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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gay Dog Food#Notability dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aleccat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Talk:Gay Dog Food#Notability_dispute discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Carmaker1 (talk · contribs)
• Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Synthwave.94

Talk:Thriller (Michael_Jackson_album) discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Reza Aslan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Roscelese (talk · contribs)
• Azarbarzin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Roscelese

Talk:Reza Aslan discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Category talk:Jews#Indigenous peoples of Western Asia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Clarifying categorisation policy on Wikipedia

Summary of dispute by Debresser

Category talk:Jews

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film)#Lincoln Memorial issue again (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Firespeaker (talk · contribs)
• SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs)
• Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by SonOfThornhill

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

Summary of dispute by Ommnomnomgulp

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

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

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

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

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Although the filing editor did not notify the other editors, the other editors have commented, so notifying them is not necessary. This case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, I notified them immediately on the article talk page, and followed up with one of them on his user talk page when it seemed he might have missed my note on the article talk page. —Firespeaker (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, Firespeaker did notify me on my Talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

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

First statements by participating editors

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

The wording "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is fine by me. As was stated on the article's talk page several days ago. I thought this matter has been resolved then. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

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

Second statements by editors

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

I've explained this several time but will try once again. The wording "otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is an alternate Earth and/or Washington DC which is not at all evident in the film. It is only more accurate in your opinion and is merely a personal interpretation which violates MOS:PLOT. Hope that clears things up for you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I agree that it isn't necessarily an alternate Earth/whatever, but the explanation provided makes a leap that I'm having trouble making. Namely, how does the wording "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" imply that it is another universe? As I see it, it's just saying that this monument resembles the Lincoln Memorial in all possible ways up to that point—location relative to other landmarks, the steps, etc. It's just that it appears different from the Lincoln Memorial in that it shows General Thade instead. This makes no indication of what it "truly is" or how it got that way. Unless I'm really just missing something—in which case, could someone please fill me in? —Firespeaker (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC

"Appears to be" implies that it is not and never was, thus an alternate earth or Washington. Therefore, in violation of MOS:PLOT SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not. Even our Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. If I were driving along the road, and pointed to it, I could, without problem, say "that appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Aha, I think we might be getting to the heart of the matter. I wholeheartedly second what User:Ommnomnomgulp said. Anything can appear to be the Lincoln Memorial, including (especially!) the actual Lincoln Memorial. —Firespeaker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here, let me show you what we're trying to say. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of the Venn diagramme above is to demonstrate how the range of interpretations available from the "appears to be" wording is much wider, and in no way narrower. In fact, it seems to be the "actually" wording that is imposing more of an interpretation on the scene. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, you two playing semantical games. You know that the phrase "appears to be" implies that it is an alternate earth or Washington dc which is why you're both pushing for it. But sorry any wording that implies what is a personal interpretation or opinion is in violation of MOS:PLOT. So give it up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that it implies that at all--it doesn't appear to me that it does. I can't speak for Firespeaker, but I for one, would appreciate some good faith. I don't know what we're seeing at the end of this movie (other than a film that needs to be burned, salted, and irradiated so that it can never harm anyone, ever again) other than a monument to Thade that appears to be similar in appearance to the Lincoln Memorial. You might have to allow myself and others to feel that we're right in a manner that has nothing to do with "opinion," as you keep wanting to push on us. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

SonOfThornhill brought this DR discussion to my attention. As I said on the talk page, I didn't see a problem with the previous wording. I think the current wording,^{[further explanation needed]} with changes that no one seemed to specifically object to, have made it understandable for any reader. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with adding "appears to be" or similar, but at the same time I don't see that it adds any clarity to what's probably the most straightforward part of this highly confusing scene. The building shown both is and appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, which is the whole point of the twist. It's a famous building specifically chosen so the audience would recognize it instantly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It may have been at one time, but at the end of the movie it is not NOT the Lincoln Memorial since Lincoln is not the person memorialized therein. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That strikes me as a pretty sophistic argument. Very many sources just call it the "Lincoln Memorial", knowing full well that readers will get the picture.[1][2][3][4]--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not previously been a participant in this discussion. I support the phrasing "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" because stating that "the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is counterfactual for exactly the reason explained by Ommnomnomgulp; it is a monument to General Thade and therefore is not the Lincoln Memorial. "Appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" is the most accurate description of what is depicted on the screen, because the filmmakers intentionally created a visual similarity to that structure before showing that it was not that entity. I wish to refute SonOfThornhill's claim that the phrase "appears to be" violates MOS:PLOT by implying a personal interpretation that this is an alternate Earth. It does not do that. The film is ambiguous and doesn't give concrete answers as to how the monument to Thade came to be. Leo could be further in the future, or in his original time, or even in the past. And apes could have defaced the Lincoln Memorial to depict Thade, or they could have razed the Lincoln Memorial to build the monument to Thade, or the past could have been changed so that apes built the first and only structure to occupy the space. In some interpretations, this is the same structure that was once the Lincoln Memorial, but in others it is not. "Appears to be" allows all of these (and not only these) and doesn't specify any one; the only thing this version of the sentence implies, by its omission of further explanation or specificity, is that the depicted result is unexplained. It doesn't imply the specific plot interpretation that SOT rejects, that this is an alternate Earth; it only describes the visual experience as I noted above. It carries no implication about the storyline, and avoids the ontological problem of identifying the non-Lincoln Memorial as "the Lincoln Memorial." --DavidK93 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As you say, the phrase 'appears to be' allows for different interpretations. Which is exactly why it is in violation of MOS:PLOT which states, "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". Thank you for making my case for me. The film is not at all ambiguous as to Leo being on earth and in Washington DC, so the scene is not open to "interpretation". The current wording is "an obvious recap of the work" and should remain. Alternate wordings proposed by Cúchullain & Ian.thomson are also acceptable. Any wording that implies or supports personal interpretations are not. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

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

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

Third statements by editors

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

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

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

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

Fourth statement by moderator

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

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

Fourth statements by editors

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

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

Fifth statement by moderator

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

Fifth statements by editors

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

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

Sixth statement by moderator

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

Sixth statements by editors

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

I guess since we are throwing any attempt at compromise in order to reach a consensus out the window, I'll go with the current wording, "He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade". This was the consensus wording on the Talk page before the issue was dragged over here. This is the wording that doesn't violate MOS:PLOT which states, 'Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work'. This is also the wording that doesn't indulge in any fanboy theories that are not evident in the film and is supported by sources [9][10][11][12], including the script [13] I'll also add that the phrase 'otherwise appears to be' is drawing the conclusion that the structure was never the Lincoln Memorial. There is no evidence of this in the film. Nor are there any sources that support this interpretation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Seventh statement by moderator

A Request for Comments is being posted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The participants in this discussion should take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• HAL Light Combat Helicopter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by MBlaze Lightning

Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley

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

HAL Light_Combat_Helicopter discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Timothyjosephwood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StephenTS42 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

User talk:Timothyjosephwood discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Wish You Were Here (Once Upon a Time) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DavidK93 (talk · contribs)
• 96.19.112.107 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by 96.19.112.107

Talk:Wish You_Were_Here_(Once_Upon_a_Time) discussion

• Volunteer Note It appears that there has been adequate discussion on the talk page, including the involvement of a third opinion. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There does not appear to have been any recent discussion either here or at the article talk page. Unless the parties express a continued interest in discussion, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by the process here. The section states "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer." so I thought I was supposed to wait until I saw a "volunteer response," rather than a "volunteer note." I expected a volunteer to initiate discussion and instruct me what to do. So please let me know in what manner I'm supposed to continue the discussion beyond the information I provided in filing this item. --DavidK93 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Do both editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I do, but I don't know if the IP user does. He or she has engaged in discussion on the issue, but not recently. I did post a notification on the user's Talk page about filing an item here. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I now believe this item can be closed. I had refrained from editing the article since February 7, the last time my edit to it was reverted, as I was waiting for a response on the article's Talk page. I just looked, and realized that another editor restored my edit on February 10, before I even filed this item, and it has stood since. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Location of dispute here

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

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

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

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

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

• Not clear on what exactly is going on here, but I note that the reporting IP has just been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was for block evasion, so this can probably be removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Leksijensen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

Bring back my own sandbox content on my profile

User:Leksijensen sandbox discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Playerunknown's Battlegrounds 

Users involved

• Azgoodaz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Playerunknown%27s Battlegrounds discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Bertrand Russell#Nationality in categories (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs)
• Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs)
• Bastun (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Apollo The Logician

Summary of dispute by Bastun

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

Talk:Bertrand Russell#Nationality in categories discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page and elsewhere, and the other editors have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

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

First statements by editors

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

Second statement by moderator

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

Second statements by editors

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Milli Vanilli#Skandal.3F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ronomu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Ronomu

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Milli Vanilli#Skandal.3F discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• (Reverted to revision 769438046 by Arjayay (talk): (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• User-Arjayay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

please protect my editing

How do you think we can help?

by giving warning to user-Arjayay and protect my editing

Summary of dispute by User-Arjayay

(Reverted to revision 769438046 by Arjayay (talk): discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:The Wrong Man#Patricia Morrow or Tuesday Weld (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Quandolaluna ;  Justeditingtoday (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Quandolaluna ; Justeditingtoday

Talk:The Wrong_Man#Patricia_Morrow_or_Tuesday_Weld discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tel Dan Stele#Unrelated sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
• Drsmoo (talk · contribs)
• Shrike (talk · contribs)
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs)
• Itsmejudith (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only discussion at the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Drsmoo

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

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Talk:Tel Dan_Stele#Unrelated_sources discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Continue discussion on the article talk page before asking for assistance here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, the reason we are here is because the other editor has stopped responding on the talk page. On 4 February he wrote "This is my final response" and has stopped engaging, but continues to add back his citations on the article itself (20 Feb and 24 Feb). I asked him in this talk thread to respond on 5 Feb and 19 Feb, but there has been only silence.

If you would be willing to help us here, all that is needed is to review the two citation quotes and provide a view as to whether they support the sentence being cited. Drsmoo says they do, I say they don't. So it's not a complex dispute and shouldn't be time consuming to resolve.

Yours hopefully, Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect, a consensus across multiple pages supports the sources, only Oncenawhile opposes them. No one is responding to Oncenawhile per consensus being achieved and per the advice given by part of that consensus on the talk page.

"I agree with Drsmoo that these sources are not only appropriate, but required per NPOV. We can't quote only Lemche knowing he does not necessarily represent scholarly consensus. Count me as supporting the removal of "only" as well. Experience tells me there is no point in arguing with Oncenawhile when he comes back and threatens to make edits he knows he has no consensus for, so I will not be participating in this discussion further unless another editors shows up to support Once's proposals. I may revert and report edits that go against an explicit consensus, though." - No More Mr Nice Guy

Along with

"This is his regular MO. He will come back every few weeks threatening to make an edit he knows he has no consensus for. If by chance nobody pays attention and objects, he goes ahead and makes the edit, hoping again nobody will notice. Ping me if he does it here and I will provide you with several past examples for an AE report." - No More Mr Nice Guy

In those two months, only a short-lived sockpuppet has supported Oncenawhile's edits, hence no response. I also have to say that it is extremely disturbing that Oncenawhile continues to ignore consensus and the contributions of the other editors in this discussion and present this as a dispute between two editors. Drsmoo (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If considered useful, I will provide evidence from the last few years of editing to illustrate the behaviour of Drsmoo and No More Mr Nice Guy, which will contextualize their above attempts to attack my reputation. Suffice to say, we have long term relationships across a perceived Israel-Palestine editing divide.

I would much rather focus on the content, and keep this dispute down to the very simple question at its core.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As was said earlier, there's no dispute here. There is overwhelming consensus across both the article's talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard that the source is reliable, while a disruptive editor tries to disregard that consensus. I will not be participating here. Drsmoo (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If this was true, you would have answered the question and we wouldn't be here after three months of argument. Your ad hominem attacks and claims of consensus on straw man issues have not and will not result in progress. If you can point me to where the citations support the sentence, the discussion will be over. But since you continue to engage in question dodging, we are in desparate need of a neutral third party. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tuesday Weld (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:The Wrong Man#Patricia Morrow or Tuesday Weld (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User_talk:Justeditingtoday#The_Wrong_Man

Users involved

• Quandolaluna (talk · contribs)
• Justeditingtoday (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Quandolaluna

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

Summary of dispute by Justeditingtoday

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

Tuesday Weld in The Wrong Man discussion

• Volunteer note - While there has been some discussion on the article talk page, it has not been enough to warrant opening a thread here. Continue discussion at the article talk page. Be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Reddotparty#Response to Mostestargue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Reddotparty (talk · contribs)
• Mostestargue (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Please refer to both user's Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Review the accusation

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

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

Summary of dispute by Mostestargue

User talk:Reddotparty#Response_to_Mostestargue discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Silicon photonics#Fiber Optics & Silicon photonics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ne0Freedom (talk · contribs)
• Srleffler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page

How do you think we can help?

determine who is right

Summary of dispute by Srleffler

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

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

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

Talk:Silicon photonics#Fiber Optics & Silicon photonics discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The purpose of this noticeboard is not for a moderator to "determine who is right", but for the parties to discuss. I suggest that a third opinion provide a non-binding outside view to see who the third party agrees with. If the parties want to discuss, that is what this noticeboard is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• NHS Digital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sallybrownsjb (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Thanks

Sally

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

NHS Digital discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tel Dan Stele#Attempt to resolve (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
• Drsmoo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_148#Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele.23Unrelated_sources
• Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele#Attempt_to_resolve
• User_talk:Drsmoo#Tel_Dan

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Drsmoo

Talk:Tel Dan_Stele#Attempt_to_resolve discussion

• Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. If an editor thinks that another editor is not discussing collaboratively, see WP:DISCFAIL. This noticeboard is not a useful option if an editor thinks that another editor is failing to discuss the subject, because this noticeboard is voluntary. If discussion fails, consider a Request for Comments, or, if there really are conduct issues, first, read the boomerang essay and then consider WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I must say I feel hard done by here. A week ago I filed a DRN and your closing comment was "the editors are discussing, so it's not for this noticeboard". Now your comment is "the editors are not discussing, so it's not for this noticeboard". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:American Pekin Duck#Previous and current revisions (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EditSafe (talk · contribs)
• Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs)
• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• PigeonIP (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers

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

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

Summary of dispute by George Ho

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

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

Summary of dispute by PigeonIP

Sorry, I am not familiar with this precedure. Can't add anything new to the arguments of Justlettersandnumbers. When it comes to editing an article about poultry/duck-articles I do trust authors who are familiar with the topic. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Pekin_Duck#Previous_and_current_revisions discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - See duck test (for sockpuppetry. However, in this case an American Pekin walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck because an American Pekin really is a mallard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

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

First statements by editors

The article should have a better quality with a lot of reliable sources. Also, the article should not be edited for expertise and original research on the topic.Pinging EditSafe, PigeonIP, and Justlettersandnumbers about this round. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference of opinion hinges on three things: quality of sourcing; scope of the article; and length. I'm not happy with the low-grade sources and off-topic generic content introduced by EditSafe, EditSafe is not happy with the brevity of the version I propose. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

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

Second statements by editors

Second statement by George Ho

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

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

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

Second statement by Justlettersandnumbers

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

• Chris Ashton, Mike Ashton (2001). The Domestic Duck. Ramsbury, Marlborough: The Crowood Press. ISBN 9781847979704.
• Kenneth Broekman (December 2009). The German Pekin Duck. Aviculture Europe. 5 (6), article 12.

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

Second statement by EditSafe

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

Third statement by moderator

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

Third statements by editors

the dispute is about

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

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

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

Fourth statement by moderator

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

Fourth statements by editors

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

Fifth statement by moderator

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

Fifth statements (if needed) by editors

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Free World# Recent additions and reverts (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cnilep (talk · contribs)
• Fireflyfanboy (talk · contribs)
• Tataral (talk · contribs)
• Denarivs (talk · contribs)
• Frevangelion (talk · contribs)
• Bsweeney1212 (talk · contribs)
• Darkestshining (talk · contribs)
• Rmulligan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Fireflyfanboy

Summary of dispute by Tataral

Summary of dispute by Denarivs

Summary of dispute by Frevangelion

Summary of dispute by Bsweeney1212

Summary of dispute by Darkestshining

Summary of dispute by Rmulligan

Talk:Free World# Recent additions and reverts discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Metaphor (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peacemvmt1 (talk · contribs)
• Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Peacemvmt1

Summary of dispute by Sarahj2107

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black_Metaphor_(2nd_nomination) discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:ThatGirlTayler (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Briarcliff Manor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ɱ (talk · contribs)
• ThatGirlTayler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by ThatGirlTayler

I would really like it if both pronounciations were listed in the same article, my pronounciation matches standardized American English compared to the pronounciation posted by MJ which is English with a New York accent. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:ThatGirlTayler‎ discussion

• Why not list both? One specifically as local pronunciation, the other as standardized english? Scr★pIron^IV 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only is there no evidence to support her pronunciation as "standardized english", there's nothing to support her pronunciation as correct, i.e. used by people other than her. From my experiences living there and researching Briarcliff Manor and its history, that pronunciation has no precedent, and the historians at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society could back that up as well. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This may be a silly question, but how is it even possible to pronounce "Briarcliff" as one syllable? Also, while I do personally find your version preferable, it is very difficult to hear. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist, so it's hard for me to answer, but the syllables are slurred together, not said like "Briar Cliff". It's an evident difference between the two recordings. Although my version has a bit of noise, it is quite coherent if you have your speakers at a good volume. I don't think that should be an issue. I could try cleaning it up further, but this shouldn't even be necessary. The other recording sounds much less appropriate for this setting. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I would really like it if both pronounciations were listed in the same article, my pronounciation matches standardized American English compared to the pronounciation posted by MJ which is English with a New York accent. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

These pronunciation tools are meant to show pronunciation, regardless of accent. Your pronunciation is incorrect, and with no evidence of use by other peoples. The quality of your sound recording is also poor for a formal encyclopedia, especially for well-developed articles ranked to represent the highest quality of content Wikipedia offers. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is the correct pronunciation in standardized English, if anything your pronounciation is wrong because it doesn't match standardized English and the audio quality is fine, just because your article is featured doesn't mean you get to bully people who contribute to it. I feel attacked, just because my normal voice sounds informal doesn't mean it's not acceptable. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, just a side note No one told me this discussion was taking place and if I didn't look at MJ's contributions, I wouldn't have known about it. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Attacked"? When have I been anything but civil about this? It's simply true that FAs represent the top quality of content on Wikipedia, and should be maintained to such a standard. As for "It is the correct pronunciation in standardized English" and "it doesn't match standardized English" - please cite your sources, or don't make such claims; they're wrong. And I never said your voice was unacceptable for being "informal" in your words. Audio files are like images: when a more preferable, formal, and encyclopedic copy is found, that should be displayed over a less formal or less encyclopedic copy. As for you finding your individual pronunciation better - where did you read or hear how to pronounce it correctly? Did you learn from a book, or some authority on the subject familiar with the area? Or is it your own idea of how you think it should be pronounced? That's not what we put in articles - in fact we typically use the predominant local pronunciation, for example Worcester, Massachusetts may be pronounced as Worchester, and Houston Street may likewise be pronounced as Hyoo-stun by people outside of those areas. Yet we use the pronunciation people there use - "Wuuss-ter" and "How-sten". So Briarcliff may be incorrectly pronounced a variety of ways, some are "breer-cliff", "briar-cliff", or "brircliff", by people who don't really know. That's why I included the pronunciation guide in the first place. It is always pronounced as one syllable, and with an"eye" sound: "Briarcliff" or "ˈbraɪərklɪf/". ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As for your side note, I told you I would be taking it higher, and this system notifies you when I link your username. I thought that would be sufficient. Regardless, you're here now. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I never got a link and it says at the top of the page, adding usernames doesn't notify them. Regardless, I simply disagree with everything being said and I will not respond again until we get a volunteer assigned. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.howtosay.co.in/pronounce/briarcliff-manor-in-english/ this sounds like two syllables to me. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's well more slurred together than your audio file, which is incorrect. However the intonation even here is wrong; this automated pronunciation website doesn't seem very good. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also to be honest, I don't think an audio file is absolutely necessary. There's a pronunciation guide there already for those who care, but if ThatGirlTayler wants a compromise I might prefer to have no audio file at all. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: That sounds like a good compromise to me ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. I hope our further interactions prove less harsh for both of us. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Me too, have a nice night! :) ThatGirlTayler (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I have changed the title of this case filing to indicate the actual article. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, at Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York. I am not closing this filing at this time because the dialogue here, although premature for this noticeboard, appears to be productive. Continue the discussion either here or at the article talk page. There does not appear to be any need for mediation. This case will be closed, but not while there is productive discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not premature - the conversation instead happened at User talk:ThatGirlTayler as I said. The article talk page wasn't the place because the user would less likely see it, and no other users comment at/follow Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York anyway. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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.