Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 25

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.

---

• Anthropology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Public Anthropology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

As an instructor at a university, I have my upper-level Anthropology Theory students writing Wikipedia entries for their class assignment. In all of the cases so far, their entries have been removed. It seems surprising that this should happen in every instance, and I am inquiring if this is a common occurence. For the Anthropology entry, we have tried to add material to it, and a user Maunus has taken down everything within 24-48 hours. We have gone to the talk page, and tried to resolve it. He has also personal message'ed one of the students with his concerns about our entry, which could be seen as an intimidation tactic. At this point, no one is able to add anything to the Anthropology main page. The talk page for Anthropology lists concerns with Maunus up to a year ago, so this has been a long-term prolbem. We have also added some material under Public Anthropology. It was removed immediately, as well. This one seems like it could be a bot problem, and we will try again.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Esherwood (talk · contribs)
• Backwardswithtime (talk · contribs)
• Xlinkbot (talk · contribs)
• HaleyAnneS (talk · contribs)
• Maunus (talk · contribs)
• lpetrillo (talk · contribs)

While Maunus is trying to maintain material at an appropriate academic level, he might perhaps be using this critique to his own advantage rather than on academic merit alone. As a scholar, with a Ph.D, and over ten years of university teaching, I feel that I have assessed the academic merits of their entries and that they are suitable.

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Anthropology, Public Anthropology}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

Some guidelines on contributing Wikipedia could include the stats on how common it is for an entry to be removed. At this point, our stats on trying to enter material make it a frustrating task.

Lpetrillo (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 184.2.174.194 (talk · contribs)
• 184.2.174.194 (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:184.2.174.194}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

184.2.174.194 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 5, 2012 at 22:48 (UTC) because a third opinion has already been requested Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• College Prowler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Repeated section blanking and promotional language edits by what appears to be the company's own staff

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Collegeprowlermktg (talk · contribs)
• Shorn_again (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=College_Prowler}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Reverted edits, identified as vandalism. Left note on user's talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Protect page or block user.

Shorn again (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

According to me it is a general case of vandalism, I'd prefer block. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 04:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Electromagnetic radiation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

The page contains a comment which is incorrect and not based on any citations or research. I updated it with references to peer-reviewed journals. The "editor" (who has no expertise in this field) removed my edits with his original, incorrect comments. The reason he gave for doing it is that my comments were based on original research.

Here is the full discussion:

Effectively a piece of text backed up by a large number of cited peer-reviewed research papers has been removed by the "editor" and replaced by a comment which is incorrect and which shows a complete lack of understanding of the field. Quite why a seminal paper from 1979 in a respectable international journal would be inappropriate is entirely unclear.

It is abundantly clear that the editor is abusing his position to censor material which he doesn't like and has no respect for the credibility of Wikipedia.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? Myself plus an "editor" called "Srleffler".

• TopGarbageCollector (talk · contribs)
• Srleffler (talk · contribs)
• Vsmith (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Electromagnetic radiation}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I modified my first text to include more specific references. Clerk Comment: Discussion is on User Talk:TopGarbageCollector

• How do you think we can help?

Find an editor for this page who respects Wikipedia's principles, rather than somebody who is using his position as a little ego trip.

TopGarbageCollector (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Thank you for coming and using DRN. First of all, as part of the board's rules, is not a place to deal with disputes purely about user conduct issues. However, we do accept disputes where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes. Therefore, can we stop the accusations of bad faith and abuses of power? Secondly, is there a reason why the suggestion about the subpage Electromagnetic radiation and health is not an appropriate location for the content you would like to add? As the article is of significant importance to multiple projects taking a radical change for almost any reason is strongly discouraged. The only thing that bugs me, as an editor/reader, is that there's not a "Main Article ..." link to the subpage in the section.Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a major mistake in this page: EMF does *not* affect organisms primarily through a heating effect. I tried to correct it and my corrections were vandalized by the editor. Unfortunately the editor has no background in this field and doesn't understand the research I have cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

TopGarbageCollector, I'm delighted to hear that you are familiar with the formal literature. You will therefore have no trouble directly citing proper review articles and/or major textbooks and reference works to support your material. Please see WP:MEDRS for more details, and keep in mind that we particularly appreciate it when people include a PubMed id number at the end of citations. PMID is a WP:Magic word on Wikipedia, so just type "Pmid" followed by the number, and it will automagically create a link, like this: PMID 12345678.

Also, it is important that you cite recent works. Primary papers from 33 years ago are really not desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to have been a few misunderstandings here. TopGarbageCollector thinks that I reverted him twice, with two contradictory complaints about references. In fact, I reverted him only once. The second revert was by Vsmith. I think that TopGarbageCollector may also not understand that his text is saved in the edit history; he was frustrated at having to re-write his contribution from scratch.

TopGarbageCollector's change to the article was to add claims that low-frequency (nonionizing) EM radiation causes "profound physiological effects ... interferes with neuro-transmission, damages the integrity of the blood-brain barrier and affects cell growth," and "can lead to very significantly increased rates of cancer". This differs from my understanding, but I am admittedly not an expert in the field. I was concerned, though, because the claims sounded like they might be fringe science, so per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABLESOURCES I removed them and left TopGarbageCollector a note indicating that better sources are required before this material can be included. The only references provided in TopGarbageCollector's original posting were two links to the homepage of a group called the "BioInitiative Report". It did not appear that this meets Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source", and citations generally have to be to specific material not merely to a home page. I have no objection to TopGarbageCollector's text if references can be provided that demonstrate that this is a consensus view in the field (not merely that somebody somewhere has published this view.) If there is debate about the matter in the scientific press, both points of view will need to be discussed, rather than just one.

Subsequently, TopGarbageCollector posted a much better version of the material, which addressed the difference in opinion by saying that there has been a change in the views in the field in the last twenty years. He supported his edit with three references to journal articles. Vsmith reverted his edit, and recommended that he add the material to another article. I gather that he expressed concern on one of the talk pages about the references being to primary sources. I disagree with Vsmith about putting the new material only in Electromagnetic radiation and health. If TopGarbageCollector is correct and the consensus in the field has changed, the material in Electromagnetic radiation should be edited to reflect the fact that there has been a change, and to describe the new understanding of the issue.

I will leave it to editors more familiar with the material than I to evaluate whether the three new citations are reliable sources, and whether they are appropriate sources for the material. It seems to me, though, that while primary source citations are sufficient to say that there has been research in an issue and to say what the findings of that research are, they are not sufficient to confirm that a change in consensus in the field has taken place. For that, one requires citations to reliable secondary sources that ideally discuss the change in consensus, or at least clearly describe a consensus view that agrees with what TopGarbageCollector has written. --Srleffler (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Since TGC is a newcomer, I think it might be useful here to note for his sake that the problem with scientific papers as direct sources for Wikipedia edits is that sources used for Wikipedia articles must be such that they can be understood, and understood correctly, by the average layperson. If their meaning would not be clear and unambiguous to an average layperson, then they're not, generally, acceptable sources because the purpose of citations in Wikipedia is to allow the average reader to confirm for himself or herself that what is said in Wikipedia is backed up by a reliable source. That is because the primary standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is, under the verifiability policy, verifiability, not truth. As you can see, that is quite unlike the way citations are used in academia (and law, for that matter) in which citations are given to prove the truth of what is being said in an assertion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: If I might anticipate your reaction to what I just said, it may well be "Well, I'm and expert and even if a layman cannot understand the paper, I can interpret it for Wikipedia." Wikipedia's reaction is (and see the note I left on your talk page for more background about experts and Wikipedia), "Well, how do we know that you're an expert and even if you are an expert how do we know that you're in either the mainstream or the credible opposition and are not on the lunatic fringe?" Because that question cannot be answered without a great deal of difficulty and uncertainty, Wikipedia's no original research and primary source policies prohibit such interpretations, whether by laypeople or by experts. — TM 20:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: I restored the previous posts and have tried to render TopGarbageCollector's responses as best I could. Please do not re-factor other editors comments to insert your reply between the context. It makes the conversation discussion difficult to follow. Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem very familiar with academic research. Links to books are not primary sources, and are subject to bias. If I am making a claim that "EMF radiation affects biological systems regardless of any heating effect" this can only legitimately be backed up by specific research which demonstrates this. In any case, much of this material is new, and is not in "major textbooks and reference works" - it typically takes many years before new research finds its way down to that level.

In my second edit I added three references to original peer-reviewed research. This edit was removed. Wny? It was replaced by an opinion which was not backed up by anything. Why?

Please see WP:MEDRS for more details, and keep in mind that we particularly appreciate it when people include a PubMed id number at the end of citations. PMID is a WP:Magic word on Wikipedia, so just type "Pmid" followed by the number, and it will automagically create a link, like this: PMID 12345678. Also, it is important that you cite recent works. Primary papers from 33 years ago are really not desirable.

Again, this shows that you really don't have much of a background in science. Charles Darwin's works are constantly cited - because they are *primary sources*. They are more than 33 years old. Typically the first, seminal paper in a field is cited.

There seem to have been a few misunderstandings here. TopGarbageCollector thinks that I reverted him twice, with two contradictory complaints about references. In fact, I reverted him only once. The second revert was by Vsmith. I think that TopGarbageCollector may also not understand that his text is saved in the edit history; he was frustrated at having to re-write his contribution from scratch.

This is correct. But neither change made any rational sense.

Instead of antagonizing people by vandalizing their text and writing patronizing comments it might be better if the "editors" (if they can be called that) actually *looked at* the references before criticising them.

TopGarbageCollector's change to the article was to add claims that low-frequency (nonionizing) EM radiation causes "profound physiological effects ... interferes with neuro-transmission, damages the integrity of the blood-brain barrier and affects cell growth," and "can lead to very significantly increased rates of cancer". This differs from my understanding, but I am admittedly not an expert in the field.

...if you know nothing about something it's best to keep quiet.

I was concerned, though, because the claims sounded like they might be fringe science

If you had taken the trouble to *actually look at the reference* you would have discovered that it isn't.

Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABLESOURCES I removed them and left TopGarbageCollector a note indicating that better sources are required before this material can be included. The only references provided in TopGarbageCollector's original posting were two links to the homepage of a group called the "BioInitiative Report". It did not appear that this meets Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source"

You are not in a position to make that judgement. Unlike you, I have actually *read* this report. It is 610 pages long and consists of summaries and reviews of many hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. If you are not capable of independently assessing the value of an edit you *should not be an editor*.

and citations generally have to be to specific material not merely to a home page.

You quite obviously didn't even open the document before pronouncing it as "unreliable".

I have no objection to TopGarbageCollector's text if references can be provided that demonstrate that this is a consensus view in the field (not merely that somebody somewhere has published this view.

This is childish. Science doesn't work by "consensus" like a Japanese board meeting. It works on the basis of peer-reviewed articles in credible scientific journals. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should not mention *any* research showing effects of EMF on cell biology until there is some kind of majority decision? Mr Wales himself says, quite clearly, that *controversial statements shoul be backed by citations". Your *controversial* statement that EMF has no effect on cell biology except through warming is backed up by nothing other than your own self-confidence.

If there is debate about the matter in the scientific press, both points of view will need to be discussed, rather than just one.

So why do you keep on censoring the one you disagree with?

Subsequently, TopGarbageCollector posted a much better version of the material, which addressed the difference in opinion by saying that there has been a change in the views in the field in the last twenty years. He supported his edit with three references to journal articles. Vsmith reverted his edit, and recommended that he add the material to another article. I gather that he expressed concern on one of the talk pages about the references being to primary sources. I disagree with Vsmith about putting the new material only in Electromagnetic radiation and health. If TopGarbageCollector is correct and the consensus in the field has changed, the material in Electromagnetic radiation should be edited to reflect the fact that there has been a change, and to describe the new understanding of the issue.

Can Mr Vsmith (who is a geologist, by the way) please *apologise* for his presumptuous deletion of my text and *reinstate it*.

I will leave it to editors more familiar with the material than I to evaluate whether the three new citations are reliable sources, and whether they are appropriate sources for the material.It seems to me, though, that while primary source citations are sufficient to say that there has been research in an issue and to say what the findings of that research are, they are not sufficient to confirm that a change in consensus in the field has taken place.

I realise that you don't have a research background. However, you seem to have a very naive understanding of the way science progresses.

For that, one requires citations to reliable secondary sources that ideally discuss the change in consensus, or at least clearly describe a consensus view that agrees with what TopGarbageCollector has written.

