Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:30, 27 June 2013 editBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,775 edits →TALK pages for CORINA (Singer): fixing some links← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:21, 27 June 2013 edit undoYes Behind The No (talk \| contribs)70 edits →TALK pages for CORINA (Singer)Next edit →
Line 287:		Line 287:
	=== Opening comments by Amaury ===		=== Opening comments by Amaury ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div>

			==== Opening comments by Yes Behind The No====
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div>

			Thank you Andy The Grump and no need to apologize. I appreciate you explaining some of the ins and outs of how wiki works. I understand that this platform has its own checks and balances and I appreciate your taking the time out to explain them to me. As for the conflict of interest I completely understand and respect the guidlines. I do have one question however as far as the images go. I have no problems with the use of the images as they are all over the internet and used in varios ways, what I would like to know is how at the very least a photograph of me the Artist can be added to my profile as it is on many entertainers pages without it being a conflict of interest?

			Thank you for your time and consideration.

			Corina

Revision as of 03:21, 27 June 2013

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

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.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?	Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.	Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status\|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top\|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	18 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Anthony2106 (t)	1 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	Closed	Kautilyapundit (t)	17 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	12 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	21 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	On hold	Abo Yemen (t)	7 days, 18 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 23 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	1 days, 22 hours
Habte Giyorgis Dinagde	New	Jpduke (t)	2 days, 10 hours	None	n/a	Jpduke (t)	2 days, 10 hours
List of WBC world champions	Closed	Blizzythesnowman (t)	17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours

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 13:46, 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.

List of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 71.228.233.195 on 20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

Stale, no sign dispute has continued, listing editor may no longer be editing. May be refiled if dispute continues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Friginator (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I see the value in the "Home Video Availability" column in the episode guide. I expanded it by adding home video availability of online digital episodes for sale through the 2 vendors that offer them. The updated information has been removed numerous times, and now the entire "Home Video Availability" column. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking on the user's page. How do you think we can help? Please restore the removed information. Opening comments by Friginator Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. While I appreciate that 71.228.233.195 has decided to try other means of resolving this issue, I feel like I've said all I can say about this relatively minor subject here, on my talk page. Basically, 71.228.233.195 recently began listing video streaming services that the show is made available through on top of the preexisting (and bloated) list of various DVD and VHS releases. I've pointed out on multiple occasions that the only episodes of the show available through "Instant Video" services have already been released on DVD by the same distributor (Shout! Factory). The episodes being streamed even use the same cover artwork as the DVDs. I see no reason to add the words "Amazon Instant Video" over and over again next to every episode available online. Especially considering the fact that as of now, 71.228.233.195 hasn't provided a single source. At this point, I have informed the user (who did not respond on my talk page before opening this discussion) that I have removed the "Home Video Availability" Column from the article altogether. This is something that, in my opinion, has been needed for a while. First of all, because every single home video release of the series is listed on a separate article dedicated to that subject specifically. This means that any information listed in the column could already be found in its own article. My second reason for the removal was that for years it seemed to attract violations of WP:CRYSTAL. Every time an episode was scheduled for a future release, someone would almost immediately list that release next to its respective episode. There is also the issue of this becoming a case of WP:FANCRUFT. Who besides diehard fans of the show is going to care whether or not the episode featuring Boggy Creek II: And The Legend Continues was released on a VHS tape or not? And I can't say I appreciate the fact that this user has begun reverting all of my edits to the page, even if they have nothing to do with home video availability. List of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes discussion I would strongly recommend refering the edit warring behaviour to WP:ANEW -- Nbound The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Friginator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I see the value in the "Home Video Availability" column in the episode guide. I expanded it by adding home video availability of online digital episodes for sale through the 2 vendors that offer them. The updated information has been removed numerous times, and now the entire "Home Video Availability" column.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking on the user's page.

How do you think we can help?

Please restore the removed information.

Opening comments by Friginator

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

While I appreciate that 71.228.233.195 has decided to try other means of resolving this issue, I feel like I've said all I can say about this relatively minor subject here, on my talk page.

Basically, 71.228.233.195 recently began listing video streaming services that the show is made available through on top of the preexisting (and bloated) list of various DVD and VHS releases. I've pointed out on multiple occasions that the only episodes of the show available through "Instant Video" services have already been released on DVD by the same distributor (Shout! Factory). The episodes being streamed even use the same cover artwork as the DVDs. I see no reason to add the words "Amazon Instant Video" over and over again next to every episode available online. Especially considering the fact that as of now, 71.228.233.195 hasn't provided a single source.

At this point, I have informed the user (who did not respond on my talk page before opening this discussion) that I have removed the "Home Video Availability" Column from the article altogether. This is something that, in my opinion, has been needed for a while. First of all, because every single home video release of the series is listed on a separate article dedicated to that subject specifically. This means that any information listed in the column could already be found in its own article. My second reason for the removal was that for years it seemed to attract violations of WP:CRYSTAL. Every time an episode was scheduled for a future release, someone would almost immediately list that release next to its respective episode. There is also the issue of this becoming a case of WP:FANCRUFT. Who besides diehard fans of the show is going to care whether or not the episode featuring Boggy Creek II: And The Legend Continues was released on a VHS tape or not?

And I can't say I appreciate the fact that this user has begun reverting all of my edits to the page, even if they have nothing to do with home video availability.

List of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes discussion

I would strongly recommend refering the edit warring behaviour to WP:ANEW -- Nbound

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

Michael Gambon

– Discussion in progress. Filed by ÓCorcráin on 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Michael Gambon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

ÓCorcráin (talk · contribs)
MarnetteD (talk · contribs)
Jon C. (talk · contribs)
93.107.203.0 (talk · contribs)
Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk · contribs)
109.76.180.162 (talk · contribs)
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs)
Ukexpat (talk · contribs)
Dmcq (talk · contribs)
Scolaire (talk · contribs)
Τασουλα (talk · contribs)
JAJ (talk · contribs)
Billtheking (talk · contribs)
Filastin (talk · contribs)
Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk · contribs)
Noleander (talk · contribs)
FormerIP (talk · contribs)
Spanglej (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unfortunately like so many disputes that occur on Misplaced Pages, this one revolves around the nationality of a notable actor, specifically his Irish nationality.

The original stable version of the lede backed up with references contained mention of his Irish nationality. However, recently within the last few months, the article was hijacked by an influx of editors who have been involved in many content disputes surrounding nationality, but not all of them, due to nationality disputes it is the nature of nationalistic editors to become entrenched and apathetic towards compromise, this obviously causes problems. Though I am sure some of them will accuse of me being the same. Anyway the lede was changed without consensus, his Irish nationality was removed just to say English instead.

The reason for this was because of an interview nearly two years ago where it was claimed the figure in question explicity renounced his Irish identity and heritage. However this is untrue and more recent interviews and news articles contradict this assertion.

In this discussion that took place these three editors decided to change the lede just to say English without any discussion or consensus. Now they will not revert or compromise claiming that there is 'no consensus' despite the latter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Some of us tried and wanted to reach a compromise which included both his Irish and English nationality and heritage. However it was met with hostility and incivility and so I regret to say I lost my cool. I then opened an RfC but that went nowhere either just more incivility. There is no sign of this abating so I am asking for outside help to resolve this.

How do you think we can help?

By being an unbiased and impartial party who resolve this in a rational and neutral manner and reach a compromise.

Opening comments by MarnetteD

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Jon C.

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 93.107.203.0

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Allthestrongbowintheworld

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 109.76.180.162

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Gareth Griffith-Jones

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Ukexpat

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Dmcq

The person was born in Ireland but brought to London when they were five, given British nationality and grew up and learned their craft there. I don't think it is right to just say 'Irish' in the lead with no qualification but then again just saying English or British isn't quite true either. I would go for something like English actor born in Ireland or even 'Irish born' and leaving the rest of the article to say what that means. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Scolaire

