Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:38, 17 January 2013

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

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

Peter Proctor

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Peter Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Peter Proctor#References (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chantoke (talk · contribs)
• Nucleophilic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a physician here that also has an article about his work, Peter Proctor. He also sells hair loss products online at drproctor.com. Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Misplaced Pages page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Misplaced Pages represents a major conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution pyramid, but have been receiving veiled ad hominem attacks from Nucleophilic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside opinion. I am extremely careful with my edits. Also, personally I have not had experience disputing someone that may or may not be the subject of the article I am revising.

I just want to make sure I am not missing something or breaking proper etiquette.

Opening comments by Nucleophilic

Wow. Actually, I had walked away from this issue, pretty much figuring it was not worth contending, one way or another. Basically, I was just going on what the subject's published papers report. According to WP:reliable sources, these are the highest level of authority on wikipedia. This aside, intuitively contemporary papers seem the most reliable source for decades-old information.

Can't say how reliable the much later sources cited by the complainaint are, since I have not seen them, nor did he provide a link, etc.. Or even (IIRC) a formal citation. In contrast, I provided links to material directly listing the subject's professional address as such. Similarly, claiming to have talked to this or that person is prima facia WP:original research and not allowed.

That said, I wonder where this editor gets the "veiled threat", etc. Editor seems a little sensitive over minor legitimate differences of opinion. Things like this usually get resolved on the talk pages, not immediately brought here. Unfortunately, everybody seems to be taking a wikibreak for the holidays. As for complaintant's editing of management of baldness-- I do not understand his claims. Unfortunately, his manner of editing was hundreds of edits over a few days with few to no edit summaries or comments to the talk page. As well as throughly confusing me, this seems to be generating some concerns over there. Anyway, I suggest this matter be taken back to the talk page where it belongs. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been significant discussions on the Talk page, going back to at least 16 Dec 2012, and the issue is not yet resolved; so it is appropriate to solicit more input here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, there was one communication on Dec 16. But the real discussion did not start until Dec. 29, right over the holidays, when many editors take a break. This was followed almost immediately by chantoke transferring it here. Also, to descalate, I suggest "faculty" be changed to "faculty/staff" to reflect any uncertainty. As I noted, I was walking away from this matter until chantoke escalated it. Nucleophilic (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, incorrect. The discussion requesting his proper academic credentials has been at least since May of 2012, as in this request by editor Smokefoot. Chantoke (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Proctor discussion

Hello All, I am a volunteer for the Dispte Resolution project. I am placing a COI (Conflict of interest) investigation template on this page as that needs be sorted. Looks like the article has other issues such as a promotional tone and overall notability of the subject. A lot of careful work has to be done here -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

With due respect, you bear all the earmarks of a sock or meat puppet. You and chantoke have a similar edit history of editing pages of only local Indian interest, when there had been no such on the relevant page before or anything even close to it. What are the chances of this happening at random? Likewise, no prior edits on a subject, then suddenly show up in the middle of a dispute to "mediate". Perhaps you thought nobody would notice. Also see: wp:concensus. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As an editor of Peter Proctor, I concur with nucleophilic. It is not clear that Chantoke knows how wikipedia bio pages differ from regular articles. This article was also brought into mediation without giving any other editors a chance to provide input. Also, as nuclephilic notes on the article talk page, it mentions "hair loss" only once, and that in passing without mentioning the subject of the bio. If he is using this page to promote a business (or whatever), he is doing a very poor job of it. For now, I will pass over the issue of Wikishingaki as an unnecessary complication. Bandn (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is important because he sells medicine online. Reporting faculty positions at two prestigious institutions is something that would help sell product because it would enhance his reputation. Chantoke (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikishagnik: I too am a volunteer here at DRN. I notice you just added your name to the list of DRN volunteers two days ago. Assuming good faith, we can conclude that you acting with the best interests of WP here. On the other hand, since your impartiality has been called into question, it may be best for the integrity of the DRN process if you stepped aside participate simply as a normal editor, and let one of the other 40+ volunteers serve as the primary mediator for this case. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged, will defer to your judgement but I am sticking to my point -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - From the topmost opening statement, I take it that the primary issue is what sources are available to justify including the person in the Category:University of Texas Medical Branch faculty. Is that the only issue? or are there additional concerns about WP:PUFFERY and sourcing? Focusing on the faculty category: all inclusions in categories must be supported by sources, per WP:Verifiability. For facts in the body of the article, footnotes are often used to provide the sources; but even for categories (which may not be mentioned in the article body) sources must also be provided if requested. I take it that the only source provided so far is an email address at the university ... which doesn't quite demonstrate that the person is a member of the faculty. Nucleophilic: are you aware of any source that says "proctor is a member of the UTMB faculty"? --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Response to comment by Noleander: The sentence that is being discussed is at (Link 1). It reads as follows:

"He has been on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch. He is engaged in drug research and development."

The three citations provided in support of this sentence by Nucleophilic at Talk:Peter Proctor are first, 1 second, 2 and third 3.

The references have several issues.

With regard to the first, it lists his address as being at the Department of Opthalmology, but does not list his specific affiliation with the institution. According to his self-published resume at Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/pub/peter-proctor-md) he was a "Research Instructor" at Baylor at that time.

I do not see where on the paper his specific affiliation is is indicated.

For example, you may have your address listed in a lab if you work there as an independent researcher, or volunteer, which is also very possible considering Dr. Proctor has been reported in the article as an independent researcher.

In the second link provided, he is not primary or last author, but third, which means he was not the primary researcher. Again, the address could have referred to him being a volunteer or independent researcher working with the lab.

The third link at 3 did not work.

The references are limited as they were published by Dr. Proctor himself.

Someone has stated that I do not seem to understand the concept of WP:BLP. It is true that I am a relative novitiate to biography articles so I will quote from the source to avoid my own potential misinterpretation. From Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Exercise caution in using primary sources."

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."

While those articles certainly qualify as reliable sources in reflecting the content of his research, they do not specifically list a faculty appointment. Doximity is a self-entry website, and also does not qualify.

I also looked in the Baylor Alumni Directory which can be found online for current faculty at Alumni directory or of which a physical copy can be ordered at Alumni website, or by e-mailing Barbara Walker or Nyree Chanaba at alumni@bcm.edu.

Although the directory is very comprehensive, as an older clinical instructor, I acknowledge he could have been missed, although I do not believe this would be the norm as Baylor likely very actively seeks alumni donations.

Nucleophilic, looking at the article history, you appear to be its major author, so I would respectfully request you to supply something more reliable. I do not want to deny the good doctor his faculty history as he certainly is a figure in the history of redox research, and this should be fairly acknowledged if accurate. At the same time, the conflict of interest issues have been discussed above and on the talk page.

My opinion ultimately cannot be entirely objective, because there is not enough good evidence in one direction or the other. From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

In this situation, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim in the setting of an encyclopedia article, particularly with regards to WP:BLP. I would not include the sentences about him being on faculty until references are provided that directly reflect this, and are not authored by the subject. I would not close the door on it, but I think it would be unwise to include something like a faculty appointment out there for a physician practicing telemedicine, without more explicit confirmation. Chantoke (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (Ramwithaxe; changed to avoid confusion in this discussion)

Comment For any concern about me being a sock puppet please refer me immediately to the Adminitrators Noticeboard. They will handle me accordingly. Coming back to the article, did you know that the explanation of the puzzling repeated failure in human trials of neuroprotective agents and antioxidants effective in animals by noting the uniquely high endogenous levels of the antioxidant neuroprotectant uric acid in humans is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself? It is also interesting to note that him being a part of a group that is credited with the fantastic supposition regarding diabetes, inflammation, and fibrosisan underlying common etiology involving electronically activated processes in such symptomology and is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself - seven times to be exact. Did you know that according to the good doctor he has reported the conditional pro-oxidant properties of uric acid and further proposed that oxidative stress figures in the pathogenesis of hyperuricemic syndromes in general? And the list goes on. My point being that apart from Dr. Proctor no-one knows about these fantastic contributions to humanity (and Nucleophilic of course). And Nucleophilic, BTW for being close to the subject you dont have to be a blood relative. In fact by virtue of our discussion so far, we are close. If I was to compose a Misplaced Pages article about you before today, an article would have said Nucleophilic is a scolarly contributor to Misplaced Pages, but now I will be tempted to add ... who jumps to conclusions about editors being sock puppets based on the ethnicity of subject of the articles they contribute to. As if such editors cannot understand basic concepts like MOS and templates that apply to all Misplaced Pages articles. You see how NPOV can be compromied even with very little interaction? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I concur. I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet, which I believe refers to a duplicate account. I would be happy to submit my IP address or whatever other information you need to verify this. Chantoke (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to continue to assume good faith. This matter has gone entirely too far for the issue involved. As I noted, I was walking away from it, when Chantoke filed this request for mediation, far too soon in the process, IMHO. Contrary to assurances, there was no real attempt to resolve the matter on the talk pages. Just a couple of exchanges and pow, here we are. Also, if he has any support for his accusations concerning me, let him present it. And no, I do not expect his and Wikishagnik's IP numbers will prove the same.

Likewise, no other editors were given the chance to give their input (it was over the holidays). Been here for six years and I have never seen anything like this. Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation. My suggestion is to take this back to the talk pages and let the process work it's way thru there. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that another article editor,Bandn, is now posting both here and on the talk page. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please supply references, or concede that you do not have any. The issue has been on the talk page for several weeks. "Just a couple of exhanges and pow, here we are." and "Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation." Here is my first edit 1. Here is your edit removing my citation needed tags 2. This is me changing it back 3. This is you undoing my edit 4. This is me finally switching it back to how it appears currently 5. Literally we have gone back and forth 5 times, and we have been discussing this since December 16th.

Other users on the talk page have also been discussing this with you since May of 2012 Smokefoot Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no "accusations", please stop making this personal. I am only asking for quality references. If you can't provide any, and none are forthcoming, then by definition the process has already worked itself out and we can move on. Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, please stop Misplaced Pages:Canvassing by recruiting editors of the page that favored your opinion in the past, as you did a few hours ago here and back in May of 2012 here for this previous talk page discussion. I have contacted all of the remaining past editors of the page as well, to make sure all opinions have a chance to be represented. Best, Chantoke (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you bring up the subject. It is not Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to notify past editors of a page who might have special knowledge. Rather than canvassing, I contacted one editor who might be able to clarify some of the issues. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond.