I am not wasting any more of my precious time dealing with the precious little Hitlers and Goebbels which inhabit Wikipedia. It has been clear to me for some time that the content of the site is so tainted it's valueless. After having dealt with a couple of the editors, I now understand why.

Clerk's note: Since TGC is a newcomer, I think it might be useful here to note for his sake that the problem with scientific papers as direct sources for Wikipedia edits is that sources used for Wikipedia articles must be such that they can be understood, and understood correctly, by the average layperson. If their meaning would not be clear and unambiguous to an average layperson, then they're not, generally, acceptable sources because the purpose of citations in Wikipedia is to allow the average reader to confirm for himself or herself that what is said in Wikipedia is backed up by a reliable source.

No wonder the articles on Wikipedia are riddled with mistakes. In any case, I included a link to a review which anybody - even a Wikipedia editor with a background in optics or geology - could understand. That was also rejected (although the 'editor' didn't even both to read any part of it before passing judgement) The truth is that the text is clamped down and that so-called editors are simply people with no expertise in the field who are paid a full-time salary to sit in front of their computers and stop any edits.

That is because the primary standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is, under the verifiability policy, verifiability, not truth.

In that case, why is the existing quote, which is backed up by **nothing** still there? If the only sources are original research because *there are no text books on this subject* then they are obviously better than NOTHING. Again, the truth is that the entire process of "editing" is a front.

As you can see, that is quite unlike the way citations are used in academia (and law, for that matter) in which citations are given to prove the truth of what is being said in an assertion.

This does at least explain why Wikipedia articles are so hopelessly out of date, riddled with errors, and dominated by the wishes of powerful industry lobby groups. Thank you for your insight.

Supplement: If I might anticipate your reaction to what I just said, it may well be "Well, I'm and expert and even if a layman cannot understand the paper, I can interpret it for Wikipedia."

Thank you for your patronizing little aside. No, I wasn't thinking that.

'Wikipedia's reaction is (and see the note I left on your talk page for more background about experts and Wikipedia), "Well, how do we know that you're an expert and even if you are an expert how do we know that you're in either the mainstream or the credible opposition and are not on the lunatic fringe?"

Ah. This gets to the heart of the matter. Wikipedia has nothing to do with 'truth', 'credibility' or 'evidence': it's more like a very old, out-of-date text book full of mistakes.

If it helps, here is a quote from a reliable secondary source: "Research reported so far, has revealed several problems, including not good reproducibility of experimental results, absence of linear relationship between cause and effect and absence of totally measured, proposed action mechanisms. The large and rapidly increasing number of recorded biological effects cannot be simply explained by temperature increase inside the exposed tissue, (thermal effects), but it looks that they can be explained if we take into account "non-thermal" mechanisms as well. However still some scientists and institutions do not accept the existence of non-thermal effects." --Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields By Peter Stavroulakis

Quite what makes this a 'reliable source' I don't know. Is it a book? Is it a review article? Is it Mr Stavroulakis' website? You have a very, very bizarre idea of what constitutes "reliable".

To TopGarbageCollector: Such secondary sources are readily available, and should be used to back-up any primary sources. However, be careful not to combine info to demonstrate a novel hypothesis, (see WP:Synthesis [Not accusing, just pointing this rule out].) It might also help to overview the WP:Manual of style. The encyclopedic style of writing used here is very different from the academic style thet you're probably used to.

I agree. It's more like that of a British tabloid newspaper.

Changing to a style very much like the above quote will help a lot in getting others to accept your edits.

Seriously: I have no intention of wasting any more time dealing with this nonsense. At least I now know why Wikipedia is such a joke. I will penalize any of my students who dares to *mention* Wikipedia in my presence!

I am concerned that TopGarbageCollector is affiliated with http://www.bioinitiative.org the group that the citations all focus on.

I am not, obviously.

But here's a thought: why don't you put your "concerns" as a reference and then include them in a Wikipedia article?

I am seeing that the sections of the survey paper there utilizes a number of peer reviewed sources and uses authors who are by all evidence professionals and expert and recognized in the field. However, I am not seeing sources or citations of this work to establish by peer review that it's felt within the field to be the current best understanding.

The report is 610 pages long. *This* is what is referenced. Scientists - as opposed to tabloid newspaper editors who work for Wikipedia - want *evidence* rather than the personal opinions of book writers.

It's unclear if this is a research group or a well-educated advocacy group. Citations of the work would be helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be quite clear if you *took the trouble to actually look at the report and see the backgrounds of the scientists who compiled it*

Revision as of 19:40, 7 April 2012 TopGarbageCollector

Clerk Notice: End of rendered comments.

First, I've just formatted a citation needed request for our new user on Electromagnetic radiation - Biological effects. The material I reverted earlier was supported by two primary research articles and by one article from the 1970s - rather dated it seems for "new" information. I suggested the content might better belong on the health effects article rather than the main article as that seems the preferred location. If added there, a brief note could be added in the main article. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, here is a quote from a reliable secondary source: "Research reported so far, has revealed several problems, including not good reproducibility of experimental results, absence of linear relationship between cause and effect and absence of totally measured, proposed action mechanisms. The large and rapidly increasing number of recorded biological effects cannot be simply explained by temperature increase inside the exposed tissue, (thermal effects), but it looks that they can be explained if we take into account "non-thermal" mechanisms as well. However still some scientists and institutions do not accept the existence of non-thermal effects." --Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields By Peter Stavroulakis

To TopGarbageCollector: Such secondary sources are readily available, and should be used to back-up any primary sources. However, be careful not to combine info to demonstrate a novel hypothesis, (see WP:Synthesis [Not accusing, just pointing this rule out].) It might also help to overview the WP:Manual of style. The encyclopedic style of writing used here is very different from the academic style thet you're probably used to. Changing to a style very much like the above quote will help a lot in getting others to accept your edits. There are many editors, myself included, who would be happy to assist. Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that TopGarbageCollector is affiliated with http://www.bioinitiative.org the group that the citations all focus on. I am seeing that the sections of the survey paper there utilizes a number of peer reviewed sources and uses authors who are by all evidence professionals and expert and recognized in the field. However, I am not seeing sources or citations of this work to establish by peer review that it's felt within the field to be the current best understanding.

It's unclear if this is a research group or a well-educated advocacy group. Citations of the work would be helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 6, 2012 at 21:44 (UTC) because the listing editor has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to resign from editing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Welsh Valley Middle School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A new editor seems to be under a serious misapprehension about what Wikipedia is: they think it's for listing clubs, sports activities, names of houses, etc. in articles about middle schools. They don't seem to know what reliable sources are or what is and isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps one of you can have a look, and maybe explain to them why WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is a valuable essay.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rickyisgreen (talk · contribs)
• 66.168.247.159 (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Welsh Valley Middle School}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

See edit history, and user talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

You can explain what Wikipedia is. I'm not getting a lot of help here, though there is one other user (User:Ducknish) who knows that this isn't right, but since they falsely accused me of vandalism they can't back down.

66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: First thing. Both Editors need to step away from mass adding/deleting content from this page. This is non-negotiable. The next person who add/deletes large sections of content from this article is getting hauled up before the edit warring noticeboard and a request for page protection will be filed as both of you are edit warring. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, Hasteur, you're strict. I appreciate your involvement: you're a straight shooter and you know a thing or two about article content. Note that I haven't reverted their last addition of tit-bits. Note that what I deleted was not just unencyclopedic but also unverified. Finally, note that the editor saw fit to remove what I added: the only properly verified information in the article. Maybe Dicknush can give them a warning for vandalism. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure he was talking to you as well. I did notice a lack of any content on the talk page of the article. This is usually the first step taken to resolve an edit conflict, not here. I'm wondering why that wasn't tried first? Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

• Dennis, that's obvious, that he's talking to both of us. Talk page--because I'm not getting any younger and the instructions I'm looking at ("Encyclopedic content must be verifiable") are right there, in plain English. Note: I have used plenty edit summaries. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad you are up on the guidelines, but he has been on Wikipedia less than 48 hours and he might not be. This is why I asked about the talk page of the article, which is a great place to explain guidelines, offer suggestions and avoid disputes. By "not getting younger", I'm guessing you mean that you were in a hurry, but I don't want to assume, because that would kind of sound bad in the full context of things. It looks like your first edit to the article had the summary here we go again. this list is not acceptable. look it up at WP:EL" which might be a little on the biting side for a new user. Coming here might be more convenient for you, but I'm not sure there is a content dispute as much as a new user that needs some assistance in understanding some of the guidelines you are saying he is violating. I see he has tried to communicate on his own page and talk page asking you about why you removed "so much data" and is still learning the system. Some of his comments were answered but to be honest, you are pretty rude to him. I added a Welcome template. He might be incorrect in understanding of the guidelines, but I don't think he is the problem here. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

• I have notified User:Ducknish that he has been mentioned here, as the IP hadn't. After reading more from this IP, this is starting to look boomerangish.[1] etc Dennis Brown (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Dennis Brown, maybe you can get off your high horse and see what, if any, justification Ducknish had. He's already been lectured by an admin for rollback abuse, reverting my edits, and what he needs to do is apologize. But that's neither here nor there. Maybe I'm at DR because I'm looking for a kinder, more patient person than myself to help this other editor out? And maybe you, like Ducknish, should be less concerned with "registered account" than you seem to be. Oh, "here we go again": I've edited hundreds, maybe thousands of such school articles. SCHOOLCRUFT was written with poor schmucks like me in mind. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ducknish was mistaken, that isn't the issue. You telling him to "fuck off", and having a talk page worth of other rude comments goes to the point I'm trying to make. Your rudeness to him, this new editor, and others is disturbing, to the point of being highly disruptive. You have been warned about this previously, but you don't seem to understand. No amount of good contributions changes that. I've already contacted the new editor, explained a couple things, and told him I will help him with any questions. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for linking me to this, Dennis. Unlike 66.168, I've attempted to some degree to explain the use of citations/sources to the new editor in question. If 66.168 was willing to cooperate I'm sure we could work together to help explain Wikipedia to Ricky, but I suppose at the point you start switching someone's name into Dicknush you've gotten a bit too temperamental to try achieving something productive. Ducknish (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed your efforts. What is disturbing is that surely everyone knows that the editor in question is likely a young teenager trying to join and participate on Wikipedia, completely in good faith. I'm hoping Dicknush takes a little time and continues the effort. And 66.168.247.159, if you are going to bite every new user that is editing in good faith but unaware of our guidelines, then we are not better off for your efforts. It isn't about being on a high horse, it is about having the good sense and taste to be respectful of others, particularly when you disagree. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly what I've been trying to say. The reason I reverted his mass blanking of the added content in the first place is that there are better ways to help Ricky improve the article than removing everything and acting like he's stupid for not knowing any better. Ducknish (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't lie. You reverted it saying "vandalism", not "let's help another editor out." Still can't get your story straight. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is an essay. It thus can be completely ignored.Curb Chain (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's nonsense: you'll find the same type of guidelines on the Schools project, at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. Look at that page and the names on top, and tell me if you want to ignore Kudpung and tedder. The only thing that's being ignored here is Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. But you know what, I see how it is. You all know that the new editor needs to be held by the hand because he has a username, though he hasn't written a word worth saving. The IP editor, who edited according to WP guidelines, who removed cruft and added verified content (which none of you were decent enough to even restore--whether that's out of laziness or something worse, I don't know), is wrong cause he's not nice enough.

  I withdraw my case, before one of you gets it in their heads to report me for vandalism or some nonsense like that. Middle schoolers can go on to write school articles, and assorted registered editors can go on pissing on everything, including essays, guidelines, RS, and especially the "anyone can edit" part--that is, editors who for one reason or another don't wish to sign up or log in. Because if I had logged in, this entire discussion wouldn't have been necessary, because Ducknish wouldn't have had the balls to revert and cry "vandalism", and you wouldn't be fawning all over the party who doesn't know what he's doing here. I can't wait for the next batch of vandal warnings on "my" talk page. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Mantas Šiaučiūnas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A user named "Creative" has deleted a biography of a living person, which is an abuse of administrator rights, since there are many biographies of various people on Wikipedia. Please, comment or send a feedback to mantas.siauciunas@smpf.lt.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Creative (talk · contribs)
• Escogido (talk · contribs)

The delete notice is the following (in Lithuanian): 21:16, 27 kovo 2012 Creative (Aptarimas

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Mantas Šiaučiūnas}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes

• How do you think we can help?

To restore the article or restrict user's Creative rights.

193.219.137.245 (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello there, and thank you for posting here. This appears to be a complaint about lt:Mantas Šiaučiūnas. As such the engligh language Wikipedia does not have any impact on the Lithuanian wikipedia's policies/editing. Hearing no reasonable objections, this post will be closed down in 24 hours as it's not even something that we could resolve. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• List of wars involving Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of wars involving Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

a discussion has been going on about the convenience of using simple list or tables in this 2 articles. i argue that simple lists are easier to read and edit, while MarcusBritish and Dpaajones favor the use of tables. MarcusBritish and i have been the most involved in the discussion [2], but we have reached a point where he doesn't want to argue anymore and to just leave the article the way it is, which is the state he favours.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Andres rojas22 (talk · contribs)
• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs)
• Dpaajones (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet. Yes, he has.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.

• How do you think we can help?

mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing,

Andres rojas22 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

This is a waste of editor's time. Andres simply cannot accept that his method of converting populated tables to basic menu-like lists was border-line disruptive, cutting the GB article down from ~46,000 to ~6,000 characters in one swoop [3] with no regard for the stability or previous input by other editors, and war editing over this format. The matter was discussed between himself and Dpaajones based on the false premise that basic lists offer more functionality (see User talk:Andres rojas22#Explain yourself). Dpaajones invited uninvolved editors via WT:MILHIST due to the continued reverts. I performed a WP:BRD revert and updated the article from bog-standard HTML table to Wikitable and various MOS tweaks. Several MILHIST members support the Wikitable format and not the List. Andres refuses to accept the format, or content. He has not given a good account of the benefits of lists in this case, and if he believes he has, they do not amount to the reasons why a table is required here, per WP:WHENTABLE. The content is multi-level and requires several columns. Andres "proposal" to reduce the content to 3 columns is nonsense: 3 column tables might just as well be presented as lists, so it's really a motion to herd the article in the wrong direction, i.e. quality assessment would degrade, to a very basic layout, with loss of valuable data. Andres has yet to explain why he prefers this minimalist approach, only saying that the data is in each linked article. Firstly, articles are not self-referring and do not refer to other articles, only wikilink. Second, the format he chooses looks little more than a disambiguation index page, and is not good quality. Finally, researchers should not be expected to have to go through dozens of articles to learn the specifics when they can be summarised on one page, in a table, as is the point of such articles. The article is short on citations, but that does not make it "wrong", simply requiring further development. Such articles can lead to FL quality, whilst basic lists rarely exceed the "junior encyclopedia" mentality to be rated as anything above List/Start class. If we're supposed to be developing an encyclopedia here, reverting articles from multi-column cross-referenced to tables into bullet-point lists is backwards, and does not help anyone. It not not aid readers, does not advance Wikipedia, does not result in high quality lists. The format and arguments presented by Andres are misguided and ill-suited to the articles in question and he simply does not accept that the majority have spoken in favour of the present format. The consensus, or support for tabular format over basic list, by MILHIST members speaks for itself, a DR cannot be used to override the views of several other editors against one editor who simply has an WP:IJDLI agenda against tables and flagicons. His claim that I am opposed to basic Lists is also invalid, I am simply opposed to their use in this instance, and reducing articles to low-level organisation. As I said, the conclusion has already been reached, if Andres feels the need to revert the format again, against current consensus, I will simply raise it with WP:AN as a war editing issue. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding:

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

i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.

• This isn't only my opinion, other editors support it. So there is no dispute between me and Andres alone, but me, others and Andres solo. The discussion on the talk page clearly shows that he refuses to "get it" and accept that his edits were not acceptable.

• How do you think we can help?**

mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing,

• I should like to note that I am third party. The issue was originally between David and Andres on his talk page. David invited uninvolved MILHIST members, making me third party. DR is now fourth party. What next Andres.. Arbcom? The matter has simply been elevated because Andres refuses to accept that the opinions of his preferred list format have been out-weighed. DR needs to stop this editor from shopping for support when his argument becomes exhausted. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I am not going to waste any more of my time on this matter - I ask that any arbitrator read: Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format .2F content. Furthermore, there are several more editors who agree with my stance on this matter, and none who agree with User Andres (this can be seen on the talk page of the British article, which I have just wikilinked). Thank you. David (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

History lessens normally gives the start and end (death) date for both wars and people. The previous Great Britain webpage give the dates this allows the reader to see where wars overlap something that the articles on each war rarely say. Who was on each side and the out come are interesting. The information is a summary that permits the effect of the war to be determined. Andrew Swallow (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

David Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you have avoided discussion since the issue started and tough the original discussion was between me and you, MarcusBritish has been the only editor truly committed to discuss, until recently at least which is the reason i opened this request.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been no polling, as has already been made clear. However, a number of editors from MILHIST supported my arguments and reasons for keeping the current format. This constitutes as a form of consensus, and indicates that more editors prefer the tabular format. A consensus does not have to result in a happy-medium, when it is clear that 4 editors disagree with you and you alone. You have suggested that readers/editors prefer lists for functionality, and though asked to invite such people to comment, have failed to do so, which means the claim in unsupported. You refuse to accept a majority opinion and are attempting to push your own preferences (POV pushing) against the majority via this DR. The matter is simple: You changed articles from tables to lists without considering the consequences, you engaged in reverting the opposition to your edits, and as a result the editor, David, was forced to invite outside views. MILHIST members have given their views in support of the original format, not for lists. That is a form of consensus, not a poll. The discussion is pointless because you refuse to accept any views other than your own, and have offered no reasons for your dislike of the tables, apart from suggesting that they don't look good on archaic 800x600 monitors, which, to be frank, is just tough-luck, Wiki can't expect to support old resolutions only used by ~1% of the population. Because the discussion is not making any ground either way, it is required for us to consider the balance of the !votes, as we can hardly expect for an article to be completely changed for one soul editor only. Consensus doesn't have to mean that we use any of your ideas, unless you can prove their benefit. Given that we know that a 3-column table layout with a few words per cell is little more than a bordered list, your only suggestion is neither practical nor efficient use of wikitables. As has been said, the use of dates, flags and outcome helps give readers a broad overview of Great Britain's history of war, whereas a list provides little more than a directory of wikilinks, but nothing material. Such lists lack encyclopaedic value, hence my derision of them as "menu lists", you get the names of the meals, you don't get the ingredients and recipe. That's what leads articles to becoming FLs, rather than lingering in the low-quality List category. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

those are your opinions, i'll refrain anymore comments from my part until an arbitrator takes the case.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not my opinion, this is fact. At no point in these comments [4] do we see any evidence of "polling". We see editors supporting my argument without feeling the need to expand on or repeat it. That does not qualify as a poll in any sense of the word, in policy, or anything else for that matter. What it does indicate is opposition to your changes, but no expansion to the discussion, because there isn't a suitable format that can be used between List and Table that would be practical. So we should be sticking with what is popular and considered acceptable. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hi everyone, I'm a regular contributor at this noticeboard. This is a tricky situation to deal with, and the guidance given by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines doesn't seem to be conclusive here. MarcusBritish linked to the guideline WP:WHENTABLE above, and this is what it has to say on the subject: "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." So to follow this guideline, we need to consider what data we want to show in the list - but that is the exact thing that this dispute is over. So this guideline doesn't look like it is going to be too much help here.

Next, we have Andres's argument that using tables makes the list look cluttered, and the other editors' argument that not using tables leaves out useful information. I think both of these arguments are valid, and I'm not aware of anything in policy that would guide us towards choosing one over the other. The only policy that applies here that I know of is that we must follow consensus. MarcusBritish made the insightful point, however, that we should consider how best to get the list to featured list status. If we look at the featured list criteria, we can see that criterion 5a is: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." So it seems that using tables would be more likely to get the list to featured list status than not using them. Whether this criterion is fair or not is open to debate, but it seems to be a good reason to use tables in absence of other guidance.

Having said this, in the end it will be consensus that decides what ends up on the page. Contrary to Andres's comment above, we do not do arbitration on this noticeboard. We cannot make any binding decisions here, I'm afraid. If people's opinions don't change, then to get a clear decision on what to do it would be necessary to take this question to an RfC. However, given the number of editors in favour of using tables so far, I'm not sure that an RfC would have a great chance of being successful. Andres, it's up to you if you would like to try or not, but you should be prepared for the fact that things might not go the way you want them to. Because this is a collaborative project, there are times when you will not be able to get your way. It might be that this is just one of those situations where you have to let things go. Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your commentary im glad to see you understood everyone's thoughts. i don't have a die hard opinion, since i started the discussion i came with an open mind an willing to compromise to reach a common understanding. i dropped my case for the conversion to list for the sake of consensus but the information contained is excessive and must be reduced in some parts to make it easier to read and write, right now it doesn't look like a big issue but the list today only covers a tiny percentage of the conflicts that involved Great Britain in the era (including many small colonial wars) that when they are added to the list will make it a torturous process for a reader/editor to check the list looking for a war. that being said, since i accept the table format and i believe that would make the consensus, we could end the discussion here and just continue normal editing, but i have the feeling MarcusBritish and i would still clash about the table's style and disposition, he has pretty strong ideas of what he wants. would you recommend to continue the discussion over the style of table or is it enough that we agree that tables are good for this 2 articles? and Marcus what do you say? --Andres rojas22 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr S. has pointed out that WP:WHENTABLE begins with "Often a list is best left as a list." As I have noted before, this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table. To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national ties. In this case, the table format was used first, and reverting to a list is bound to bring opposition. I don't have strong views on behalf of myself, or the subject, as I have no previous involvement with this article, afaik. I have strong views in terms of what is presentable, and best relates to policy, MOS, readability, etc. Wikitables are virtually auto-styled once the class is attributed, from there it's a matter of creating rows/columns/data. I do not believe that Andres makes a valid point with regards to "as the table gets bigger, the content is too difficult to edit", because there are many large rand more complex tables on Wikipedia, some FL, which are stable and well-managed. Wikitables are simple markup, not complex HTML tags, and so there is no reason for any editor to have major difficulties updating, expanding or editing the content. As for readers, I stand by my belief that a basic list is little more than an index of wikilinks and conveys nothing of value, a 3-col table is just a list with borders and of little value, and a table offers the best way of displaying the data in rows and columns, chronologically, and it's hardly nuclear physics to read down and across a table of only 6 columns. I don't think there's anything else can be discussed, I've given my bit, and other editors agree with the table. I think an RfC would simply allow for more MILHIST editors to support the present table format, as we use them a lot in that project, and Andres would simply be wasting further time and resources to confirm an outcome that has already been determined thrice already, between himself and David, with me, and here with Mr S. noting that an RfC would likely be pointless. I think it's a matter of Andres just letting this one go, as I don't think the table can be reduced anywhere near as much as he hopes, and given that there is more potential for expansion rather than reduction, he could end up digging a hole for himself if he continues to bring attention to the matter. There are plenty of historians out there might find a reason to knock on an extra column or two, because.. because they can, if they have reason enough to believe it is valid, reliably sourced and beneficial. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 15:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

you haven't been able to find a common ground or at least try. plus your management of policies and guidelines has been full of flaws: every policies or guideline you have cited supports my arguments.WP:WHENTABLE shatters your argument of the convenience of tables over lists:

If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

— WP:WHENTABLE

If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

— WP:SAL

you're argument that "this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table" is weak, just because the article did not begin as a list it does not mean that it's table material. the main point is to: "consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." not who was first the table or the list.

then you say:

To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national tie

I'm puzzled by this statement, how does a guideline related to the naming of an article relates to the formatting of lists? you have repeatedly made some odd arguments using the policies and guidelines during the discussion.

and WP:TABLE also says:

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians. Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning.

— WP:WHENTABLE

--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah... perhaps the only thing that is "shattered" or "weak" (weasel words of a persistent WP:BATTLEFIELD nature) is the fact that your initial, and continued argument fails to convince anyone that lists have any superior, logical, or "obvious" benefit over tables. And per your quote:

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table

The data is tabular, and no it isn't a bloody "group of links", it's a 6-column chronological table with dates (not wikilinks), wars (wikilinked), the aggressors (auto-wikilinked), and outcome (not all wikilinked). So in essence, your point here is ill-conceived, and you don't seem to recognise the differences between "simple" and tabular. As for indicating that is may be harder for Wikipedians to edit, the quote is out of context, because that only applies to where tables have been misapplied to minimal lists. There is nothing "simple" about 6-cols worth of data, over a useless dates/wars menu.

I suggest you rethink your first four sentences because they were bollocks! As is your repeated non-sensical dislike of tables. Nothing you said here is anything but subjective personal opinions, and a further waste of time. Your WP:COMPETENCE is questioned here. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

if you're not capable of argumenting you're thoughts with policies and guidelines then just let go of the discussion, don't reply to my arguments that i have supported with 2 guidelines, of which the main points of the extracts are even highlighted in bold text with a disrespectful mock calling them ""Blah, blah, blah.... i take this as what it is, if you're not serious about discussing then let it go, don't make me waste my time writing arguments well based in policies for you to mock.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap. The fact of the matter is that you're repeating the same arguments over and over, like a stuck record even with several editors against your views. I think you need to take you own advice and drop the matter yourself, before someone dies.. of sheer boredom. Of course I'm mocking you.. this vain attempt of yours to discredit tables by responding with subjective nonsense.. the same subjective nonsense you were saying a week ago.. is now laughable and cannot be taken seriously. The guidelines/policies/MOS say nothing that supports any good reason to change from tables to a list. And you've no presented a convincing reasons to reduce the table considerably, because they are fairly lightweight as is. So the matter really is closed, because the article is stable and looks fine, as agreed by other editors. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. There's no reason to change the article, because no one supports your pro-list claims. And consensus doesn't mean we have to do anything to suit your demands, only that we're listened and dismissed them. DR concluded. Go find something else to do, this WP:STICK is now rotten. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

you are no judge to declare the discussion has ceased just because you cant come with a decent argument to support the use of tables, every policy and guideline you have misused as supporting you're arguments i have clearly shown shown they support mine's and contradict what you say, the most blatant example being WP:WHENTABLE. of course you don't want to discuss, you cant prove your points! try at least to comprehend a guideline before just randomly throwing a link as "proof" of your opinions. mocking a user who is trying to have a debate is a clear breach of WP:CIV, as is offensive and provocative remarks as "Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap". arguments are sustained by policies and guidelines not by attacking the other party--Andres rojas22 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Waffle.. I see lots of words, but nothing of value. I don't need to provide anything further, other than to indicate that the current format is wider supported and stable. You can change it, but if you do I'll refer it to the war editing board as contrary to consensus. This discussion is over, because you clearly have nothing to say but the same empty words. So I have no reply other than: consensus wins in the form of three or four editors rejecting you wanting a list. I've cited plenty of policy in the past, which Mr S. noted and agreed was relevant, so how you come the conclusion that I haven't either makes you stupid, or a liar. Now I have nothing more to say on the matter. Tables have been supported, lists haven't. I have no interest in your "civility" rants, or anything else. End of story. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

i have agreed on the use of table, not b the table's virtues but onl as a compromise, but with a couple of changes:

• the 2 columns that list separately the ear of beginning and ear of ending of the war to become a single column, and
• reduce the outcome descriptions by removing excessive information of the concessions obtained:territorial exchanges and war reparations.

do you agree?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No.

Per FL criteria (the ultimate goal of any lists, and so best criteria we have): "Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities."

Combining start and end of wars removes sorting ability. If someone wanted to know what wars began in X-year they could, but they would lose ability to sort by and find wars that ended in X-year.

Provide examples of what you consider "excessive". The matter is subjective, but the outcome of any war is generally identifiable, as long as it is not controversial and challenged by people who think the outcome was something else. Reliable sources should be provided in those cases, and to attain FL each outcome should be sourced. A fairly big task, but not impossible. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

a table with a large number of lines between ever war is not easily navigable, and combining the dates of start and ending in one column would complicate sorting and finding conflicts by the year they ended because visually the only change would be 1900-1901 instead of 1900|1901. if you look a First Opium War you'll see how small is the space occupied by the main information which is the name of the conflict and date compared to the one occupied by the details of what concessions the chinese made, it should say british victory and/or treaty of nanjing. an article should include information that is needed b the user the reader to understand what he is reading, but not too much to the point where it becomes a visual distraction and hinders reading. an example if i listed "First Opium War" without anmore detail i would be forcing the reader to go to the page's article to see the date it was fought but b putting the dates of the war in this list the reader would have a better understanding of the conflict and if he wanted more details he could direct himself to the article's page. self containment and reliance on other articles for further information are both important, but a list even if in table form is just a list and not an article.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What "large number of lines between every war"? Combining dates is not appropriate, as in some cases wars coincide with each other, so sorting:

• 1066-1070
• 1150-1250
• 1200-1201
• 1380-1400

would produce them in that same order for Start, but not work in order to produce:

• 1066-1070
• 1200-1201
• 1150-1250
• 1380-1400

for sorting by end, as proved here:

Years
1066-1070
1150-1250
1200-1201
1380-1400

Start	End
1066	1070
1150	1250
1200	1201
1380	1400

As is clear in this example, sorting both start/end is the better option, and what is required for ordering the data, not just for visual layout, which seems to be your concern. People want to be able to find things chronologically, in such tables. Basic lists offer none of these options, hence why they are easy to rule out for this purpose, where the article forms a chronology of events. Am speaking from experience, as I work with a lot of articles that use lists, tables and such, so I know how they function very clearly, and what is suitable format for them.

For all intents and purposes, you're using the word "article" wrong. Everything is an "article" per se, it's it's format that determines if the article is a list, prose based, table, etc. "Article" is an umbrella term, for everything, generally speaking.

Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 02:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

i see, i agree on the separate columns for dates. but what about the description of the results, i pointed out the descriptions are too detailed and its information that the reader probably doesn't read at all, people get into this lists of wars to search for a conflict and then go to that conflict's article to get more information, they don't read the whole list so they don't make use of the detailed descriptions which obviously cannot compete with the coverage of a full article; and the editor will find hard to fill up what are a huge lists: covering 300 years of conflicts all over the world for the british and more than 700 years for russia! of which only a tiny fraction are listed now. what i propose if to give the results of wars as victor/defeat and/or naming the treat that ended the war, but to put more details to the description is to overcrowd the readers view with exclusive details and set a standard that other editors may not follow or achieve.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc. This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 20:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

i agree on putting the treaty instead of the details it involved except in major wars like napoleonic, etc. but "further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." is not only impractical but it's a utopia that is never done in the wikipedia because if we asked for the opinions of editors who have previously edited the article we would never have the enciclopedia we have now, it would take forever. that's why the accepted form of acting is WP:BRD, we make changes and if someone disagrees we discuss but we don't have an obligation to previous editors no matter how much hours the invested because articles aren't property of editors. that's why everytime you're making an edit below the Save page button says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."--Andres rojas22 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is not relevant in this case, as that applies when there has been considerable debate regarding an article, but also many edits that are not agreed to by various editors. I already performed BRD by boldly reverting your disputed list format back to the original table, and then discussing the unsuitability with you, for far longer than should be appropriate. If you were to revert back to the list that would be war editing not BRD, because multiple editors support the table structure against and are opposed to your changes, and removing text from the Outcome column is technically not "reverting" anything, anyway. However, you will find that because those multiple editors have made a consensus decision, and that the table is now determined to remain, any refactoring should be presented as a proposal prior to performing them, otherwise you would be seen as bending the rules of the consensus. So, yes it is practical, and no it wouldn't take forever (a hyperbolical expectation). It's the simple matter of fact that you opposed the use of a table in this article, and were highly involved in editing it, previously. As was I. Therefore, in order for bias to be avoided, either way, it is necessary to have your proposed changes presented and discussed amongst uninvolved editors, transparently. We do not make edits and then expect them to be discussed reactively in every case, we often discuss edits proactively, to avoid controversy, war edits, etc, in order to maintain article stability until the idea can be considered, and approved, a bit like a sandbox. That is consensus, also, and what is required here, regardless of how long it takes. Wiki does not work by deadlines, nor are editors supposed to enforce deadlines and personal timescales in order to push through their edits and not give people ample time to consider the effects. So I recommend you back down from being pushy, as it will not be taken lightly, no one likes to be rushed unnecessarily.
• The wording below the Submit button is just general advice, per the Creative Commons licence Wiki operates under, and bears no relevance either. It simple means, WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour is not allowed here. We may not have an obligation to discuss each and every change with previous editors, but we have an obligation to respect consensus, and you have an obligation to recognise that the table format has been widely approved, 6:1 against you, and that you would be "safe" and sensible to discuss any ideas openly with the community, rather than acting of your own accord and disrespecting their majority, no matter how slight the edits may seem to you.
• I recommend you open up a new discussion on the article's talk page, and await enough responses for about two weeks, minimum, before making any changes, as that may be considered war editing, by myself or others, and reverted or reported. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

t

you are making a strange blend between two very different things (consensus and ownership), we have already agreed on keeping the format as a table which was the point of the discussion but now you and i are discussing details that are not part or the consensus. i have well proven the point in my last comment that polling to ask whether i'm allowed to make changes in the article is not supported by any policy and contrary to the interest of making an encyclopedia which is accomplished by editing and not by throwing fences and claiming ownership of certain articles. i'm not going to reach out and ask for the opinions of uninvolved editors because articles are not private property in which one need permission to trespass.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Blend? I think you'll find that I made a distinction, and that once consensus favours a particular choice, any soul editor going against the consensus would be claiming ownership, possibly. What we are discussing now is neither unique nor new, as it was raised in your initial discussions with other editors, that you wanted to minimise the content, reducing it to something more functional, apparently, therefore the views of other editors that the table is appropriate also includes its current content. The matter of what you want to change incorporates your initial views that the table contains more information than you would prefer. Therefore I am requesting that you discuss the matter with a wider array of editors, and not just myself. This is nothing to do with private property or trespassing, this is to do with you claiming that you are making "unique" changes, when in fact you are wanting to make the same content reducing edits as before, only within the table layout. Trying to WP:WIKILAWYER yourself around the matter does not change the fact that your proposals should be discussed, before resorting to these subjective edits. Please follow simple community procedure, and stop trying to act of your own accord, aka WP:POVPUSHing as I have no interest in this repeated circular debate about what you want. The matter is unbecoming, and frankly, you are selfish to disregard the comments being left by editors on the talk page, and below. The constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is now very irritating. So I'll put it like this: The community rejected your list format, and may potentially reject your minimal Outcome format. So in order to avoid having the article reverted, to avoid war editing, escalation to lengthy RFC, and other further time consuming efforts, it is in your and wiki's best interests to discuss the proposal with interested editors. If you don't feel you should have to that's your choice, just don't be surprised if the removal of a lot of text gets reverted because you failed to seek consensus and give suitable reasons to remove so much content that may be relevant to others. WP:CONSENSUS is exactly the policy that applies here, despite your belief that Wiki is free for anyone to edit, that does not mean an editor can force their revised opinions when other editors have rejected their earlier attempts, and expect them to be welcome. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

after we conclude the discussion i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him, as has always been the way to do things in wikipedia. that's the process of editing an article.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I have to formally warn you that the revert and objection will be made by me, reported to WP:ANEW and I shall insist there that the matter be discussed as a community consented change, first, if necessary a WP:RFC. As I have already stated, you do not represent a WP:NPOV, and your stake in the matter is based on a disposition than precedes this discussion. "I will cordially accept a reversion" is ownership being expressed, and prelude to another length round of exhaustive discussions, and unnecessary discussion. A discussion that precedes the matter would be more intelligent. I invite you to begin that discussion, now, on the talk page, and have some courtesy for once, and change your attitude towards not provoking a dispute, or I shall open the discussion.. and then you will have no choice but to wait. I refer you to WP:CONADMIN#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors which states: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Take note of the bold, and that I have asked you, repeated, to seek an open consensus, and that you have refused, and dismissed the strength of such an action. See also, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, and WP:What is consensus?#Using the consensus-building process which states:

1. Freely exchange your interests and concerns. Also try to understand policies and guidelines that represent the interests of the Wikipedia community at large.
2. Offer a proposal that best meets everyone's interests and concerns, to the extent that they are reasonable.
3. Modify the proposal based on further feedback from the group.
4. If necessary, begin a new discussion and repeat the consensus building process with a wider range of editors.

As is evident in this tiresome DR, there has been no proposal that has attracted group interest, and you attitude has been condemned below. Your post on WP:ANI was a wasted effort, as I won't back down from my views, as scare tactics don't work on me. And as this discussion is not on the article talk page, and is mostly a 1:1 basis, is not targeting the right audience, from which to gain feedback. Consensus overrules your interpretation of "the process of editing an article", which lacks transparency and is WP:POINTY. Your own words: "i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him" is the quintessential example of pointy behaviour, i.e. "I expect trouble, but I'm still doing it my way instead of working with others to avoid it", as summarised in WP:GAME: "Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected." In your case, you are sticking with the minimalist viewpoint offered in your original edit. It should be discussed first, applied only with approval, which may require revisions to the proposal. As you can see, there are many policy and guideline quotes referenced herein, so I suggest now you stop playing this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, and open the discussion. The sooner you do, the sooner progress may actually be made, as you won't gain any here, as each time you jam your foot in the door to force your edits down our necks, I'm going to kick it and request that you do things openly, and neutrally. There's no policy in your favour against me requesting that you seek consensus, you'll find, in fact policy is highly in favour of such action. I've quoted it, so now you should by a good little editor, and follow it so as not to attract negative attention from frustrated editors/admins. As I stated earlier, I may support some form of trimming the Outcome column, but I expect it to be proposed, discussed and refined before applied; so I am not opposing your idea, only insisting that it be discussed. If no other editors discuss the matter to oppose it, you can assume there are no objections and proceed accordingly, having gained silent consensus. The process is hardly complex or one-sided, with this being the case. And you would be illogical and tendentious, having just read this long reply, to once again claim that policy is in your favour. Time to drop the stick, and move on, before you start looking foolish. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies and not trying to make some kind of equation on what you think my behavior is. you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us. you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there, therefore i (or you) can edit the page to implement those changes. you think this is some kind of collegiate procedure when one has to call a board meeting for every edit to the article, well you're so wrong. as is normal practice i would edit the article as per the consensus we reached on the outcome column and that's the end of the story unless someone else has a different opinion and reverts me or simply the article just keep getting edited b x editor, and that's the cycle of article building.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

and apparently in you're opinion you can just change what we agreed to the article, the sortable date columns without consulting anyone more [5], but i need to consult to ever editor who has collaborated in this article if its ok to change the content of the outcome table. Double standards.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this just another further repeat of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or are you always this arrogant?

• "this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies"  Done - multiple policies quoted above, to your none.
• "you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us"  Done - Wiki involves everyone, I refuse to discuss the matter wit you, because you are biased, and I am on the opposing side, thus neutral editors are needed.
• "you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there" - false - I stated an opinion "I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty..." followed by "This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." - Do not draw false conclusions from my words. I requested a discussion. A consensus is a mutual agreement, and I cam to no agreement with you. Because:
• I do not consider you a neutral enough editor to determine who wars are major, which text needs trimming, and which only require treaty names. I request a discussion, so that other editors, possibly with greater NPOV skills than yourself, can pitch in and help with the refactoring. I suspect you will butcher the Outcome column to suit your feelings about superfluous info,and that this entire discussion is a pretence, and I will not be baited into allowing myself to allow you to do so without appropriate consensus.
• Once again, you and I have reached no consensus. I have not agreed anything specific, only a broad statement that the Outcome column might benefit from from trimming, but that you are not the best editor to do it, based on your prejudices expressed earlier.
• You agreed with separate columns for dates, and they are sortable as part of the WP:TABLES and WP:FL standard. Your edits are subjective, and affect content, not layout so don't be petty, it's pointless and you're not being smart challenging minor edits, just tendentious.
• Once again, another 2 hours wasted on this discussion. You could have opened a discussion on the talk page by now and gotten feedback by now instead of whining further. I'm starting to suspect that you're afraid the community will reject your proposals, in which case I redact any support for any refactoring of the Outcome column, even though it barely exists anyway, until feedback has been requested and given by the uninvolved editors. Now you have no choice, and I have nothing more to say until you do. I've been candid; step back and offer the floor to other editors, and stop trying to force your opinions. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Andres, there are six editors disagreeing with you in the discussion at Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format / content and none agreeing with you. I think it's time you admit consensus is not on your side and Drop the Stick. Mojoworker (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

you can see in the article discussion page that what was being discussed was if the list should be in table or in a stand alone list. i have agreed on this wp:drn to keep it as a table so that discussion is over, now there's a new discussion on how the table should look. so the stick you're talking about was dropped a long time ago this is another discussion.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Andres, not taking sides here, but saying "the stick was dropped a long time ago" doesn't mean that the issue isn't relevant. Remember, consensus can change, and it appears to have done so in this case. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Request closure

Could a clerk please review this DR from the "Section break", comment, advise, conclude and close the matter. I believe it is becoming too circular, and that Andres' WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance is becoming excessive and leading to blatant WP:GAMING and/or proposed WP:POINTY behaviour. Some formal intervention is required here, possibly Admin warning, as he clearly won't listen to reason, no matter how many policies/guidelines I refer to, and he remains a proverbial "bull in a china shop" intent on making edits without even seeking a minimal form of consensus. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done yet. I think we can still prevent this from escalating. See below. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sleddog116: I regularly assist here on DRN, and I would like to comment based on my assessment of the situation. Okay, it seems that, unfortunately, discussion has broken down here a bit. I will admit that I am not entirely "up" on the issue at hand (I couldn't really get through all of the text above; it was very long and involved, and I don't have the time at the moment to fully review it), but I get the basic gist of it. I don't think we need administrative action yet, so I'd like for us to hang on here for a little while. Even if this doesn't work, I still think that the Mediation Cabal would be a much better avenue at this point than going to ANI - ANI discussions are rarely very pleasant for anyone involved, so it's better to avoid that if at all possible.

To Andres rojas22: As I mentioned above (before the section break), please remember that consensus can change. Just because something was "settled" a long time ago does not mean that it is not open for debate. On Wikipedia, nothing is ever set in stone. If the broader community is by and large rejecting your viewpoint, don't be a crusader. If you repeat the same argument, you get the same answers. In other words, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." If you want to make your case more effectively, bring new arguments, not the same ones.

To MarcusBritish: Please assume good faith. Just because Andres does not seem to be accepting consensus does not mean that he intends harm to the project. In the above discussion, you have turned the discussion on the editor rather than addressing the merits of the edits.

To everyone involved: Please, please, please keep your comments brief. All of the involved parties have given very long, detailed, complex responses that could be stated in much simpler terms. Remember to thread your comments appropriately. Doing otherwise (from anyone - I'm not accusing any particular editor of tendentious editing) is counterproductive. No one is going to be able to navigate the walls of text that are being posted in this discussion, and it gets stalled when that happens. If it is a large issue, take it point by point - don't try to hit every single thing at once. Nothing will get done that way.

Now, let's back up, stay cool, and try to resolve this without having to go to unpleasant means. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I will WP:AGF when Andres actually shows some per WP:DGF; WP:AGF is a guideline, not policy. Until then, the persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is simply a tactic being employed by Andres in the hopes he will wind me up enough to drive me out of opposing him, through prolonged ad nauseam repetition, so that he can get his own way. Won't work. I'll simply escalate this matter to an Admin board, long before then, and will even request a topic ban if he edits the article contrary to current consensus. Simple as that. I know how harsh ANI can be, yes. But I welcome it, as when an editor is clearly being stubborn and time consuming for their own ends they are not exhibiting WP:COMPETENCE. Per WP:SPADE, the more Andres prattles on, the more disruptive he is, and my time is more valuable than "listening" to his stuck record, or WP:HORSE as you call it. I addressed his edits long ago, and have no further interest in them unless he refers them to uninvolved editors for consideration, per policy. Now I am addressing his behaviour which is disturbingly obsessive and tendentious. At this stage, until Andres ceases his forceful demands, an RFC is required. There is nothing to mediate between us, because he has a strong POV, and further editor involvement is required to develop the article, not mediation. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Marcus, I realize how frustrating it can be, but accusations of bad faith serve no practical purpose. I have already addressed Andres's conduct on this noticeboard, and assuming good faith means giving him a chance to respond in kind. Every editor, yourself included, has a POV of some kind. That is human nature. The point is, regardless of his point of view, I have seen by his edits that he does not intend harm towards the encyclopedia - edit warring is not vandalism. Also, AGF is a policy. Quoting directly from WP:AGF, "the assumption of good faith is dictated by Wikipedia policy". I am trying to prevent this from escalating - if you are truly trying to improve the encyclopedia, give this discussion a chance to restart without taking drastic measures. Give the other editors a chance to respond. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This DR has been going on since 25 March, and Andres has shown no interest in giving ground to allow other editors to play an important role in discussing his proposals, because he is afraid of them being rejected. My POV is that consensus be obtained. His is that he does not need to and that he can do what ever he wants. I have no intention of restarting this Punch and Judy farce, whatsoever. I have detailed guidelines and policy in great detail, and still Andres retorts with claims that I have not supported by argument. It's like talking to a child. WP:AGF can stick itself, because it actually reads "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline." The part you quoted applies only when accusing an editor of bad faith, which I have not done. I simply don't assume good faith, nor will I be dictated to. Note: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed." A consensus has been reached. Consensus may change, but it cannot be forced, as Andres is attempting to do. I have attempted to request Andres seek clear unambiguous consensus, the fact that he refuses to to do so, and persists in denying WP:CONSENSUS is akin to bad faith, in the form of WP:GAMING. I stand on firm ground with regards to the policy that requires editors work collaboratively in order to develop articles. Andres rejects those principles, which is disruptive. All I see now is "blah blah blah" each time he response, the same stick, the same retorts, demanding the same unapproved edits. I'm bored of this guy and his nonsense, and the only "resolution" I will accept is that the previously rejected edits he proposes be presented on the article's talk page for other editors to consider, discuss, and refine. That can either be done by his own hand, or an RFC started by any editor, allowing close scrutiny of the proposals and potentially better feedback pre-edit. A DR requires there to be "a dispute". There is no dispute here that can be resolved between ourselves, due to polarised POVs. Therefore it is necessary to request further opinions from interested editors looking to develop the article without it being subject to POV or edit warring. Simple as that, and well within policy. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sleddog, i'm gonna try to sum my answer, we started a discussion on April 25 as to whether to change the article's formatting from tabular to stand alone list and we agreed on keeping it a table but reducing excessive content. now instead of finishing up to discuss and implement the changes he agrees on the changes but come with the marvelous idea that they don't be implemented. that i must go to the talk page of the article and seek to discuss it with editors who have nothing to do with this discussion because he claims previous editors have some kind of rights to be consulted before i change their edits. putting an obstacle on the implementation of changes to which we had agreed "where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc." ([6]. -Andres rojas22 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Redacted due to being taken out of context – I agreed to nothing, only gave a broad opinion. Awaiting talk page discussion or RFC. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Question to All Participants I've been marginally been keeping an eye on this thread. I would like to ask, is there some sort of resolution we can implement? A widely advertised RfC curated by WP:MILHIST seems to be the only way to determine what the consensus currently is. As such I recomend the following points

1. Prior to the conducting of a widely advertised and well run RfC regarding this case, the status quo ante to the dispute is read to be the consensus of the community.
2. Neither side in the dispute is to take confrontational or bating actions in regard to the dispute except to restore status quo ante
3. An experienced editor (or administrator) that is neutral in the dispute will evaluate the discussion points presented and come to a rendering of the community's consensus
4. This consensus is then to be implemented on the disputed pages
5. This consensus is to be in force for a period of no less than 3 months, at which time the consensus may be re-evaluated if there is strong evidence to display that the consensus has changed.

Short of this numbered list, the only way to get this resolved appears to be WP:MEDCAB,WP:MEDCOM, or the nuclear option WP:ARBCOM. Know that if ArbCom is chosen there will be no winners, only people who loose a little bit less. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an RFC. An open discussion should have been started a week ago, but Andres has determined to avoid such consensus building exercises. WP:MILHIST are, however, the best group on Wiki to determine the proposals made and refine them. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As the conversation has stagnated, this thread may be closed in 72 hours from 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC) with the above proposed RfC for generating the consensus unless strenous objections to this closure method occur.Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Amber Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Amber Rose is in a Youtube video stating that she was a stripper. I've been told by a senior wikipedia editor here: Because we don't allow youtube videos as reliable sources, it would only be of use if it was Lola herself saying "I was a stripper".--Jac16888 Talk 00:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point that my edits are being targeted because I put in a RFA as well.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jac16888 (talk · contribs)
• Ronjohn (talk · contribs)
• Bwilkins (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes I've had multiple discussions with Jac16888, Bwilkins, and Youreallycan. After I received no further responses from anyone I decided to add the information again and some disgruntle editors were able campaign for me the get temporarily banned because of edit. Again I believe Bwilkins is highly biased when it comes to my edits because I applied to be an administrator (see his talk page regarding my RFA).--Ron John (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I believe his feelings are getting the best of him and his duties as a wikipedia administrator.

• How do you think we can help?

Tell us if an youtube video of someone saying they were stripper be used as a source on wikipedia.

Ron John (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• The text added by the YouTube uploader suggests that the subject has talked about the same thing in other interviews. Why not try to hunt down one of those interviews? Formerip (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Just a minor point, Ron John: you were blocked for edit warring. Your failed RFA has nothing to do with it and bringing it up serves no purposes, but to cast aspersions on the admin who blocked you. You were edit warring and violating WP:BLP, so the block was totally correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• I wouldn't put it in its own dedicated section separate from her biography, but it's well known she used to be a stripper: New York Post, Fox News, News.com.au, HuffPost, Vibe, etc. Compulsions70 (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• ...and that's more usable. I don't think there's ever been doubt that she was, it's the sourcing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not at all sure how I became "involved" - I reverted a BLP issue, provided a necessary block for edit-warring, both otherwise have no involvement in the article. In terms of my "feelings"...I have none related to the editor, nor the article. My only previous interactions with the editor were to try and guide him gently towards the norms/policies of Wikipedia, and trying to stop him from embarrassing himself with an RFA that was massively doomed from the start. I then was one of the proponents of keeping it open, because the editor wanted it open. Not sure if I need to make additional comments because I don't give 2 shits about the article; only about maintaining the policies surrounding it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a sour-grapes editor with a grudge just throwing Bwilkins name in as part of general discontent rather than BWilkins' actually being involved. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. If you will search the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard you will find that there is general agreement that YouTube is not a reliable source and is questionable as even an exterior link. In that light, and in light of the fact that there are other more clearly reliable sources for the information, I'm going to close this thread in twenty-four hours. The other matters raised by the listing editor are conduct matters which are not appropriate for this noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 9, 2012 at 17:27 (UTC) because of the reasons set out in my last comment, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure endorsed Filer has a history of disruption and ignoring policies and guidelinesCurb Chain (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Smoking ban in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

It all began with a request for Passive smoking to be moved to Second-hand smoke (see: Talk:Passive_smoking#Move.3F). I was one of those who opposed. I then discovered that since December 2011 User:Hypocaustic had been systematically changing "passive smoking" to "second-hand smoke", and "smoking ban" to "smoke-free regulations" on many articles (see e.g.: [7], [8]) — he subsequently used the more frequent occurrence of "his" term as a justification in the move request, an issue I raised at the time. The move request was declined.

Things went downhill on 26 February, when the user moved Smoking ban and many related pages unilaterally, and move-warred with two editors when they attempted to revert him (see: user's move log). Eventually he gave up and disappeared for a month after an experienced editor criticized his edits to Smoking ban, which is a semi-protected article (see: [9]).

Reappeared last week, and has tried to copy/paste articles from one page to another, causing attribution problems (see: content and edit histories of Passive smoking vs Second-hand smoke, and Smoking ban in England vs Smoke-free law (England)). I reverted his most recent changes but he reverted me back, calling my edits "vandalism" (see: edit summaries at [10], [11]). I then approached the admin who had closed the original move request for advice, and he directed me here.

Entirely separately, the user has changed several articles from US to UK English, and then reverted editors who try to change it back. I have warned him about this, and he seems to know the rules (see: this diff (where he warns another user about changing from one style to another), but still makes the changes regardless. See e.g.:

• Animals and tobacco smoke = makes several changes to UK English (then edit-warred over this)
• Passive smoking = makes several changes to UK English
• Smoking ban = Changed "Organizations" to "Organisations" in See also section, then reverts user who tries to restore US spelling, citing WP policy(!)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Hypocaustic (talk · contribs)
• Cross porpoises (talk · contribs)
• Wikophile (talk · contribs)
• Escape Orbit (talk · contribs)
• Favonian (talk · contribs)

(last three editors are only marginally involved, compared to Hypocaustic and myself)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Talk:Smoking_ban#New_title.3F, User talk:Hypocaustic (now blanked), User talk:Favonian

• How do you think we can help?

Explain to User:Hypocaustic what consensus is, why copy/paste moves are wrong, why WP:RETAIN exists; restore content of pages at Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England per the GFDL requirements.

Cross porpoises (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of a wider group of Wikipedians. There seem to be two or three different issues or concerns here, all of which seem to have presented a risk of unhelpful disputes (or even 'edit wars') and some of which may perhaps offer some wider learning for phrasing of WP guidance. I'll do my best to list these and explain the situation, as far as I understand it.

1. Smoke-free laws / smoking ban. Some time back, I initially made what I have to concur was an error in how I interpreted the guidance to 'be bold', by carrying out some swift move-and-redirect edits on grounds which appeared, at least from a technical standpoint, to be uncontroversial. We got into what looked perilously near to an edit war, and I did indeed pull back from involvement for a while to let tempers cool. What the sometimes heated debate around this suggested was that some contributors are motivated to 'defend' explicit references to bans because this makes it easier to argue against such measures (essentially bans are presented as illiberal a politically 'bad thing'); I don't know if that's part of this specific complainant's concern so this is an observation rather than accusation, but it does seem to have clouded the conversation a little further. What I have endeavoured to do more recently is gradually improve the clarity with which Wikipedia defines, and distinguishes, both terms - rather than getting into an either/or dichotomy, or sudden 'big bang' edits. I'm sure I haven't done that absolutely perfectly and would very much welcome input from fellow contributors to strengthen the content, but I do indeed think that knee-jerk reverts of careful and considered edits are rather close to vandalism, much as I regret having to level such a charge.

2. Second-hand smoke / passive smoking. I should probably emphasise at this point that tobacco is not the only subject in the world I'm interested in! However, the picture here is rather simpler. I initially proposed a straightforward move of the old 'passive smoking' article to 'second-hand smoke'; the discussion around this revealed a robust intellectual case for doing that, but there were not a sufficient number of respondents to achieve much of a quorum and no consensus to move was reached. I nevertheless observed the group conclusion, refrained from imposing a simple move/redirect and returned to this particular topic subsequently when it became clear that the two terms, although obviously related, were importantly distinct and different in their meanings. So, as things now stand, we now have a page both for the older term, passive smoking and the currently recognised term, second-hand smoke, with some explanatory text on both pages (and mutual links) to make the relationship clear. I honestly think that, for now, this is the most elegant solution and probably the one most useful for readers. However, I sense that part of the objection raised here may be that some text explaining the scientific and regulatory detail appears on just one of those pages, thus causing the complainant to be concerned that a move had been made 'under the radar'; that certainly wasn't the intention, but thoughts on how to positively respond would be welcome. It seems a less than ideal use of the bandwidth to simply reproduce text on both pages, but there is perhaps scope to produce more tailored content so as to ensure that both terms/pages have a fuller 'body' if this is desired.

3. Varieties of English. Like many contributors and editors, I think, I try to sustain and improve the consistency and accuracy of spelling, phraseology and punctuation as I go along. Because I was trained in a specific variety of English, I'm sure it's highly likely that I have, on occasion, erred in changing a spelling which was arguably not actually incorrect, but simply in a different tradition. If that's happened, it has been unintentional and I'm grateful for support in addressing it. On the one clear occasion I can recall where the complainant here did challenge me along these lines, I followed the 'ENGVAR' guidance and identified alternative phraseology which was less subject to transatlantic disagreements in the first place, although that seems not to have satisfied him or her unfortunately. Does this guidance perhaps need to be clearer? Where there is felt to be an issue about retaining the variety of English used by the very first contributor, could or should there be a more visible way of indicating which this is? Thoughts welcome.

I've done what I can to enhance the resources which the encyclopaedia offers on the first two points, and would like to propose a moratorium to allow time for other Wikipedians to assist and/or comment. I'm not sure if there's already a convention on this, but it would certainly seem sensible for Cross Porpoises and I to be 'hands off' as regards those specific pages for a week or two if both agree. Thanks, in advance, for your help.Hypocaustic (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My involvement in this dispute involved Hypocaustic's edits to Smoking ban. Hypocaustic has an issue with some of the terminology used, and technically speaking he may have a point. However, my position is that, per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should prefer the more commonly known term, the one most likely to be understood by readers. The subtle shade of difference between "smoking ban" and "smoke free law" is not a reason to change everything and the article itself makes what it means clear.

I think all involved in discussions regarding what Hypocaustic wished were ready to hear what he had to say. Discussion was cordial, despite Hypocaustic repeating his changes in apparent attempts to force the issue. At the end I thought that Hypocaustic had amicably agreed to accept consensus in February and leave the article as was.

Discussions have not been helped by his non-neutral stance on the issue and his belief that there is some kind of Wikipedia conspiracy by tobacco supporters to favour "ban", because it helps them to portray the measures as oppressive. I can't see any evidence of this and his repeated reference to it sails very close to violating WP:AGF. "Ban" is used because that is what sources most commonly use, it's as simple as that.

I believe Hypocaustic's latest edits to be disingenuous. He knows what he wishes to do is against prior consensus, so coming back for another go a couple of months later in the guise of being bold is at best misguided, at worse mischievous. If he thinks he has a new compromise that could satisfy everyone, then he could raise it on a talk page first. As it is, I don't think he is offering anything new, just another approach to the same changes.

I also think his work on Passive smoking and Second hand smoke is a textbook example of POV forking and an attempt to bypass consensus in the previous move discussion. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics simply because one editor doesn't like the name. Any hair-splitting necessary between "Passive smoking" and "second hand smoke" can be handled within the one article.

I don't think his changes in spelling are any big deal, and am happy to accept he did not set out to do these deliberately. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Other than edit warring and some discussion on the article talk page and user talk page, there's been no attempt to resolve the dispute. As a prerequisite to the dispute resolution noticeboard, there has to be talk page discussion. I think it was inappropriate to assume bad faith of Hypocaustic by constituting his/her edits as "vandalism". I think the parties can work from the merge RfC and see what kind of consensus there is and work from there. If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk comment This looks like a behavioural problem, on the part of user:HypocausticCurb Chain (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to Escape Orbit for responding pragmatically. I do understand your reservations, but I'm happy to reassure you that I do take as neutral stance as is humanly possible on such an inherently contentious subject - a fairly knowledgeable commentator perhaps, but not an advocate (Wikipedia isn't really the place for that). As for whether I've been mischievous or even exhibit a 'behavioural problem', that looks regrettably like mud-slinging but let's assume that the contributors above didn't mean those comments to come across quite that way. I'm certainly not suggesting a 'conspiracy', of course; it was apparent from some aspects of a prior discussion that there were indeed contributors with a point of view to push, and if so this surely didn't help the situation, but I've already said that I have no specific reason to believe that this is at the heart of Cross Porpoise's individual concerns. Acting against consensus is a charge that I would be concerned to receive if there was a good case for it, but I'm reasonably confident I've taken reasonable steps not to - including respecting group decisions not to execute a straight switch-and-redirect and endeavouring to generate a discussion about proposals for recent changes beforehand on the appropriate talk pages. As for hair-splitting, well we may have to agree to differ there - if there didn't appear a genuine reason for covering more than one term in the encyclopaedia, I wouldn't have done it, but the solution to finding what works best here seems to lie in getting into some specific discussion about terminology rather than falling into an adversarial scenario. So, to echo the wise words of Whenaxis above - how about we mutually cease assuming bad faith and see how we can collaborate to improve the quality of the content?Hypocaustic (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Is everyone okay with trying to collaborate and work from the merge RfC? If so, we can close this thread and if necessary, this dispute can be returned to this noticeboard should the dispute not be resolved. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it a merge request, and not a page move? Before Hypocaustic copy/pasted the content, Passive smoking looked like this. Second-hand smoke looks like this. Same images, same section headings, same references and citations. Is it really that easy for an editor with an agenda to run around consensus after being declined at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I see lots opposing or criticizing Hypocaustic both here and on talk pages, and no-one supporting him. Cross porpoises (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On Second-hand smoke, He has edit warred to remove the merge request template with two different users (see: [12] and [13]), even calling it "vandalism." Hypocaustic acts all nicey-nicey and verbose on talk pages and this noticeboard, but its a different story if youre trying to edit with him. Have you looked at the page history of Smoking ban from Feb 26th-28th? [14]. Thats been his typical behaviour while he accuses other people of "POV-pushing" and "bad faith." Cross porpoises (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• 'Still happy to collaborate, Whenaxis, and open to ideas about how best to do that; I am not entirely clear what 'working from the merge RfC' entails, but if you have experience of resolving disagreements positively in this way it would be good to hear more. It does also sound as if it would be sensible to get some additional support with this if there is a way to do so, as the above comments suggest that at least one fellow contributor has become sufficiently exasperated that working with me constructively may be difficult at the moment (I don't criticise him or her for that, as it's evident that he or she is committed to improving Wikipedia even if we currently disagree about the means). I am mindful of Escape Orbit's concerns around 'POV-forking', and although I am confident that is not what's going on here I do agree that real care is required to avoid fuelling such suspicions; to my mind, engaging with the detail of the issue to build a meaningful consensus on the substance of the issue, rather than simplistic yes/no polling, is the most promising way forward. It also looks, to me, as if Cross Porpoises has an important point about ensuring that the page covering older term, 'passive smoking' does not become an unacceptably short article as the page covering the current term, 'second-hand smoke' develops; unless we simply duplicate some content there (which is presumably not regarded as best practice), we'll need to create or edit some new material to ensure that these different but connected terms are properly explained - I am happy to be involved in doing so but have held off from making any further edits to these pages while there is a discussion on this noticeboard.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I realise that Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now that this user is willing to collaborate, you should be open to discussing with Hypocaustic rather than blaming them for their actions. I think the best way to start off with resolving this dispute is to refrain from editing the two articles in question until the dispute is fully resolved, as well as, ceasing all assumptions of bad faith. From there, we can use this RfC form February and decipher the issues at hand and find a compromise through citing Wikipedia policies and using references to back up your opinion. If the parties could provide statements on their opinion below, that would be great. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come to this noticeboard to get permission to start a discussion. I'm a grown woman, I can do that all by myself.

Citing Wikipedia policies to back up my opinion? I came here because a user violated Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text by copy-pasting Passive smoking into Second-hand smoke and Smoking ban in England into Smoke-free law (England). (Wikipedia:Copyrights is "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations.") Then edit-warred in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Multiple editors have criticized his edits and/or conduct (see: Escape Orbit [15], Curb Chain [16], me [17], Wikophile [18]).

You say Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now is willing to collaborate. Let him demonstrate this by undoing those past faults and restoring Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England to the way they were. Otherwise it will look to me like he does not see his edits as faults which need fixing. Cross porpoises (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Hypocaustic, you should undo the faults of your past to show that you are willing to collaborate. Making frequent or mass changes without consensus is strictly prohibited as the community finds that disruptive and counterproductive. Cross porpoises, have you tried reporting this user to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the actions which could reasonably be described with the benefit of hindsight as faults (i.e. the initial page moves without consensus) have already been undone, Whenaxis. What we're left with look like some genuine differences of 'editorial' opinion. Litigious language is unlikely to be helpful; there are plenty of WP policies suggesting a different approach too, but generating added conflict here is evidently not going to get us far. The offer of collaboration was real, but I respectfully decline to participate further in a discussion which appears at risk of intensifying, rather than resolving, a dispute. Realistically, we are left with two broad options: to return to detailed discussion of improvements to articles on related talk pages and keep building and developing consensus, or for those concerned to just walk away and get on with something else. That's a matter for individuals to decide upon for themselves, so either way I suggest we close this discussion here and move on. Thanks to all who have contributed for your time and input - and I really do mean all.Hypocaustic (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 10, 2012 at 20:47 (UTC) because party requests closure Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, I was going to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but User:Favonian said I should start here. I will go there next since User:Hypocaustic has now demonstrated his position. I will also try to fix the pages one more time, but I expect he will continue his edit war. Cross porpoises (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

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

Dispute overview

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

User without a talk page deleting and replacing external link without explanation. Has done blanking also without explanation.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• AliNichole0619 (talk · contribs)
• Neuronormal (talk · contribs)

The problem of link deletion and blanking have been documented on talk page of the article for some time. Without a user talk page not sure how to resolve this other than to continue editing article and restoring deleted link.

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Hydranencephaly}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Do not know how to contact other user via Wikipedia. No talk page. Not sure what to do.

• How do you think we can help?

Please advise how to continue.

Neuronormal (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You can create her page. Red links mean that the page has not yet been created, but I am not sure about the whole auto confirmed thing, but I think you can create pages.Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) is/was a very large article with a very large and cumbersome notes column. User talk:This, that and the other (unrelated to this conflict) suggested on the talk page that the notes section be removed all otgether because all the information there is in each general's respective article. I (User: Brightgalrs) did just that, and went through removing the notes section among other changes. User: IcarusPhoenix undid my revision and posted a message on my wall. This conversation followed.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Brightgalrs (talk · contribs)
• IcarusPhoenix (talk · contribs)

I feel as though IcarusPhoenix is nonchalantly undoing my edit without the intention of making the article better at all.

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

Yes.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I've initiated the third opinion step here and posted on the WikiProject Military history talk page here

• How do you think we can help?

Mediate this argument and end the edit war.

Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine if you will that you had done the same amount of work that you just did on these articles, but came back and did that same work several dozen times... and then someone came out of nowhere and, without discussing it with anyone else, eliminated massive swaths of it." (Posted here by IcarusPhoenix) Icarus, do you feel that my revisions are wrong simply because you put effort into what I deleted? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think the consensus is clear that the "Notes" section should be removed with 3 editors in favor of it as opposed to 1 editor who does not want it removed. I've requested for page protection so this dispute can be resolved. Don't edit war, if the edit warring gets really bad, report it to the edit warring noticeboard and it may lead to temporary blocks. IcarusPhoenix, is there a reason why you would like to have the "Notes" section maintained? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First things first, I did not write the above comment on this page; it was my response to User:Brightgalrs|Brightgalrs]] on the user's talk page, and it was Brightgalrs who chose to move it here without the relevant context, not I; it was a direct reply to Brightgalrs, and not part of the dispute process. That being said, here is my position on the matter:

I think that Brightgalrs decision to apply for dispute resolution is premature, as the user has thus far failed to understand the nature of the dispute, nor bothered to discuss his/her edits with a single one of the more than half-a-dozen editors who have been working for years to craft this article and (among other things and with consensus) address the exact issue that Brightgalrs thought they were addressing. The dispute is not entirely over the nature of the edits, but in part over Brightgalrs' decision to make those edits without bothering to once discuss it with any other editors involved in the page, most notably Donner60, who was already condensing (not callously deleting) the notes section to bring it in line with its sister article List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which Brightgalrs also made some undiscussed massive - though less-invasive - changes to) and in accordance with a long consensus-building discussion between several editors; if Brightgalrs had so much as bothered to look here (which would have involved no more effort than scrolling slightly up the talk page) or looked at the recent edit history, he/she(?) could have avoided this entire process, to say nothing of creating a situation that would lead to a copy-protection that will delay Donner60's work. While Brightgalrs may feel that my reversion of his/her edits were "nonchalant" and lacking regard for the work done, my position is that even making those edits without bothering to look at the article history or the work that others had already agreed to was an act that actually damaged the integrity and accuracy of the article. This is a discussion that has been held civilly by several editors from the articles very inception, and not one of us had the lack of common courtesy displayed by Brightgalrs to simply go and make massive wholesale changes to an article with no regard for work already in progress. I strongly recommend that people read Donner60's explanation on the talk page I linked above and look at the article history to see why we object to Brightgalrs' unilateral decision to change the very nature of the article.

Also, at the risk of sounding nitpicky here, Brightgalrs didn't quite follow procedure in informing of this dispute, and has yet to say anything to any of the other editors of either page; the only reason this dispute is being had between Brightgalrs and myself rather than Brightgalrs and myself, Donner60, BusterD, Searcher 1990, and several others is simply that I was the first one to notice the situation; I have had to take it on myself to draw their attention to this matter. Despite the rapidity of Brightgalrs' actions, Hlj has already been kind enough to respond to my request for an opinion (just as he or I or several others would have done for Brightgalrs had he/she bothered to ask), and his reply can be read on my talk page. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please note than [19], [20], [21], and [22] constitutes as campaigning per WP:CANVAS, due to the unneutral accusational tone of the messages, i.e. "As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism." Icarus is advised to read WP:VANDAL as removal of content, with Good Faith intents does not constitute as vandalism, by any standards. Would advise Brightgalrs that if he feels Icarus has sought to cast unfair claims against him to raise the matter with WP:ANI, as wide-spread accusations of vandalism are not tolerated, generally. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 22:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Marcus' assertion of canvassing; asking the opinions of other involved and interested editors (which Brightgalrs failed to do) - notes I had begun to write before the dispute resolution process began - does not constitute canvassing. These are interested parties in the dispute, and I very clearly asked their opinion; that I cut-and-pasted the same question to all of them for the sake of expediency in the face of an issue that is moving surprisingly quickly is hardly surprising; that the out-of-context portion of my statement that Marcus quoted above was border-line inflammatory, however, I do not really dispute; this was, as I said before this process had started, and after Brightgalrs' out-of-hand rejection of any opinion other than his/her own, I was unsurprisingly irritable. While in retrospect I am not terribly fond of the tone I adopted in those messages, being dismissed by someone who refused to participate in preexisting discussions before making wholesale changes was, I think you'll agree, understandably irksome.

IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Inviting other editors to comment is permitted. Adding an unneutral tone to the invitation is campaigning, period. So feel free to disagree, you are incorrect however, per Wiki policy, which is linked and clear. You choice if editors also seems fairly selective, given how you state that there are "more than half a dozen". Might want to think about that. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Icarus, thank you for your reply. MarcusBritish, I don't think those edits constitute canvassing as they are merely notes to possibly interested parties to participate in discussion. However, I do agree that ownership of articles is not acceptable and there should be openness to other editors wanting to improve the page. Icarus and Brightgalrs, I think there has been a lack of communication (or miscommunication) about the "Notes" section. I do agree that you should reach a consensus on what to do with the "Notes" section before merely just completing an edit. If necessary, you can request for comments on what sort of measure should be done (i.e., complete removal of the "Notes" section or refactoring of the "Notes" section). As I said earlier, if the edit warring continues after the full page protection expires, please report it to the edit warring noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, thank you for your statement. Marcus, I went to three editors whose activity level on this group of articles showed the sort of dedication that Brightgalrs has demonstrated and whose hard work was most at-risk by edits made without consensus. Your assumption of bad faith from me is no different than my assumption of the same in Brightgalrs' edits, and is unbecoming to someone who theoretically should be a neutral party.

My suggestion is as follows: That Brightgalrs and myself do our best to leave this discussion aside entirely for a day or so, until other interested parties (notably Donner60, whose work constituted the overwhelming majority of what Brightgalrs eliminated) have had time to look at the matter. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish: The canvassing guideline clearly states under the appropriate notification heading at the last point, "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." which is precisely what IcarusPhoenix did. It was inappropriate of you to assume bad faith on IcarusPhoenix's part, the first step when you suspect canvassing, is to politely talk with the user to stop posting notices.

IcarusPhoenix: That would be a good idea. Step away from the dispute for a little while and once you've calmed down, return to discussing. If there are any further issues, feel free to bring this dispute back to the dispute resolution noticeboard or refer it to the edit warring noticeboard in the event of disruptive edit warring. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Icarus' wording, accusing someone of vandalism, when evidently there has been no such behaviour, was inappropriate, and so not only do I assume bad faith on his part, but the polemic attacks of that/those editors which his dispute is against are proof of his bad faith. I stand by my notions, and care not if you wrongly see my concerns as bad faith. His wording was aggressive, and designed to provoke selected editors. The WP:CANVASS guideline you mention also states, "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." This is precisely what he did also. I consider Icarus' accusation tone as a motive to impress a POV, contrary to the guideline. That's all I have to say on this clear-as-mud matter, thank you. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This dispute is ridiculous. IcarusPhoenix should have quickly seen that consensus was against the unwieldy 300 kb notes section, and that its presence was detrimental to article access in terms of focus and with respect to those with poor internet connections. (Even without the 300 kb the article is a mass of server calls with all of those images.) IcarusPhoenix dug his heels in and tried a number of tactics to retain the mass of peripheral text. He should acknowledge that none of the tactics worked and that consensus has shifted firmly for removal.

The text in question is available in article history; it does not need to be kept in the 'live' article for any sort of slow, careful removal piece by piece. It should be removed post-haste. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet: The thing is, I agree that the notes section is unwieldy. In fact, I was the first one to say so, right here, which is why User:Donner60 was in the process of paring it down when this dispute cropped up. What I do not agree with is its complete absence; indeed, my opinion - stated many times before and generally lost in the quagmire of Marcus' personal attacks - is that the notes column should be brought in line with the much-more limited and relevant style set in List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which is exactly what was being done, though still not to the extent that I for one felt it should), and that the "Date, Place of Birth", "Date, Place of Death", and especially-irrelevant "College" columns should all be eliminated. The dispute exists primarily because a user decided to do a mass edit without seeing if they were stepping on the toes of another user (namely Donner60) who was already solving the size problem in a manner that Brightgalrs' edit ruins the progress of. Edits of such scope are usually kept in the sandbox for this very reason, and one only needs to look at the articles recent history to see that, never mind multiple discussions that were had prior to this incident. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet – I agree with your thoughts, and disapprove of Icarus' attitude towards the objections stated, and his attempts to stand between consensus and his way of doing things, but it also seems to me that this DR is now evolving into an attempt to stall further action as well as WP:SOUP the objections. Donner60 has indicated they are on wikibreak into ~17 April. Evidently this DR cannot be allowed to drag on for that long while no progress is made to the WP:TRIVIA based Notes column. Recommend you open an WP:RFC and have other editors comment on the matter. I suspect, given than many editors dislike WP:TOOLONG articles, and that 472,000kb is utterly ridiculous and resource-greedy, that they will motion for instant removal of the Notes, or begin an instant cut-down of the crap detailed therein, before Donner60 gets back. Despite Icarus' beliefs, no one has the right to "reserve" an entire article for themselves to refactor, for more than a few hours, that would be WP:OWNish. Your choice, however, but it would lead to stronger consensus building, and hopefully knock Icarus off his high-horse, as the community doesn't fare well with overbearing editors leading issues. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My recommendation (unsurprisingly) is somewhat different - though, unlike Marcus, that may be because I'm more interested in an equitable solution to paring down the article than I am in the personal virtues of others (a tendency Marcus is displaying not only here, but in a companion discussion here in which he has spent the entire discussion cursing more creatively and has made nationally-bigoted comments, and above in his equally vitriolic and unconstructive personal attacks against User:Andres rojas22). My recommendation is that we immediately eliminated the unnecessary birth/death/college columns (which, especially in the case of the latter, we can all agree are superfluous to the topic of the article) and continue to pare down the notes section just as User:Donner60 has done for sections A-F - though, as I stated earlier, I am now and always have been strongly in favor of being far more aggressive about these eliminations that Donner60 has been. Again, I suggest looking to the sister article for a demonstration of concise and strictly-structured notations. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IcarusPhoenix, unfortunately, the consensus is against your recommendation of refactoring the "Notes" section. Majority of the editors want it completely absent from the article. And MarcusBritish has brought some good points about how the note that you left on the editors' talk pages were not neutral, in the future, I ask you to avoid such circumstances as it may appear as canvassing even if you don't mean it to be. In addition, just pushing the blame on other people as to the failure of the resolution of the dispute is not the way to resolve the dispute. Perhaps, Donner60 and IcarusPhoenix can propose their refactored version of the notes later on the talk page, while we maintain the article without the notes because it is quite heavy on the article and too long for the time being. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair for now, though I would point out that the consensus here doesn't fully seem to match consensus elsewhere, nor do I feel that enough input has been made overall, particularly to my most recent suggestion, which no one has yet had time to reply to; I would request leaving this resolution thread open for a few more days, since at present it's mostly filled with Marcus' ever-more vulgar attacks and my ill-advised desire to defend myself from those attacks, rather than discussions of the dispute in question or the relative merits of specific proposals (indeed, yourself and User:Binksternet seem to be the only ones thus far able to remain faithful to the discussion's core topic). IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I have rapidly sandboxed the "A" section of the list to demonstrate my proposal here (note: it's not perfect, but just a rapid demonstration... there are a couple of factual tidbits I'm uncertain about). The first version is it's current appearance after Donner60 eliminated the full-bio notes still visible in letters after "F"; the second is my proposal for revision, maintaining the notes column with only relevant information and eliminating three intervening columns. Also, I'm not really satisfied with the ranks column; I am of the opinion that nomination dates are unnecessary and that only confirmation dates (in parentheses) are necessary to indicate seniority. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the reader not find the information in the "Notes" column from the article page on the person? Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of it, yes - or, at least, they certainly should be able to, though many of those articles - particularly for Confederate generals - are not themselves quite up to standards yet. That actually was my exact argument against having so much extraneous information in the notes to begin with, and I think it is also the argument in favor of removing the birth/death/college columns. Things like units, non-notable elected offices, non-military colleges, and deaths unrelated to the war just aren't relevant to the article's topic and belong confined to the individual articles; however, I do think there is an argument to be made for specific and relevant information. I for one feel that readers should be able to find from this single location things like who died during the war, who had a military education, which CSA officers resigned from the US Army, which US officers earned the Thanks of Congress and Medal of Honor, and which officers held major civil or military offices (Governors, federal office, ambassadorships, etc.). The other information is, I agree, extraneous, which is why I put up a comparison version. I'm also still of the opinion that nomination dates are superfluous and confusing. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if we deduct the "Notes" section further so it looks like other related articles (i.e., List of American Civil War Generals (Union)), it'll be easier on the reader. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article you're referencing has a notes section, which is the one I'm emulating with my test edit; what it does not have the birth/death/college columns, and the elimination of those is what would make it look similar. If the goal is to make the articles look similar, those are the columns that we should contemplate elimination of, I believe.

Also, just as a further point, I've just done a character count test; only eliminating the notes column takes the "A" section from 12,368 bytes to 6,194; however, eliminating the columns not present in the sister article and eliminating information from the notes not in the sister article brings it down to 5,138 bytes; removing nomination dates would probably remove another 200-300 bytes more. In sections after "F", where no paring down or notes has yet been done at all, the effect would be even greater. My estimation is that rather than lowering the character count by about 307,000 bytes (which is what elimination of the note's column did), we could maintain the relevant information and bring the character count by 350,000 bytes or more. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "deduct" :) - as in decrease the size of the notes. I agree that if we cut down the size of the "Notes" section, the other sections that don't appear in the other articles should be removed as well. What does everyone else think? Are we just trying to make everything shorter or being biased towards the "Notes" section (because that's a little unfair if that's so)? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that, at the very least, User:Brightgalrs (who I'm hoping will drop by soon and look at this particular proposal) and I share the goal of decreasing article size... and drastically. As for bias, I think my bias is not so much towards keeping the column's existence as it is towards making the articles look the same... which, admittedly, means the same thing under the circumstances. IcarusPhoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

@Whenaxis: By what means is bias against the Notes unfair? Let's take the very first A entry in the table and his notes as an example. They read:

• Brother of Brig. Gen. William Wirt Adams.
• Mississippi state senator, 1852–1856.
• 1st Louisiana Inf.: Lt. col., March 13, 1861, col., October 30, 1861.
• Lost right eye at Shiloh.
• Wounded: Perryville, Stones River (Murfreesboro).
• Wounded and captured at Chickamauga, exchanged 1864.

These have apparently been reduced already, by Donner60. Given that this as American Civil War related, his role as senator is unrelated, it pre-dates the ACW by 5 years, and I don't see why the brother relation matters here. The last four points are the only notes direct related to the ACW.

Now, please go to WP:TRIVIA#Example, see this example of what not to do per MOS, and tell me how this table (or Union) is any different? How can these articles ever attain WP:FL standard, for example, when they completely blatantly contradict the requirement which states: "5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages", WP:TRIV being a supplementary. I'm failing to comprehend why articles of such lengthy content should be permitted to go against the universal MOS, and WP:TOOLONG when others are reduced to comply? I know there are some that are necessarily TOOLONG, but that is usually as result of the subject being vast, but in this case it is evident that the Notes, a repetition of content in each General's article, is superfluous, thus creating the TOOLONG result. The solution to both the trivia and length issues is clear. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 00:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. We should make it more like this article: List of American Civil War Generals (Union). If we're going to cut down the "Notes" section because it's too long because it does have some trivial information, we should get rid of the other columns that don't exist at List of American Civil War Generals (Union) because WP:TOOLONG covers the entire article not just the "Notes" section. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Donner60, thank you for your comments. I've just collapsed your response for ease of access of this noticeboard, I hope that's okay. IcarusPhoenix was mentioning that you were drafting a refactored version of the article in question - do you happen to have a userpage draft created to incorporate the ideas that you mentioned? If not, we can consult the assistance of the associated WikiProject(s), like Donner60 has suggested above, and close this thread because having two discussions open at different forums would be counterproductive. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem with the collapse; I assume (and would hope) that anyone interested in the subject would take the time to open and read it before commenting further.
Unfortunately (at least if speed is at issue), I had just begun to work on it. My draft is a word processing document and I have started to put up piecemeal changes. It is not advanced and I think it is not the type of document anyone else could work with very easily. I could do a revised "A" section draft in the next few days to show where I initially would go with the revisions, if that would be helpful. As I noted, I will be quite pressed for time for about two more weeks. More because of the formatting of points in the notes, I think it will take a couple of weeks after that to do the draft. I can probably make substantial reductions in the kbs used within a few days of the day my time frees up - about April 17 or 18. Eliminating the thumbnail photos would take very little time and would result in a nice initial reduction in use, which I might be able to do earlier if that is in line with the consensus and would be useful. If the consensus is for me to make the reductions I have suggested and see how many kilobytes remain and what the list looks like, I think I can have the entire list done by the end of the month, maybe a little sooner, but not within a few days.
For the immediate future, I am not sure how we will be proceeding. No other comments on my proposal have yet been made. So I suppose we do not know whether others may find my proposal acceptable or still want mass deletions. Will this controversy move to another page for resolution? I read your comment as suggesting that and, of course, it is in line with one of my suggestions. Or do we proceed by lack of further objection? Should I do the draft section or wait for more specific direction or consensus on the further draft or drafts? Of course, I do not want to do many hours of additional work only to find that the remaining information ends up deleted in its entirety anyway. I note again that I am not totally against splitting the article if revisions still leave it too long (unless the further revisions continue to be disputed as too long, I suppose). However, I would like to see how a revised page looks and how many kbs it has before splitting - which I prefer to mass deletions. Donner60 (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We will await responses to your reply above and see what the others think. For the short term, I think making a duplicate page perhaps in a userspace sandbox is better than formatting it in a word document because then you would have to transcribe the changes you did to the word document into wiki formatting. If the others are willing to work with you, you can make changes together to the duplicate page in your sandbox. Regardless, this thread will automatically be archived after 30 days of the opening date because of the layout of this noticeboard, so, I think the best option is to move this back to the article talk page and request for assistance from related WikiProjects. There's nothing much more that can be accomplished on this noticeboard until a new refactored version has been created. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Later today, I will move a copy of the article page to a sandbox or draft article page on my user page and begin work on it there. As I have noted before, people will need to bear with me for the next 12 days or so. I will be completely unavailable and "off line" for some of those days and will have very limited time on some of the others. Travel, preparation for a medical test, the test and some recovery time will take some of the time period; a few other tasks that I need to handle within the period will take most of the rest. Then I should be able to return to my usual, greater amount of Wikipedia time. Before then, I will be unable to make much progress. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made a copy of the article at User:Donner60/Draft of article. I have made revisions to the section of generals with surnames starting with the letter "A" to show the direction I would go in making revisions to the article. I might consider deleting a few more notes. I think if the line breaks could be deleted without making the formatting look sloppy, that also would result in a considerable reduction in kbs. Unfortunately, I will have very little, if any, time to work on this for the next 12 days or so. After that, I expect to have about the same amount of time for Wikipedia reading, research, writing and editing that I have been spending on Wikipedia for the past 21 months. While this may or may not satisfy everyone, I would like to revise the article as much as possible and then consider splitting it into perhaps three pages (if there is consensus), rather than deleting the notes altogether. Donner60 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's sad to see no one has responded to your draft as of yet. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This has gone stale, regrettably. If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 11, 2012 at 22:45 (UTC) because dispute is stale Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:45, 11 April 2012 (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.