Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 6

Menahem Lonzano discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Debresser now extended his non-use of Palestinain to towns! He believes that stating Timnah was a "Palestinian" town is "irrelevant": . He also is remving the word "Palestine" from every article on a Jewish rabbi: . Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relocated from statement of dispute Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has just referred to the use of the word "Palestine" as "propagana" which quite amazes me. Does he have an impartial view on the matter, as he claims, or does this slip up reveal an admission of a so far denied POV by someone who now seems to be a "pro-Israel" editor? Who else would call use of the word "Palestine" "propaganda"? Chesdovi (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relocated from statement of dispute Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is part of a long and wide conflict, as can be seen in detail in my post on WP:AE#Chesdovi.

Please do not let Chesdovi fool anybody as though this is an issue involving only one page, or that I would be the only editor disagreeing with Chesdovi. Chesdovi is trying push a certain POV with manifold edits through all namespaces, introducing the word "Palestinian" where it is out of place. Part of this can be witnessed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which Chesdovi has turned into the "Palestinian Herald". Note that this editor is currently under an edit restriction from WP:ARBPIA, which I think should be a red flag here, even though it seems from WP:AE that Chesdovi's edit restrictions do not apply here, because of the limited scope of WP:ARBPIA.

In my opinion, the way to solve this conflict is that Chesdovi should voluntarily stop editing any and all articles with the word "Palestinian" even near it. After things have cooled down a little, let's say in another month or three, he could open a discussion at WP:CENTRAL where he could try and establish consensus for his innovative and so far non-consensus edits. For the moment, his many non-consensus edits and exhausting discussions at all possible venues (his talkpage, Rfc, Cfd, Drv, Afd, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and various article talkpages) have so much worn out editors, that nobody even replies to any of his posts involving the term "Palestinian", causing Chesdovi to falsely claim consensus, apparently. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry for the delay in responding to this. If this discussion was limited to the original article in the complaint, then I would attempt to find a compromise here, but there seems to be a history of dispute between the two editors involved, and the general issues seem to span a wide range of articles. For these reasons I think this dispute is likely outside the scope of this noticeboard. I agree with EdJohnston and T. Canens' comments over at the arbitration enforcement thread that the articles Chezdovi is editing don't appear to be directly related to his topic ban, but I think that carrying on these two discussions in parallel would not be very efficient. I propose that we talk about this at the arbitration enforcement thread so that everyone can air their grievances and we can all come to a more informed resolution. In any case, I will leave a note at the arbitration enforcement to let them know of the existence of this thread. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that this was the thread already mentioned by Hasteur on the arbitration enforcement page, and that it got re-opened when all the old threads were manually archived this morning. I think I'll reinstate the close, as it is basically what I said in the above comment anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano resolution

The making of this request would appear to violate Chesdovi's topic ban here background here against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's interpretation of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content specifically about that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him here. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Boleto discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Didn't notify SudoGhost. I have resolved this for you.Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

IP Address, can we assume that you are FranciscoLuz? Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this is the correct section to reply in, if it isn't, feel free to move it. However, the Boleto article has been plagued with copyright violations introduced by User:Francisco luz since it was created, and half of the page history is revdel'd as a result. The article's talk page is filled with discussions about the user's insertion of copyright violations, and the user has been blocked twice for copyright violations. Each and every edit previously made by User:Francisco luz and the user's sockpuppets have been copyright violations. When 100% of a user's previous edits are copyvios, it makes it unlikely that subsequent edits are not also copyvios, especially when the edit is so similar to previous edits. It is for this reason that I removed the inserted material. It is my understanding that copyright violations are a serious matter, and in that regard, it is better to remove and discuss than to simply leave it there. - SudoGhost 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're not replying to me, but to the general issue. I've moved the posting here. If I'm wrong, feel free to move it back Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently personal attacks are an important part of the dispute resolution process. - SudoGhost 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the WP:NPA issue and the possibility of WP:SOCKPUPPETry for a moment, I'll point out to Francisco luz that theirs is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that their edits are NOT plagiarism or copyright violations, and that such proof is provided by properly citing references. This is doubly true in this case, since the editor in question has a demonstrated history of editing in violation of copyrights, based on their block history. Returning now to the question of sockpuppetry, I'd say it's pertinent because it was the IP user in question that actually opened this discussion. Should it be demonstrated that the IP is not Francisco luz, no harm, no foul. If, however, a Checkuser determines they ARE the same user...well, it wouldn't be the first time someone got hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Finally, on the matter of WP:NPA, I see the IP user has already received a warning regarding that issue, and hopefully that warning will be heeded. If it isn't, this discussion may well be closed early due to the blocking of the originator. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So is there anything we can do to work towards a resolution here? It's been a few days and Francisco luz still hasn't responded in any way, so I'm not sure what needs to be done from this point. - SudoGhost 04:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to what Alan wrote, so I think if there's no reply from Francisco luz by tomorrow then I'll close this discussion as stale. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I think at this point it can be considered stale. - SudoGhost 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Boleto resolution

Closed as stale. Feel free to post again if further issues come up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I propose that you remove the Archaeological Evidence information entirely from the article. After all, this article is titled "Beliefs and practices" of LDS, not "Archaeological Proof for LDS Beliefs". There's no need to try and prove or disprove what people believe by faith, within the context of this article. That's not the goal of this article. While it may all be a 'load', the goal of this page is to provide information on what LDS beliefs and practices are, not a critique of them. -- Avanu (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Much debate has taken place on the subject of whether archeology supports or denies the Book of Mormon's authenticity. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, at BYU regularly publishes the observations of dozens of scholars trained in biblical studies, achaeology, classics, history, law, linguistics, anthropology, political science, philosophy, Near Eastern studies, literature, and other fields relating to parallels with the Book of Mormon and the ancient world.

See also: Genetics and the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Those two articles fully flesh out the debates and the see also line would be less obtrusive than this one element of criticism in an article which is otherwise a straightforward description of LDS beliefs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I just noticed that the editor listing this request here did not notify the other interested parties and I have remedied that deficiency. Sorry that I didn't notice it before making the foregoing post. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am fully in agreement with the suggestions of Avanu and TransporterMan. Thank you TransporterMan for alerting me as to this resolution. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I did mention this request in the talk section, however it didn't occur to me at the time to link back to it. Sorry about that. I will remember to do that in the future if the need should arise again. I agree with Avanu, and wish that I would have realized that earlier. It appears from both this page and the talk pages that the majority of the editors involved are comfortable with these suggestions. Thank you for your help. Lothimos (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with TransporterMan's proposed resolution. The articles Genetics and the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon provide a good overview of the subject, and are relevant to the Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints resolution

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.

Nazism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I have come across Darkstar1st in the past. In this case he is persuaded that nazism is a form of socialism and has set up multiple discussion threads across a number of articles and presented numerous sources, none of which he has apparently read, that he believes supports his views. With his lengthy experience, he is aware of Wikipedia policy yet chooses to ignore it and waste the time of other editors. TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazism *is* a form of socialism. This is a historical and ideological fact. The article clearly states this several times, so this can hardly be what the dispute is really about. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No. This is 'fact' according to some ideologies. If the article states this as fact, it is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is fact, full stop. Sorry. Seems like a dogmatic Darkstar1st has run into some dogmatic socialists that doesn't like the truth. This is as such not a content dispute but a failure of people to compromise because of dogmaticism from all sides. The best resolution here would probably be a topic ban for all of you, but I doubt that is going to happen. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd need to go to sources. The National Socialist Party is considered by the sources with which I am familiar a fascist rather that socialist organization, but I would not be surprised if other sources disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that OpenFuture misunderstands the problem. 'Socialism' isn't a fact, it is an ideology (an idea in people's heads). There are no 'facts' regarding socialism beyond the fact that people believe in the concept - or don't. 'Truth' doesn't come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fascism is also sprung out of socialism. I think I have understood the problem spot on. Dogmatic people with opposing dogmaticisms, who all are right in some way, and therefore refuses to listen to the other side, who are also right in some way. Start listening to each other and you'll undoubtedly come to a consensus. It is as factual as any social science issue can be, but yes it is of course possible to view tat as not being factual at all, you are right. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is that supposed to help anyone "come to a consensus"? Insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is 'dogmatic' is hardly a constructive approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, so stop doing that, is what I'm saying, and start listening to each other instead, as both sides here have valid points. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Socialism=Fascism or that Fascism/Nazism is in any way connected to the Left...is nothing but pseudohistorical gibberish, and is not accepted or promoted by any reputable sources. It's a modern Newspeak myth created by uneducated American Conservative talk show hosts to redefine the worst villains of the Far Right as being "really" Left-Wing, and is not even remotely applicable to Wikipedia standards. It would be funny if people weren't so gullible as to believe this kind of nonsense, which is comparable to Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're totally wrong. Nazi/NSDAP =National "socialism" and Mussolini was a Socialist. Hilter referenced many times: Anglo-Saxon/Jewish "Capitalism" and was against it. MickeyDonald (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The above is a good example of the unsourced POV warring that the Nazism article is continously being subjected to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This above is terrible editing by Saddhiyama and is a bad example of an editor. We cannot collaborate on on bettering the encyclopedia with POV editors who refuse to read the credibly sourced pages on Wikipedia that show that Mussolini was a Socialist and that the "S" in NSDAP stand for "socialist". Please stop POV editing, it hurts Wikipedia. Shame. Read the sources yourself. MickeyDonald (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And regardless of the indisputable fact of DarkStar1st being completely wrong in terms of history and politics...what he's done to the page, and also the talk page, is inexcusable, and a clear violation of a multitude of Wikipedia rules. These rules have been pointed out to him, but he continues to spam up the talk page with mountains of cherry-picked, irrelevant nonsense, treating it like a forum, and trying to drown out any dissent to his obscene conspiracy theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I thought the point was that Nazism is connected to socialism, not that Nazism is connected to "left". Those are different concepts. 2. If Darkstar1st is such a horrible vandal, what is this doing here? Start an RFC or an Arbcom case or something. This is for helping to settle disputes, not dealing with vandals or disruptive editors. I'm not sure where is best though, although it sounds like you need an RFC. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when an editor is enamored of a particular source and demands to use it regardless of logic. Hayek's book was highly controversial even at the time (see this critical review for an example) and has very few supporters today. If the article has a section for discussing unorthodox viewpoints, it is not impossible that Hayek could be mentioned. However, citing him as a source of fact in the starting paragraphs is completely unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT both apply. Zero^talk 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is related to misuse of reliable sources in a large number of political articles, and the fault is not only on the side of Darkstar. When "quoting out of context" is used by one side, it is bad, by another side it is good, there is a continuing problem on many articles on Wikipedia. The issue of "fringe" is also a continuing problem, indeed, but in many articles, and this article is by far from the most problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on Darkstar1st's behaviour as I have not been paying attention to his specific edits. What I would like to do is give some more general comments concerning the problems we have on these articles.

For as long as I have been vaguely keeping an eye on some articles related to Fascism and Nazism I have been seeing a regular stream of IP editors and disposable accounts who take it as almost axiomatic that Nazism, and sometimes also fascism, are of the political left. The root of their apparent belief seems to be a non-mainstream understanding of the nature of the concepts of left and right in politics from which they extrapolate their line on Nazism by a mixture of non-mainstream sources and outright original research. Admittedly the concepts of left and right have shifted throughout the history of their use and are not perfectly defined. There is legitimate disagreement on their precise definitions and usage but this attempted radical redefinition of left and right, which turns established usage on its head, is not part of that legitimate disagreement.

The editors pushing the POV have been, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively from the USA and it seems to me that there is a deliberate programme of language change going on there which does not seem to be a natural language shift but one driven by an American right wing political agenda. The agenda is to reassign all odious historical movements of the right to the left so that the left is tainted and the right gets to cover itself in flowers and kittens and never admit that it has a dark side, just as all things have. Wikipedia is not meant to be at the vanguard of language change, particularly not one that seeks to encode political assumptions into the language and render existing terminology useless/meaningless in a manner comparable to Orwell's Newspeak. The one thing I have found very hard to work out with the hit and run editors is whether we can assume good faith with them. Are these editors aware that they are engaging in propaganda or have they simply never read any mainstream history about Fascism and Nazism until they stumble over it on Wikipedia? Is somebody pointing them in our direction? The steady stream of IP editors makes me wonder. Each one turns up pushing the same arguments as the last, has the consensus explained to them on the talk page, argues for a bit and then melts away to be replaced by another IP editor. It is a bit of a Groundhog Day experience and it consumes time that we could be spending on more productive things. Intentional or not, it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Looking at this from the outside, in the UK, it is all very bemusing.

It is interesting to see some longstanding editors making similar points. I am happy to assume good faith with them although that doesn't stop me regarding OpenFuture's comments above as very fundamentally mistaken. I don't want to pick him apart line by line but he is entirely wrong to suggest that those who disagree with him are all "dogmatic socialists". Mainstream thinkers on the right recognise Nazism and Fascism as the darkest side of the right but as the left has learned to accept that Stalinism and Maoism are the darkest side of the left. I respect his right to hold a non-mainstream opinion but he should read WP:TRUTH.

The line on Nazism, which I was taught at school and which is followed by mainstream academics of varying political hues, is that Fascism and Nazism are of the right although they also incorporated some elements from the left. This the line taken by the Nazism article (except when it is being messed up) and is the line it should continue to take as its main thrust, unless academic consensus changes, which is highly unlikely.

Notable, non-mainstream views can be included with appropriate weight but must not be over-covered or passed off as mainstream. I suggest that this is where more discussion would be productive, rather than constantly, fruitlessly, revisiting the broad thrust of the article.--DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"Mainstream views of left and right" is indeed one of the primary issues - with many current authors from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on averring that the "left-right spectrum" is not easily applicable to some groups. In fact, the debate about the linear spectrum is mainstream. Schlesinger, by the way, is not generally associated with the "American right." So Wikipedia should, indeed, note that the whole idea of a simple spectrum is now questioned widely, and such questioning is mainstream and not "fringe." , , , , , and on and on. With the mainstream now questioning the use of a linear spectrum, I suggest that its emphasis be depracated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, talking about "left" and "right" is in general pointless as it doesn't have any meaningful definitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet again: I agree that claiming that Nazism is on the left is complete nonsense. But that is very different from saying that it is a form of socialism. Those claims are not equal at all, and must not be treated as equal. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources I have read categorize nazism as form of socialism. TFD (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we have provided you with plenty of sources on the topic, which reasonably should close this. The issue here isn't the view of Nazism, but the failure to keep the debate constructive on Talk:Nazism. Darkstar1st is only one of the culprits in that failure. IMO this can be close d now. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources. You seem stuck on the Communist theory that Nazism developed from German Conservatism and are confused by the fact that liberals called Conservative policies "socialist". You are even providing Lenin as a source for your opinions. TFD (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I notice that this thread has been inactive for a few days. Are you still having issues with this? We still may be able to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if you would look at Talk:Nazism. Another editor who has not posted to this discussion thread has expressed his concerns to me. TFD (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As an involved editor I can third the complaints about the talk page spamming of Darkstar. Furthermore the editor has a tendency to post discussion posts about article subject related matter directly on the talk page of the involved editors, instead of keeping them at the article talk page, making it even more difficult for editors (involved as well as uninvolved) to follow developments.

On a related note, following my removal of original research I recieved this message from Darkstar, which I found to reveal a fundamental lack of knowledge of the most basic principles of Wikipedia on Darkstars part, both relating to distinction between primary and secondary sources as well as the concept of original research. I find it particularly disturbing in that most of Darkstars editing seems confined to "finding sources", and that even after all this time of engaging in disputes over sources (apparently since 2005) he has still not learned the most basic concepts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now read the talk page, and at the moment it does not seem like a very productive environment for discussion. I tend to agree with the editors above that Darkstar1st is causing disruption on the page, although I do think that he is genuinely trying to improve the article. As I see it, the issue is one of confirmation bias - when you are convinced of something it becomes easy to dismiss evidence that doesn't support your claim, and harder to accept contrasting evidence from others. I have certainly been guilty of this in the past, but of course we want to avoid this type of thing as much as possible on Wikipedia, and just going on as usual doesn't seem like it will help here. Judging from this 2010 ANI report, Darkstar1st's pattern of editing hasn't changed much over the last year. Have you considered opening an RFC/U? That might provide the right venue to air out all of these claims and provide some balanced and considered conclusions on how to proceed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Especially since Darkstar1 keeps up the habit of spamming incoherent requests for addition of questionable sources all over the talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion is odd - if one reads the talk pages fairly, one will see a bit of "I know what is truth"-ism going on, where Wikipedia, for good or ill, looks only at whether a claim is verifiable as being published in a WP:RS. Several editors seem to think if they state a source is "fringe" (mainlybecause it contradicts what they are absolutely certain of) that therefore such a source can not be used unledd clearly marked "loony." So far, I have not found WP:Loony source at all -- and I fear that those who so insist on labelling sourced they do not like is the main problem here. In the case at hand, there is strong and convincing evidence that reliable sources claim the National Socialists did, indeed, have a strong socialist platform from 1923 (formation of what was later called "Nazi") to about 1933, but that somehow the socialist part was put on the "back burner" upon accession to power. But some editors assert the OED was wrong in setting the date before 1931 for the term "National Socialist" <g>) Mainly on the basis of what they know to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the problem. That there was an element of socialist rhetoric and a left-wing presence in the Nazi party in its early phase is not what is the issue here. That much seems reasonable clear from the scholarly sources, and I don't think any editors would dispute that. The reason this issue has come to the dispute resolution page is because of a small group of editors, mostly Darkstar1, spamming the talk page with an odd assortment of cherry picked sources on the clearly stated objective of adding to the article as fact that Nazism was a socialist ideology. This being mostly based on the claim by Hayek in his Road to Serfdom, carried on by other members of the Mises Institute and similarly libertarian pundits. As I and others have shown, using reliable academic sources, this is no longer the consensus of contemporary academia, and Hayek and company is largely regarded as obsolete in connection with this subject. I would not even object to a section describing this part of the historiography on the subject, but the problem is that it is not being used as such by the involved editors, it is being treated as WP:TRUTH and the sources added to cite general claims of that nature in the lead and in key sections of the article. This is clearly POV editing, and the spamming all over the page, by an editor with scant knowledge of the basic policies of Wikipedia is disruptive and extremely non-constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this cogent statement - I don't think I have anything to add right now except that I agree with it (and I remember having to read Hayek many years ago as part of a course). Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'd like to close this thread. I think this particular dispute is of too wide a scope for this noticeboard to handle efficiently, as there appear to be multiple issues - some conduct issues, and multiple content issues. I mentioned RFC/U above, and I still think this would be a good venue to air the conduct issues. However, after some more thought, I also think the content issues would benefit from being clearly identified and undergoing mediation separately. Steven Zhang has said that he will mediate informally on the talk page, and this seems like a good next step to me. I'll also keep an eye on the page myself, and I'll close this thread later on today unless anyone really wants it to stay open. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism resolution

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.

United States - foreign relations and military discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

One very important point: The basic assumption stated above—that I "seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US [have]"—is obviously false, as I agreed to and facilitated the inclusion of the Philippines in the relevant passage of the United States article.

Aside from that, I believe the thread in the article's Talk page speaks for itself. I'll monitor this dispute resolution thread for input from third parties.—DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To Zabararmon: I have reviewed the talk page discussion and the edits to the article, and it didn't seem to me that DCGeist was rude at all. He did have good reasons for reverting your edits, and to me it seemed he explained them very courteously. I can appreciate that it is frustrating to have your edits undone, especially for new users who are still learning about the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I'm afraid that this is part of the deal of having an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It also seems that DCGeist shares your view about the USA having strong ties with the Philippines - the dispute here seems to be about how the information is presented, not the accuracy of the information itself.

It is perhaps unfortunate that you chose the United States article as one of the first ones to edit, as this article is already well-developed, and any changes need to be in full compliance with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be beneficial. This means that you are much more likely to get your edits undone there than at a less-developed article. DCGeist obviously has a good knowledge of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he has already explained the relevant ones to you on the talk page. I suggest chalking this one up to experience - as you spend more time here you will get a better feel for how policies such as avoiding undue weight can affect how we edit articles. I know this is probably not what you were hoping to hear, but I hope this reply has been useful. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

DCGeist, it seems we are at a complete disagreement and your arguments are a failure at best.

1. "You failed to convince one single editor beside yourself that ..." I am not trying to convince a single editor of any changes made. It seems that the only editor in challenge of this is yourself. Please re-asses your this point.
2. "I discussed that change with you extensively and in good faith, I agreed to support an edit to the...." It wasn't objectively discussed or appropriately, hence my argument that I would take it to 'Dispute resolution notice board' for further clarification and included are further discrepancies of your justification and "Discussion of extensively good faith"
3. (i) "It appears that left you (extremely) dissatisfied. I see from your recent edit that you now wish to place the Philippines...." Please refer to my notices, posts and arguments above for reasons. It seems that you need further excuses to hijack a perfectly good argument and justification.

   (ii) "I'll return the Philippines to the middle of the string of names, following the three majority-English-speaking countries (a logical sequence, I believe)..."

Please, have a much better argument than that, as its extremely weak. The population of the Philippines is 94 million, the combined population of Canada and Australia is 70 Million. English is one of the official languages in the PI with 93% (UN statistics) speaking the language, introduced and indoctrinated by the former colonial masters, the US. Your justifications seem very racially biased. I will not adjust this article at all and will, once again post these arguments on the notice board as referred above. I'm amazed that for a credible 'editor' you're not looking at the arguments objectively as the debate I have created can't be easily argued by yourself. I will also ask a few, more credible, editors to view this and will await their answers. Till then, I too wish you luck with editing and hope we can come to a more, realistic and 'educated' decision on this said article. --Zabararmon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs)

Mr. Stadivarius. In repect to him being impolie, it was in reference to a personal email we sent each other initially when I didn't know how to 'Discuss' or use the 'talk page'. but that has nothing to do with this article and should be ignored. Furthermore, after looking at your profile on wiki, I have come to realise that you're a language teacher in Japan. Thats great and I hope to give more to humanity when I complete my post grad studies. Moving on, I ask that you look into the current argument and double check my UN references regarding english spoken in the PI. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. It is unfortunate that I had chosen the United states as my first article, however, I find it important to contribute facts and referenced sources. I have no quarrel with other countries at all as I have stated in previous discussions. My only quarrel is the constant evasion and excuses by DCGeist. Please refer to my reason for putting the Philippines infront of the other countries, above.

Thanks for your input and hope that I have more clarity on this subject. -- [User:Zabararmon|Zabararmon]] (talk • contribs 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Zabararmon, you are not a good person. You have, with absolutely no basis, accused me of racial bias. There are few uglier things you could do in the context of Wikipedia or, indeed, in the world outside. And just like in the world outside, your ugly behavior here has consequences.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

United States - foreign relations and military resolution

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.

Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• I'm sure the Helpful Pixie Bot will have a lot to add, being involved and all, but I think the initiator of this request needs to review WP:WEIGHT. "Equally represented" is not going to fly when dealing with WP:FRINGE articles like this. The initiator should also see WP:MEDRS as has been suggested already on the talk page to see what reliable sources we should be using in this article. Yobol (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• The feedback provided to this editor is that they need to provide references per WP:MEDRS. One does not need to ref the lead as it is supported by the body of the article. Oprah is not a reliable source nor are articles from the 1980s.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Okay. What about current web citations concerning the fact that each bio-identical hormone is readily available from major pharmaceutical companies and corner drug stores (names them by brand), and that the practice of compounding (which was the original form of distributing drugs before Big Pharma) serves only to offer different strengths of those same FDA approved compounds which the "name brands" do not?
• What if we offer some insight into the FACT that there is controversy over this topic. Sure Oprah is not a credible source, but what about the published authors and medical doctors that were a part of that article? There have been studies, double blind placebo controlled studies, showing hormone replacement reversed osteoporosis PMID 2355952, tooth loss,^[1] sexual function PMID 7039447, stroke^[2] , cardiovascular disease PMID 8597464, and many others. *Yet there are scholarly articles saying the opposite... SInce when to articles trump studies? And since when do the New England Journal of Medicine and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, etc. print conspiracy theories or WP:FRINGE studies/articles? I have reviewed WP:WEIGHT and have provided not even the tip of an iceberg of credible information from publications no person could possibly accuse of printing WP:FRINGE information. Nutritiondr (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting review articles published in the last 5 years preferably 10 years max. We can discuss those back on the article talk page if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with BHRT is that it's extraordinarily asymmetrical in the medical literature. There is very little published in medical sources supporting BHRT, and a whole, whole lot of critical ones. That is why the article does not discuss the supporting evidence for BHRT, there simply isn't much. I have no issue with the page demonstrating the wonders of BHRT, provided adequate sourcing can be found. Otherwise it is undue weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny I think people here are free to decide if the comment is germane or not. But your actions despite being an involved party pretty much highlight the concern. Lambanog (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur that WLU in particular should not be censoring this discussion. He does seem to be involved in a number of concurrent conflicts. For example, does anyone know which Wikipedia article he was referring to in his comment here? BitterGrey (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has a dispute with my conduct specifically, they are welcome to submit a request for comment on user conduct; I don't believe this is the place to debate my actions on more pages than just the BHRT one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just we are clear, how many MEDICAL sources would you like me to cite to clear the undue weight issue? Give me the parameters of what will be acceptable and I will deliver. There is that much out there to chose from. Also, I think we need to decide how to weigh a published medical study which delivers facts against a published opinion which does not.Nutritiondr (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You would have to provide medically reliable sources, and secondary sources (that would be review articles, literature reviews, meta-analyses) that clearly discuss bioidentical hormones (i.e. you can not say "X study on Y hormone shows Z;^[1] Y hormone is a bioidentical hormone^{[citation needed]}) so as to avoid original research. The sources you provide above (which I've refactored where I could to use pubmed links) do not apply; they are quite old, they are not secondary, several are not pubmed-indexed and I can't find online, and quite simply they are drowned out by the much more recent, much more authoritative sources that are currently used on the BHRT page. In addition, they fairly clearly seem to say offer the type of synthesis that I describe above. Specific discussion of specific sources should probably occur on the BHRT talk page rather than here; if nothing else, the presentation of sources that haven't been discussed on the talk page as a way of resolving the dispute suggests that the request for dispute resolution is premature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've been editing the page here and there for several years, and have seen the edit wars that have been going on. The two sides are 1) an editor who is I believe a medical professional who has been extremely dedicated for several years in creating a page that includes only the most stringently proven information about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. He has worked hard and provided many good contributions. Then 2) on the other side are a series of several editors who have been writing about the latest thought regarding bioidentical hormone replacement therapy--they tend to be people from the alternative or complementary medicine fields, though not necessarily (fyi: I'm not from any of these groups). The problems are rather subtle, I believe, so will take a bit of explaining.
• Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) is a relatively new therapy (15-20 years or so is when it's really become popular in its current form), and there are some things relating to it that have been well-proven by medical studies, and other things that have not yet been well-proven but there may be indications of findings without yet strong proof. Some proponents of it are completely flaky quacks, while other proponents of it are legitimate medical professionals. There are some concerns about the traditional, standard medical hormone replacement therapy that supporters of BHRT have brought up and that were summarized on the page but that were deleted by the other side. There are a range of different supports for BHRT--some supports are crap, frankly (e.g. some BHRT supporters say that BHRT does not have the risks of breast cancer, etc., that conventional therapy has, because it's "natural". This claim is flatly untrue and is dangerous; popular BHRT advocate Suzanne Somers is a charlatan). Other supports are based on some sound science but are in the earlier stages of investigation simply because BHRT is a lot newer than that which it is questioning, plus at this point it's difficult to have any large-scale studies of any kind of HRT following the findings of the WHI Prempro study that revealed some dangers of Premarin&Provera, the main non-bioidentical hormones that the BHRT supporters complain about. There ARE legitimately positive things to say about BHRT, however, and the arguments that supporters make about them should be present on the web page, but they keep getting deleted by the other side, and things are edited in such a way and with such word choice that BHRT ends up seeming completely illegitimate and flaky and none of the points raised in its support remain. The Wikipedia article is about sharing the information regarding this issue, including what all of the different groups involved with BHRT say, not about writing the definitive medical review article to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The WP article has a slightly different purpose than a medical journal article that would be reviewing this issue, and by suppressing some of the legitimate perspectives of the BHRT supporters, the article shows bias and violates NPOV. A NEJM article will have a bias towards conventional hormone therapy, and that's appropriate for them, but this WP doesn't have the same purpose. So the very determined editing of the medical professional have been addressed at creating a certain kind of tone, and the scientific rigor is laudatory, but those edits go too far in suppressing what BHRT supporters say that are legitimate critiques and comments. As I said above, these differences are subtle, and can best be seen by comparing edit by edit the things about BHRT that have been deleted by the other side, but doing such a comparison is extremely time consuming. But the article is called BHRT, so it should have that information there. An example is the addition of the disputed phrase that BHRT is "poorly defined". Such a word choice makes BHRT seem shady; instead, the different ways that BHRT has been defined should be included, and the different camps of supporters and opponents described. There are many other examples but I think I have described the complex situation adequately here.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the advice of departing from the scientific consensus is wrong. If there is a scientific consensus, Wikipedia should render it as fact, not speculate about the soundness of some arguments used by fringe theorists. That would constitute original research. Oprah's medical authority, Dr. Mehmet Oz is a real MD, but he dabbles too much into alternative therapies, so he cannot be trusted to render the medical consensus. At best, he is an MD who has been mesmerized by fringe theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "pro" BHRT side has a point, they should make their point in the medical literature; to date, there is very little data presented in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. Erika Schwartz has published one article with Kent Holtorf, and Holtorf himself has published a second one. I can think of a third article in which an uncontrolled set of 150 case studies were reported...and that's about it. There deliberately shouldn't be a sense of false balance in the wikipedia article because, as is clearly demonstrated by the large number of critical sources published in highly respected journals (most recently in The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics; ) there's no false balance in the literature. The minority opinion is represented through Schwartz & Holtorf, but the points made in these articles are themselves criticize by other sources. If there is a gradual accumulation of sources indicating the medical community is changing its mind, we can document that as they occur. But for now, there's an avalanche of high quality sources from well respected journals and medical organizations that offer science-based, well-reasoned criticisms of BHRT; the "pro" side has nothing comparable to offer. I'm also really, really sick of the conspiracy theory and one-sided COI accusations. They are rife on the talk page, and never a reason to alter any wikipedia page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• One of the most important things that needs mention is that the only hormones that offer a synthetic version are progesterone, estrogen, and thyroid. All other available hormones whether they are compounded or purchased from the drug store like any other prescription are "bio-identical" by definition. Any doctor wanting to prescribe a man or woman testosterone, and is writing that prescription to be filled at a "Drug Store" rather than a compounding pharmacy, is prescribing a bio-identical hormone if they know it or not. People are getting hung up on the term 'bio-identical hormones" because it is becoming popular with fringe types, and there are outrageous claims being made. But that shouldn't change the leaning of the information.

I have a full study, published in 2009, citing over 200 other studies, finding bio-identical hormones are safer than synthetics. Anyone want to fish through all of it and get something together? Nutritiondr (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What study? Your statements also agree with what most of the critical sources say - bioidentical hormones is not science, it's marketing. Proponents muddy the fact that bioidentical hormones are already available, in a variety of dosing regimens, and are expected to carry the same risks as "conventional" hormone replacement therapy. Bioidentical hormones is a term used in a specific way that is discussed on the wikipedia page. If you want to discuss it in a different way, if you want to say "all the experts are wrong and here is the data that I've assembled and interpreted myself to prove my point", you're engaging in original research and should not try to incorporate this into wikipedia. If you're arguing that the term "bioidentical" is misused on wikipedia, then you're essentially creating a new definition, which is somewhere between wikipedia isn't a dictionary and neologisms aren't defined here. If you're here to promote "bioidentical hormones" over "regular/artificial/manufactured hormones", then wikipedia is not a place to promote a viewpoint and we're not here to right great wrongs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To Nutritiondr - I'm afraid I have to agree with WLU here. It is vitally important that we stick to a strict interpretation of our guidelines for medical sources to avoid giving fringe theories more weight in Wikipedia articles than they deserve. If you read our guideline on fringe theories you will find that any discussion of a fringe theory needs to be supported by reliable sources, and furthermore that the theory needs to be a significant minority to justify being included in the article at all. In the case of medical articles, that means that just one or two studies aren't enough to make a claim. You need to find evidence in reliable sources that summarize peer-reviewed research, such as medical review articles or textbooks. If you can find this kind of research, then you can make a good case for adding it to the article. If you can't, though, it's probably best to leave it out. I hope this advice helps, and if you have any more questions I'll be happy to answer them here or on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy resolution

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.

Digital signage // content

• Digital signage // content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I added some text to digital signage on Wikipedia The text is below There are methods for creating content for digital signage and certain guidelines to try to follow. Tips for creating Digital Signage Content. Here are some tips which can aid people in coming up with the relevant content for their digital signs:

1.It is first essential to choose the right color scheme in order to make the content on the electronic screens cohesive. The colors can be selected by first looking at the location where the digital signs are posted. People can make note of prominent colors and then choose one which would complement the location.

2.The second step is opting for attractive yet easy to read fonts for text as well as headings on the signs. To ensure that all the content meshes together and is consistent, people should use the same text style for all digital signage content.

3.The third step is deciding the size of the font. People should test out different sizes on the smallest monitor or screen they will be using for their digital signs. People should select the font which can be read from a distance even on the smallest screens and should select that size or larger if desired.

4.The next step is to make a list of the information and messages you wish to convey in your advertisement. After making the list, people can write short sentences regarding each topic. All the sentences and messages should be short and easily understandable. A longer message can be broken into short sentences which can be displayed in sequence. Different content creation tools are available which can aid in coming up with suitable content for your digital signage.

5.Now people have to select images which are suitable for the topics that are mentioned in the content. This image should have a separate portion for graphics and texts so that each can be displayed easily. With light backgrounds, people can choose dark fonts and vice versa. Image editing software can also be utilized if any problem in including the text.

6.All the pieces of the content are then scheduled on the play list and the images are set to fade out when each image leaves the screen.

This was written by myself and is my own work from my website http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com blog

I added the refernce at the bottom to the blog post on the website this keeps being removed, i dont mind having my information on Wikipedia but i would like some reference to the page it came from. The link to the text that i wrote is here on my website http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com/digitalsignageblog/?p=517

Kind Regards

Tim Warrington

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Timwoz (talk · contribs)
• Timwoz (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Digital signage // content}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• How do you think we can help?

As been as the text is being used on Wikipedia i would like to know how i can put a reference to my website on this page as the text did originate from http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com/digitalsignageblog/?p=517

Timwoz (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Digital signage // content discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

This board is only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed on a talk page and I can find no such discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Denver - Radioactive contamination discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I see no discussion about this on the Denver talk page about this. Discussions MUST start there, then move to this noticeboard only if there is still a stalemate. The talk page is NOT protected. I recommend this be closed and the editor directed to begin a discussion about this on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Denver - Radioactive contamination discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Discussion has only just started on the talk page. This is FAR too pre-mature, and should be closed AGAIN. FormerNukeSubmariner, this noticeboard should be used only after there has been discussion on the talk page. Not before or in place of. You've just been trying to edit war your changes into the article, and posted here when you couldn't get your way. That's NOT how Wikipedia works. A core part of editing is the WP:BRD cycle - Bold edits get Reverted, then Discussed on the article talk page. Please return here only after discussion has happened on the talk page.

Again, recommend this be closed as no discussion has happened on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not recognizing the fact that Orlady had stonewalled comments until virtually forced to do so. We're not living on the same time-line...that simple. I am making no 'Bold' claims whatsoever...Rocky Flats contaminated Denver with plutonium beginning in 1957 in a major way. How long does the Denver article have to wait to mention how this happened and the harsh facts behind it? I'll hold off for now, but as plainly stated all I have asked for is an honest outside review of the situation, and in return I get a hectoring response. I'm unimpressed with the process...just plainly speaking. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. A simple (but currently suppressed on Denver) visual aid in this situation that speaks more than the proverbial 1,000 words: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The deleted content is in the article history for all to see. And I thought that trolls lived under bridges. I didn't know they were crew members on nuclear submarines. --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, no one "sees" the content on plutonium contamination that Orlady has deleted when visiting the Denver article...that's why she deleted it. That one has to chicken scratch through the history page to find this information is clearly one of her intentions.

As regards name-calling above by Orlady, I only respond to ladies. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

One more comment for now is in regard to Ravensfire's mis-aimed fire regarding "edit warring." In the article in question, I edit warred with no one. I did revert ONE person, twice, who was deleting the section on the highly specious observation that "Rocky Flats is not in Denver." This is a clearly absurd comment, given the undeniable contamination of Denver with plutonium, but also one repeated by Orlady in her rationale for deleting the entire subsection. As Orlady stopped all related involvement by semi-protecting the article, I was not even offered the courtesy of an opportunity to edit war -- or, better, simply evolve the section -- with her. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We can look at the history of the page and see the content you are trying to get in. It's not supressed. We can make evaluations of what is going on here. Hasteur (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've looked at the issue and have a few policy acronyms I wanted to raise

• Bold, Revert, Discuss - Orlady reverted the changes because they don't really belong in the City/County of Denver article. There are communities closer to Rocky Flats that this might make more sense to be in.
• WP:UNDUE - Just because Denver happens to be the most populus city nearby doesn't mean that we should lump a significant section of the issues about nuclear contamination in there. Would you have the Washington D.C. article contain information about ash and health effects of jet fuel burning because an airliner crashed into The Pentagon across the river and in annother state?
• WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia works on a consensus model, where all editors interested discuss an issue and come to an agreement on what content should be present in an article.
• WP:DISPUTE - Because you've now gotten here twice it's assumed that you read this policy page and understand that there are multiple different ways to attract attention to an issue you have with a page.
• WP:CANVAS - Trying to appeal to Jimmy Wales (On the Article talk page Talk:Jimmy Wales) is both incorrect (it's User Talk:Jimbo and borderline violating policy on trying to get an administrator to resolve a dispute in your favor by "tattling".
• Assumption of Good Faith - It's assumed that every editor is working to improve the Wiki and not suppress information or conspire to keep bad data on the site. Your interactions recently on the article's talk page have been significantly less than civil and make assumptions that Orlady is acting in bad faith.
• WP:NPA - Your repeated dragging the fact that Orlady lives in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (another nuclear site) is immaterial to the discussion of the inclusion of this content.
• WP:ADMINABUSE - Lays out the exact procedure to go about raising your concern. Considering you did not raise the concern with Orlady untill after you came here screaming Abuse tells me that you have yet to understand the problem.
• WP:DEADLINE - There is no deadline for information in wikipedia. If Denver has survived for over 50 years with this information not being shouted from every street corner, it can wait a little longer for it to be discussed and a reasoned solution developed.
• Edit Waring - Editing to get your viewpoint in when multiple editors have taken it out is extremely frowned upon.
• And finally, talk on the article's talk page only occured after the page was semi-protected so I'm more inclined to believe Orlady, who has been trusted by the community with Administrative tools, over you who just registered and are behaving like this is your first brush with a dispute. Hasteur (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

'Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.'

First and foremost, I do appreciate the inputs here. Thank you.

Simply put, the issue at-hand is the contamination of **Denver**...not Rocky Flats, which was 'merely' the source of the plutonium contamination. Look at the map! This Pu contamination is hardly a minor or tangential point for Denver, and quite clearly has been involved in the death of an 11 year-old girl who was six miles downwind of Rocky Flats during the 1969 fire (the less plutonium-producing fire) which is definitely in Denver's suburbs. Read the entire subarticle, please. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"If there are enough reliable sources that document the contamination in Denver, then I wouldn't mind maybe inserting a sentence about it in the article. " Okay...that's easy and documented in the article. Thank you for your support. As an important aside, did you read that the both the lead FBI investigator in the Rocky Flats raid AND the foreman of the grand jury have brought up the suppression of contamination information by the government? This is real, folks. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Valerie Sinason discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

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.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I am a neutral in regard to this dispute.

• Review of Wikipedia guidelines is beyond the scope of authority of this noticeboard and would be inappropriate here. The proper place to propose a change in a guideline or policy is on the talk page of the guideline, preferably following the instructions set out at WP:PROPOSAL.
• I feel the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 name is in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). The only exception given there is for aircraft which are so commonly known by another name, such as the Concorde, that to name them in accordance with that guideline would be more misleading than not. That standard is different than being known among aircraft aficionados or historians by a particular name. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia for ordinary users, not a collection of specialist knowledge. The ordinary user would not be aware that this aircraft existed at all, much less know it by a common name. The sole exception in the guideline clearly does not apply.
• Such being the case, then the guideline sets the standard for how the article should be named unless a local exception is established by consensus to name it something else since guidelines represent the pre-established consensus of the community. Therefore, even if those in favor of naming the aircraft in accordance with the guideline have not quite established a consensus their position must prevail since those supporting naming the article by the aircraft's common name have clearly not achieved a consensus to do so.
• In summary, for the common name to be used in this case, those in support of its use must either (a) change the guideline so that it supports it (which it clearly does not at the present time) or (b) create a consensus for an WP:IAR local exception, as to do anything else would fail to follow the standing consensus of the community on how aircraft articles should be named.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• In this particular case the "official name", and the "common name" are the same. It is the name that was created to satisfy the naming convention that is unfamiliar, and completely fictious, and being added by consensus. It was my understanding that it is never acceptable to use fictious information in a Wikipedia article, even if it is to satisfy a naming convention. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did not use the term "official name" at any point in my opinion, and it's not a issue between the official name and the common name. It's an issue between any name other than the guideline-based name and the guideline name. Please re-read my opinion with that clarification in mind. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Post script: Just a word about the specific request made under "How do you think we can help?" While some of the mediators who work at this noticeboard may happen to be administrators, most of us — including me — are just regular editors. At that, administrators have no more right to review policy or guidelines than any other editor. Policies and guidelines are established and modified by the consensus of the community and the only folks other than the community who have the right to change or remove them are the Wikimedia Foundation and, in keeping with the Wiki principle, they will not ordinarily do so except in extreme circumstances which threaten the existence or legal well-being of the encyclopedia. As for your request that multiple mediators review this, you are of course welcome to wait to see if anyone other than me weighs in and to reject my opinion altogether if it turns out that I'm the only one who does so, but the way dispute resolution is going these days I wouldn't necessarily hold my breath until that happens. One way to try to attract additional editors to weigh in on the dispute is to make a request for comments at the article and/or guideline talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As a start people need to dial back the rhetoric a bit. Statements like "purely fictious name" are not helpful when there are WP:RS that refer to the aircraft as the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 - such as the US Air Force Museum factsheet linked in the article, just as there are other WP:RSs that refer to the aircraft as the Barling Bomber, and other ones that call it the Barling NBL-1. It seems premature to ask for the whole guideline to be scrapped while a requested move is ongoing.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As one of the parties involved, I believe this effort is not only premature, it will be seen as short-cutting the standard practice of setting out a discussion forum and working toward consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the issue of the article title is up to the closer of the RM, so I am not sure what is being proposed here. But I will add my opinion anyway. When the title "Barling Bomber" was first proposed, it was objected that this this name was not official. After various examples of official use were provided, it was objected that that it had the "ring of a 'press (media)' invention". Can we rename aircraft when we don't like the 'ring' of their names? Why insist that an experimental aircraft of the 1920s follow the naming conventions of modern production jets? The second most common name for this aircraft is XNBL-1 or NBL-1, which would suggest a title along the lines of "Barling NBL-1", the name used by Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation. Kauffner (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Bzuk: I'd agree with you if there had been no discussion of the matter on the talk page and the guidelines of this project cause such listings to be rejected, but dispute resolution is appropriate whenever a dispute occurs and that point in time does not only occur when discussion has stalled. Unlike some other DR processes, the opinions of mediators here at DRN "count" towards consensus, so in some ways a discussion here is just an extension of the discussion on the talk page, but with one or more neutrals participating and providing "new eyes". (And my opinion, above, thus "counts" toward a consensus in favor of the use of "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1" as the name of the article.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Kauffner: The fact of the matter is that this matter has already been decided by standing consensus by the adoption of the guideline, unless the common name comes within the exception set out in the guideline, which it does not, or unless an IAR local exception to the guideline is adopted by consensus, which it clearly has not, see my opinion, above. The filing of the RM should not put the name wholly back in play when a guideline exists which provides the name to be used. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan , the major problem that needs to be addressed here is that this naming convention causes editors to create a completely fictional name to satisfies the naming convention. Are you aware of any situation in which it is acceptable to place false, or to add fictional information, on Wikipedia? I do not. The first rule of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is that the information be accurate, factual, and verifible. This naming convention encourages the creation of names that are false, fictional, and non-verifible. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for just repeating stuff from the article talk page but just to note that National Museum of the United States Air Force used the term Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber so clearly it not false, fictional or non-verifiable unless the official United States Air Force Museum is considered not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ken keisel. If you believe that the naming convention is wrong you are free to try to get it changed, but until and if you can the consensus of the community is that it is the way that it is supposed to be done. You can say that the result the naming convention gives in this case is wrong, false, fictional, or the words of Satan himself, but unless you can change the mind of the community through obtaining a new consensus about the convention or through obtaining an IAR local exception though consensus in this particular case you're just spitting into the wind. You've not attempted the former and the current consensus at the article is clearly against you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I agree with TransporterMan. If you are seeking to change the policy then you are looking in the wrong place. Whatever your view of the policy, it can only be changed by consensus, and that would be best found by making at suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) and seeing if you get any support. In the meantime, any specific suggestions about Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 should be made at the talk page there - and in fact, I see that you have, and that a compromise is being worked out. If you do decide to make a suggestion at the policy talk page, then I recommend you keep it as calm and as objective as possible. Using emotionally loaded language will make it less likely that your proposal will succeed. Unless there are any other points I'm missing, I think I will close this discussion, as continuing with it would just lead to talking round in circles, in my opinion. If you need any more help, I'll be glad to give it - just leave a message on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 resolution

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.

Femme Fatale Tour discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

One thing I'm not seeing is some recent discussion on the talk page about this. Xwomanizerx, I can see that you ask Itsbydesign to open a discussion, but also that you also did not open a discussion on the talk page. I'd suggest starting the talk page discussion yourself and going from there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I did this because I really didn't want to engage in an edit war. I'm gonna open the discussion, but if he doesn't want to cooperate again I'm returning here. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire, the talk page is the place where this should be going. I'll close this thread and keep an eye on the article. Hopefully this should go more smoothly if there is a 3rd party involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Origin of the Azeris discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The user "Alborz Fallah" gives this as ref : http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html . there is written : "Y-DNA haplogroup R-M207 is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined subclades are R1 and R2." but "Alborz Fallah" writes in the text : "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) , believed to have arisen on the Eurasian Steppe or the Indus-valle" and also "Alborz Fallah" gives to sentences a special meaning by changing the formation of sentences ( Ambiguity in meaning ) . all of my texts are mentioned in the refs but "Alborz Fallah" change them to the texts that are mentioned in ref but there is no relation Between the text and article. for example the haplogroup R is mentioned in article but "Alborz Fallah" writes the text about sub group R1a : here . --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user, I have taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the late response to this. Although the discussion has become quite heated on the talk page, it looks like you have both been acting in good faith, and providing references for your edits. I have a couple of things to say about the references; the first is that Wikipedia needs references to be reliable. Arslanteginghazi, I see that the references you added included a Blogspot blog and a Wikipedia article. Neither of these qualify as a reliable source, because there is no guarantee of any independent fact-checking in them. Also I see you have referenced one sentence to "Ibn Miskawayh (932-1030) - tajarebul umam", "Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham 833CE "kitab ut tijan"", and "hamzah al-isfahaniy 961ce". These people lived more than 1000 years ago and can't really be said to represent modern scholarship on the issue, although perhaps you intended these as footnotes, rather than references?

Then there is the claim of the genetic origin of the Azeris. I am no expert in genetics, but it does look like Arslanteginghazi is making his own interpretation of the source. On Wikipedia we have a policy of not allowing any original research. This means that making your own conclusion based on a source is not allowed, and it also means that you cannot link the arguments of two different sources to create your own synthesis. Especially for claims of a scientific nature, it is important to stick to these rules. I would also add that you should really use reviews, not just individual studies, in order to best represent the scientific consensus. Arslanteginghazi, please let me know if this makes sense to you, and if you have any other questions, you can ask them below. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the talk page I have said that I don't have any problem with deleting of this part : "According to the muslim historians since turkic emigration , turkic people were majority in azerbaijan ." But about the genetics if it is necessary I can give more and more refs and at last what about the editings of "Alborz Fallah" I mean this "The haplogroup R is mentioned in the article but "Alborz Fallah" writes the text about sub group R1a" ?!?!?!? --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds as though we need to find an editor who knows something about genetics to settle this particular claim. I might ask around on one of the medical WikiProjects. If we can find someone knowledgeable in the field, it will help us know what sources are highest quality, and how the claims here should be presented. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt more info about genetics is the highest priority here. What we need to get this dispute deflated is for both participants to get rid of their shared, fallacious premise: that there is such a thing as "the" origin or "the" genetic nature of a population. Both editors are evidently motivated by a desire to demonstrate that Azeris "really" "are" either Iranian or Turkic or whatever. The very assumption that genetics could tell us anything at all about such a question, and, in fact, the assumption that the question has any meaning at all in the first place, are entirely erroneous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point. From the little I have seen about this kind of thing on TV, even the most "pure" of lineages turns out to be a confusing mishmash of different races when the DNA is examined. I think in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, we should not include any information about the genetic origin of the Azeris in the article. I do think that it would be good to hear an opinion from someone who knows their stuff, though, and I've left a message at WikiProject Medicine in the hopes of getting one. There's no guarantee of a response, though, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon for my delay in responding . I think our main problem here is more about Wikipedia policies than genetic issues . That would be useful if other users explain for the user Arslanteginghazi that A- If we disagree about a mere sentence , we should not revert all the editions (whole text)in several times (edit war) . B-It is not accepted to discuss about our opinion in the reference section of the article . C-We may not include our understanding of a source as written in the cited reference (Original research ) . D-Style of writing includes using upper case letter in the beginning of the names . E- It is not possible in Wikipedian logic to add among two article and conclude a result among them (Synthesis OR). D-We are not allowed to give weight to one side of the item and neglect other aspects of that.

In brief , user Arslanteginghazi has the prejudice that I want to change the article in a way that to pretend the Origin of the Azeris is from the Aryan race . I did my very best to show him that neither so called Aryan race exists , nor it has any genetic markers. That is also true about other genetic markers and if a genetic factor is now more prevalent in a special geographic area that does not means it has any connection to 10000 years ago. Simply , user Arslanteginghazi does not reads my changes , he reverts them all ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have had another look at this, and it seems that whatever the scientific consensus is on this matter, the passage beginning with "It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people" in this edit by Arslanteginghazi is definitely a synthesis of the different sources he uses. This is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:SYNTHESIS. The article hasn't been edited in almost three weeks, so I say go ahead and remove that passage. If Arslanteginghazi can point us to a reliable source that explicitly backs up the whole of his claim, then we can discuss putting it into the article. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Azeris resolution

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.

El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California) discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Tinton5, and thanks for posting here. The first thing I see is that there hasn't been any talk page discussion about this issue, although I admit, it's not obvious where the discussion should take place. I'm afraid we really can't take on disputes without there being some form of talk page discussion. I suggest starting a new thread on Jojhutton's talk page, and if that stalls then maybe a thread at Template talk:Infobox company would do the trick. If you're still having issues after that, then by all means post back here. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Tinton5, you are not alone in this. I and others have attempted to discuss this general issue with Jojhutton many times, but with little or no success. As a result, though, he did place a FAQ on his talk page; in answering question 5, he states, essentially, that he will not discuss the issue and that he will edit-war if he feels that to be necessary. Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I would rather just resolve this issue here. I already notified the user in question. IMHO, this user should be blocked for a while, due to edit warring. Tinton5 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, Omnedon, you know, on Jojutton's talk page, he clearly states in question 1 that he removes the country in the body of the article and leaves it in the info box. However, he currently has been removing it from the box on some pages, which I find interesting. He does not assume good faith. Tinton5 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see that talking over the issue here would be expedient, and actually, I don't mind overlooking the talk page requirement sometimes if it leads to a dispute being resolved more quickly. However, I think the issue here is that if Jojhutton doesn't participate in any talk page discussion about these edits, then he isn't very likely to participate here either. If you are right that Jojhutton is reverting these edits without discussion, then this noticeboard may not be the best place to list this. This noticeboard isn't very well equipped to deal with conduct disputes - if not every editor involved is open to compromise, then the best we can do is forward it on to another venue. I think the thing to do here is to leave a message about this issue on Jojhutton's talk page, and if he continues reverting these edits after that with no discussion, then you could bring it to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. If you do discuss it and then the discussion stalls, then of course we can discuss it here. As to the present thread, if there is no response from Jojhutton on this page by tomorrow, I think I will close this thread, with no prejudice against opening a new thread on the issue after it has been discussed on a talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have alerted the user in question. Thank you for your input, Mr. Stradivarius. I hope everything works out. Tinton5 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I quickly read through Jojutton's FAQ and the linked discussion on the MOS talk page, as well as WP:PLACE. I'm honestly not sure what the "right" way is for text in article. I'm totally confident that for the US, articles on city's are City, State. No country. For text in articles, I'd probably lean that way as well. Infoxboxes I think I'd lean towards including the country. This may be a good discussion to raise on WT:MOS as the best way to handle it. In fact, that would be my suggestion - open a discussion there specifically asking about how to refer to US locations in the text of articles other than that location and in infoboxes (using a school and a business as examples. Invite Jojutton to participate in the discussion and you'd be helping resolve an area causing confusion. Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

EDIT - I think the WT:MOS would give better results than going to AN3 or ANI over this, as probably both places would direct you both there. WT:MOS would also be produce much, much lower stress/drama levels than the other options. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for the suggestion, Ravensfire. Would you, and the others who participated in this thread, would like to join there at WT:MOS? I could definitely use various opinions, as well as Jojutton's viewpoints. I already restored all information on pages that he removed content from the info boxes, as well as sending a message to the user's talk page. Thanks for your help. Tinton5 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will also chime in at the thread you made. I agree with Ravensfire that this is a good fit for the issue, and lot less stressful than AN3 or ANI - I only meant those suggestions to be followed if Jojhutton was unambiguously edit warring about this issue. Let's see if we can get his input as well now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Ultimate Ears discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The photo of the founder is a good one, showing him in his element as a touring sound engineer and promoter of Ultimate Ears, wearing casual clothing and a backstage pass. The image was first brought to the UE article in July by User:MusicLover650. At the article talk page, I argued that the image was appropriate, and that other company articles have photos of their founders, including Sony, Ford Motor Company, Amazon.com, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, United Artists, Steinway & Sons, Hermès, Sears, Microsoft and Google. Nothing about the image is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Because I have read the article's references, I understand this dispute as one that has moved with AMuteRealist, 70.165.46.98, Theaveiator and Ultimateears1 into Wikipedia. The company is now led by Bob Allison, who, according to Stereophile magazine, financed a significant expansion program for UE, served as president for about three years, then coordinated a 2007 buyout of Mindy Harvey as Jerry Harvey "retired" (scare quotes in the original.) A newspaper story quoted Harvey saying of Allison, "As soon as the investor thought that I was out of ideas, he thought it would be a good time to maximize his position in the company by forcing the founder out." A professional audio news site reported that Jerry Harvey was, "forced out in 2007 by co-owner/ex-wife Mindy and a third party investor" (Bob Allison). This same source says Jerry Harvey's "relationship with UE began to go south" around the time he was being forced out. Note that there is no dispute about this text and these sources.

Relevant to the image, the current leadership of the expanded Ultimate Ears company apparently does not like the man Jerry Harvey, even though he will forever be the founder. Me, I don't care about the bad feelings; I don't have a horse in that race. I think the founder's image is a perfectly suitable focus to draw readers' attention to text describing the company's history. I think the image should stay. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Binksternet here. Having a look at Wikipedia's image use policy, I can see nothing that would prevent the use of this photo. As to the articles of other companies not having photos of their founders, these kinds of argument doesn't usually hold much water on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. It is down to the consensus of editors at individual articles to decide whether or not founder images are used, and I can't see a real reason not to include it here. We certainly shouldn't exclude it because the present management of the company doesn't like him. AMuteRealist, are you aware of any other reasons that we shouldn't include the image? I am still open to persuasion by different arguments. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this dispute has gone stale. If no-one has any more arguments to bring forward, I think I will close it tomorrow. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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