However, it is Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to bring in a new editor to support your point, as seems to be the case with Wikishagnik, who had no connection with the article at all or anything remotely related to it and whose record of edits resembles your own. Seen editors banned for no worse. As I noted, what are the chances that two editors with a history of editing wikipedia pages of only local Indian interest would show up on a page at exactly the same time? The mind boggles. Finally, note my suggestion to replace "faculty" with "faculty/staff" just to resolve any ambiguities and to conclude this matter. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum: though you claim to have notified "all of the remaining past editors of the page", this is not on their talk pages. Pehaps you can clarify this statement. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, incorrect again. You contacted one editor, Djem3, after the debate had started, because he had agreed with you in a past talk page discussion. You diid not contact any of the other editors that had contributed to the talk page. Those are the editors that I contacted, not everyone who had ever edited the article. Neither is mandatory, but you were selectively canvassing. Where did you get the idea, other than your circumstantial evidence, leading to false accusation, that I was related to Wikishagnik? Not all Indians are related, and not all people interested in India know each other. You are walking on very thin ice there. Chantoke (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Straw. I tried unsucessfully to contact drjem3 because he knows about the subject than I do and might be able to answer some of the questions. Did this right out in the open too. As for your sock or meat puppetry-- don't insult our intelligence. What are the chances that two editors with the same rather specific posting interests (obscure local indian subjects) should show up on the same completely-unrelated article at the same time, particularly when one of them has never posted to anything similar before. Likely the probability is in the millions, if not billions, to one. So this is either collusion, or a Guiness book of records coincidence. Which one seems more likely? Nice try though. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This dispute has gone on too long and I am losing sleep and developing a stomach ulcer from it. I would like to withdraw personally from dispute and defer to the opinion of the remaining DRN discussion participants regarding past faculty affiliations. Best, Chantoke (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree this has gone on too long. I concur with Nucleophilic's compromise proposal that "faculty" be replaced by "faculty or staff" or words to this effect. I have also removed the COI tag since it is not in contention here. Bandn (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment:Apparently too late, but just in case, I register my concurance with Nucleophilic and Bandn. Tempest in a tea-pot. Drjem3 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

________________________________________

Comment: Now that we have established good faith all around and agreed upon socket puppetry actions required, if any, can we focus on the content of this article (WP:FOC)? Can we get rid of the entirely self referenced content and wait for the Doctor to achieve more in life for which he gets duly recognized, which in turn can be quoted here from independent and neutral third party sources? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Smokefoot experience I have repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the articles on Peter Proctor, his thesis advisor John McGinness (whose notability was also disputed and this article got off to a rocky start except for the efforts of Proctor), and many articles that cite their work. All of my efforts were thwarted by coordinated efforts of user:Nucleophilic, User:Drjem3, and Proctor himself. My concerns about the Peter Proctor article were expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 under "#What is his current position and what are his awards" My view is that Proctor, Nucleophilic, and Drjem3 were propping up a reputation for Proctor, which lacks external support. He has no accolades, awards, editorships, lectures, appointments that in any way indicate even a modest level of external recognition. The article seemed problematic from the WP:COI perspective. In the end, I concluded that the article Peter Proctor was "lame" but lame biographies are an occassional artifact of Misplaced Pages. My greater concern was that these same editors have implicated Proctor and John McGinness as being some sort of scientific pioneers and innovators. Misplaced Pages articles related to polyacetylene (Nobel Prize stuff a few years back) and molecular electronics, cite the work of McGinness and Proctor. These articles are guarded and groomed by these threesome. I have taught these topics in a university and have never heard of these people. They are not mentioned in any textbooks. At the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners. I have edited a lot in Misplaced Pages - but my experience with Proctor and Nucleophilic and User:Drjem3 remains the absolute low point of otherwise satisfying work. I eventually removed everything related to Peter Proctor from my watchlist because the articles were obviously the personal domains of this threesome. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I agree, viewing the dispute resolution guidelines discussed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution (pyramid), it is centrally important to not focus on the editors but the article. I agree with the recommendations given by Wikishagnik above. Chantoke (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have encountered many problems with articles related to Peter Proctor, which I have discussed in detail at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 24#Peter Proctor and conducting polymers. I tend to share the views of Smokefoot on these matters. In my opinion, Proctor and McGinness get far more coverage on Misplaced Pages than they deserve. --Ben (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Observation - In trying to summarize various discussions taking place above I note that a large part of the discussion centered on which discovery should be credited to whom and who was the first to find it etc. There was also a large discussion that centered on who deserved the Nobel Prize etc. All participants to this discussion are reminded about (WP:NOT#FORUM) and that specifically citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. Editors should have further stressed the need for NPOV by focusing on (WP:YESPOV) wich specifically states that in an article Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.. By ignoring Misplaced Pages Policy and engaging a debate on this topic editors turned this discussion into a debate and allowed it to spiral out of scope for article talk pages. Please remember that talk pages are meant to discuss the content of an article and not views of editors about the subject. Can we get some comments from Noleander at this point? -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources? - @Nucleophilic: you suggested using the term "faculty/staff" for the article. I didn't see the source which supported that ... could you again provide the source and a quote from the source which says "faculty/staff" or something similar? PS: To all: the DRN forum is limited to discussions of content only. Any discussions of behavior (e.g. canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc) are not permitted here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply:The sources are the addresses provided in the subject's published papers. E.g, this publication and this list his address as "Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine". Similarly, this lists his address as UTMB Gslveston, Department of Pharmacology. BTW, according to pubmed, the subjects first papers were in 1970. e.g, this one , which also contains an address not listed in the bio. I posted this material on the relevant talk page in reply to an inquiry for sources. Exactly how they were to be incorporated was left for later. I also posted these links to the papers so they can be read directly. Doubtless, I can find more. In wp:reliable sources peer-reviewed published papers like these are at the top of the list.

True, as is custom in the sciences, these do not list the subject's exact position. BTW, "research instructor" is a faculty position at most institutions. Often, the first rung on the academic ladder. IIRC Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons allows the use of material like this. In any case, I suggest "faculty or staff" to get around any ambiguity. I was preparing to back off on this issue (which seems trivial) subject to input of other editors when Chantoke brought it over here, compelling me to respond. A reading of the interchange will show that I was trying to reply to Chantoke's questions as well I could. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nucleophilic: I don't see anywhere in those sources that Proctor was faculty or staff. I think it would be a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the article to even imply that Proctor was on the faculty, which is a very significant position. Proctor has been working, according to the article, for decades in areas of high-profile research. If you cannot find one single source which says "Proctor is on the faculty/staff....", in plain words, that absence is very telling, and the info should be removed from the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, In academia, if somebody is not "faculty", they are "staff". Least that has always been my experience. Do you assert that he was not working at these institutions in the face of what the papers say? If he was, he was one or the other. You-all do what you want, pending other information. Which was what was happening when this "dispute" was brought here. Sheesh. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but in WP we do not use "my experience" as a source. From your failure to supply sources, I take it there is no source which says "Proctor was on the faculty (or staff) of ...". Since there is no source that says that, the material cannot be in the article. If Proctor is notable enough for a WP article, there should be some sources discussing his career. The lack of sources is significant. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotional? - Users Ben and Smokefoot (and others) above have suggested that a couple of editors have been engaging in improper promotion of Peter Proctor, which would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION policy. If the promotional efforts are disruptive, the best forum for addressing those is at WP:AN, or if a single editor is the culprit, at WP:RFCU. The DRN process focuses only on content issues (specific facts stated within articles) so this DRN case could be used to analyze individual sentences within an article. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not specific sentences within articles; so if we assume that Peter Proctor meets WP notability guidelines, then the article can/should exist and the next step is simply to assess the accuracy of material within the article. If the article is overly detailed, then specific sentences/sections should be proposed for deletion (even if sourced) if they are non-encyclopedic. Of particular concern is the assertion by user Smokefoot: "at the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners" ... adding puffery into Peter Proctor is one thing, but removing or distorting information in other articles is unacceptable. If anything like that has happened, talk page discussions, RfCs, and DRN cases can be used to remedy the situation. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an editor that works in the area of chemistry, I have also come across the Peter Proctor-related edits. My perception agrees with those of Smokefoot and Benjah-bmm27: there appears to be a determined effort to promote Peter Proctor here on Misplaced Pages to a degree that far outweighs his actual contributions to science, presenting a misleading narrative to the reader. ChemNerd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input. If there are any specific changes to Peter Proctor article you think should be made, please describe them here (with a rationale). As for the bigger issue about violations of WP:NOTPROMOTION, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they want to lodge complaints at WP:AN or WP:RFCU (again, WP:DRN is not the appropriate forum for promotional issues, because that is considered a behavior/conduct problem, and DRN is limited to content issues). --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, chantoke seems to have just changed his name to User talk:Lenny Kaufman. Unfortunately, this makes it that much harder to keep up with his edits. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nucleophilic: Could you reply to my question above about 4 posts above under Sources? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done above. Nucleophilic (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nucleophilic, you can check the contribs by going to Contributions under toolbox on the left. I guess you are confusing namespace change with sock puppetry and the former is allowed and does not change the stats of a user. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know the difference. It is just that User:Chantoke, now dubbed User talk:Lenny Kaufman, keeps doing things that make it difficult to track his posts. Deliberate? Beats me. Examples include hundreds of posts to single sites that fill up his edit list and using different names in his user links. It is true that the contribution list changes in accord with the name change, but other stuff stays with the old name. For an example or three, see this page. Now, he does a total namespace change. After a while, ya just lose track. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You do know that this is not the venue for conduct disputes right? Please stop making accusations about your perceptions in regard to what you think they are doing. Please address only the content dispute moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Response: This dispute is ridiculous and has gone on too long. I would like to withdraw it and close the discussion. Please let me know if this is alright. Thanks. Lenny Kaufman 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can withdraw at any time - participating in DRN is entirely voluntary. I think it would be best to leave the discussion open for a few more days to see if other uninvolved editors can provide additional insight (such as when User:Benjah-bmm27 and user Smokefoot provided input). Even after the DRN case is closed, relevant issues can still be discussed at the article talk page and other dispute resolution forums, such as WP:RFC. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to recuse myself from the discussion and will not be making further edits to the article. Lenny Kaufman 20:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request -Before this discussion closes with a note for possible WP:AN action recommendations and as nucleophilic has already been advised about WP:SOCKS and investigations can we get back to the discussion about what needs to be done about this article? Can Benjah-bmm27, Smokefoot, Amadscientist, Lenny_Kaufman and other editors please advise if we should

1. Remove all content from the article which falls under WP:SELFPUB and WP:PROMOTIONAL, or
2. Keep the content but remove the references for now, OR
3. Keep the article as it is right now and allow it to mature?

Lets discuss this before we close this discussion. - Wikishagnik (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest option 1, which may lead to the deletion of the article if no notable material remains. However, I anticipate it will be a time-consuming and painful process as there is likely to be strong disagreement between pro- and anti-Proctor editors. Some sort of arbitration might help. I am reluctant to get involved again because I find the pro-Proctor crowd aggressive in their editing tactics. --Ben (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Argument against Peter Proctor unrelated to the article or this DRN"Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)"

First no where has this been categorized by me or insinuated as exclusively an argument for or against Dr. Proctor. In fact what has been presented for consideration is specifically 3 questions above and none of them are for or against Dr. Proctor personally so that isn't even one of the questions under consideration.

This is simply unbiased evidence in and of itself, these are just facts. No where is it offered to support exclusively as an argument against Dr. Peter H.Proctor of Houston/surrounding area of Texas anymore then it is offered to support exclusively as an argument for Dr. Proctor's article continuing to exist.  

Characterizing it as exclusively an argument one way or the other would require a formal basis for such to be established.

" Where in the article does it say that Peter Proctor sells any such products? Are you hinting that Peter Proctor of this article and Peter Proctor you are talking about are the same?" Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)"

the portion of your concern if they are the same person is easily resolved by visiting this website that also comes up just above this wiki article when you google "Dr. Peter H. Proctor" http://www.drproctor.com/ the credential and information is one in the same on the site, and I can provide more verification as needed. It states he sells Androgenetic Alopecia(Hair loss) by the placement of such ads as stated in the opening here of this discussion. The ad included in the link clearly outlines the same individual in the same city with the same alleged qualifications as is under discussion. No one else is disputing it is the same person, least of which Dr. Proctor is not disputing such. quote from the opening to this discussion above by Chanote "I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston."

-Even so, it does not matter. This DRN is about the content of the article. We are not interested in the conduct of Mr. Peter unlrelated to this article -Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)-

"As regards the "article" it provides credibility for the sales of his products that is perhaps why the investment in editing by pro-Proctor and time investment here for financial return" as per what editor "Smokefoot" described in a publicly available conversation, for the sales of such snake oil products from the website I paraphrase that comes up with Wiki under google and links to his site that have been placed I think if correct were placed in references at Wiki according to Chanote's logs. This content is related to the conduct of Mr. Peter H. Proctor as it pertains to the article, because just as in a court of law "priors" matter, and what is good enough for a court of law is certainly good enough criteria for a dispute resolution process as far as admissibility. If determined that such Clinical Trial he alleges to have conducted never took place, this material would consist of priors to the actions of misleading the general public on Misplaced Pages through a concerted effort in regards to his academic faculty appointments, if so determined. Furthermore the article is a piece that has bestowed upon Mr. Peter Proctor and has added to his credibility to conduct such investigations as alleged in his online advertising and to be trusted as a source of medical knowledge to concoct such a formula for the general public with expertise. It relates as it perhaps may demonstrate a pattern of behavior of misleading the public.

Furthermore I make a motion for this & all evidence I have submitted to not be arbitrarily truncated under a banner & hidden from the viewing public eyes without consultation as you have done

Including the information on ingredients used that relate to his patents as listed in article and presented under the above near heading DRN (show) for Chemistry review.

If such claim is true, it is relevant to any article about Mr. Proctor and his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? This linked evidence perhaps could be considered as material evidence for consideration to be included in the decision making process here or for immediate inclusion in the public domain article as it stands now. This is an alleged "comprehensive 3 year clinical study" advertised with his picture from "Proctor Clinic" for a product he sells and/or sold allegedly called Proxidil. What proof is there that this study ever occurred as advertised? If such claim is true, it is relevant to his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? Please scroll down to near bottom to page 191 advertisement lower right at this link This relates to the "article" as it could pertain to his using Medical Faculty position on his resume for such a Clinical Trial http://books.google.ca/books?id=4ykEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — Do the alleged chemical ingredients place the general public in harms way or are not allowed to be prescribed or sold at some point in time or are even in his products in any quantity as the labeling lists no amounts or did not produce the tremendous hair growth in this picture of his advertised page 342 http://books.google.ca/books?id=5isEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA342&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.

This link has most everything in easy access form for one to consider as well as email reply from Dr. Peter H. Proctor if you scroll down. http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/showthread.php/59371-Dr-Proctor-Snake-oil-n-since-(at-least)-1987/page6 I suggest everyone be careful in any editing out any of the information here as the entire dispute resolution and related material to Dr. Peter H. Proctor is under consideration for perhaps being submitted to relevant agencies for monitoring of the entire matter and all related matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhouse expert (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I can give a technical answer to this query with appropriate Wiki Policies, what the above (unsigned) editor is trying to show is that there is deffinitely something fishy about Dr. Proctor per se. The ad says he is trying to sell something while the Misplaced Pages article does not say so, and both Dr. Proctors have worked in related fields. Yes, they are both from approximately the same area too. But, all we can do in this DRN is make changes to the article, we cannot initiate an RfD, now can we ask for Admin action against anybody and we have to assume good faith all around for all edits. So unknown editor what do you advise? Do we remove self referenced materials or just the references? Please understand that the first priority for all of us editors is in the editing of articles. We can only change content here, not the personalities -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inhouse expert please understand we are discussing how to edit an article. We are not discussing about the subject. Its you who tried bringing in his past as an evidence of something. Do you advise removing your contribution so that we can get back to the original discussion (and for legal propreitary)? . And BTW, everything on Misplaced Pages is shared by commons license so anyone anywhere can investigate anything. -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

as far as direction, certainly no self-references should be allowed with out substantial proof, beyond perhaps even a diploma, considering the orchestrated effort that has taken place prior to mislead. In regards to leaving it up, if Dr. Proctor can prove by third party assurances that he has done something notable, even if it is in area of hair loss by a certificate of analysis of his ingredients and clinical studies etc.. perhaps over the coming week we should await to see what input their is from him & editors to satisfy such.

Using the subject as a self-published source

From wp:biographies of living persons "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Minimally, this supports use of routine education and work history material like this on Doximity or this on Linkedin. Such material is hardly "unduly self-serving". Nucleophilic (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point, and even the article on Albert Einstein has Self referenced material but that article meets all criteria you have listed including the fifth point. The article on Peter Proctor relies heavily on such references (about 80% of the references are self published). What we need in this article are valid secondary and independent sources who can support the claims of the references. Only then can we honestly say that the article meets the requirements of WP:VERIFY -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above hidden information is now fully addressed so as not to be hidden from public viewing?

"1. First Misplaced Pages allows material to be unsigned, so by definition that is not an argument to hide material from public view.

If I am required to sign it I will, just let me know.  

There are large sums of money riding on this Misplaced Pages article on Dr. Proctor for credibility for worldwide sales of his hair loss products and hair loss forumla patents to be presented here and as a Scientist of sorts, I do not want to be one of the victims that get in the way of that financial pursuit for business profit.

2. Fully a Picture presented as referenced by exhibit A, in this link picture front and back of main product Dr. Peter H. Proctor sells with alleged ingredients listed on the bottle. Please scroll down to picture by poster Jazzb http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=103317&STARTPAGE=4&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

3. Related directly to the article since Dr. Peter H. Proctor has been most notably presented as an expert in Androgenetic Alopecia being placed as an expert on such on hairlosshelp.com as well as covered by the LifeExtension Foundation in decades past. This does not mean he is an expert, just proclaimed as such. The entire basis of the article is to offer qualifications that give the Dr. Medical credibility by being allegedly faculty within a medical dept of a College. In addition the patents presented in the article are present on the bottle of the hair loss product the Dr. sells, so this aspect is relevant as that is what the patents are used for. http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=103317&STARTPAGE=4&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear " <real life picture of his bottles I know some parties may not want the validity of the products up for discussion as this is related to how the Dr. Proctor makes his bread and butter for the last few decades, however this is a public open source encyclopedia and the attached are all referenced by posts by posts by "pproctor" that he is listed as an expert on said site here with picture matching his ads earlier listed http://www.hairlosshelp.com/qna/Index.cfm said website has listed IP address available for consideration as that of Dr. Proctor's & contact information for contract with him & perhaps emails. Not to mention the bottle picture and label should be enough, I ask you to refute that this is the product of the gentleman in the article, as to this point you have not refuted it is not the same Dr. Proctor and the patents in the article are not one in the same with those on the bottle for Hair Loss product you offer.

Dr. Peter H. Proctor is proclaimed as the "Worlds Foremost Authority on Balding" here at The Life Extension Foundation in ads placed by businesses he has an interest in. http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/drprocadforf.html

"Dr. Peter Proctor, M.D., Ph.D. the world's foremost authority on hair loss and baldness, is the only hair treatment practitioner in the world who has developed unique, patented multi-ingredient hair formulas that address all the known factors in the balding process.

He is the author of over 30 scientific articles and book chapters, and holds several broad patents for hair loss treatment.

Dr. Proctor has a dermatology practice in Houston, Texas, where he specializes in the treatment of premature balding and age-related hair loss. Over the past 12 years, Dr. Proctor has successfully treated more than 3,500 people of all ages for hair loss and baldness."

Why Dr. Proctor Is Number One?

Dr. Proctor has already patented for his hair formulas "copperbinding peptides" that are virtually identical to the compounds in both Tricomin from Procyte and Pileil from Life Medical Sciences. Industry insiders have been buzzing about "miraculous" upcoming "baldness cures" from these companies over the past year and, as a result, the stock of both companies has risen considerably.

In Dr. Proctor's formulas, however, copperbinding peptides are only one component. His multi-modal approach has enabled him to achieve better hair growth results than anyone else.

In fact, Dr. Proctor is so far ahead in hair growth research that both the Upjohn Corporation and Unilever have had major European hair loss patents rejected because Dr. Proctor made the discoveries first.

How can a single physician be so far ahead of multi-billion dollar corporations?

One reason is that - in contrast to drug companies - private physicians can use any approved agent for any medically indicated purpose. As a result, they can easily explore, develop, and quickly refine new therapies. Many new therapies are developed by private physicians, scientists and laboratories, but usually they are sold to major pharmaceutical companies.

Another reason that Dr. Proctor has been able to single handedly develop effective hair regrowth products is that in addition to being a physician, he is also a pharmacologist who has been active in skin drug research for more than 25 years.

to not address that his patents in the "article" are for the purpose of balding is a mistake and to not include in an article on him about balding treatment that he is alleged to be the worlds foremost authority allegedly makes no sense whatsoever.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

The above and below entries are included here since Dr. Proctor has been most notable in the area of treating Androgenetic Alopecia with Novel ingredients in his practice and through worldwide sales of his products since at least 1987 or earlier, I offer the below for consideration of the editors for both reason to include or not to include such in his Misplaced Pages page or to consider not offering a Misplaced Pages page.

Request Dr. Peter Proctor or anyone with an understanding of chemistry to address the actual products the Dr. sells and if the known ingredients have any safety testing in humans and particular if there is any established efficacy or rationale for inclusion in treating Androgenetic Alopecia a medical condition of miniaturizing hair follicles. These are just some of the alleged ingredients on the bottle of Proxiphen and/or by the Dr. &/or associates claimed of the Dr. in public postings. The product line consists of a prescription product called Proxiphen and a non prescription version called Proxiphen-n. Both are alleged to contain the following ingredients. There is also a further shampoo based product called NANO, which includes NANO as listed below.

There is also a prescription strength version that includes to my understanding Phenytoin which I inquire what is the rationale and demonstrated safety and efficacy in any research for this topically in relation to Androgenetic Alopecia. If none, what is the individual rationale for it's inclusion please on your part Dr. Proctor.

1.The most important one Dr. says is "Nicotic acid n-oxide (NANO for short form)--..." ref.(1)

2. Carboxypyridine-N-Oxide -(CAS No. 2758-22-7) "This one has me puzzled. I checked the structure on the Belstein chemical database, but could not find anything other than that it's an agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Drugs that act as nicotinic agonists have been used to treat nicotine addiction, Alzheimer's disease, and glaucoma. I don't know it's purpose is in this formula.Ref(2)"

3. PBN as well as its active hydrolysis products NtBHA/MNP * Ref. for it being in Dr. Proctors product yet not on label, poster pproctor verified by site as individual, middle and bottom http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=84063&enterthread=y where he is on file as an expert on the site along with other physicians

4. CU/ZN binding peptides

5. Superoxide dimutases

6. Ascorbates - antioxidant (Vitamin C)

7. Ascorbyl Palmitate -antioxidant (fat soluble Vitamin C ester)

8. Arginine- "one of the 20 common amino acids; precursor in the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), a blood vessel dilator; hypothetically has activity similar to that of minoxidil due to K-channel opening.Ref.(3)"

9. BHT - synthetic antioxidant

10. TEMPOL and TEMPO ref. by poster pproctor verified by site as such http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=83173&highlight_key=y where he is registered and his IP as an expert in hair loss.

11. EDTA - "generally used as a scavenger of metal cations, particularly for toxic metals like mercury; I'm not entirely sure what it's doing in this formula; perhaps to sequester inorganic impurities Ref(4)"

Ref(1)(2)(3)(4) poster HairyKrishna poster Chemist Phd. student, currently specializing as an M.D.

"Request -Before this discussion closes with a note for possible WP:AN action recommendations and as nucleophilic has already been advised about WP:SOCKS and investigations can we get back to the discussion about what needs to be done about this article? Can Benjah-bmm27, Smokefoot, Amadscientist, Lenny_Kaufman and other editors please advise if we should Remove all content from the article which falls under WP:SELFPUB and WP:PROMOTIONAL, or Keep the content but remove the references for now, OR Keep the article as it is right now and allow it to mature? Lets discuss this before we close this discussion. - Wikishagnik (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)"

I would move that, unless something "so" notable can be found as to warrant a page devoted to Mr. Proctor, that such page be removed from Misplaced Pages promptly.

Definitely as earlier stated, option of allowing self reference due to the misleading prior behavior of Dr. Proctor or supporting Dr. Proctor group, should not be allowed and all references to claims including educational degrees should be fully supported by more then the common standard on Misplaced Pages or just a diploma any one could of had printed up back in the 70's before things were as computerized. This would be so all items are above and beyond reproach based on perhaps earlier misleading appointments on Faculty at not 1 but 2 Colleges. As it stands the educational qualifications of a Phd, pharmacology, biophysics, bio psychiatrist neuroscience and M.D. and world renowned accomplishments to boot for Dr. Proctor, seem like much for any one man, particularly one that has chosen to go into selling hair loss products with all of that training, so I suggest further verification on those as well beyond just a coherent flow of possible dates & assumptions.

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Misplaced Pages and also the purpose of this article. let me remind you of the following

1. (WP:FANSITE) - Misplaced Pages is not meant to promote a persons opinion about the subject. Regarding the links you provided please read points 5. of the policy - Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services are not allowed. You have mentioned There are large sums of money riding on this Misplaced Pages article on Dr. Proctor for credibility for worldwide sales of his hair loss products and hair loss forumla patents to be presented here and as a Scientist of sorts, I do not want to be one of the victims that get in the way of that financial pursuit for business profit, so you need to understand that Wikipipedia is not a Soapbox and cannot be used for advertising products (WP:NOTADVERTISING), specifically Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Further All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources - which you specifically refuse to address after repeated reminders. The references that you do provide are addressed at the beginning of this discussion
2. You also mention Dr. Peter H. Proctor has been most notably presented as an expert in Androgenetic Alopecia being placed as an expert on such on hairlosshelp.com as well as covered by the LifeExtension Foundation in decades past. This does not mean he is an expert, just proclaimed as such. You fail to understand (WP:GRAPEVINE) which clearly states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (I am getting to this at the end of the para); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.. Both you and Nuclephilic are missing the point about self published sources in BLP articles (WP:BLPSPS) specifically point 5. which states the article is not based primarily on such sources, both yours and content mentioned by Nucleophilic rely entirely on self published sources. The poicy (WP:SELFPUBLISH) clearly states that Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

The above two points cover the meat of your arguments. If you care to carefully read through all the policies that I have listed you will understand that all claims mentioned by you cannot be included in the article at all, unless they are qualified by neutral and independent sources. I suggest you read the section Writing style of BLP to understand all points about articles for Living People. -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing comments - There are two main disputes about this article

1. There is a lot of poorly referenced and self referenced material. A lot of this material is controversial - Suggestion- Remove the contentious and controversial material along with citation which is poorly / self referenced.
2. The subject might be under investigation by federal agencies - suggestion - under no circumstance add any kind of investigation in the article of any living person unless the citations meet extremely high standards of verifiability and notability (and in most cases this might get removed anyway unless their is confirmed conviction).

BLP subjects have to stand up to much higher standards of notability and verifiability to balance the requirements of Misplaced Pages not being a soapbox (WP:SOAPBOX) and not getting sued by the subject. I would request Noleander to close this discussion as I am only a contributing editor -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I'm the DRN thread reaper. I get called in when threads just refuse to die. Let's set some ground rules.

1. Keep further responses to no more than 100 words. There's already been plenty of words over and over again.
2. Aspertions about conduct are not germane here.

Ok, what I've been able to piece together the primary dispute is Does the subject qualify to be listed as "on staff/faculty" of multiple medical institutions?. I'd like to make sure I understand the issue before I start trying to negotiate a solution. Hasteur (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sufficient proof has not been provided that Mr. Proctor, is trained as it says on the front page in dermatology and on talk page it says he is a dermatologist. He is a family physician to my understanding, and the burden of proof is on him to provide 3rd party ref. to support such, which have not been. This is applicable since he is involved in the sale, marketing and prescribing of hair loss products that fall under the specialty of Dermatology.

"Institutions University of Texas University Of Texas Medical Branch Baylor College of Medicine Dermatology, Bellaire Texas" no specific degree granting institution is given or degree in such.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhouse expert (talk • contribs)

First Warning:That is more than 100 words (416 to be exact). As I said above, consciseness is paramount. You've now pointed at users again instead of talking about content. Collapse your content and summarize in 100 words or less to get to the point. Using diffs to point at specific issues is awesome for helping distill the issue without having to read the same content over and over. Hasteur (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue is decades-old employment. Per wp:blp noncontroversial and not overly self-serving material by the subject can be used. If this does not include boilerplate like degrees, employers, published papers, etc. (see talk page for links) then what does it include? Have edited several bios and this seems standard. Also, employment can be verified from addresses given on published papers, at the top of the WP:verifiability list. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue is, was he granted a degree in Dermatology and from what Degree granting institution was the Specialization granted from? On main page of article, you list Dermatology, Belaire Texas. There is no Dermatology degree granting institution in Belaire Texas, in fact Belaire is where Mr.Proctors business is located, if you are using Mr.Proctor as a reference for himself both in education and employment that is absurd as it is completely self-referenced. Ref. given is a Dr. referral website that could be paid for or Dr. could of provided them the information http://fromyourdoctor.com/drproctor/health/about-page2.do

Inhouse, start signing your own posts. Hasteur (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going in circles. Nucleophilic, Noleaneder long ago raised questions about Sources which raised WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations and you could not provide any reliable secondary sources to support the claim of the subject being faculty / staff. I found one source which says he is a dermatologist, one source that refers to his work on melanins and one source which says he is a Doctor in texas . Unfortunately that's it on Google Books. None of these sources say he is a faculty. Can anyone verify if all three are the same people? I very honestly agree these are not very reliable sources unless they are cited with qualifiers like the doctor has been nominally quoted for his works. Can we agree on such a compromise like this unless we can find a reliable, verifiable secondary source that says he is a faculty?-Wikishagnik (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I agree with user:nucleophylic that wp:blp allows the use of noncontroversial stuff such as degrees and employment history. If not that, then what? There are also several tertiary sources on the page, review articles, an editorial in Nature etc. which specifically note the importance of the subject and his research. Perhaps some editors do not understand what they say. Common here and a source of great frustration to technically-trained editors. Drjem3 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My $.02 worth:Revise my original input and concur with drjem3, for the reasons given. Why the fuss ? Clearly the bio page allows this type of information and is arguably written with it in mind. Bandn (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with prior editors requesting "article" Removal.

No Evidence Presented directly from Baylor and UTMB Galveston Human Resources Dept. verifying employment & improperly ref. claims.

Contrary Evidence Alumni database & a Chair indicates no employment.

Education degree/licensing in article as Dermatologist, Neuroscience & Bio psychiatry has No Evidence at Texas Medical Board possibly contrary information http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/OnLineVerif/Phys_ReportVerif.asp?ID_NUM=100876&Type=LP&LicensePermit=G3056. Report of Medical Board perhaps is partly a self-report from Dr. Proctor & given the accusations of misleading evidence alleged, requesting Misplaced Pages removal of Nucleophilic, Drjem3 & Dr. Proctor & now Bandn based on Smokefoote evidence of denigrating Nobel Prize winners pages, etc...Inhouse expert (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I concurr, lets take this to the administrator noticeboard as clearly the issue will not get resolved here. Unwillingness to address WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE basically hits the WP:NPOV pillar of Misplaced Pages and going around in circles about this issue will not resolve it. -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur as well, please open such a discussion at administrator noticeboard with a request for banning permanently from Misplaced Pages and/or article of Nucleophilic, Drjem3 & Dr. Proctor & now Bandn based on Smokefoote's reference below & perhaps as alleged, including but not limited to, attempted denigration of Nobel Prize winner(s) profile to perhaps prop up his own standing in the case of Nucleoliphic and Dr. Proctor which should be banned from Misplaced Pages permanently if such is verfied. This is also necessary so they can't just come back as Chanote & Smokefoote have pointed out Nucleoliphic has done repeatedly on the talk page, and just undo editorial decisions like ones we have worked so hard on out of this process. Please provide link to new discussion.

Reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 Smokefoote under "#What is his current position and what are his awards"

References

1. Henry B. Lin (1 March 2000). Chinese Health Care Secrets: A Natural Lifestyle Approach. Llewellyn Worldwide. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-56718-434-1. Retrieved 16 January 2013.
2. Nigel Kerner (19 January 2010). Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls: The Conspiracy to Genetically Tamper with Humanity. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. p. 442. ISBN 978-1-59143-103-9. Retrieved 16 January 2013.
3. Emmis Communications (January 1989). Texas Monthly. Emmis Communications. p. 152. ISSN 01487736 Parameter error in {{issn}}: Invalid ISSN.. Retrieved 16 January 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pelarmian (talk · contribs)
• Boundarylayer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, BoundaryLayer wants to include a controversial claim that its symbol, the well known peace sign, was used by the Nazis. Following lengthy discussion with BoundaryLayer, I reported the existence of the claim, citing Time magazine and Ken Kolsbun's history of the peace sign.

BoundaryLayer says it's not enough to report the controversy, the claim must be included as a fact. A Third Opinion advised that the article should remain neutral about whether the Nazis used the symbol or not. BoundaryLayer ignored that advice and added an edit saying the symbol was similar to "the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII in usage from 1941 until the end of the war. A number of experts in symbolism have noted that the CND symbol is similar to the Algiz Tudesrune, originally a Nordic runic symbol, but in present day Germany and Austria it is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or the inverted life rune."

This is tendentious editing. It synthesises sources that don't actually say that the CND symbol is similar to a symbol used by the Nazis. "Experts in symbolism" is also a tendentious phrase.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third Opinion requested.

How do you think we can help?

Advise whether or not the article should endorse this claim and whether the controversy is significant enough even to be reported, and, if so, in what terms it should be reported.

Opening comments by Boundarylayer

Hello, I haven't been ignoring the debate, I've simply not logged into Wiki in a few days.

The dispute resolves over the fact that another user does, number one, not wish for readers to know what ominious symbol the republican paper was referring to, and number two, and most bizarrely, they do not wish for the opinions of experts in symbolism, nor the opinion of the former head of the CND herself, to be included in the article.

Linked below is the edit that was recently removed. None of the references provided are in dispute. I would be glad to discuss with the other user, or collaborate on an edit that they would feel appropriate, however, sadly, this does not appears to be something they wish to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament&oldid=531168110#Organised_opposition_to_CND

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament discussion

Boundarylayer seems to be ignoring the discussion (see talk page of article), but I've left a comment on his talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer wants to insert into the CND article a statement saying that CND’s symbol was similar to “the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII” The claim is controversial and therefore needs particularly good references, which Boundarylayer does not provide. His edit synthesises sources to produce a statement that none of them makes and on the Talk page his lengthy justifications also contain synthesis and original research.

The source he cites for the “Algiz Tudesrune” is Carl J. Liungman’s Book of Symbols. What Liungman actually says is that the CND sign “can be seen as composed of a Tyr rune, lengthened upward, or by the rune Y, turned upside down." He does not mention “the Algiz Tudesrune” and he does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division. (Liungman, by the way, has an amateur interest in semiotics, has not published in refereed journals and is not recognised as an "expert in symbolism" by anyone with academic credibility. His Book of Symbols appears to be vanity publishing.)

Boundarylayer cites Time magazine, which says of the peace sign, “some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet,” but it does not mention “a Nordic runic symbol” and it does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division.

Peggy Duff, the ex-general secretary of CND, is said to support this connection between CND and the Nazis, but in the citation given she does nothing of the kind. She does not say that the CND symbol was the “Algiz Tudesrune” or a “Nordic” runic symbol (she describes it merely as a “runic symbol”), she does not say that “in Germany and Austria it is called the Todesrune” and she does not say that it was “the insignia of the 3rd Panzer Division.”

The controversial claims about the peace sign are already referred to in the article. This careless edit only adds Boundarylayer’s original research, which has nothing to do with the history of CND. Pelarmian (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I think Pelarmian is right about this. --BozMo talk 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH violation? - The primary article for discussing the peace symbol should be (and is) the Peace Sign article. That article already contains a mention of the purported similarity to a Nazi symbol. The article that is the subject of this DRN case is about the CND. The CND article should discuss how the CND participated in creating that symbol, but details about the history of the symbol should only be in the CND article if the sources mention the CND. I'm looking at the quotes from the sources above given by Pelarmian but I don't see a source that mentions both the CND and the Nazis. Connecting two sources together to cause the word "Nazi" to appear in the CND article is a violation of the WP:SYNTH policy. So, my question is: Is there a reliable source that explicitly mentions both the CND and the nazis? Absent that, the Nazi material should be removed from the CND article (but the readers can still learn about it by clicking on the Peace sign link). --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Inactivity: It's been six days since a DRN volunteer (Noleander (t c)) commented, and there have been no responses to their comment. If this is still an active dispute, please comment so we can get the discussion moving; otherwise, I'll close this discussion after 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Noleander The Times article link mentions both the CND and the Nazis. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909670,00.html#ixzz28e1dbekl I have consistently agreed with Peggy Duff that the similarity is not evidence of a conspiracy, merely a case of common symbolic heritage. Importantly however, as also noted in the times article- some experts say the CND symbol was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet.

As it stands now, the CND page does not include this factual statement. I have still not been furnished with an answer why?

Moreover Noleander, It is not that the CND symbol is purported to be similar to a Nazi symbol.

As the CND symbol is similar, that is obvious to see, according to both the designer and a former CND general secretary, the CND symbol directly derives its origins from a rune that signifies the death of man. These Nordic runes happen to also have been extensively used by the Nazi SS prior to the CND, which the runes article correctly points out. Furthermore, these runes are still widely used by Neo-nazi groups, and evidence of which is supplied below by the Anti-defamation league.

The Nordic alphabet was composed of Runes and on our rune page you will find the inner symbol of the CND, and yet further evidence that nordic runes were adopted by the Nazis. This really is elementary stuff and not exactly synthesis of material.

The similar origins of the SS(nazi) toten-rune to symbolize death and the CND symbol has undoubtedly whipped many fringe extremists up into claiming some sort of conspiracy. As this claim is commonly encountered, it is in everyones interests to once and for all explain that, yes, both symbols have the same runic origin, but, no, there is no evidence of CND & Nazi links, other than their use of nordic runes.

Getting back to the issue that Pelarmian appears to be trying to argue, it is patently undeniable that both symbols have the same origin.

As Peggy Duff, general secretary of CND between 1958 and 1967, stated that the CND symbol was previously a runic symbol' representing the death of man. It is not synthesis to link the Algiz/todesrune with what Mrs Duff stated, as she herself was referring to the todesrune when she spoke of a runic symbol representing the death of man. The only runic symbol that is similar to the CND symbol and that also represents the 'death of man' is the algiz/toten rune, a Nordic runic symbol for the death of man.

So it is plain to see that she was referring to this specific Nordic rune when she made that statement. Pelarmian's attempts at hand waving this statement away, made by none other than the former general secretary of the CND is bewildering, not least of which because the statement has been sitting on the peace symbol page for ages now without contention.

Here is Peggy Duffs original explanation of the origins of the CND symbol-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ratVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=peace-symbol&pg=3767%2C2358294

Similarly, Gerald Holtom the designer of the symbol itself likewise stated that the inside of the CND symbol also represented the death of man.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_sign_of_the_times

This explanation of the symbolism comes from Rudoph Koch's The Book of Signs, which is almost certainly where Holtom got his inspiration.

It should now be obvious that there is ample amounts of uncontroversial references to support that the CND symbol was formed from a Nordic runic symbol representing the death of man.

In this reference, which Pelarmian mischaracterized, the author refers to the CND symbol as a symbol that can be composed of the upside down life rune/todesrune and not the 'Y' rune as Pelarmian suggests, as there is no 'Y' rune. Pelarmian consistently mischaracterizes my edits and references, of which this is but one example. The source also goes on to correctly state that- In Germany and Austria (the upside down life rune) is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or an inverted life rune. However according to Pelarmian this reference does not mention “the Algiz Tudesrune”.

If you actually actually read the short paragraph it does indeed mention the todesrune, again, contrary to Pelarmian.

http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html

Exacerbatingly, these references are not included in the CND page due to Pelarmians concerted efforts to mischaracterize others and prevent the mainstream explanation of the symbol from being aired on the CND page.

Moving on now to the related, but seperate issue, of why the Nazis are commonly linked with the CND. A look at the symbol on the following page should quickly demonstrate why people would be forgiven for often linking the two symbols.

From the anti-defamation league The "Life Rune" symbol was also used by the Nazis on the graves of SS soldiers signifying the soldier’s date of birth (while the "Death Rune," an upside-down "Life Rune," was used to signify date of death).

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/groups_volksfront.asp

The two nordic runes to signify life and death are still in use by Nazi extremists.

With the symbol in the following ADL page, again, being identical to the CND symbol.

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/groups_national_alliance.asp

Another source that states the same thing as the ADL is the book - Hitler Youth, 1922-1945: An Illustrated History By Jean-Denis Lepage. On page 92: The toten rune/todesrune was the symbol of death used on SS documents and graves to indicate the date of death.

Similarly in this wikipedia page, it states the same thing in reference to the Todesrune.

Again for a deeper insight into the vast use of Nordic runes by the Nazi SS have a look at this - Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel.

Why is Pelarmian (A) so opposed to recognizing the origin of the CND symbol as a nordic runic symbol representing the death of man, when Peggy Duff former head of th CND stated as much? and (B) opposed to recognizing that both the CND and the SS death symbol have the same origin?

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Cinema of Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RTPking (talk · contribs)
• Vensatry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The mentioning of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as the Second largest Film industry in India is being disputed

RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please see the citations and proof presented by each side and decide who is right. RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Vensatry

The claim is highly subjective. Second by what means? No. of films produced, revenue or distribution? There are a lot of contradicting sources which say Tamil as well as Telugu to the second biggest in India. I came across a few sources claiming Tamil to be the second largest in India , and second in terms of revenue, distribution and star base. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh discussion

I can provide as many sources which state Telugu Cinema as Second,for instance

• www.georgetown.edu Paper Presented by S.V. Srinivas Ph.D in George Town University Washington D.C
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/ ------ Mentions Tamil third after Bollywood and Tollywood (Telugu cinema)

Most of these conclusions provided as citations which have been compiled by someone else's logic which may or may not be true, I suggest we disregard all these and each provide data backed by good Citations and based on which derive to logical conclusions. RTPking (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note (to DRN volunteers: I'm monitoring this matter as an admin, not an editor): Your suggestion is not allowed: we don't look at primary data and draw conclusions from it; rather, we go by what reliable sources say. As to the overall dispute, though, just because we have conflicting sources means we say nothing; rather, what we usually do is provide both sides of the story, with references, covering them fairly per WP:NPOV. Is there a way that the two of you could agree to this sort of set-up? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment about the two sources provided by User:RTPking: The first one is a paper presented by someone as a part of their research. I see no reputation of the person and he has never explained by what meas he claims the industry to be the second biggest. The BBC source is just a forum where many users have expressed their thoughts, lot of which were based on arguments from Misplaced Pages itself. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can provide as many good sources as you may need,

• http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telugu-industry-to-observe-shutdown-on-fri/112050-8-69.html
• http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/telugu-film-industry-mou-with-motion-pictures-association-of-america/article3205612.ece

I hope the above sources would suffice.

I agree with User:Qwyrxian ; RTPking (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Vensatry please mention whether or not you agree with Qwyrxian and mention your reasons. RTPking (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, i am a volunteer for the DRN. If I understood correctly the dispute is about mentioning Telugu Film Industry being the second largest in India? If so, let us understand that exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution (WP:NPOV) which means that we can have a statement like while such-and-such paper said in 2012 that the Telugu Film industry was number two in terms of revenue, in the same year so-and-so paper said that the tamil film industry was number one. So this discussion need not be about choosing this or that. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly I need to mention to you that it is already established that Bollywood has the first place, now this disagreement is about the second place whether Telugu or Tamil holds the second place.

Please see the above discussion as well as the Talk page of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh to find citations supporting Telugu Film industry as Second largest, and citations provided by Vensatry in this discussion stating that Tamil industry is second largest. My question is Vensatry has provided citations of the same news paper {The Hindu} for stating Tamil holding second position which also states Telugu as Second largest, but yet he want it mentioned in Tamil cinema but opposes being mentioned on Cinema of andhra Pradesh I suggest both articles mention this information and also the details that the other cine industry is also considered second simulateanously. I request Vensatry to comment whether he agrees to this solution, the same which User:Qwyrxian proposed. RTPking (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Mail Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jenova20 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Dreamyshade (talk · contribs)
• Pscorp19 (talk · contribs)
• Christian1985 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the addition of 2-3 lines detailing a controversy of a newspaper accidentally publishing the wrong article. Readers noticed that not only was it the wrong verdict in a court case, but that the publisher had made fake quotes and a further claim of a suicide watch order being placed on one person. This is reliably cited and User:Collect keeps removing all mention to the actual controversy, leaving only a biased statement playing down the incident as something a few other publications did. Not only do i find this incredibly biased protectionism, but it also removes the controversy aimed at the Mail Online. Further he has accused me of BLP violations for restoring it once as "censorship" with no discussion before hand (even though there is one on the talk page).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion going nowhere fast

How do you think we can help?

Deciding on appropriate wording of the section or clarifying if it should just state that there was a controversy, but nothing other rival publications didn't do (a biased and incorrect fact currently stated)

Opening comments by Collect

This is a "misuse of sources dispute" on two claims.

First is a claim whcih implies that the MO "published" an article with falsehoods therein, and did not remove it - where the "article" was visible online for all of a half hour and appears to have been a routine "placeholder" whose significance is being overstated by the wording of the claim made. I sought to have the claim represent what the source actually states as fact.

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, based on a possible upholding of the guilty verdict. The articles remained online until the announcememt of the reversal of the guilty verdict is a reasonable statement of the facts as presented in the sources given.

The second is a complete misuse of a source "Poynter" where I went to what the original source states.

In March 2012, Poynter published an article saying the MailOnline did not always attribute stories from other sources. Martin Clarke, editor of MailOnline said "We will soon be introducing features that will allow us to link easily and prominently to other sites when further recognition of source material is needed is a reasonable and proper statement of what the source actually states.

This is thus a dispute over how far a Misplaced Pages claim may misstate what a source says, and should be at WP:RS/N if the proponent really feels that the claim as that editor worded it is supportable by the source. Collect (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: The wrong article was online for all of 90 seconds according to strong reliable sources. The sources cited make clear that this was true of several newspapers, making that cavil errant. I do not think that using what the sources say is "biased" nor did I "remove criticism" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. A look at the talk page of the article suggests that there are a number of other editors involved in this dispute, most notably Dreamyshade, Pscorp19, and Christian1985 but there may be others as well. Is there some reason why they should not be included here and notified on their talk pages? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really -- but I suggest that the consensus on that article talk page makes this DRN moot. All editors but one agree on the wording I proposed as being neutral and BLP-compliant. Collect (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was notified on my talk page, and it looks like those other two editors were notified as well. For context, I started looking at this article after seeing a request on WP:3O. I'm OK with Collect's changes. There's a larger disagreement on the talk page about how to cover critical material, but since the article now has attention from multiple editors, we can hopefully work it out via talk page discussion. If that doesn't seem to be working, it could be helpful to have a dispute resolution discussion about the larger disagreement, not just a couple details. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I posted to the talk page with a suggested revision to improve the clarity of the Knox sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The other editors were notified well before you posted TransportMan, i just didn't see them as essential to this as at the time it was a disagreement mainly between me and Collect over censorship of information and is now over protecting the Mail Online from any criticism at all, no matter how much coverage it gets or how significant. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is evident - I try to maintain WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and get accused of "censorship" and "protecting the Mail OnLine from any criticism at all" which is a fatuous argument entirely. The "big issue" is how much weight to attach to a placeholder story accidentally released for 90 seconds online, and whether to say the MO "fabricated" the story in a lengthy paragraph. I suggest that a brief mention avoids UNDUE and POV issues. Jenova apparently feels that the claim of "fabrication" must be made in as lengthy manner a possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation, that's a crap argument from the Conservative wikiproject, which Lionelt used to use for the removal of information from Ex-gay articles, and which you are using to remove anything about a well sourced and reliably sourced criticism of the Mail Online making up a story in preparation and publishing it at the wrong verdict. This was caught and reported. Making your RS and BLP tags a smokescreen to remove the controversy, and instead wording the section to praise the Mail Online (That's the best one yet, while claiming the other wordings proposed are biased or undue weight).

The problem still persists between the me and Collect, but more opinions are welcome. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And i like your "lengthy paragraph" part, especially as my wording only adds 3 words to the one proposed by the third opinion (Dreamyshade) and your wording is longer than that!

My preferred wording:

• In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of fictional quotes and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".

Collect's:

• In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers accidentally released placeholder articles based on a possible guilty verdict in the Amanda Knox case. The Mail Online article was viewable for about 90 seconds, before being replaced with the article prepared for a "not guilty" verdict. The Mail OnLine apologized, and was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint. The PCC said 'It also welcomed the swiftness of the newspaper's response and its decision to examine its procedures in light of the events.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenova20's preferred version looks much more balanced, staying much truer to the source. Collect's version misdirects the reader toward a positive spin, misinterpreting the sources which are mainly negative. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to actually obey WP:NPOV and my "version" on the talk page quotes the PCC directly -- which I suggest is a good way to avoid POV wording. That you see NPOV as "positive spin" I find quite amazing, as I did Jenova's overt claim that I have a COI on the talk page. The PCC said that the actions taken to prevent any recurrence were commendable, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I posted to the talk page: The thing I'm seeing is that the MailOnline article was unusual enough for the PCC to go through the process of upholding a complaint about it, unlike the errors published by the other newspapers. If the MailOnline had published a brief prepared story reporting on the guilty verdict as if it had happened, this wouldn't have been particularly notable; the problem was that the MailOnline included "colourful" speculative details as well. I think these links show that reliable sources didn't consider it routine. The PCC complaint was not heavy though, balancing a reprimand for the story and details with an acknowledgement of removing it quickly and apologizing, so I want to include it but not overstate it.

Looking at Jenova20's modification of my proposal, I believe saying "fictional" quotes isn't supported by the sources, and the added "fictional quotes" phrase is somewhat redundant with saying "reactions that had not taken place".

Thanks to Collect for writing a proposal too, since it's easier to discuss this with specifics instead of abstractions. Here's what I said on the talk page explaining that I prefer my proposal: I believe saying "accidentally" and "possible guilty verdict" also isn't quite supported by the sources; according to the "quotes that seemed useful to me for reference on what happened" above, the articles were published on purpose since the newspapers thought a guilty verdict had happened - they were just mistakes. Is the term "set and hold" familiar to most UK readers, or do we need to define that if we use it? (I'm in the US and hadn't heard the term before looking at these sources.) It's also important to be clear that this event was about the appeal's upholding or reversal of the guilty verdict, not the original guilty verdict. I think we should also briefly summarize the PCC complaint instead of quoting part of it, to help with due weight.

Here's another attempt that tries to include the PCC complaint's positive elements:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

It's getting a little long, but we do have eight secondary sources to support it: . Dreamyshade (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page, Collect and I agreed on this version, with changes from "temporarily" to "prematurely" and "prepared" to "standby":

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers prematurely published standby articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Jenova20, what do you think? Dreamyshade (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and put that proposed version into the article. It's similar to the version Jenova20 preferred above, so hopefully this resolves the dispute. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't support any version which gives the excuse of the Mail Online but doesn't mention what the controversy was - creating fictional quotes and/or making up claims of Amanda on suicide watch. These are the issues people complained about, not that the wrong article was up for 90 seconds. What is the actual point of saying there was a complaint and the mail apologised when the reader can click the reference, see it, think "oh, that's quite bad", and wonder why Misplaced Pages instead reports on it as though it's a department of the Mail Online? Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also the 90 second part is an excuse from the Mail Online, not a definite fact. It is actually disputed by a few commentators and so its inclusion is controversial if not explained.Source 1Source 2Source 3

And for anyone who disputes the made up quotes still:

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that "justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail"

There's some quotes. Did they happen or were they made up? Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatculture also uses "personal blogs" per its solicitation for anyone to write for it. DigitalSpy says it was "swiftly deleted". WaPo says that an "Irish blogger" said it was online for some time - but bloggers != reliable sources. Thus you have precisely ZERO reliable sources for it being anything other than "swiftly deleted" (DigitalSpy). Thanks for showing the paucity of evidence that it was not removed swiftly. Collect (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's keep trying to figure out a compromise. Like I said on the talk page, the question is whether the quotes and suicide watch detail are remarkable/notable enough to qualify for weight in the article. The suicide watch detail was in the original MailOnline article, and the PCC complaint mentions it along with other details from the article, but the PCC summary and three of four articles on the complaint don't mention it, so I believe including it would be undue.

The quotes part is disputed by the Mail, so we can't simply say "fictional quotes" - this Press Gazette article says "According to a Mail insider, the quotes from the prosecutor were obtained in advance", and this later Press Gazette article says "According to the PCC, in its defence the paper said that the quotes had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial 'to be published in the event that the appeal was rejected"".

That Washington Post source is helpful. How about "within minutes" instead of "within 90 seconds"? That's vague enough to cover both the Mail's claim and other people's claims. I also added "and quotes" since a number of the sources did comment specifically on the quotes:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within minutes and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions and quotes that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Dreamyshade (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mail Online's defence of 90 seconds is argued against by others. If we report their figure, then for balance we need that it is disputed. Here is the version as it currently stands after i added tro it and removed colourful defences of the Mail, which were just opinion, and not factual:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial prematurely. The articles reported an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge had finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources, and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of events and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error. The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which parts you considered not supported by the sources ("just opinion, and not factual")?

Your text of "MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources" is less concise than saying "MailOnline removed the article within minutes", and this text needs to be concise to maintain due weight.

Changing "prematurely published standby articles" to "published prepared articles" brings back the problems that Collect and I discussed on the talk page - see "All stories are "prepared" in some sense or another" and "use "prematurely" to indicate that the articles were released before the paper could actually know the verdict". Your edit summary said "less excuses for what it was", but the previous wording was more clear about what happened.

Changing "reporting of reactions" to "reporting of events and reactions" is confusing to me - my intent with saying "reactions" was to cover the reported events, quotes, and other details. Maybe that's not sufficiently clear? In any case, my suggestion above is to change this to "reporting of reactions and quotes" since the sources seem to agree that the quotes were important.

Adding "The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false." puts undue weight on that detail according to my review of the sources, as I've explained above.

Splitting the first sentence into two sentences is OK with me if other people think that makes it easier to read, although I liked the balance of having one sentence about the general situation and one sentence about the Mail-specific situation. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence seemed too big to comfortably read. It read like terms and conditions to me, which is why i tried to split it up and reword it. I like your "reporting of reactions and quotes" part though. Can you do a new wording below? And i considered the suicide claim significant enough to mention. It is mentioned in most sources, and even if only quoted in some, it is still one of the made up events of the case whch i included because it was part of the complaint. Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IOW, you wish to present a POV article here and not abide by WP:NPOV? Sorry -- you would need far more than a mere consensus for that, and you do not have anywhere near a consensus for the edits you wish. Cheers. DRN can not negate WP:NPOV ever, and it will not do so now. Collect (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a new version to offer yet - I think my latest proposal above still balances the specific concerns I've seen and the sources I've read. I agree that the sentences are a little long, but I haven't yet figured out a way to split the first one without causing even more awkwardness. Collect, any comments on the proposal from 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) above? For the 90 second thing, here's the relevant part of the Washington Post column: "A spokesperson for the Daily Mail told the Press Gazette that the publication will look into the incorrect story, which they said was live for 90 seconds, though some commenters claimed it was available online for much longer." They take the other claims seriously enough to mention them, which may justify being a little vague. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC accepted the 90 second figure. That someone uses a cached system to view an article does not bring the 90 seconds into question. On AOL, the cache was sometimes updated only after some hours, and such events should not be imputed in any way to the Mail Online. "Available online" != "not removed at the 90 second mark" if you talk to anyone in the online communication area at all. In fact, it can take Misplaced Pages itself more than 20 minutes to update its own caches of articles! (technical load issues are a primary cause). In short, where the MO make a statement and the PCC acceots that statement, it is UNDUE for us to use unnamed "commentators" without identifying them specifically. Cheers. - I had thought was had an agreement on the language for sure. Collect (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mail Online is not a reliable source Collect. It's not made clear if the PCC say 90 seconds, solely because that is the defense of the Mail, or if they actually investigated the time it was up. What is clear is that there are reliable sources disputing this time given by the Mail. That's controversial.

And your message on my talk page was not appropriate. Read the sources and you'll quickly see it's all there. No one is trying to challenge NPOV, it's just a fantasy you have created. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And since when can NPOV be used to remove half a debate? I notice Collect finds the Mail's claim of 90 seconds notable, but not that multiple other sources challenge that time...That's not NPOV at all...it's almost like it's a violation of NPOV...Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Try again -- YOU chose to use the PCC result as a source - and when one uses a source, one uses the entire source. And that particular source ... gives the 90 second claim. It is NPOV to use all of a source, it is POV to cherry-pick from the source. Do you see the difference? And I note that your "multiple sources" include one which says "swiftly" (DigitalSpy) and one which is a blog, and one which quotes an "Irish blogger". I would further note that GoogleNews etc. do not refresh their results every minute (heck, neither does Misplaced Pages!), and that the one DigitalSpy noted that the link from such a source led to a deadlink -- meaning that the 90 seconds used by the PCC is the only reliably sourced time we have at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. Read WP:Reliable and get back to us on that one Collect. It takes more than that to rule a source unreliable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jenova, the "within 90 seconds" is the claim made only by the MailOnline, and therefore it cannot be used as a fact. Pscorp19 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you still want to claim there are no reliable sources? Another one. That's on top of the 3 from earlier. Thanks ツ Jenova20 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And the PCC report still stands as the definitive report which you specifically wished to use - so we get to use all of it. That Googlenews or the like link to a story which has been removed != any value at all. They frequently take a half hour to update their links. And your prior three sources had only one RS source say a blogger reported the story was live for a short while, while DigitalSpy (RS) stated "swiftly." Your blog source of course fails WP:RS. Now is there any value at all to your tendentiousnes on this? I would note your sources make naught of the "suicide watch" claim you sought to insert, or the multitude of trivia now found in that section including In April 2012, Salon magazine reported that MailOnline overhyped a story about Egyptian necrophilia law which Al-Arabiya took from a newspaper opinion column written by a dedicated Hosni Mubarak supporter. where there is no accusation the MO did anything wrong at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC got the 90 second figure from the Mail Online using it as their defense, which is not a reliable source. To mention it, you would have to attribute it to the Mail Online directly, rather than claim it as fact. That's misrepresentation of the sources Collect. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at "within 90 seconds" vs. "within minutes" as a question of finding the version that will cause less of an edit war. :) Can we take a quick survey of whether people would tolerate the article saying "within minutes"? Collect, can you provide details from the sources supporting that people's claims of longer availability (as noted in the Washington Post column) were caused by the article getting cached on other websites, so we can look at that in more detail? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC examined just about everything - and accepted the 90 seconds figure. I can assure you that Googlenews shows links which are "dead" on a common basis, and one of the articles cited stated that they followed a link from another page and found the actual article had been removed, though not removed from the referring site. As the only sources that it was not removed are bloggers, and we do not give weight to blogger claims as a rule, I suggest we stick with the PCC findings (including the fact they praised the Mail for its quick response - which they would not have done if they thought it was less than swift action). Collect (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to say the Mail's defense of 90 seconds (making clear it's what they said and not a fact) but also making clear that others dispute this, including the Washington Post. Going with one side over the other wouldn't be fair and the 90 seconds alone is a violation of NPOV since Misplaced Pages would be siding with the Mail against the sources available and ignoring their argument. And Collect, i am free to change my opinion. If your only defense is that i said something before changing my mind then you need a better argument. We're trying to figure out a wording here and you're trying to be childish and create divisions and arguments. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of out of ideas here - "within minutes" seems like the best option to me, but it sounds like neither of you are willing to go with that compromise. Are any dispute resolution volunteers available to step in and help? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Novi Sad, Novi Kneževac, Srbobran, Temerin

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Novi Sad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Novi Kneževac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Srbobran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Temerin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thehoboclown (talk · contribs)
• Account2013 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.71.180 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs).

As pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a hasty move and eventually these categories were deleted.

I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013, which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles given in the list, however, just after a short while these were also removed.

There have been a discussion, which came to a conclusion that the other user, after dismissed a proposed category name change, now also want to remove the above given list from a number of articles as well, which appears to be a whitewashing for me.

Since every attempt to find a solution was stucked at a point, I came to this place to get the issue resolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Brought to ANI, but it ended up nowhere.

How do you think we can help?

Declare whether adding the settlement list to the articles given in the list is appropriate.

Opening comments by Account2013

Opening comments by 79.175.95.39

Opening comments by 79.175.71.180

Novi Sad, Novi Kneževac, Srbobran, Temerin discussion

I've dropped a reminder on each of the other disputants listed reminding them that they need to respond. Pending them responding in 48 hours, I intend to close this filing as "Failed: Other disputants have gone idle". Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also this does not constitute the thread being opened. Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

talk:Paul Krugman

Failed. Editing warring on both sides has resulted in both sides believing the "no consensus" result means the content should go or stay. Last bold edit was to remove the content. 3RR exceeded and content should be returned per policies. Article has been locked until January 20, 2013. Little movement in dispute. Suggest Article probation and general sanctions for further edit warring. Recommend arbitration for conduct issues and formal mediation for content disputes. Amadscientist (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of_file_systems

Resolved. (I base this on posts left by Bienengasse on the user pages of the listing editor and Enric Naval, as Bienengasse seems to have accepted the revisions/corrections made by Enric and FreeRangeFrog on the talk page in question. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
• Devanampriya (talk · contribs)
• Takabeg (talk · contribs)
• Theman244 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The result of the battle is the topic of concern. I have presented multiple university sources that state three different results: Indecisive, Afghan victory and Sikh victory.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Talk page(blatant sourcing, quoting)
• Asking for advice on Project Military History
• Taking suggestions from Project Military History and copy/pasted them to Battle of Jamrud talk page

How do you think we can help?

We need a clarification to determine if we need to use what ALL university sources state about the result of a battle or to ignore specific university sources.

Opening comments by Devanampriya

Opening comments by Takabeg

Opening comments by Theman244

Battle of Jamrud discussion

Hello. I see that no volunteer has - as of yet - decided to hear and decide on this dispute. I will therefore do so unless there is an objection voiced by any party to this proceeding.

Preliminarily, I must state that I can do very little until all parties have posted opening statements and until I have read them. In order to keep this case moving swiftly, and to ensure that it does not clog up the dispute resolution noticeboard, I am going to ask the parties to post opening statements by Thursday 24 January 2013. I will not permit individual replies to individual posts. Rather, parties may write "consolidated" replies - i.e. the user "theman244" may write a reply to the opening statements of other parties as part of his reply post - individual replies to individual posts will make it difficult to keep track of this discussion.

Should parties object to this suggestion, please inform me, and suggest a better method.

--The Historian (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If no one has made opening comments within 72 hours, I will be closing this DR/N and ask that it be refiled on the 24th if there is still a concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism_sidebar#Parteiadler.3F

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:Nazism sidebar#Parteiadler.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• R-41 (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• Frietjes (talk · contribs)
• PRODUCER (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over template design. Two users support a new template, two users do not support the proposed template. Divided consensus. Frustration and distrust between users has become too high for a collaborative resolution between the four users there for the past few days. Now there are five users there with User:Collect arriving, he/she has not yet decided on what should be used.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for all users involved to work to write a Request for Comment that would include the template with the flag that I supported, the template proposed by DIREKTOR, and other templates. This proposal was rejected by DIREKTOR.

I proposed an alternative template using the overall template DIREKTOR designed, but using an angled swastika rather than the Nazi eagle. I believed the angled swastika alone was simpler in appearance. This proposal was rejected by DIREKTOR.

How do you think we can help?

Outside intervention to find a means to resolve the dispute. Frustration and distrust between users is too high for a collaborative resolution. Outside assistance will be needed to provide guidance on what can be done to break the divided consensus of 2 in favour of DIREKTOR's proposal and 2 opposed. For the past few days it has been 4 users involved, recently today the user Collect arrived today and made a comment on the matter, Collect has not explicitly endorsed any proposal though has said what he favours more, now 5 users involved as shown above.

Opening comments by DIREKTOR

This DRN thread, as well as the previous ANI attempt to have me sanctioned, have deliberately been posted after I notified the user that I am on vacation and unable to post (after one week of pointless discussion over this silly non-issue). This is just the latest in a series of provocations posted by R-41, in his campaign to have his own images remain in use on templates. I cannot participate here nor defend my position (which is no accident), and can only call for a postponement of several weeks. ¨¨¨¨

Opening comments by Frietjes

Opening comments by PRODUCER

Opening comments by Collect

I find the flag to be the "most common" symbol. The Hakenkreuz is used by too many other groups to be a valid single choice. The eagle is pretty, but also used in military items. Thus if it were a "vote" the flag wins. Personally, I think a more immutable symbol would be the "Arbeit Macht Frei" entrance. Collect (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism_sidebar#Parteiadler.3F discussion

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Himesh84 (talk · contribs)
• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Beeblebrox added tags based on consensus of a discussion. But he didn't add these tags. It was added by Obi2canibe. He hasn't contributed to content and he state he is not an expert on this subject. Unethically he has done this edit to mark first page as an orphan. Introducing of tags was objected and edit war was started since last September.

Currently there is no on going dispute on content. But there is a dispute on tags. Obi2canibe not specifically says what are the issues in the article. But they feel this page need tags. So how do I improve the page ? …This dispute was reported several days back in here. But it was ended saying this is not correct location. But two administrators pointed this is the correct location. I think Qwyrxian is not a party of the dispute. But I adding him too since I am not 100% sure. Himesh84 10:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Obi2canibe was asked to specifically state issues in the article from the talk page discussions.

How do you think we can help?

Obi2canibe has to specifically tell what are the issues in the article to put tags/improve page or not introduce tags.

Opening comments by Obi2canibe

Opening comments by Qwyrxian

I'm on wikibreak, but a quick look at the article tp will show that obi2canibe has clearly explained all but one ortwo of the tags, and i have as well. I don't know what more Himesh wants. Qwymobile (talk) (alt. account of Qwyrxian) 10:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka discussion

Opening comments by volunteer Sleddog116 (talk): Okay - I've read a little of the background of this case and am going to do what I can to help. First, let me open by saying I will keep my input limited until all involved users have had a chance to make their opening statements. (Obi2canibe has not made his opening remarks yet.) I have looked at the relevant discussions on the talk page of the article in question, and based on how heated these discussions seem to have become, I want to make a few things clear from the beginning. First (as the box at the top of the page says), this noticeboard is not the place to comment on user conduct issues, and any such discussion will be refactored or completely removed. Also, going further along that line, even commenting on content should be limited to improving the project. We do not make judgment calls on whether someone's edits are "lies" or "unethical" because that does nothing but inflame tempers. This is a place to work out solutions. It is not a place to air our frustrations (with edits or editors).

Also, to Himesh84, one small technical note: so that we have clarity, when you sign your posts, please do so with four tildes (~~~~). This makes it easier for everyone here to access you page and talk page quickly, which may be needed in some cases.

And one last housekeeping note: I would like to remind everyone involved (without singling out anyone in particular) that this article is under discretionary sanctions based on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more|this decision]] and logged here.

Now, that being said, I would like to begin by addressing the point that Qwyrxian made. Himesh, the "orphan" tag is purely a technical one. It cannot, by nature, be "unethical." An "orphaned page" is a page that no other articles link to. If no other pages link to this page, then it is, by definition, an orphaned page, which means that the tag would indeed be needed until that is no longer the case.

Any other content tags (such as the NPOV tag, etc.) are there because one or more editors feels there is a problem. The fact that this issue has come to DRN is proof that such tags are needed for the time being. However, rather than focusing on the tags, I suggest we focus on the problems themselves. The main contention is that the article is not neutral. However, there are other tags which have been disputed. The original AfD discussion in question (which took place nearly two months ago) has no bearing on the maintenance tags. Qwyrxian and Obi2canibe, why do you feel like this article needs the tags in question? I will leave the discussion there for now; we can generate more thorough discussion once Obi2canibe makes his opening remarks. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

American Psycho (film)

I'm going to quick-close this one as resolved as the filing editor appears to have accepted that a source is required (as indeed it is, see this policy). Remainder of request is a conduct matter not within the scope of this noticeboard. If new content disputes arise and cannot be resolved by thorough discussion, please feel free to file a new dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

Insufficient talk page discussion. The listing editor has made an initial case on the article talk page, but there has been virtually no response and certainly no substantial response as required by this noticeboard. Feel free to refile if discussion occurs, but comes to an impasse after substantial discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic

Procedural close. It is the requesting editor's obligation to include in the request all editors who have been substantially involved in the discussion and the number of omitted editors in this case would make it onerous to add and notify them manually and to create properly-formatted opening comments sections for each of them. Please feel free to relist, again using the automated listing form, but if so this time include all editors who have participated in the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New South Wales

Insufficient substantial discussion on a talk page as required by the guidelines of this noticeboard. The amount of discussion so far might qualify for a Third Opinion, but it's not enough for DRN. However, my real suggestion is to copy the discussion so far over to the article talk page, where it's supposed to be, then continue the discussion there so that other editors can have a chance to weigh in. If the discussion stalls or doesn't draw any more editors, then try a 3O, or come back here after there's been a real attempt to work out your differences. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Taboo (1999 film)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ugetsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sansho the Bailiff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Taboo (1999 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elvenscout742 (talk · contribs)
• JoshuSasori (talk · contribs)
• Ribbet32 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A number of Japanese films have different titles applied by separate American and British home media distributors. Several of these films are primarily known by their original Japanese titles in the UK and Ireland, but the article titles are the American names. I have tried numerous times to add the official titles used by the licensed distributors in the UK and Ireland to the intros of the articles. I have, however, been repeatedly reverted by a couple of users who seem to believe that the American titles of Japanese films are more official or important than the UK ones.

This is consistent with Misplaced Pages:NCF#Foreign-language films, which specifies that we should include variant titles of non-English language films, especially where a "variant" is the common title in an English-speaking country.

If articles on American films such as The Avengers (2012 film) give the UK title in the opening sentence, I don't see why the UK title should not be mentioned at all in the articles on films that aren't even American.

I have tried to discuss this problem extensively on two of the relevant talk pages (Talk:Sansho the Bailiff and Talk:Ugetsu), but have met with little more than dismissive comments, and the most recent batch of reversions include somewhat offensive language I find the use of the word "orientalist" particularly offensive, and I am getting tired of trying to discuss this on talk pages with no outside input. Can someone help?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried extensively to discuss this on two of the three article talk pages, drawing attention both to evidence and policy.

How do you think we can help?

Provide objective input on whether the titles used by the officially licensed distributors in the UK and Ireland should be mentioned in the articles' intros.

Opening comments by JoshuSasori

In all three cases, the alternative titles are already in the lead section of the article, immediately after the article's title and the name of the film in Japanese text. Per MOS:FILM, details on DVD releases of the films would be more appropriate under the "release/home media" subsection of the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ribbet32

Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Taboo (1999 film) discussion

• Comment I will note that in the case of Taboo (1999 film), User:Elvenscout742 has not provided a source for his claim, although the others do include a source that seems valid. That said, JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) seems unduly hostile and combative, and his summaries are borderline insulting and downright condescending: remove orientalist drivel, remove inane babbling, remove bibble-babble. That is not how we collaborate around here. §FreeRangeFrog 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to look through Elvenscout742's edit history. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Paul_Krugman&oldid=532478379#Endorsement_of_the_potential_issuance_of_a_trillion_dollar_coin
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532267338

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution