I finally add, I think some editors here are being less than helpful whilst accusing me of some strange things. I resent that. There's no battle here as far as I am concerned, and I'm tempted to let this drop as soon as possible. So no, Sled, I'm not angling for anything except a fair evaluation of that ring's place in the article. Sorry if it seems like more than that - but it isn't.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And for your information, Sleddog, editing need not stop simply because something is being discussed on the talk page unless everyone agrees to stop editing, which is stupid. They won't touch the talk page in the first place! One final note: I did not think it was permitted or I'd have changed my original information as entered here. I want to say, I do not appreciate it being stricken by someone else. If you don't want to deal with my problem, say so. Don't just lay obstacles and then expect me not to be irritated.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy, go ahead and burn down the article for all I care. I simply was trying to help guide the discussion to what I considered was a reasonable resolution based on what I saw on the page, in the history of the page (and how the classification for Brass Rat had been removed before with roughly the same reasoning), and what I consider my decent experience with WP content policies and guidelines. Your discussion method instills, IMO, a sense of a battlefield mentality. I have observed it from the sidelines here at DRN and at some of the other Noticeboards. I wash my hands of this entire thread and wish you the best in your endeavors here. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything is getting out of hand. This is going to sound unbelievable: I am very sorry for this getting out of hand. Honestly, I cannot tell if I am the kiss of death when it comes to issues, or what is going on, but I take full responsibility for this. I move that this discussion be closed and I will honour whatever is done to the article in the future.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments: At the request of Djathink, I am closing this discussion. A couple of closing notes: To Dja - the reason I struck through your comments was not because I "didn't feel like dealing with the problem" but because that is simply beyond the scope of this noticeboard. It's not that we don't want to do it; it's that we are not capable of doing it. If I had a problem with what you said, or just "didn't feel like dealing with it", I wouldn't have struck through the comments - I would simply have deleted them altogether. I was simply refactoring the framework of the dispute for the purposes of this noticeboard. To Hasteur - I'll note you on your talk page. Further discussion of this should take place on the article's talk page.

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

Saša Hiršzon - Alternate name policy discussion

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello, everybody! Sorry I haven't commented before now, but I wanted to give this dispute a day or so to see if anyone else would weigh in. This is a little bit of a complicated issue, so I hope you'll give me a little more time to research the situation before giving advice on the situation. I can give some general advice to the editors involved. First, I would like to commend you all for your tireless work; it seems like a lot of fuss over a few marks over letters, but you all seem to understand the Wikipedia process very well; from the (lengthy) discussion I've seen on the talk page, it looks like you're all managing to keep your cool even though you disagree. One thing I would like to bring up here - this noticeboard is informal as far as dispute resolution goes; nothing here is "binding" or even necessarily represents consensus.

That being said, I would like to offer a couple of suggestions. First, Fyunck, you mentioned that you asked for advice from an admin (thanks for providing the link); did the admin give any useful advice? If you're trying to get an admin to resolve the issue, that's beyond the scope of this noticeboard; it appeared to be just an informal request for advice, but I had a hard time making heads or tails of it. Second, has anyone here considered consulting the Wikipedia Manual of Style? I would think that it would have something related to this issue (and I will thoroughly check when I have the time). Lastly, have you considered putting a request for comments on the article? When two or more editors are stuck in a deadlock over how to proceed, comments from uninvolved editors are often the best way to break that block. As this is (I would imagine) a fairly low-traffic article, that could take some time to generate results, but it might be worth a try.

One last thing to consider: this article seems to be within the scope of WikiProject Tennis. Do members of the project have any ideas as to how best to treat the names?

Let's see if we can sort through this mess - just remember to stay cool, as you've done a good job doing so far. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style: I have looked in the Manual of Style (particularly at this section) and found this information:

Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet often include characters with diacritics, ligatures and others that are not commonly used in modern English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters. For example, the name of the article on Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with the double acute accent, and the alternative spellings Paul Erdös and Paul Erdos redirect to that article. Similarly the name of the article on the Nordic god Ægir is so spelt, with redirects from the Anglicised form Aegir and the Swedish spelling Ägir. However, the article on the Spanish region of Aragón is titled Aragon, without the accent, as this is the established English name.

I think that might help solve some of the question of this dispute. Hopefully, you'll find it useful. Keeping the above in mind, what would be the best way to proceed? Also, as far as the "established English name" part is concerned, don't be to quick to latch onto that; I doubt very seriously that this individual has an "established English name". Forgive me if I sound presumptuous, but I don't expect that prescribed/established English gives much treatment one way or the other to Croatian tennis players. It's really important, though, that we follow the manual of style; if you follow the MoS and there is still a dispute, the next step is to discuss the possibility of a new consensus to change the MoS - but the MoS is changed very infrequently and not without lengthy discussion, so you'll likely be disappointed there. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then let me try being more clear by adding a few things. First, to answer your other queries: The admin's useful advise was that what I was doing was reasonable... not vandalism and made good sense. If I feel "hey, might I be off in left field somewhere?", then asking an administrator is my first step to sanity around here. His answer said it sounded very reasonable. Also there is quite a lot of English source material for "Sasa Hirszon." You can google it yourself... lots of hits. The ITF, ATP, Davis Cup, and almost all sports related references use "Sasa Hirszon." Tennis Project...past consensus and guidelines call for ITF name and other English language sources such as newspapers and tv. Again that is "Sasa Hirszon." The number one player in the world Novak Djokovic has it, Novak Djokovic ([Новак Ђоковић, Novak Đoković] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help). Plus things like WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources".

But this has gone round and round at wikipedia for years in all topics with no real resolution as far as the article title goes and I wouldn't want to drag you into the actual titling of a tennis biography. That's always a big battle. I simply look at that as we will always have players at diacritic and non-diacritic names... it depends on the wind that day. The problem here is that since we do have players at both types of titling, like it or not, how should it be formatted so that it's correct for both? I mentioned Novak Djokovic or we could also look at hockey and Marek Zidlicky. If the title gets polled and voted on for Novak Djokovic and we put his Czech spelling right afterwards as Novak Đoković, then should the opposite also be true? If a player gets polled and voted on to be at Saša Hiršzon should we also add his English spelling of Sasa Hirszon right afterwards? I had suggested Saša Hiršzon (English: Sasa Hirszon) or instead of English we could use "common name: Sasa Hirszon" or "alternate name: Sasa Hirszon", and those were shot down. I looked at some other biographies like Sting (musician) and Pink (singer) and they did it a bit differently. If we did Sasa Hirszon that way the common name "Sasa Hirszon" would be the article title and the first line would be: Saša Hiršzon, professionally known as Sasa Hirszon, etc... I'm flexible, I could live with that but I'm not sure others would. I'll try it and see if it sticks right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your use of Sting and Pink as examples is bit of a non sequitur. Their alternative (rather: real) names are quite unlike their common names. On the other hand, informing the reader that "š" is a diacritically modified "s" seems rather like a statement of the obvious. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)/Clerk's Comment: The names that appear in the lead should be the native name followed by the English name (if there is one). Take a look at: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names for more information. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have brought up that argument many times, but then we get countered with arguments like "this is not an alternative name, but only an alternative spelling of his name". Then they argue the alternative spelling is not needed because it is opaque to the reader. I think that is a clear misinterpretation of the policy in question, because the examples it uses shows that its scope is about significant alternatives names and significant alternative spellings of them. And "significant" depends only on whether we find the particular alternative in a good portion of our English language sources. If I am right on this, then I would suggest to edit the wording of that section in the policy about alternative names, making clear that it is about alternative names AND "alternative spellings of the name" (which can then also be English spelling of the name if article is kept at the foreign name). Right now that policy gets used to push the English spelled name out of the article. I don't think that was the purpose. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is that pro-diacritics editors first come to tennis articles to move them to diacritics spelling (even tough tennis players always compete under a non-diacritics name, see WP:TENNISNAMES ). And then they go on to effectively ban the English spelling of the name from the article. Fyunck's edit to add his English spelling name was promptly reverted. This tennis player is always mentioned as "Sasa Hirszon" in all English sources and articles related to tennis. In the RM discussion there were 116 sources that spelled him as "Sasa Hirszon" and only one English source was found spelling him with diacritics. If more than 99% of our sources mention him as "Sasa Hirszon" then it is quite important to at least mention his common English name as a significant alternative spelling in the lede. The argument that it is obvious to the reader that "š" is a diacritically modified "s", is weak because for a reader who is not an expert on tennis it can always raise doubts whether this Saša Hiršzon is the same player as the Sasa Hirszon they see in tournament draws. For example we have also a player Radek Štěpánek, but as we can see in this disambiguation page: Štěpánek, a lot of Stepaneks have already dropped the diacritics from their name. When people immigrate it is not uncommon to drop the diacritics in their name. Our articles should not raise that kind of doubts. Adding the common English spelling in articles that are kept at the diacritics version allows the reader to confirm that it is indeed the same player. This problem also occurs in other articles. For example I mentioned Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. Why does a reader have to scroll down all the way to the references to find out what is the common English spelling for her name? Such basic information (and easy to back up by sources) should be right up there in the lede. The pro-diacritics crowd is going too far in a lot of articles, not just in tennis. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: MakeSense64, your last comment made some good points, but don't try to turn this into a polarized confrontation (as you did with your last sentence). To say that "Group pro-X is going too far" is to put everything into "pro-X" and "anti-X" when, in fact, other options may be possible. I think, Fyunck, that the best course of action here is to follow the manual of style and the Tennis Project's guidelines on the use of diacritics. If you still disagree, I think your best option would be to go there and discuss a possible change in the consensus on said guidelines. My question on how to spell the name might sound like an oversimplification, but it might be worth considering: is there any reasonable reader who is actually going to type the diacritics in when searching for the article? If not, that means that including the diacritics would turn virtually every search for the article(s) in question into a redirect; if we take this into account for every tennis article that is/would be affected by the use of diacritics, we need to consider the fact that this might put more of a strain on WP's servers than necessary and would increase load time for the average reader. Has anyone considered the discussion from that angle? Sleddog116 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I think few editors will deny that WP is already polarized about the diacritics issue. We can just read some past discussions around it. To move article from non-diacritics to diacritics title after RM discussion is one thing. To then go on and insist on not having the common English spelling of the name anywhere in the article, is another thing and not backed by any policy. Then all I can say is that imo it shows an "anti-English-spelling" bias, how else would you suggest to describe it? In "silk terms"? I can agree that "group" would have been a better wording than "crowd". By the way, same kind of editing has now started at Sasa Tuksar as well, some editors refuse the mention of the English spelling of his name in the lede of the article.

Further to your points. The tennis project guidelines are being brought up all the time, but nothing suggests that they are given any weight in such discussions. The argument of server load was also brought up (and discussed on the project tennis as well), but was brushed away as unimportant. We found that for example for Novak Djokovic the usage stats show about 99% of visitors coming to the non-diacritics name, with about 1% of visits searching on a diacritics version of his name. And since an average tennis player's name is mentioned in about 500 other WP articles (e.g. draws and tournaments articles), that's hundreds of wikilinks that go through the redirect pages, and this for each of the 100s of players we have on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as diacritic polarization, MakeSense is correct. All you have to do is look at our number one tennis player's archives of 4 move requests to see at how they came to the conclusion that it should be at the non-diacritic name of Novak Djokovic. Djokovic move request 1, Djokovic move request 2, Djokovic move requests 3-4 Things haven't changed much since then. But to have no mention in the lead at all that there is a name used in almost all English circles does seem very biased and anti-English-spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated numerous times already, my position is based in Wikipedia:Article titles, specifically the naming criteria. See Talk:Mate Pavić, where I also explained my position on Đoković v Djokovic in that regard. Also, there's apparently now Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Tennis_names#RfC:_Can_a_wikiproject_require_no-diacritics_names.2C_based_on_an_organisation.27s_rule_or_commonness_in_English_press.3F because this isn't a particular dispute between myself and these two editors, it's a more general issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue of name placement bias once an article has been established is the dispute I have with you. Where your link mainly deals with the article titles itself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It is my firm belief that most other people (English readers) do not distinguish between š and s, ć and c, ž and z, etc in a manner that immediately and significantly affects their comprehension of a name that includes the diacritics. Therefore, repeating the name stripped of diacritics next to the one with it, lacking a specific ITF name and rationale for the term or something similar, doesn't make any more sense than, for example, writing "Dr. Dre, also known as Dr Dre, Doctor Dre, dr dre, Dre, ..." in the lead section of Dr. Dre. It would be superfluous and it would be placing undue weight on the typographical issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

But the tennis project position is also based in Wikipedia:Article titles, section WP:UE states clearly: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage.", then goes on to give some examples, including the name of a person. So it also applies to names of persons. The English-language usage for names of tennis players is very clear-cut, as is explained in the essay you mention. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again - a straight removal of diacritics does not constitute a meaningful form of anglicisation. See what I wrote recently at Talk:Saša Tuksar. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Comment: Being the nosy sort, it seems to me the clear solution is to spell the name as it is properly spelt, Anglicise it as is commonly done next to it in parentheses. This fits all rules as I understand them and clarifies the name issue for the common reader. I think it does show a sort of 'English bias' removing diacritical marks from a persons name, or from any proper name. Diacritical marks are avoided mostly because it's too darned difficult to get them right when editing.—Djathinkimacowboy 15:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually commonly "anglicised" like that on the English Wikipedia. The vast majority of Croatian people whose names have diacritics also have them in their article titles and content, pretty consistently, despite the fact they're treated pretty much the same way as tennis players elsewhere. And nobody seems to have thought it unclear enough to bring up much of a complaint - the last contentious move that I remember was a corner case involving the less trivial translation đ into dj at Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive 1#ASCII - in 2008. So years and years pass, at an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, without any of the hundreds of millions of native English readers bothering to do anything. And then suddenly we have a problem with tennis player names? I believe we rather have a problem with a handful of tendentious editors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: I'm really beginning to think (and by that, I mean I'm sort of insisting upon) that this needs further discussion (with broader community) involvement here instead of here at DRN. A request for comments might also be apropos if not enough people get involved in the discussion there. However, I'm on the verge of closing this thread; it's unlikely that any discussion here is going to reflect consensus. I think that this really should reflect the community's consensus rather than the DRN consensus of a few of the filed editors. I'll leave it open for now, but I sincerely don't think that DRN is the best venue at this point. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

WIND (spacecraft) discussion

I did nothing more that list the file for discussion due to the copyright tag you used (claim that it was your own work and that you own the rights). The file was delete because your claim was never defended. Your other uploads have the same issue. Eeekster (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated removal of peacock template from Shajith Koyeri article discussion

• Pitarobertz is a new editor, and evidently not used to Wikipedia's ways. I have given Pitarobertz a welcome message, and a note about editing from a neutral point of view, removing maintenance templates, the need for reliable sources, and edit warring. It is to be hoped, that with this help, he/she will be able to learn to edit within the framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If not, then the matter will have to be reconsidered, but let's hope that will resolve the matter. Both IP talk pages have been given warnings about removing maintenance templates, as well as links to this discussion. It is quite clear that the editing to the article was contrary to the neutral point of view policy. Reverting the editing was quite right, and adding the peacock tag was a minimal action, under the circumstances. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: Just a quick thing here. First, this noticeboard does not make any binding decisions; we could re-add the peacock template, but any editor could just remove it again. DRN is just another part of the consensus process. Second, if the editor in question does not join the discussion here on DRN, there's very little that we can do to change that. Since you've informed the editor about this discussion, there's not much to do other than wait for response. Did anyone, by any chance, think to ask this editor about why he might have removed the template before putting the warning on his page? Sleddog116 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the issue has been resolved because the article has currently been significantly changed from the User:Total-MAdMaN's first revert.Curb Chain (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Derrida criticism to Searle discussion

• I have answered on the talkpage. You have been told by many different editors why your proposed additions were not acceptable in the form they had. You have not presented any alternative proposals incorporating the concerns of other editors. Doing so would be the way forward.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Is this dispute resolved? There seems to be no issues remaining, the dispute resolution request may have been filed prematurely. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we are definitely on track working through dialogue at the talkpage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Public domain newsreels discussion

Clerk comment Is there a specific article that is concerning you?Curb Chain (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

See NickD's talk page. There were several different articles involved, and I don't think any one had special importance, at least not as of the end of February when I last followed this. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a topic for this board. I think the poor user is being given some conflicting advice, but it needs hashing out in relation to reliable sources and external links, both of which have discussion areas. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think the parties should follow what Elen of the Roads has suggested. This is out of the scope of the dispute resolution noticeboard as there is no fabricated dispute on a particular page as of yet. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to Crowish how to proceed from this point. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

David E. Henderson, Kit Bigelow discussion

I've got one edit to David E. Henderson. I don't remember exactly how I arrived at the page, possibly from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. On arrival I noticed that much of the article read like a PR release, so I cut and pasted a phrase into google, got a hit and marked the page using the Template:copyvio template. It's not a template I use much, so it's entirely possible I used it incorrectly/inappropiately. I may have had edits to Kit Bigelow but I don't recall so. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Western Betrayal discussion

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

Talk:Serbia under German occupation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR/Archive#25_March_2012 discussion

Well, after examining the time periods in which edits of these two accounts (DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67) are appearing I am not sure that they are sockpuppets, so I would rather accuse these two accounts for "coordinated edits in order of achieving certain goal". Both accounts reverting to each others version and both ignoring sources that I presented on talk page and trying to change common name of the article. I also see no evidence for accusation that my behavior is example of "Incivility, personal attacks and aggressive behavior" - I did not insulted personally these users in any way and I think that I have right to have suspicions about identity of users, especially in the case if suspicious revert warring and similar pattern of behavior between two accounts in involved. While claiming to be "a retired Australian Army officer", the very first edit of user Peacemaker67 was involvement in Serbia-related subject, and from that point, there is a progressive interest for subjects related to WW2 events in Serbia and former Yugoslavia (which are the main interest of user:DIREKTOR as well). And not only that user Peacemaker67 expressed interest for Serbia-related WW2 subjects, but he very soon started to revert edits of Serbian users in these articles (see example: ). So, I am sorry, but I would be extremely stupid if I would think that an "retired Australian Army officer" have main interest in reverting Serbian users in Wikipedia, while he did not showed any interest for Australia-related subjects (for example, I live in Serbia and most of my edits in Wikipedia are related to Serbia - opposite behavior would simply not be a normal and logical one). Furthermore, user Peacemaker67 actually personally attacked me and accused me that I am "editor with Serbian POV". I find this insulting because I have the only goal to make Serbia-related articles NPOV and accurate and therefore accusation that I want to push "Serbian POV" (without evidences that could support such accusation) is indeed example of personal attack. Furthermore, claim of user Peacemaker67 that my sockpuppet investigation request was "the second time that an editor with a Serbian POV has accused him of being a sock" means that this user indeed came to Wikipedia with a goal of "fighting the Serbian POV", which further undermine his claim that he is an Australian and which gave me full right to be suspicious about his identity. I was also accused for original research by user DIREKTOR without any presented evidences (please see: ) - note that I presented numerous sources that mentioning this territory as "Serbia" (please see: ), while user DIREKTOR who accused me for OR just ignoring these sources. Regarding WP:OWN accusation, how exactly my efforts to make article NPOV and sourced could be seen as a case of WP:OWN. Note that both users that accusing me for WP:OWN (DIREKTOR done exactly same thing: ) are aiming to rename the article contrary to numerous sources that I presented to them, while they either are not presenting sources that can support their claims either they misinterpret sources that they examine (I can provide further evidence for this if required). PANONIAN 13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: Thank you for letting us know about the situation. Unfortunately, user conduct issues and sockpuppetry accusations are beyond the scope of this particular noticeboard. DRN is solely for content issues and is considered a "first step" in the dispute resolution process. I believe you are looking for the Administrators' Noticeboard. I'm closing this issue as wrong venue, but I wish you the best of luck in getting the issue resolved. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Artiom Rudnev or Arjoms Rudnevs discussion

Clerk Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Where exactly is this dispute? If there is no dispute, this thread will be closed at 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment: There's some assertions by the listing editor here and here, but no actual discussion that I can find, either. Let me note in passing that I do not believe the team's website, which is the source being asserted by the listing editor, to be a reliable source for the position he/she is attempting to assert. I would also note that despite his assertion to the contrary, above, the listing editor did not notify the other editor of this listing, except to mention it in this edit summary. I'd ordinarily give that notice myself, but instead I recommend closure for no discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Wang Ling Rebellion, Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin Rebellion, Zhuge Dan Rebellion discussion

• Comment by 70.24.244.198 (talk) Per the "not" section in the introduction — It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion in other venues on Wikipedia. — There is an open WP:Requested move at Talk:Zhuge_Dan_Rebellion#Requested_move . — 70.24.244.198 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Question What do the Reliable sources call the event? It's my understanding based on the reading WP:ARTICLETITLE that the name needs to be Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise, and Consistent. We may apply a few stylistic changes, but the name needs to come from what the reliable sources call the event. Hasteur (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Google each rebellion. If I typed in and searched "Wang Ling's Rebellion" I get 4,760 results. If I typed and searched "Wang Ling Rebellion", the results are 2,860. If I typed "Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin's Rebellion", the results are 1,950. If I typed in "Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin Rebellion", the results are 927. "Zhuge Dan's Rebellion" has 17,100 results compared to the 7,910 results from searching "Zhuge Dan Rebellion". Note without using "" you will be shown different results because it pulls results for terms relating to any of the words used in the search. The "" pulls only results using the text placed in the "". --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:GNUM (and it's subsection about reliable sources), Google Searches in and of themselves do not constitute a Reliable Source. Hasteur (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am stating what is the most common term used. --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources call the events? Not common term. Hasteur (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chen Shou's Records of Three Kingdoms translate it to Zhuge Dan's Rebellion. Not much Chinese translations follow the apostrophe s" rule. Most translations are "'s r" but since we are using it as a title it becomes "'s R" --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Chen Shou's Records of the Three Kingdoms doesn't need a Chinese translation. It's already in classical Chinese. And I believe you said yourself that you don't read Chinese, so don't quote from a source that you can't comprehend. Please try other sources instead. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 11:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant Chinese to English. --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Frank Zappa discography, Template:Frank Zappa discussion

This user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) was reported for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

I don't claim any ownership of anything. On the contrary, I already said that "Personally, I'm not even interested in these (—in this case— i.m.o. silly) categories." ().

Not a content dispute, i.m.o. Just an editor who refuses to respect consensus.

DVdm (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your edits. You reported me because you couldn't keep your precious article as you want it, and as rules state, no one owns any individual article. --WTF (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: @Wisdomtenacityfocus: As set out in the instructions for this noticeboard, it is only for content (not conduct) disputes which have been thoroughly discussed on a talk page, preferably the article talk page. Mere comments in edit summaries will not satisfy that requirement. I've looked for such a discussion but have found only scattered comments here and there (and most of them about conduct, not content), no substantial discussion. Can you please provide links to where a substantial discussion about the matter has taken place? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not get a discussion. I made repeated attempts to ask for discussion, got no response, and this guy rolled over me because he thinks he owns the article. --WTF (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the discussion at Talk:Frank_Zappa#Zappa_Template (which is not one of the articles linked above) it? — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion we're referring to is here, on the talk page for the main Zappa article. DVdm says he moved the discussion there in the hopes that more editors would see it and respond to the arguments presented.

@Dvdm: Can you please point out where (with links or diffs) and when it was that consensus was established on the issue and who was on each side of the consensus discussion so that the mediator/clerks here at DRN don't have to dig for it? — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

But first off, I'd like to point out that we've been over this again and again, and consensus seems to point towards the current version of the template and discography, not the one Wisdomtenacityfocus has tried to create. No one has been mixing the articles up. No one has vandalized anything and no one has claimed ownership of any articles or templates. Wisdomtenacityfocus keeps claiming that editors who disagree with him are "mixing everything up" or vandalizing the article, or claiming ownership. In reality, there are multiple editors who all agree on the template the way it's currently organized. Every album that appears on Zappa's official discography (provided online by the Zappa Family Trust) is organized by decade, and compilations listed elsewhere (such as this, or this, or this, or this) are currently found in the "compilations" section. There's a separate section for singles, compositions that weren't singles, Zappa's family members, etc. So the idea that the template is random and chaotic isn't correct. With Frank Zappa, there's so much crossover between studio albums, live albums, compilations, etc that it would be impossible to separate the articles by category. Wisdomtenacityfocus has attempted to do this in the past, but it simply doesn't work in this particular situation. Is Sheik Yerbouti a studio album? A live album? A compilation album? It's a collection of live recordings from different performances, overdubbed with music, vocals and sound effects added later in a studio, combined with multiple tracks which are sound bites from discussions recorded in Zappa's studio. How do you put albums like this (of which there are several) into their own section without confusing people? The solution presented in the current version of the template (which Wisdomtenacityfocus disagrees with and has continued to change despite consensus pointing the other way) is to combine it with every other album, regardless of arbitrary categories. That's where the decades come in. By separating them based on decades, not only do we avoid repeating the same link twice, but we make the overall list easier on the eye. If separating the articles based on live, studio, complation, soundtrack, etc was practical, I would be all for it. But it simply isn't practical.

I entirely agree with Wisdomtenacityfocus when it comes to other templates. As far as I know, unlike Frank Zappa, those artists have no resource online stating what counts as an official album and what doesn't. The idea of mixing Pink Floyd's studio albums with their soundtracks and compilations is ridiculous. But this is completely different. It's important to organize music templates in the context of what they contain, rather than organizing them according to a perceived precedent set by completely different artists and groups. Friginator (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Dvdm: I keep answering my own questions, I think. Do I take it correctly that this edit states your position about consensus and that the consensus to which you refer is the organization of the template which existed for several months until WNT began making changes to it on 17 January 2012? (I haven't looked at the discography page yet.) — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the case, and indeed the discussion is at Talk:Frank_Zappa#Zappa_Template. User made a change which was rejected by all other editors. It was also reverted by other editors (not by myself). There was no consensus to make a change so policy requires status quo. User was pointed to that policy on more than one occasion (, , etc...)

I.m.o. this user has persistently ignored all arguments (and policies) and chose to edit war over this issue, hence my entry at wp:ANEW earlier today, where you find the entire history with diffs and dates. - DVdm (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I now see that the same thing happened at the discography. It appears that in both cases someone objected to the change reasonably promptly and that the issue has been in play continuously since that time. Under the circumstances, I wholly agree with your analysis (i.e. that one here): that it is incumbent upon WNT to build a new consensus if he/she wishes to change the article, that he has not yet done so, and that pursuant to the consensus policy that the template and discography must retain the same organization as they had before he/she began making changes. The only exception to this could be if WNT can point to a policy or guideline which requires that one organization or the other prevail, since policies and guidelines state the established consensus of the community per WP:CONLIMITED. Since WNT has made statements which would seem to claim that such a policy or guideline may exist (I am not aware of one, but I'm not an expert in this area), I'm not going to close this thread immediately but would ask WNT to identify any such policy or guideline. If no such policy or guideline exists, then this noticeboard is not an appropriate the best forum in which to attempt to establish such a consensus and this thread should will be closed with the recommendation that WNT file a request for comments at the template page and the discography page if he/she desires to attempt to establish a consensus for his/her point of view. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Indeed, I also looked for such a guideline or policy and could not find any. The only thing Wisdomtenacityfocus provided was something about a vagely related partly live/partly studio album (, , , , etc...) which was i.m.o. irrelevant and all easily refuted (, , etc...). - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My objections were not at all refuted. I pointed out that reliable sources categorize albums distinctively as live, studio, compilation, box set, etc. and you ignored the sources and my objections and changed it back despite the guidelines (see WP:Albums, WP:Discographies, etc.) - also, there is no consensus in favor of your aggressive attempt at article ownership. Please look at the Featured List discographies for Faith No More and Dream Theater for example. --WTF (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

wp:Albums and WP:Discographies are not guidelines.

I would kindly ask you to strike that accusation of "aggressive attempt at article ownership". I take this as a personal attack. - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sheik Yerbouti is clearly a live album. It was assembled by Zappa as an album, not as a compilation (which would be Mothermania, Quaudiophiliac, Have I Offended Someone?, Congress Shall Make No Law.., Joe's XMASage, etc.) - and Sheik Yerbouti consists almost entirely of live recordings. The album Ummagumma consists of a disc of live recordings and a disc of studio recordings, and is categorized thusly as a studio and live album, as it has more studio recordings than Sheik Yerbouti, which is a live album with studio elements. --WTF (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that just a moment ago, as this conversation was taking place, Wisdomtenacityfocus yet again attempted to change the discography article. I've never accused WTF of edit warring, but this is just disruption, plain and simple. Friginator (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• What disruption? I didn't change your precious formatting to make it readable, I removed the reissue (a redirect to another article) and the album that has nothing to do with Zappa except for one song. That is not "attempting to change the discography article". Your changes provide more solid proof that you are not acting in good faith and simply trying to be possessive of the article. --WTF (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WTF: I had asked if there are policies or guidelines which control this dispute. wp:Albums and WP:Discographies are projects, not policies or guidelines. I suppose it might be possible that some part of one or both of those projects are identified as a policy or guideline, but it is unfair to expect us to dig through them to find them. Please point out the specific policy or guideline to which you refer. @Everyone: Under the rules of this noticeboard, it is wholly inappropriate to make conduct allegations here. Please refrain from discussing one another: talk about edits, not editors. If you have allegations to make about user conduct, please do so at a venue or forum which is intended for that purpose, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Read the style guidelines, compare this discography to, for example, Dream Theater discography - notice the difference? I don't think there's any resolve that may occur with these editors. DVdm falsely accused me of [personal attacks] citing quotes that aren't at all personal attacks in any way, and Friginator reverted valid edits on Frank Zappa discography that had nothing to do with the dispute on the basis that I was editing the article in ANY way, in addition to the false accusations of disruption. --WTF (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of where the editors were not even paying attention to the edits they were making. While removing all of my formatting from the template, they [linked to two incorrect articles]: QuAUDIOPHILIAc, instead of Quaudiophiliac, and Greasy Love Songs, which is a reissue of Cruising with Ruben & the Jets. Again, this is disruptive. Instead of looking up other artist templates and discographies, as well as guidelines, and seeking additional feedback, these editors have simply reverted my edits on the sole basis that I had made them, regardless of their validity. --WTF (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the earlier statement, the context of the albums in which they were recorded are that they are studio albums, live albums, compilations and soundtracks, etc. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EACH TYPE OF ALBUM. That's why it's a good idea to separate them instead of mixing them up and making the templates and discographies confusing and difficult to read, rather than going by style guidelines. Also, they claimed that during a dispute, one should keep the article and template as it is while discussing the changes. THEY DIDN'T DO THIS. They reverted to THEIR preferred version, instead of keeping it in the clean and organized versions of the discography and template. --WTF (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) WTF, it's been requested of you to link to the exact policies/guidelines that you believe support your position. Instead of providing the information you have been evasive and expected clerks and people who read here to do the legwork to support your position. Typing in all caps is considered shouting in internet locations. Please step back and discuss the content and not the editors. This constitutes the 2nd warning regarding you providing the policies/guidelines and content/conduct. The next action may involve closing this thread with a summary consensus against your viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing note: It now being apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting, above, of 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC). If WTF wishes to build consensus for his/her preferred version, I would recommend the use of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Tucumcari, New Mexico discussion

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

UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann discussion

• This has already been addressed via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination). There is an ongoing discussion at ANI as well . The issue is that many of these articles (including this one) have sourcing from websites that are not independent of the subject matter, as required by WP:GNG. Many are also forums or otherwise fall short of demonstrating stand alone notability, which is why so many of the articles have been deleted previously at AFD. There is now a consensus that articles without independent sourcing should be merged into an omnibus article, per the conclusions of the two closing admins at the previously mentioned AFDs and other linked venues. Both admins have already indicated that the current solution is consistent with their closing statements and support the move. As such, several articles like this are being turned into redirects into the main article, where the content is being preserved. The only other alternative is AFD, yet the consensus at AFD is to do what is being done. Additionally, User:Udar55 has reverted the same edit by both myself and other editors a total of 4 times in 17 hours, clearly a violation of WP:3RR. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a single link on this page is to a forum. They are respected MMA news sites completely independent of the subject matter. There is not a consensus that articles should be moved to an omnibus, merely a suggestion that was acted upon in haste. The discussion is still ongoing at the link I provided above. Udar55 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will keep this simple, article fails WP:MMAEVENT as no lasting significance is claimed let alone demonstrated, Udar55 is edit warring, and the use of a edit sum designed to tempt others to start AfD's admins have asked to be avoided in preference to redirecting. This should be closed as it is being dealt with elsewhere.Mtking ^(edits) 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This particular issue has already been resolved at ANI, per the DR creator's own comments, "No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)". The topic as a whole is still being worked out in the other venues mentioned above and cooler and more productive discussion are taking place. Close requested. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: I have notified Udar55 that this listing will be closed unless he indicates here that he wishes to continue it by April 2, 2012, 13:30 UTC. It is on hold until that time; please do not post here unless one of the the other editors wishes to keep the discussion open. (If so, please plainly so state, do not merely continue the discussion.) Any DRN mediator/clerk should feel free to close this listing after April 2, 2012, 13:30 UTC if there is no request to keep it open prior to that time. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: Hold withdrawn, listing remains open. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I still wish for this DR to be resolved. My comment "No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore" referred solely to the revert edits I was doing on the page. Udar55 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Honest mistake, your comment made it sound like you wanted to drop the issue at hand. My previous comments still stand, that it is being handled elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'm a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. Though the outcome may be preordained or futile, I believe that the right way to proceed here is to nominate this article for deletion at AfD. That forum, not this, is the proper place to bring broader community attention to the question of whether or not an article is notable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 4, 2012 at 14:40 (UTC) because this is not the proper forum for this question.

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

Almeda University discussion

(Comment from uninvolved editor)Hello there. Is it possible you could break up your original description of the problem into distinct paragraphs? As it currently stands it's very difficult to discern what the problem is.Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. A Taylor (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from what I can tell, your edits were reverted on the grounds that they were overtly promotional and were referenced to the front page of the Almeda University website. We already have a link to their front in the external links section. In addition, your editing suggests a disproportionate interest in Almeda University. Consider branching out into other articles to understand better how Wikipedia works. Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with my colleague, Hasteur, but would like to add that comparing one article to another will not get you anywhere in discussions here. In Wikipedia, each article stands or dies on its own merit: for a detailed explanation see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have limited internet access at the moment, so I am not in a position to respond beyond saying that Hasteur and TransporterMan have made points that I agree with, and I wonder if ATaylor667 chose this time to start this discussion because I had not edited since 27 March. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an article where a handful of single-purpose accounts have a long history of trying to make Almeda look better. Orlady, as most of you know, is perhaps our leading expert on unaccredited schools and their articles. ATaylor, our solution to "look at the stuff that's bad in Article X; why can't I do the same?" is to try to improve Article X, not to allow other articles to deteriorate to match. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Orlady's position that I have opened this discussion since she had not edited since March 27 is I think an unnecessary comment and of a negative tone. I don't understand the reference to her comment actually, but I opened it because I had submitted the published email twice and asked for guidance and did not receive a response. My opening this discussion was not an attack but simply a desire to receive clarification and guidance. No ill will was intended nor an alterior motive.

In addition, I don't believe my case was presented in a tone of "because of X allow Y" but rather I was requesting an explanation as to why the information, which is not promotional but factual, cannot be added when in other cases it has been allowed. I do understand that each entry is under the control of the editor responsible for that entry. I simply would like a reconsideration of the simple addition I tried to add (as stated in the email). Could I be guided as to how to better word it that it would be accepted since it is a factual addition, is not promotional, and it is not an attempt "to make it look better"?

I appreciate your direction all who have responded. A Taylor (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• If it is important enough, the prose you wanted to add should have been published by an independent reliable source so that we can verify the accuracy of the claims. Because there have been previous efforts to minimize criticism and add prose that is complimentary about the article, any addition will be met with skepticism, as such consider proposing on the talk page wording before you add it to the article with a positive confirmation that the text is appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@ATaylor667: The point that you are missing is that the argument that "in other cases it has been allowed" is, under Wikipedia standards, absolutely irrelevant for the reasons stated in WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I would encourage you to read, along with the linked essay WP:OSE, before making that argument again. Your edits have been reconsidered by three experienced editors, Orlady, Hasteur, and myself and all of us find them to be unacceptably promotional. I cannot speak for the other editors, but I am not offering guidance to how they could be rewritten to become acceptable because I do not believe it to be possible: the problem is not a mere matter of form (though there is some of that as well: puffery like "award-winning," "best-selling," and "experts" is especially damning), it is that the content itself is unacceptable. (And I also agree with Hasteur in his last comment, above.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 4, 2012 at 14:46 (UTC) because discussion has stopped, issue appears to have been resolved.

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