I see two problems here. First, as I said in my contribution to that discussion, self-identification is one of the the least useful criteria of nationality in most cases, especially with somebody who says "I am Irish" or "I am not Irish" depending on the interview or the time of year. Second is the notion, as one participant put it, that "an interview from 2010 trumps one from 2004." Gambon had said in 2004, "I had a slight Irish accent - because, you know, I am Irish..." but when asked in 2010 did he "feel Irish" he answered, "No, been here too long." I can't see how the idea that the later trumps the earlier meets any Misplaced Pages policy, or indeed how deciding a person's ethnicity by what the person said about himself meets any Misplaced Pages policy. WP:V requires only that content be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. WP:UNDUE requires that no view be given undue weight. There are comparable numbers of sources saying that he is Irish, English, British, Irish-English, Irish-born English etc. It seems to me that "Irish-English" or "Irish-born English" is the most balanced under those circumstances. Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Τασουλα

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by JAJ

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Billtheking

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Filastin

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Blue-Haired Lawyer

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Noleander

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by FormerIP

Although nationality on bios can be tricky when it comes to the UK and Ireland, there's a well-established principle, set out in WP:LEAD, that we should not confuse nationality with ethnicity. In this case, it appears to be well-sourced that the subject of the article has dual nationality (Irish and British), so this is the information to include in the lead. We should do this using a full clause, not a hyphen, since this style may be subject to confusion with a description of ethnicity. Where he lives, how he feels, what his voice sounds like and so on do not change the basic fact regarding his nationality(s). Formerip (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Spanglej

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Michael Gambon discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Greetings; I have self-assigned myself to your case. At this time, I am merely writing this to inform you that I am going to help resolve this dispute. To start with, I would like parties to briefly summarise their arguments, with specific references to the diffs and/or other evidence that they wish to cite in that brief statement. I would prefer that this be done sometime tonight, and I will return to this topic sometime in the morning. Obviously, if you are unable to provide brief summaries by tomorrow morning, please drop me a message on my talkpage, telling me that you have seen this comment, and that you will be posting the requested summary soon - this is just to make sure that I know that you know what's going on.

--The Historian (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sykes Cartoons(Lundeen and Cartoon sections))

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jghapher on 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC).

No issue re linkspam, insufficient talk page discussion in regard to benefit of link apart from linkspam issue. See complete explanation in discussion section below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute See Users involved Jghapher (talk · contribs) Orangemike (talk · contribs) Fat%26Happy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On June 11th, user:Jghapher added external links to 22 entries. Links were to to specific political cartoons from the online Sykes collection (http://dig.library.vcu.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/syk). User:Fat%26Happy flagged these as linkspam. User:Orangemike argued that that there was value in the Ernest Lundeen and Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party additions. Upon further discussion User:Fat%26Happy also cited that the external links in addition to being linkspam did not add significantly to the understanding of the subject, especially as cartoons. Simultaneously, other users restored the cartoon links on two articles (Walter Johnson and John Nance Garner). The articles in question are Ernest Lundeen, Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party, James Farley, 1940 World Series, Hiram Johnson, Harold L. Ickes, Uncle Sam, Francis Townsend, Earl Browder, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Joseph F. Guffey, Fulgencio Batista, Martin Dies, Jr., Yosuke Matsuoka, Joseph Taussig, 1941 World Series, Pierre Laval, Adolf Hitler, Army–Navy Game, Walter Johnson, John Nance Garner, John L. Lewis. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Some courteous discussion on talk page referenced above. How do you think we can help? Help determine if these edits were linkspam and if they should be reinstated as external links. Opening comments by Orangemike Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Fat%26Happy Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. User talk:Fat%26Happy (Lundeen and Cartoon sections)) discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not opening this for discussion at this time, but want to ask the involved editors to clarify the dispute. I'm not sure whether this a dispute over whether or not the links are linkspam or whether is it a discussion over whether or not they are proper external links independent of the linkspam question, or both. It seems to me that they are pretty clearly linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." My opinion is that rule isn't really open to appeal. It exists so that we don't have to continually get in difficult-to-resolve fights over the quality of the links and the motivations of the introducing editor every time this happens. To allow an appeal in the form of discussion of whether or not the links really are or are not linkspam would defeat the purpose of the rule, which is to avoid that very discussion. However, once the links are removed it doesn't seem to me that the fact that they were once procedurally linkspam doesn't forever brand the links as linkspam, nor does it settle the question of whether or not they are appropriate for the article. Just because the motive of the original introducer was spammy (and I do not mean to imply that was or was not the case here), doesn't mean that the link is not appropriate for the article (as is clearly implied by WP:EL#ADV; third party editors can decide whether it is or is not. So it appears to me that there are only two possible issues here: Are the links linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."? Are the links appropriate for the article, as decided by the consensus of parties other than the original introducer? As to the first question, I don't believe that there's really any room for discussion, but I could be wrong; please clarify if I am wrong. As to the second question, the discussion appears to have raised that issue in reference to one particular link in one particular article, but that the question has not been discussed at any length at the venue listed above. This noticeboard is, per its guidelines, only for content issues which have received extensive discussion at a talk page. Unless someone either (a) can give some particularly good reason that the rule in the first question should not apply or (b) can point to a place where extensive discussion of the second question has taken place between editors other than Jghapher it is my intent to close this request after 20:00 UTC on June 25. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute See

Users involved

Dispute overview

On June 11th, user:Jghapher added external links to 22 entries. Links were to to specific political cartoons from the online Sykes collection (http://dig.library.vcu.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/syk). User:Fat%26Happy flagged these as linkspam. User:Orangemike argued that that there was value in the Ernest Lundeen and Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party additions. Upon further discussion User:Fat%26Happy also cited that the external links in addition to being linkspam did not add significantly to the understanding of the subject, especially as cartoons. Simultaneously, other users restored the cartoon links on two articles (Walter Johnson and John Nance Garner). The articles in question are Ernest Lundeen, Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party, James Farley, 1940 World Series, Hiram Johnson, Harold L. Ickes, Uncle Sam, Francis Townsend, Earl Browder, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Joseph F. Guffey, Fulgencio Batista, Martin Dies, Jr., Yosuke Matsuoka, Joseph Taussig, 1941 World Series, Pierre Laval, Adolf Hitler, Army–Navy Game, Walter Johnson, John Nance Garner, John L. Lewis.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Some courteous discussion on talk page referenced above.

How do you think we can help?

Help determine if these edits were linkspam and if they should be reinstated as external links.

Opening comments by Orangemike

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Fat%26Happy

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

User talk:Fat%26Happy (Lundeen and Cartoon sections)) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not opening this for discussion at this time, but want to ask the involved editors to clarify the dispute. I'm not sure whether this a dispute over whether or not the links are linkspam or whether is it a discussion over whether or not they are proper external links independent of the linkspam question, or both. It seems to me that they are pretty clearly linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." My opinion is that rule isn't really open to appeal. It exists so that we don't have to continually get in difficult-to-resolve fights over the quality of the links and the motivations of the introducing editor every time this happens. To allow an appeal in the form of discussion of whether or not the links really are or are not linkspam would defeat the purpose of the rule, which is to avoid that very discussion. However, once the links are removed it doesn't seem to me that the fact that they were once procedurally linkspam doesn't forever brand the links as linkspam, nor does it settle the question of whether or not they are appropriate for the article. Just because the motive of the original introducer was spammy (and I do not mean to imply that was or was not the case here), doesn't mean that the link is not appropriate for the article (as is clearly implied by WP:EL#ADV; third party editors can decide whether it is or is not. So it appears to me that there are only two possible issues here:

Are the links linkspam under the rule that, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."?
Are the links appropriate for the article, as decided by the consensus of parties other than the original introducer?

As to the first question, I don't believe that there's really any room for discussion, but I could be wrong; please clarify if I am wrong. As to the second question, the discussion appears to have raised that issue in reference to one particular link in one particular article, but that the question has not been discussed at any length at the venue listed above. This noticeboard is, per its guidelines, only for content issues which have received extensive discussion at a talk page. Unless someone either (a) can give some particularly good reason that the rule in the first question should not apply or (b) can point to a place where extensive discussion of the second question has taken place between editors other than Jghapher it is my intent to close this request after 20:00 UTC on June 25. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Syria

– New discussion. Filed by APerson241 on 20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Coat of arms of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The conflict is between myself and editor 178.61.44.13, regarding an edit of theirs that I reverted because I believed it to be vandalism. The edit in question removed the portion of the article that dealt with the Syrian National Coalition. The user who made this edit then reverted my revert; when I responded by reverting his revert, he notified me via my talk page that "you are syrian ? , you are welcomed to edit syrian articles , you aren't syrian , so you aren't welcomed".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Deciding whether or not the edit in question is vandalism and whether or not it should be reverted.

Opening comments by 178.61.44.13

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Coat of arms of Syria discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

TALK pages for CORINA (Singer)

– New discussion. Filed by 66.108.71.215 on 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Corina (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dispute overview

My name is CORINA Katt Ayala. Among other things I have been a recording artist. Someone has created a page about me and the information is not accurate. In the meantime I and my assistant made some changes to help the article along and it was first vetoed by an ANDY THE GRUMP and then after trying to leave messages on the Talk page explaining I was in fact the artist there were violation/copyright infringement notifications posted by other parties.... Amaury and yet another known at Bbb23. I am a bit confused and trying to resolve this issue without offending anyone. I am in fact just trying to help the wonderful work they have already done by adding to it. I am not a WIKI wiz and am just getting acquainted with it. Who can I talk to ASAP so this can be corrected and everyone can stop being so offended. I AM THE ARTIST IN QUESTION. What will you need from me to prove this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mostly messages in the TALK section because I have NO idea how to do anything on here. I can write songs, screenplays and Direct but this has me at a complete loss! This is all vey complicated and full of different procedures for different issues. Im not so sure I am in the right place even now but I'd really like to resolve this.

How do you think we can help?

Contact these people and have the contact me. I can be reached at yesebindtheno@gmail.com I would gladly share the information with them, I just need this to be accurate as I'm sick of all the incorrect information on the web about me AND other artists getting credit for my work. There are suddenly tons of Corinas and I have been involved in a legal issue with at least one of them over using my exact font for her name to confuse people into thinking she was me. Please help.

Opening comments by Andy the Grump

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I think I'd better start by apologising on behalf of Misplaced Pages for making editing and communicating so difficult - it can be daunting for a beginner, especially if things start to go wrong.

Regarding the article itself, it will certainly be useful if you can confirm that you are indeed Corina - I'll check up on exactly the best way to do this. There are however a couple of things that you'll need to understand about the way Misplaced Pages works, and why there are problems with the article beyond copyright issues. Firstly, this in an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to present a balanced account of the subject matter, rather than being written as promotional material. Secondly, and related to this, articles are intended to be based on published material, and unsourced self-authored content is unlikely to be acceptable. We strongly discourage writing autobiographical articles, and we have a conflict of interest guideline which makes clear the issues that this raises. I can see no reason why the article cannot be expanded upon beyond the state it was in prior to your edits, if suitable sources can be found, but I'm afraid that the content added by you is likely to be seen as far too promotional to be accepted.

Returning to the image copyright issue, we would need to see confirmation that you do indeed own the rights to any images uploaded, and I think I should probably point out that it might possibly not be in your best interests to upload them - the creative commons license allows such images to be reused elsewhere (subject to certain conditions), and you might well find them being used in ways you didn't intend.

I am sure there are other things that will need explaining, but hopefully I've given you some idea of where we stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bbb23

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Just two comments. First, the IP has a registered account: User:‎Yes Behind The No. She should be editing from there only and not using an IP address (in other words, always log in to your registered account when accessing Misplaced Pages). Second, based on the history, she should probably confirm that she is indeed Corina. She should look at the procedure at WP:IDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Amaury

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Opening comments by Yes Behind The No

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Thank you Andy The Grump and no need to apologize. I appreciate you explaining some of the ins and outs of how wiki works. I understand that this platform has its own checks and balances and I appreciate your taking the time out to explain them to me. As for the conflict of interest I completely understand and respect the guidlines. I do have one question however as far as the images go. I have no problems with the use of the images as they are all over the internet and used in varios ways, what I would like to know is how at the very least a photograph of me the Artist can be added to my profile as it is on many entertainers pages without it being a conflict of interest?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Corina

Categories: