Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Zakat. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• An editor named RGCorris is insistent on adding what I believe to be false information to the article Airconditioning, and has been increasingly hostile about the issue. The Status Quo version of the article stated that the song "What Happens When You Blow Yourself Up" appeared as the b-side to the single "It Happened Today". RGCorris deleted this information and replaced it with the statement that it was the second track on the a-side. His edit summary read only "correct data re single", so I reverted the edit with a note saying that the version with "What Happens" on the b-side is at least the more common version. He reverted the edit back and left a note on Talk: Airconditioning warning editors not to revert the claim without providing a referenced source. Neither his edit summary nor his note gave any reason why he believed the preexisting information in the article to be false, not even an "I heard it somewhere", but I decided the best way to avoid a fight would be to simply humor him and add the requested reference. However, this only made him more hostile. He immediately reverted the article back to his version and posted a rant in which he accused me of lying about the relevant single and of getting the information I referenced second hand. He has since allowed the statement "'What Happens' was a b-side" to remain, but has added the claim that it was also an a-side, listing as a source a website which actually lists both versions of the single with "What Happens" as a b-side. When I pointed out to him that the source he cited says the opposite of his claim, he quoted back a listing with "What Happens" as a b-side and claimed that this proves that it was an a-side. At this point, I don't think there's any hope of my reasoning skills getting through to him(and incidentally, I would appreciate any constructive criticism on said reasoning skills, so as to avoid my having to resort to this noticeboard in the future). The issue of "What Happens" as an a-side is trivial, and I have little problem with allowing that claim to remain in the article, but RGCorris's behavior in the dispute upsets me. I don't want to have to continue with my work on the Curved Air-related articles with the constant threat of him picking a fight with me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• User: RGCorris

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

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Editor Martin Illa was asked to provide proper references for his claim that a particular song was a b-side. Although I was able to quote the record company's catalogue reference number for the vinyl issue with it as a second track on the A-side, and offered to send him a scan of the record label, he insisted on reverting the edit, quoting a CD booklet as his source. I have since established that the track in question was a b-side in North America and the second track on the a-side in the UK, and added that information with the catalogue reference numbers for both versions. Mr Illa's aggressive responses, where he claimed that he was not my secretary and showed no interest in establishing the verifiable truth of the matter are regrettable. However IMHO the matter has now been clarified and the dispute has been resolved, with the article containing correct and verifiable data.

Mr. Illa has also made edits on various Curved Air album pages with sections left completely blank under the sub-heading, and seems to have taken umbrage when I pointed this out, claiming that he had not yet finished his editing on them. RGCorris (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it.

No one should have to tell you this, but a catalogue number is not a reference, not even an unreliable one. Especially not when the available sources match that catalogue number with a record other than the one you claim exists.

I did not take umbrage on the points you mention. Indeed, as anyone reading my talk page can see, my reply to your post could not have been more laid back and friendly. Moreover, the edits you refer to are part of a project started by WP: WikiProject Albums, and I provided a clear link to this project in my edit summaries. As for being your secretary, you had just made the bizarre request that I find you a reference for a piece of information that is not anywhere in the article in question, and moreover, you did so immediately after deleting the reference you previously requested with no explanation. Against such a bizarre request, a blunt "I am not here to be your personal secretary" seemed the best way of putting an end to that side issue.

The above should make it clearer why RGCorris is making me nervous. Absolutely anything that I say to him, even "Don't worry, I'll take care of it" and "Here's the reference you asked for", is interpreted by him as an attack.

It doesn't help that he seems to have no ability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Let him correct me if I'm wrong, but his way of establishing that "What Happens" was a b-side in North America was by asking about the matter on the Curved Air fan mailing list. After rejecting the word of official album liner notes, he took a lone fan on a mailing list as an acceptable reference. For all he knows, the one who provided him that information was me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote : "First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it." It must have been some other Martin Illa that added that information at 13:07 on 7th May 2011 then ? This dispute is unnecessary and I am at a loss why Mr Illa wants to pursue it. I bought the record in question in 1971 and still have it (along with a second copy as the original got scratched) and have quoted the details from the label; copies come up for sale regularly and I have referred Mr. Illa to one such, although he declined to look at it; the details of the release can be verified from the record company's catalogue data if necessary. I believe the article now contains correct and verifiable information. Why he wishes to pursue the argument I know not. RGCorris (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to help out here? The reason I brought this issue here was because, as RGCorris's above posts demonstrate, I can't get RGCorris to regard me as anything but his eternal archenemy no matter how accomodating I am to him. More back-and-forth between the two of us on this forum is only going to make things worse.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - first, let me apologise for the length of time it's taken for someone to reply to this. I can sympathise with you both about this one, as it involves fact-checking of fiddly details, and on top of that, the word B-side has grown to be a little ambiguous in meaning. Let's start with the ambiguity - the word B-side has grown to mean the less-important track on a single as well as the actual flip side of the vinyl. The CD booklet reference may say the song in question is a "b-side", but there is no telling which meaning of the word they are actually using unless they state this explicitly. This means we should be wary of using it as a source. (This especially applies if RGCorris is correct in saying that the single was unusual in having two tracks on the a-side.)

The actual vinyl single, however, is an excellent source for this information. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources like the single itself can most definitely be used for simple fact-checking like this. It is only when making interpretations of facts that using primary sources becomes a no-no.

Then there is the matter that the versions of the single were different in the US, the UK, and Europe. Hopefully RGCorris's latest edit to the article has put this matter to rest. If either of you are still unhappy with the situation, I'll be glad to listen to your responses below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, this doesn't nearly resolve the issue. As far as the CD booklet, it doesn't merely say that the song is a b-side; it gives the full details of the single. So no ambiguity there.

I find RGCorris's claimed copy of the single to be of no help for several reasons. First, records of the time, including Warner releases, often do not boldly display which side is "A" and which is "B", and that info can only be gleaned from the record itself by examining the catalogue numbers written on the label and/or the inner rim. Thus there's a high possibility of RGCorris reading as "side A" what is in fact "side B". Second, mis-labelings and mispressings occur reasonably often(by coincidence, my own copy of Airconditioning has the tracks in the wrong order), so a single copy of a record with tracks arranged in a certain way is by no means proof that the official release of the record had them that way. Third, I have already hypothesized that the record he is talking about is an EP, not a single. The only difference between an EP and a single is that a single has only one track on side A. Since RGCorris says this record has two tracks on side A, it stands to reason that it's probably an EP. At any rate, I can't see why he would assume a record with two tracks on side A is a single.

Finally, even if the single exists in the form RGCorris says, the mere fact that it exists doesn't mean that it is signficant enough to mention in the article. After all, the article is meant to be a collection of information on the album Airconditioning, not a discography of every version of every single Curved Air released around the time.

Also, I should point out that my biggest problem with RGCorris's edit isn't the claim of the single's existance, but the fact that he has used as a citation a website which doesn't verify its existance, and in fact implies that no such single exists.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make very good points here. First, I agree that it is not clear whether including detailed information about the release of the single is suitable for an article about the album. However, if the track What Happens When You Blow Yourself Up was recorded at the same sessions as the other album tracks, it seems reasonable to include information about it. The balance of how much you include is a point that you must both work out through consensus. (And remember that it is always possible to create an article about the single, if it passes WP:N.)

Second, I have reviewed the talk page and the reference that RGCorris provided, and I think I have found the source of the confusion. Actually, I am surprised that neither of you seem to have noticed this. From their discography: 'All the above singles (with the exception of "Renegade") were also issued as both promo singles and as "double-A side" promos.' So it seems like the most probable explanation is that RGCorris owns one of the "double-A side" promos, and your CD booklet refers to the single proper. RGCorris, does this seem like a reasonable explanation to you?

Finally, I also agree that just using their website as a reference is not ideal, although I think the information is likely to be correct. (Is the site verified as being operated by Curved Air or their publicists? If not, we can't use it; if so, we can use it with the restrictions noted in WP:PRIMARY.) In this case, I think using both the CD booklet and the website will likely be the best solution. Let me know what you think about my suggestions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• There have been multiple discussions on the talk page about whether or not to include Madrasah's in the article. Common but reliable sources like UNESCO state that they are Universities, whereas academic sources do not. Once I understood this fully I was prepared to not include the Madrasah's in the article, but due to the confusion of the different sources and editors (along with myself: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) I felt that a disambiguation link at the top and an explanation in the lead was necessary to clarify the matter to our readers. User:Gun Powder Ma and User:Athenean object to this being included in the lead.

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• User:Gun Powder Ma
• User:Athenean
• User:Eraserhead1

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

• Extensive discussions on talk, and on the users talk pages (1, 2).

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• Come up with an acceptable compromise to clarify why Madrasah's aren't included in the article without over-burdening it.

Discussion

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

• One of the other issues as far as I'm concerned is the great reluctance of the other participants to discuss the matter, or to suggest possible compromise proposals. Its pretty difficult to solve the dispute when you are the only person suggesting any sensible ways forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are other religious schools included? If so, it's a simple matter of a topic sentence to say that 'Some of the oldest universities are religious institutions including... and X, Y, and Z'. A disambiguation would be overkill, just use a clearly phrased introductory sentence in the introduction's second or third paragraph. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that Universities emerged from cathedral/monastic schools in Europe, and it states they were "intrinsically linked to Christian faith".
  • The other difference with Madrasah's is that a number of decent sources including UNESCO and the Oxford Dictionary of Islam do call them Universities - thus confusing the issue as to what the definition is - especially for non-academics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a definitional issue here as well as a cultural one. You should be careful about applying academic standards in this area since they are culturally and geographically dependent. It's strong Euro-centrism and Christian-centrism to define university as an educational institution which has its roots in or follows the model of that culture and style. The familiar type university is a model with certain characteristics; in the modern world it has been further codified with standards and certifications. Madrasahs may follow a different model but we should be very careful to exclude them from the broader category of educational institution because of that.
    • The first issue you have to decide is whether this article is narrowly and clearly defined as universities in that Eurocentric model. If not, if you are already including other cultural-educational institutions, then Madrasahs would obviously included, since for Islamic cultures they the analogous institutions. If you are defining university narrowly, then you still have the question of whether Madrasahs meet the criteria. There are sub-question of composition and program: a) do Madrasahs do non-religious education as well? If so, that reasons for their inclusion. Do Madrasahs have clear or rigorous curriculum and graduation standards. That would also support inclusion. Do Madrasahs have a history of educating the society's most intelligent and important individuals. Further support. You would need good sources to answer those questions.
    • I think a 'way-out' of the conflicting sources bind is to distinguish primarily academic from primarily religious institutions within the article. Perhaps create a separate section for religious universities, or--if that is a redundant notion historically--you might create a separate section just for Madrasahs. You should also be mindful of distinguishing religious schools, from schools that were also religious, from purely secular schools--and applying the same rubric across the board.
    • In general, you want to have a list of the oldest Madrasahs somewhere on Wikipedia. And, you want to maintain a meaningful category for what a university is at the same time. The practical solution is to clearly lay out which definition or model you are using, briefly explain its trends and its background, and point readers to where they can find related information if it's not all in one place. I don't know if there's a right answer here, but it makes sense to me to group this information together, organizing it helpfully, and take some extra introductory text to give the available and necessary information about the subject. My hunch is that inclusion of Madrasahs will make sense, but perhaps qualified. If the only point of excluding them is to maintain the purity of a Eurocentric definition, and there are some sources which clearly include them, an easy solution is to include them while mentioning that they fall outside of the standard definition in the eyes of some sources. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. Let me first say that I don't agree that other participants haven't been willing enough to compromise, something which I consider important as long as the quality of the article is not impaired. Eraserhead's latest substantial edit was kept in its entirety, only re-arranged, something which other users have also noticed.

It is also true that I have invested a great deal of time and effort into explaining Eraserhead the fundamental difference between Madrasas and Universities in terms of their history and characteristics. I am glad that he has come around to largely acknowledge these differences, although I have to say it is normally not the job of other editors to explain fundamentals of the article which can be easily gleaned from Google books or other easily available sources.

I happen to think that the remaining dissent between Eraserhead and several other editor, inlcuding me, are in fact quite small. All what Eraserhead now seems to argue for is to move the link to the Islamic madrasas from "see also", where it has been for over a year, right to the very top. There are several reasons why I don't think this complies to WP guidelines and standard practice:

1. a list usually does not define the topic, at least not overly. For this, there are the main articles medieval university and university. Particularly, a list does not define what the topic is all not, what is Eraserheas wants with his discussion of unrelated centers of higher education like the mosque school
2. Top links are mostly reserved only for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but here nothing needs to disambiguated as Christian university and Islamic madrasa are semantically and historically totally different
3. If there were a need for a disambiguating top link the first choice would be naturally to related Christian educational institution like the cathedral school and monastic school, both direct forerunners of the university, but there is no need either.

In sum, arguing, like Eraserhead does, that university should overly refer to madrasa just because both were/are educational institutions of higher learning is as absurd as arguing that church (building) should be referring to mosque (or vice versa) because both share being places of worship. The article needs urgent attention in other matters, like the problematic definition of "continuous", but this constant side-issue of trying to put the madrasa in the limelight in a completely unrelated topic, which has been dragging on for months now, makes this unfortunately impossible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be so sure that Wikipedians shouldn't explain their knowledge whether it's available in sources or not.
• University is a cultural and historical term, but it is also a common term. The broad definition of "community of teachers and scholars" may well include Madrasahs in spirit and in current usage, even if it did not historically.
• If you want to stick to the European/Christian university model, then you should make that clear in the introduction if not the title. You should indeed offer disambiguation as a courtesy to the reader who may be looking for related information. This may be in a hatnote, or an introductory note, or the See Also section. It is not obvious what terms are used for inclusion in a list, and defining terms and identifying criteria, as well as locating a category among related categories, fields, and ideas is indeed appropriate for the introduction to a List Of articles. We want our readers to be informed explicitly, so long as length is conserved and links to information are used where explication would be excessive. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ocaasi, in the most general sense "community of teachers and scholars" may well include every type of school and centre of higher learning, yet nobody has ever argued to include them all in the list. In a more narrow sense, the madrasa ceased to be such a community, since there was never the legal framework between these two bodies which ruled their interaction in the university.
2. This has already been done a year ago. Since then the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation is in the See also section. But Eraserhead now wants a disambiguation (like the railway station of the same name got in Roman bridge) for which, however, I haven't found yet any solid basis in the WP guidelines.
3. WP:Lead defines that the lead has to summarize the article which is exclusively about the university. Apart from that, I think it is most obvious to the reader what a list of universities refers to, namely to the university and this is linked directly on top. As long as university does not offer a lengthy discussion on why it is not a mosque school or a Greek philosophical centre or a Chinese Confucian school, there seems to be little reason to do so in an ancillary list. Lists don't at all discuss these things to such a depth.

I would think a one paragraph contextualization would be useful. Universities are X. They are different from philosophical centers, Confucian schools, Madrassahs, Yeshivas, etc. It could be brief and hyperlinked. We want to give readers access and understanding. In this area, where university represents the common name of a center of learning, we would help readers by showing them the sketch of centers of learning which are not included at the University article. I've seen several lists which do this in the introduction typically with less than 3 paragraphs. A short disambiguation hatnote would also work. This approach would blend naturally with a definition of the University as you have described it. You could also, even mention that there are cultural or etymological debates and though some sources include non-western Universities, this list does not. That's not a very big concession to make here assuming Madrasahs are kept out of the list. Although the lead summarizes the body it also provides context, basic etymology, and disambiguation.

• WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ..."Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." ..."It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time.")
• WP:DISAMBIG: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."..."Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one of the templates shown below."
• WP:HATNOTE: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article (hence the name "hat"), normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed (this may happen because of redirects, because the article they are looking for uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because its name is otherwise similar to that of the article with a hatnote). They accomplish this by providing links to the article in question or to a disambiguation page." ..."[Legitimate] information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about [the book], or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @ GunPowderMa, I don't think my last edit was kept in its entirety and the other user who argees with you has also been named as a party here so they aren't a neutral person. Besides if you really believe my last substantial edit was kept in its entirety why didn't you let me just revert it to the previous state? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been kept in its entirety as anyone can see for himself in the edit history. Those parts which define the university negatively (= not an ancient centre comparable to those of Greece, China etc.) have only been moved to the definition section where they belong and which is still very close to the top to be swiftly digested by the reader. It is this buoyancy of material related to the madrasa to the very top of the list which makes me, to be frank, somewhat suspicious of your motives. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that its now in a different - otherwise totally unrelated - section. If you want to move all the content on the definition into the lead - or move it into a section in its own right I have no problem with it being after the other information. I suggested both of those on the talk page before coming here, and you didn't like either of those suggestions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how someone could confuse Madrasah with University. Different word, different meaning, different connotation. Give our readers some credit. Perhaps creating a separate article List of oldest Madrasahs in continuous operation might do the trick? Athenean (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People clearly have got confused between Madrasah's of higher learning and Universities - including several reliable sources. Refusing to accept that after it has been pointed out many times is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm perfectly content for there to be a different article on Madrasah's but I think it needs linking to prominently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Ocaasi points out seems sensible and reasonable. I see no reason not to go along with what he says - I presume you guys are OK with that as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• This mainly concerns the conduct of user:Bornking7 who says he is a representative of the group The Nation of Gods and Earths. Bornking7 has made several large scale edits to the article which have been reverted by other users [6]. I have attempted to engage him in discussion. He has been polite, but shows very little sign of understanding basic Wikipedia rules concerning NPOV, RS, acceptable prose etc. He also leaves very long "walls of text" written in an indignant manner which are very difficult to work through [7]. So far the situation is not serious, but this user believes that the group he represents is being deliberately misdescribed. His most recent edit changed the name of the founder of the organisation to "Allah" [8] [9]. There are WP:COMPETENCE issues - his edits are often misspelled and ungrammatical. Strangely he included his user signature in the article twice, but all his talk page postings are signboted.

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• User:Paul Barlow
• User:Bornking7

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.

• The issue was raised at the ANI just under a month ago [10]. Other editors offered to assist with Bornking7 (user:Blackmane; user:Hobit)

• How do you think we can help?

• I am mainly hoping for some support regarding the policy and content issues and am hoping that some editor who is rather more on Bornking7's "wavelength", as it were, may come forward to help to communicate with him before this turns into a conflict in which he identifies me as an enemy of his, or of his group, which is certainly not my intent. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I think that the best thing to do is to let the people who are helping the user to get more knowledge. This is not really a dispute either. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a dispute, since it concerns very divergent views about the content of the article. Paul B (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a full-blown dispute yet, but we can help. It's certainly a disagreement, and AN/I is not the place for it, so why not here? One recommendation is to have Bornking read a guide we wrote up in the irc help channel, the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. It's a top to bottom walkthrough of editing, communicating, and neutrality principles and practices. Meanwhile simply revert and request a reliable source be provided for any changes, explaining that Wikipedia only operates on material that can be verified in such a source. If that doesn't work, AN/I is the unfortunate last resort. Hopefully Bornking will get the idea, but give him a few chances since new editors have a learning curve. Just repeatedly and calmly explain our policy and basic operations. Also request Bornking post short comments which include key points and references. And let's double-check the sources. If we're misrepresenting something, find some good research and clear it up. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been involved with the article at all but merely came across the report on ANI and popped over to Bornking's talk page to drop some advice and a few links to try to nudge him in the right direction of policy. However, it looks like that was a somewhat vain hope. I tend to avoid political and religious articles since they're often a minefield judging by the reports I've read on ANI. This really started as Bornking's misunderstanding of the policies, but with the number of times others have been trying to get him to conform to policy, it's involved into a lot of WP:IDHT. Bornking really needs to understand that no one is misrepresenting his group but neither are we able to let him run amok and do as he wishes. --Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too offered help and generally feel the same as Blackmane. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This mainly concerns the conduct of editor: Paul b. He has admitted to not really knowing anything about the Nation of Gods and Earths except that everything i have contributed is wrong. Still i have been patient. For example the NOGE is not an organization. I gave him the neutral definition of what the NOGE is and yet he keeps changing it back to organization. He is very condescending in his approach to me. He acts as if one does not know how to use reference tags correctly then there is no validity in what is being said. If facts can be considered neutral, I also explained the NOGE was not founded by Clarence 13X, it was founded by Allah. Again he changed it back. How can someone who knows nothing about a subject be the authority? Wikipedia had the NOGE listed on the NOI site as the Subsidary of the NOI. I bought that to his attention and he denied it two or three times. I had to walk him through the NOI page until he finnaly saw it for himself. You can go to the talk page and see the discussion for yourself. Since that point there has been no discussion on the talk page. I then revised my edits and just edited the most glaring false statements found in the lede. He still found the need to revert the lede back to how it was when i discovered it. The facts are that most people do not know about the NOGE and so they google it. When they do your very incorrect lede comes up and does the NOGE a great disservice. Your lede is not neutral and it is not true. So I ask again who is the editor that submitted that lede to you in the first place? This is a very important issue to a people affected by the false information contained in the NOGE lede. I seek assistance in making it neutral and correct, Paul is an impediment--Bornking7 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't seem to understand that while a neutral perspective is required, it is also required that you need to show reliable sources that back up your claim. If you are involved with the group, then there is a conflict of intereste that needs to be addressed as well. Your repeated changes to the lede to present your "neutral definition" have not been backed by reliable sources. Insertion of sources is through the use of reference tags. If you are unsure how to do it, present a source on the talk page and request help from any of the other editors there to show you how. It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing how to use ref tags, it's about knowing that you must have something to put into ref tags. Your refusal to see that you are not editing in conformance to policy is rising to the level of disruption. --Blackmane (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• On the page Doubledealer Black Kite removed the image of the fictional character based on NFCC 3a, stating that there are three images. It's one image with three frames of a character shapeshifting in a commercial. He claims the artcile is only due ONE image. I say this triple image is justified since it illustrates the character shifting forms.

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• user:mathewignash and user:Black Kite

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.

• Yes,

• How do you think we can help?

• Is the triple image justified?Mathewignash (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

• Stop edit warring. Consensus first. Since this involves NFCC there's a slight bias against over-inclusion so just leave the article without the image until it can be sorted out.
• Policy. NFCC 3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
• Definition. Is this one image or 3? It's a derivative image including 3 non-free images.
• Licensing. Each image needs to be part of the usage rationale. There's no meaningful difference between a 3-in-1 and 3 separate images, although there's nothing inherently wrong with using a series of images.
• Usage. It might be less of a copyright issue if the images were smaller.
• Significance. Does 1 image 'convey equivalent significant information'? One image is enough to identify the character, but not to illustrate the character's forms. As Transformers are noteworthy for changing shapes, I think more than 1 images does convey significant information beyond what a single image can.
• Discuss. Sort out what I and others say here, otherwise the logical place for this discussion is non-free content review. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NFCR (or WT:NFC) would have been the best place for this anyway. Incidentally, size of images is irrelevant to NFCC. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's very relivant that the character in question is basically a shapeshifter. To illustrate the character for the reader to recognize him, you have to show what the character may look like. In this case the character in questions is a spy with a couple identity and a different shape for each. Which form do we show? Mathewignash (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

• Tevfik Fikret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

One particular editor Takabeg, repetedly removes the Turkish poet category tag from this article about one of the most famous Turkish poets of all time. His contention is that Tevfik Fikret was an Ottoman poet solely, and not a Turkish one. Though there is such a category tag, Ottoman poets already included, he is not satisified and removes the Turkish poets category, and reverts back to back. Intentions seem to be not constructive and a behaviour repeated in many other instances.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Takabeg (talk · contribs)

Tevfik Fikret is and was one of the most influencial and well known Turkish poets. All his work was written and published in Turkish as far as I know. His being an Ottoman citizen, a citizen of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-national (Turkish) Empire does not change the fact that he wrote and spoke in Turkish, has a Turkish name, was a Turkish literature teacher and as far as we know has never identified himself anything but a Turk, an Ottoman Turk. If he is not a Turkish poet, then no one is.

Resolving the dispute

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

Extensive discussion did not result in him stopping his reverts. Though his favored category is included (not disputed by me), he is not satisfied and keeps removing the Turkish poets tag from this article about a very important Turkish poet.

• How do you think we can help?

Simple prevention of repeated reverts and retaining the Turkish poets category will do. A warning about disruptive editing and stalking is also necessary it seems.

Murat (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tevfik Fikret discussion

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

WP:CAT: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So basically, if there's evidence this individual is Turkish or closely associated with Turkish culture, and that evidence is mentioned in the article and referenced, then the category is appropriate. Categories are primarily for readers to find related articles. They are useful but not definitive. A Turkish poet category doesn't mean this writer is exclusively Turkish or Turkish rather than Ottoman. It's okay if there's some overlap in categories as long as it is backed up by sources. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tevfik Fikret resolution

• Golden Triangle (UK universities) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Thetruthof2011/Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234 (same user) raised a concern about the number of Nobel Prize winners from Cambridge compared to Columbia University. The article originally said Cambridge had the second highest (with 88) after Columbia. But as Thetruth2011/2012 correctly pointed out from Columbia's official site and the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation article, Columbia only has 70.

However, instead of simply correcting the error, Thetruth2011/2012 proceeded to add the entire list of universities by Nobel Prize winners, plus a paragraph of WP:PUFF and WP:PEACOCKery about Cambridge [13]. After numerous reverts between Thetruth2011/2012 and Rangoon11 (who tried to persuade Thetruth2011/2012 to discuss on the talk page [14]), I came across the article and reverted to the version without the puffery and the irrelevant list [15] [16], before making the simple correction myself [17].

• The puffery included phrases like With that said, it is arguably considered throughout the world, like Oxford and London, as the very most greatest university in the world and the home of the elite-elite.

Thetruth2011/2012 finally began to talk [18] [19], saying the article had incorrect information about the Nobel list (which I think was true). I told him on the article's talk page [20] that it wasn't the only issue, and their edits were reverted because of the puffery and the irrelevant list (also explained in the edit summaries [21] [22] [23]). Thetruth2011/2012 doesn't seem to get the message, posting on my talk page that their edits are sourced and even saying that Rangoon made "intentional" errors to the article [24]. (True, the list is sourced, but it does not belong to the article at all.)

Judging from their language, Thetruth2011/2012 has no intention of engaging in a serious discussion about the issues I have raised about the page, and is simply reverting to WP:DISRUPT and make their WP:POINT.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Thetruthof2011 (talk · contribs)
• Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs)
• 24.5.132.234 (talk · contribs)
• Rangoon11 (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

I've explained to Thetruth2011/2012 about the WP:PEACOCKery and the extraneous list, but they seem keen only on reverting to make their WP:POINT.

• How do you think we can help?

Ask Thetruth2011/2012 to stop his disruptive behavior and discuss why they think the paragraph with the puffery and the list of universities by Nobel Prize winners should be included in the article. If they continue to refuse to discuss, just take them up at WP:AN.

Yk³ talk ~ contrib 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle (UK universities) discussion

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

It seems clear from the description above that one editor is acting improperly. Making synthetic, subjective value judgments that are not specifically backed up by a source, not directly relevant to the article, or otherwise intended to promote rather than inform is just not what we do. There's not really a dispute here. I recommend you warn one more time, and then seek an administrator to make a necessary intervention, perhaps a short block. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems clear from the description above that one editor is acting improperly."

Indeed. The editor in question has already violated the 3-revert rule on the article. I have reverted his latest series of edits to the article and left a sternly worded warning on his talk pages. If he reverts again I suggest he simply be reported to the edit warring noticeboard.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what relationship this board has to wikiprojects, but in this case it would be really helpful to place a notice on the talk page of WikiProject Universities. The article has not progressed much from a stub except for including summary info about universities that is already covered on their own pages. Few references relate to the "Golden Triangle" concept itself; most are about the individual unis. The article may be a candidate for merger. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect this isn't the place for a discussion about whether 'Golden Triangle' merits an article - although I am pretty puzzled at the idea that it doesn't (there is a deep mine of potential sources, in addition to the ones already in the artice [25] and [26]). I would agree that the article needs work however.

On the point at hand, I have personally found the activities of Thetruthof2011/Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234 very time wasting over the past few days. They have made no effort at engaging in constructive discussion, have posted aggressive and confused messages on my talk page e.g. [27] and [28], have not used edit summaries, and have tried to impose changes to the stable versions of articles purely through repeated edit warring.

The article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation in particular is one that I have little interest in personally - and I certainly have no strong views on the number of Nobel winners associated with Columbia - but have felt compelled to get involved in to prevent it being butchered by Thetruthof2011/Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle (UK universities) resolution

It hasn't escaped my attention that the user David Wilson failed to warn the other two editors, namely 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk,' of their 4 or 5 edits per day violation of the rule (i.e. on webpages entitled Nobel Prize winners by university affiliation & Golden Triangle (UK universities). And I don't believe that he bothered to check up on what they claimed either. Moreover, it has already been noted on 'rangoon11's own talk page that other University officials have already complained about him/her in his/her grossly inaccurate edits (namely Her Royal Highness2 or HRH2). My suggestion to David Wilson is to never take sides unless he has reliable factual foundation for doing so. Otherwise, he himself may be accused of aiding and abetting the erroneous falsehoods perpetuated by 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk'.

Whether these other said editors (i.e. 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk') are two different people or one and the same, it is clear that their postings are erroneous and intentionally so. Apart from the fact that both individuals have continuously reverted the web page to its former incorrect self, both said individuals have also failed to refute my posted cites and authorities. I am a lawyer and I don't merely give an opinion on an encyclopedic website. What was presented by me is nothing more than factual information based on reliable and checkable cites and authorities. The other competing editors have provided nothing more than unsupported claims without the benefit of their own cites and authorities. And what was on the website that they reverted it to contains information that was not only wrong, but was proven wrong by the cites and authorities that I had provided. Indeed, after having checked the said editors information against the information provided by various official University websites from throughout the world, I have found that information relied upon by both 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk' was not confirmed by the said reliable citations that I have relied upon and used as references. As a consequence, one must conclude that these said editors known as 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' have perpetuated erroneous information. The said editors 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk,' whether two separate individuals or one and the same person, appear to be intentional in their perpetuation of falsehood and this will not be tolerated. After having heard the founder of Wikipedia speak at the Berkman Law Center of Harvard University one early evening six years ago it is clear to me what the online encyclopedia is for. Wikipedia is for the dissemination of truth. And although Wikipedia, being a free online encyclopedia, can be edited by anyone on earth it must serve its purpose of disseminating accurate facts that can be checked against existing reliable sources of information. Failing that, it is nothing more than another blog or comment website. Two wrong editors perpetuating falsehood don't make a right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In regards to the web page entitled 'Nobel Prize winners by university affiliation,' the so-called editor known as 'rangoon11' appears to be most blatant in his/her attacks using false numbers to bolster up Columbia University's count of Nobel Prize winners. This is proven by the fact that 'rangoon11' originally had the count at 97 a few days ago, when the actual number count stands at 72 all-time as per the University's own tally. Refer to my citations on my version of the web page. But after my corrections, 'rangoon11' would still persist in SPITEFULLY changing it back using impossible numbers not supported by the Columbia University website. Rangoon11's blind reliance on an inaccurate table runs counter to the said University's own reckoning of the total count. I myself, cannot make every correction on the webpage, but only on those matters involving individuals whose bodacious claims warrant scrutiny. What is even worse is that this 'rangoon11' character appears to follow my edits on several web pages and not just one. He had migrated to the web page entitled 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)' and SPITEFULLY altered my editions there as well.

The idea presented by 'Yk Yk Yk,' on the other hand, that I have presented puffery and that was the excuse for reverting it back to its incorrect version is a form of counter attack or edit war in and of itself and that Yk Yk Yk's own admission that I have presented accurate information as opposed to those relied upon by 'rangoon11' is proof enough of my veracity and reliability as an editor. The concept of the Golden Triangle is not one of flimsy and generalised research that is vacuous of factual information. On the contrary, whenever presenting a concept one must also provide further factual information justifying the concept. If it is a conceptual triangle, then explain why it is 'Golden'. It's no different in sports when referring to the greatness of a particular team or individual sportsman where statistics are used to determine such matters, notwithstanding the trivial matter of sports itself. Certain liberties were taken to correct the statistical data relied upon by 'rangoon11' & 'Yk Yk Yk' in regards to the total number of Nobel Prize affiliates and other statistical, but factual information. THE FOLLOWING JUSTIFIABLE CHANGES WERE MADE TO BOTH OF THE entitled WEB PAGES below:

'Nobel Prize Winners by university affiliation': COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - total count of affiliates runs at 72, not 97 as falsely claimed; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - staff total when taken in conjunction with faculty and student numbers exceed the said University's own record; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - statement that the institution does not count affiliates of less than one year is not supported by University website; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY - three alumni members were incorrectly categorized as mere attendees or researchers and were moved to graduates list; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY - Henri Bergson was initially added, but was later removed since he was only an honorary degree recipient of 1920; UNIVERSITY OF PARIS - fifteen affiliates were removed due to their incorrect categorization as graduates, for all of them attended the Ecole Normale Superiore which is and has never been a part of the University of Paris, as a matter of record (SEE: nobelprize.org); UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY - four affiliates (i.e. Seaborg, Giauque, Chu & Lee) were removed since their names on the alumni list either overlapped with the list of current faculty or the list of the deceased in the total count by the editor.

'Golden Triangle (UK universities)': CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY - cites and authorities added to justify Golden Triangle claim to fame. OXFORD UNIVERSITY - cites and authorities added to justify Golden Triangle claim to fame. IMPERIAL COLLEGE, LONDON - cites and authorities added to justify Golden Triangle claim to fame. KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON - cites and authorities added to justify Golden Triangle claim to fame. LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, LONDON - cites and authorities added to justify Golden Triangle claim to fame. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON - cites and authorities added to justify Golden Triangle claim to fame. [statistics were provided where reliable information existed on the matter].

On the face of the record, my editions were purely driven by scholarship and truth (i.e. veritas, meaning truth), while 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' are apparently driven by spite and envy that are never justifiable under any circumstances!!!!!!!!!!!! Encyclopedia's are detailed oriented and factoid based sources of information by their very nature. And as a matter of record, Wikipedia openly encourages all editors to add much needed reliable citations to their existing data bases in order to add further credibility and reliability.

Because the information relied upon by both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' are inaccurate and lack scholarship, and because of 'Yk Yk Yk's very own admission as to my veracity and as to her own SPITEFULNESS, it is painfully clear that these aforesaid individuals must be prevented from making further editions to the foregoing web pages. Due to the foregoing and for the sake of scholarly integrity, I demand that my edited version of both said web pages be allowed to replace those of both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk'. Wikipedia wants more cites and authorities and I certainly gave it to them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute overview

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

The reason that the 3-Revert Rule has become an issue is because both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk' have purposefully removed my editions of two webpages entitled 'Nobel Prize winners by university affiliation' and the 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)' by replacing it with previous, but grossly inaccurate and unsupported versions. Both said editors did so on frivolous, but spiteful grounds, thereby showing that it was done without justifiable cause. And because they both did improperly act like some SPITEFUL tag team, with no scholarly contributions of their own whatsoever to disprove my editions, they must be prevented from doing so in the future.

Error: The overview field is required. Please fill in the overview field with an outline of the dispute, with diffs if appropriate.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs)
• rangoon11 (talk · contribs)
• Yk Yk Yk (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, I did on several occasions, but to no avail. At first, all I did was just undid the said two editors' changes, but they continually repeated their blatant actions of perpetuating erroneous information that was unsupported by several university websites and other reliable supporting websites. So I provided messages to their talk pages warning them not to do so, which they ignored and deleted.

• How do you think we can help?

Because Wikipedia openly encourages more, not less, scholarly information and supporting citations, my contribution of scholarly citations on the said two websites must be allowed to stand. And because the purpose of both 'rangoon11' and 'Yk Yk Yk's actions was to purposefully perpetuate erroneous, unreliable and scant information, without any scholarship contributions of their own, then it is requested that Wikipedia sternly rebuke such said individuals from altering any editions made by me ever again and that they be actually prevented from doing so. It is my request that I be allowed to undo their changes without further dispute.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thetruthnow2012 discussion

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

User:Thetruthnow2012 resolution