text:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 11
|This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.
- 1 Ratnam concept school
- 2 James_Brooke
- 3 OPERA neutrino anomaly
- 4 Ra One - Response section
- 5 Minorities in Greece
- 6 Operation Trident (1971)
- 7 Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour
- 8 Monogamy
- 9 Dr. Blofield mass creation
- 10 Protect IP Act
- 11 Eugene Sternberg
- 13 Alprazolam/Xanax
- 14 Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan
- 15 Elizabeth Rauscher
- 16 Yadav
- 17 Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Ratnam concept school
|As the users involved have not responded to discussion, this has now been taken to the ANI by Yunshui.
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Repeated addition of text by User:184.108.40.206 and User:Geetha devi (whom I assume to be the same person) which is promotional in tone and a violation of WP:ARTSPAM. I have tried initiating discussion on both talkpages, as well as on the article talkpage, but as yet, neither user has responded. I can no longer remove the text without violating WP:3RR.
Users involved
It would appear that these two editors (or possibly one editor) also have a conflict of interest; the text they add refers to the school in the first person plural.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on both userpages and talkpage; no reply from either editor except to continue edit warring.
Administrator warning to both users, remove text from page, 3rd opinion.
Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ratnam concept school discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi there Yunshui, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've reverted the edits there myself, as they do seem to be spam and advertising; you've done well not to engage in an edit war. I think this is more of a conduct issue than content, as the problematic users seems to be disruptively editing. I suggest that you go to WP:ANI to resolve this, as they will be able to deal with the editors causing problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
|Discussion has gone stale. I would suggest discussing the naming at either the Article talk page or at Raja. Steven Zhang 09:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
James Brooke is considered a Raja, not a Rajah. Raja means Governor or Ruler in Malay. Rajah means Graph (like an excel graph). To Malaysians who read this article may be confused by the title he was given.
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
Discussed this on the talk page.
Decide if his title should be Raja or Rajah. I have consulted 4 Malay teachers in Malaysia.
NGPriest 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
James_Brooke discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I'm from Sarawak and lived there. When we talk about him, he refer him to as Raja, not Rajah.
Hi NGPriest. I don't know which part of Malaysia you are from, but the overwhelming spelling in use by writers in English, in Sarawak as well outside, is RAJAH and has been since around 1841. The Sarawak Museum, a government body and well-respected by international academics, states on its web-site that "Sarawak Museum was established by Charles Brooke the Second Rajah" (I just checked). Just look at all the books about about Sarawak's history; look on the monuments and historic documents - all (with the notable exception of Gertrude Jacob in her biography in 1876) use Rajah. Surely, it would be far more confusing to change the spelling now? It is not unknown for one word to have two completely different meanings, after all: (and I very much doubt that there was a Malay word for graph in use in 1841...). There is now a note to which you are welcome to expand on your interesting linguistic point, but it is not appropriate to try to rename a Raj (sic) posthumously. Incidentally, is your point that the two spellings must be pronounced differently by a Malay speaker? What about for a speaker of Sarawak Malay though - a distinct dialect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battang (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Battang, as i said before, i'm from Sarawak, i'm approx 1 hour from Sibu.
OPERA neutrino anomaly
|This discussion is stale. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 17:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
This is my 5th report to Wiki admins since 21 October 2011. Starting from 10:57, 21 October 2011 group of users (before it were users D.H and 184.108.40.206, now it is also User Ajoykt, Revision 20:46, 21 October 2011) persistently continues to delete my contributions on the OPERA neutrino anomaly page, namely the block: Other researchers pointed out that the Cohen-Glashow arguments are valid only if the Lorentz symmetry is broken by the presence of a preferred frame but they become invalid if instead the symmetry is deformed.[1] The group claims that the reference I provide cites the primary source. But the primary source here is the original OPERA announcement whereas the reference to arXiv:1110.0521 is a secondary source because it is a research paper which analyses some prior results and works. Besides, the group destroys my contribution in such a way that it could be undone only manually and also it creates difficulties in analyzing their actions. User1344 (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
The attempt to use the Talk Page to change the user 22.214.171.124's opinion was not successful
resolve the dispute about the above-mentioned Arxiv paper as a reliable source
User1344 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
OPERA neutrino anomaly discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The problem is that a paper in arxiv.org is both a) primary and b) self-published, since arxiv.org only has the thinniest of editorial filters. The quality of the paper then should be evaluated only on the quality of its author: from WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" In this context, if the paper was worth reporting, then someone like New Scientist would have reported about it. If the author is notable in the field then his primary source might make it into the article anyways, although giving it much less weight. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Ra One - Response section
|Closing this discussion for the time being, as one of the editors has announced their intention to leave Wikipedia, which is a shame. If dispute resolution is required on this topic in future, file a request at the Mediation Cabal. Steven Zhang (talk 09:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Ra One movie's response. Reviewers like Yahoo and Rediff have 2 out of 5 and declared it a flop, the users Ashermadan, Ankitbhatt and Shshshsh are vandalising the article by inserting incredible reviewers like Hungama on the top.
Below is the diffs of the article.
Link to Rediff rating: http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/review-raone-abhishek-mande/20111026.htm Other important reviews:
Yahoo - http://in.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-reviews/r-one-review-000920615.html Zee News - http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/review-ra-one-not-your-usual-srk-film_99089.htm
Users involved
The above users are trying to promote a product that has failed overall.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I tried to discuss with them on their talk page, but they dont seem to give any importance. They are biased.
Please provide your neutral view on what the content should be and request the above users to stop vandalising the article until then.
Guru coolguy (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ra One - Response section discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am not against srk or biased aginst him (why should i bother about a beggar who travels to Chennai every day in the fear of losing all his money in this flop?). My aim is wiki should host only credible information and it should not be vandalised by biased users like you. You need to give a proof that bollywood hungama is a credible reviewer. The fact that it has given 4.5 out of 5 and Yahoo gave 2 out of 5 insists some thing is going wrong. If you cant give a proof then get lost from here, i will do what i can do as i have got proof that you arent able to supply a plausible reference to your sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ankit - I again request you not to use uncivilized languages in Wiki, or else your account would be barred for abusing. Firstly can you give a proof that bollywood hungama is a credible source of reviews / ratings? Yahoo, Rediff and Zee are popular and neutral reviewers. You havent responded to my earlier questions either. When you say you have posted overall response, there are 10 positive, 5 negative and 2 mixed - the ratio is 10:7. How can you then declare it recieved a positive response? About your decision to watch The 7th sense, i am not bothered as there is a phrase that says donkeys only eat garbage even if you keep hygenic food infront of them. Finally, please respond to my questions about bollywood hungama before attacking anyone personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ankit,
Thank you for coming to the discussion. Firstly i would suggest you not to use harsh / uncivilized language or attack any one personally. This shows you might be severly disturbed over the flop of your favourite hero from north.
And my opinion is Rediff and Yahoo's reviews should be put up first and the response setion doesn thave a different section for positive and negative reviews. Infact i have never seen any movie following this style. The reponse section should give information about the overall rating of the movie by credible reviewers. If you do not understand the meaning of credible please refer to any online dictionary. Hungama cant be a credible reviewer while Yahoo and Rediff are accepted across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
From Ashermadan: I agree with Ankitbhatt. We already mentioned the reviews. The reviews we counted have 20 positive ones ranging from 5-3 and 5 negative ones. We are correct to say that Ra.One received generally positive reviews. Gurucoolguy keeps on changing it and adding redundant text and talking about other films that aren't even in Hindi. Please ban him from vandalizing our article because we're sick of changing it back because of the edits he makes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Question for all involved, are there any review aggregator sites (like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic) that specialize in Indian films? Neither RT or Metacritic has any score right now. Sites like this can help guide the general tone of the article as it should represent the mainstream view, and they can do a great job of summarizing that view. (Please note the only score RT shows right now is the percent of people that want to see it. Basically, it's an on-line poll and not something to be added to the article). Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
@ Binksternet - I meant that once it gets rid of all the problems, the article should make a GA or FA. Also, a consensus has been reached to keep "mixed to positive". Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Review Gang has a nice list of reviews. BollyJeff || talk 12:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Admins, The user Shshshsh is undoing my changes without giving any reference to his false claim that RaOne was housefull allover India. Infact it was not even a success in north india, while South India has its own quality movie industry. The Seventh Sense or 7am Arivu was the major release in South amidst many other Tamil movies. Now can you think of any one going to this kids movie called Ra.One which has been declared flop by major sites? Please warn this user. Guru coolguy (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know your conclusion. Btw, the over word of mouth about this movie is "waste of time and money" - Please refer to MouthShut.com which is a number 1 reviewer in India. The overall rating given by its users is 2/5. http://www.mouthshut.com/product-reviews/Ra-One-Movie-reviews-925602942 Guru coolguy (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Shahid - There are no sources that it was house full all over india,allthough it might have been released in few multiplexes in South. Please provide valuable ref/proof for your housefull theory before undoing my change.
Hi All - Thank you for coming on this discussion. I agree with Karthik Nadar that Times of india, ndtv are important reviewers compared to some hungama (which is totally biased). If you all agree then i can go in this order about the reviews:
Hi BollyJeff - The reviewGang has rated it at 5/10 which translated to 2.5/5. Let me know if this can be considered as the overall rating of the movie.
Hi BollyJeff - Well, if you see the same link after two dys it will be 4/10 but lets wait :D. Guru coolguy (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi All,
I wish to add the neutrality logo to the entire article because the very first section shows wrong information. I also want to add the below reference on the first section which says the movie's story was stolen / inspired from 2010 blockbuster Enthiran or The Robot.
Also all the below important media sites say Ra1 is a disaster and i am not sure why Wiki is targetted by srk fans to host wrong information. Let them do it on thier own sites but not on Wiki. I wish to add below references on the main section as it should show the acceptance of the movie. [b]Also the editors failed to give any reference that the movie was housefull all over india, it was only released in North India [/b] and We South Indians dont watch hindi movies which are mostly stolen from South (Tamil) movies and then much marketed. For example, the recent hindi movies Body Guard, Singham, Ready and even Amir Khan's Ghajini (2008)are all remakes of hit Southern movies. You might wiki or google to check these facts. So i dont agree that Ra1 was hit across india until it is given credible proofs (which is impossible).
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/diwali-cracker-raone-is-ambitious-but-flawed/196587-47-84.html http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/why-ra/20111026.htm http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2011/oct/261011-ra-one-shah-rukh-khan-film-review-superhero-film-two-half-stars.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 10:28, October 27, 2011
Hi All - Finally i have found a consolidated review from major medias and its in this link http://www.hindustantimes.com/Critics-verdict-RA-One-gets-mixed-reviews/H1-Article1-761773.aspx. I am pasting the summary below.
I will be also adding the Ra1 story stolen from Robot article from Times of India in the controversy section. Also still there has been no proof supplied that Ra1 was housefull all over india which is a misleading fact. I wish to change it as north india. And i am not against any region here but against people who consider that north india is alone india by neglecting / dominating other parts even in wiki (by posting wrong info on wiki).Guru coolguy (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Now that Mr. Guru coolguy too has agreed to keep "mixed to positive", like all other editors, can we remove the tag now... PLEASE? Scieberking (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi ScieberKing, My opinion above is - The overall response should be changed as mixed. Kindly go through the link above which gives consolidated reviews. I didnt paste all other minor medias but majority gave less than 3 or 3/5. Guru coolguy (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like most, if not everyone can accept the "mixed" description, is that correct? Okay, to move on to another discussion point - the order of the reviews. I've been going through a fair number of FA rated film articles and there's something that I missed in this article - none of them mention the specific score from a review. The only scores listed are from aggregator sites to give a summary of the reviews for the film. After that, the reviews are grouped to discuss specific points about the film. I would suggest that Ra. One have the same treatment. From a broad view point, look for elements of each review that make it distinct from the others. Things like unusual notes about the actors or acting in general, effects, cinematography, sound, directing, etc. Please avoid using the same review over and over unless it's a truly insightful film. If a review is mentioned, note somewhere the general review of the film (liked it, didn't like it, neutral, etc). Remember, summary, using quotes only for key points. Would this approach help with that point of dispute? Ravensfire (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Let us keep this civil
Could all editors involved in this dispute please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Guru Coolguy and Ankitbhatt, some of your comments have been blatantly offensive and unhelpful in resolving this dispute, which has become disruptive. I urge all involved to keep discussion focussed on the content, rather than the editors in question. Accusing or attacking other people is disruptive. It seems that the more recent discussion has been more productive, which is good. However, if the disruptive personal attacks do not stop, I or another mediator will close the discussion. Thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi All - Thank You for agreeing as mixed review. I have got one more concern, some one has added the below line which is incorrect and the references given for that do not prove the sentence.
It is pretty obvious what is meant by "positive reviews" and "negative reviews"; "most of the reviews were good", and "most of the reviews were bad", respectively. Would someone please explain the definition of "mixed reviews"? I would logically think it means "some reviews were good and some reviews were bad, without a clear consensus". If those definitions are correct, then when we say "mixed to positive", we are saying "some reviews were good and some reviews were bad, without a clear consensus (to) most of the reviews were good". This dosn't make a lot of sense when you put it that way, does it? I would think that if there is not a clear consensus, it should be "mixed". Mixed is mixed. I am not choosing you or him; neither of you own Wikipedia. I am choosing fair logic. BollyJeff || talk 12:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, firstly, the updated rating from Rotten Tomatoes has been increased to 88%. But then again, it is not something very relevant. Ra.One is primarily a Hindi movie and RT mostly uses American reviews (in the same manner as south indian reviewers, majority of whom have panned the film, are not very relevant). IMO, there are generally three types of verdicts; positive (favorable, hailed), negative (unfavorable; panned) and average (mixed; lukewarm). And "mixed" is being used by almost all major Indian news outlets including Hindustan Times and CNN-IBN. @ Ankit- Calm down buddy. While I agree Guru coolguy's behavior is not very appreciable, Ashermadan too is almost the same. Just my two cents. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Minorities in Greece
|Discussion continuing on the talk page. This can be re-opened later down the road if necessary. Steve Zhang 01:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Disagreement in this article concerning some issues of Turkish and muslim minorities in Greece. More precisely, if the Turkish minority is a religious or an ethnic one, if information about discrimination and attacks against them should be present, if information about the problem of a mosque of muslims in Athens should be present in the article.
The dispute stated with this edit and continued first in my talk page then moved to talk page of the article.
Users involved
The style of the other user (Athanean) was at times concentrated to me rather than the subject at hand. See this and this and the following in those pages.
Resolving the dispute
Issue talked in my user and article's talk pages. We were unable to find a solution, mostly because (in my opinion) of the behavior of Athanean. Many of his points are centered on me rather than the encyclopedic content. He has added a reference by indicating a wrong page number (Alexandris, p. 120), as he acknowledges, but does not care to correct it. Some of his arguments are self-referenced or not referenced (see for example [2]) He deleted well referenced parts of the article repeatedly ([3], [4]), without giving sufficient explanation in the talk page. My impression is, there is no progress towards a solution.
I tried to find a compromise by summarizing the attacks to the minority upon his criticism of this list of attacks being too long. I also changed my use of word "atrocity" to "attack" (in the talk page, not in the article) upon his criticism. Neither helped.
There are minor issues, too, like his deleting of Turkish village names given in brackets next to Greek ones ([5]). I see it only natural that Turkish village names be provided as well as the Greek one when speaking about the Turkish minority. I have not dwelled on these, because the main issue seemed to be more important.
I hope neutral outsiders' comments about not deleting properly referenced information from the article and not denying the obvious fact that "Turk" is not a religion but an ethnic group may work.
Filanca (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Minorities in Greece discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Hi Filanca, and thanks for posting here. I'm glad to see that you've chosen to get an outside opinion rather than keep reverting. Hopefully this board will help you to look on the situation refreshed and in a new light. Now I think the Wikipedia policy that most impacts your dispute here is that of maintaining a neutral point of view. In that policy, as you probably know, there is a section on avoiding undue weight on certain viewpoints. I'll quote some text from the policy here: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
Now, if you would humour me for a little while, I would like to hear your opinion. If it's not too much trouble, could you tell me how you would rate the significance of the material you have introduced, relative to the subject of the article as a whole? Please bear in mind that the subject in question here is the broad and general one of all minorities in Greece. This isn't a trick question or anything - I am genuinely interested in your opinion, and I would really appreciate you taking the time to answer. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note that there are multiple issues in this dispute as mentioned above so I tried to find three resources that cover most.Filanca (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello both of you, and thank you for posting your sources! I'm really appreciative of the time you've taken to find them. Athenean, I agree with you that those sources look very good. I think your source number two will be especially useful to us here, as it covers the entire topic area and is still scholarly and detailed. The other two seem like very good sources, and although they appear to be slightly more specialized, we should certainly take them into account when deciding what weight to assign to different parts of the article.
Filanca, I'm afraid I have to take issue with the sources that you have listed. The article in question is "Minorities in Greece", but all three of the sources you have listed are about minority rights, not just minorities. If the article was called "Minority rights in Greece" then I agree that the sources you list would be excellent ones to use. We could, indeed, use your sources to decide how much relative weight to assign different things inside a "minority rights" section. However, as it stands, I'm afraid your sources are too specific to use to determine the weight to assign to different parts of the article as a whole. Sorry to assign more work to you, but would you mind going back and finding some more sources? The best ones will be about the general topic of "minorities in Greece", rather than anything more specific. (By the way, if you agree with Athenean's choices, it is perfectly fine to list the same books as they have.) Let me know if you have any problems. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I intend to attempt to resolve this.
I ask all parties to please have patience; I need to read the background.
I remind all parties that we are all here to make this wiki amazing, and therefore suggest that they edit other articles in the meantime.
I will write more here ASAP. Thank you for your patience, consideration, and your work on this project.
No further input is required at this time, and I'd appreciate it if you would hold off for a few days on any edits relating to this matter, so that I can properly assess the issue. I will respond here within the next few days. Chzz ► 05:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: At this time, I am asking the users on their respective talk-pages if this issue could be subdivided into simpler, specific edit requests [27] [28] Chzz ► 05:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Operation Trident (1971)
|Resolved. Let us know if you need dispute resolution again in the future. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Issue relates to the usage of the "casualties1" or "casualties2" field of "template:infobox military conflict". Specifically, Operation Trident was an Indian naval attack on Karachi harbour in Pakistan. After the operation, the Pakistan Air Force retaliated by bombing Okha harbour in India over a day later. While this was a reaction to the operation, the bombing of Okha was not a part of Operation Trident (which was planned and executed by the Indian Navy). user:DBigXray and I assert that "casualties1" and "casualties2" fields of the infobox should be limited to casualties incurred DURING the operation and that the retaliation should be covered in the section on "Aftermath" of the operation. The alternate claim is that casualties should include those that came about in follow-up operations that were separate but in reaction to the operation which is the subject of the article.
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
Issue has been discussed on the talk page.
Please provide guidance on whether the proposal to limit the use of "casualties1" and "casualties2" to the casualties of the operation is acceptable. Also, please comment on whether describing the retaliation to the operation in the section on "Aftermath" is satisfactory.
Skcpublic (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Operation Trident (1971) discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The citations Skcpublic has given don't say that the ship in question was irreparably damaged, he added that at his own accord. This POV is also disputed by the Pakistani sources which call it exaggeration. The infobox issue is a format issue and not a POV issue about saying weather the retaliation should be put in the casualties and losses section of infobox or just in the body. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
user:hassanh5: You are confusing two separate issues. This dispute resolution request is about whether the damage to fuel tanks on Okha harbour which occured in a PAF retaliation to Operation Trident should be included in the casualties of Operation Trident, which was an Indian Navy operation. If you want to dispute-resolution on the damage to PNS Shah Jahan, please open a new dispute resolution request. Also, please confine your edits to the discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcpublic (talk • contribs)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Have you all looked for similar articles to see how they have handled something like this? I'd look for recent naval and air operations with retaliatory strikes afterwards. Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour
|Dispute is resolved. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
The page was created separately for the EPIX special of the Femme Fatale Tour and the DVD/Blu-ray release. However, the article contained little information with only a few sources, so I redirected it to the Femme Fatale Tour page. User:Mirrored Love reverted my edit saying that the article was "about the DVD release." I reverted it again and explained on the edit summary and on his talk page that the article failed notability, and that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page. We engaged in a edit war then because he refused to discuss it; I did not come here earlier because I didn't really want to have a full-fledged discussion for a small page that's going to be recreated anyway when the DVD is released. I reported him in the Edit warring noticeboard for breaking the 3RR; he was not blocked, the page was protected and a user suggested I'd come here.
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
I've explained the situation on his talk page and I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page.
I hope neutral users will see that this is a simple issue of notability and the page warranted a redirect for the time being.
Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
What is wrong with having the page up? How does it fail notability? What's not notable about it? All aspects of the article are well sourced except for the tracklist which I was trying to source until it was locked. A lot of articles are made before the release of something. I don't care if you feel the need to put a 'future release' tag at the top of the page; that's fine. But just to say if fails notability is not enough. How is that measured? It's not, the article should stay! And when are you planning on opening it up? Are you waiting for a press release? Why? The information from that can be added when it comes. It should be kept. Mirrored Love (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so we will expand the article after the premiere, then I'm happy. I'd be glad to help, if you would want me too? :) Thank you for replying, I understand where you are coming from. And I didn't want to make it a personal thing, I thought you were, but I see now you weren't :) By the way, because of the way you have made other Britney articles, then I have faith in you :) Mirrored Love (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is not much that needs to be done here. Wikipedia operates on a scale of months and years; the DVD is coming out in three weeks' time. I don't see any great harm in leaving the article up for three weeks until the DVD comes out and the reviews start coming in. If there are no further objections, I will go ahead and close this thread. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It's always nice to see a dispute resolved quickly, easily and without people getting angry - thanks to the both of you for doing that. I'll close this discussion now. I would suggest that next time, before an edit war ensues, the article is taken to WP:AfD, where the community can determine whether or not the article is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
|More discussion is needed on the talk page before we can accept this dispute here. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
SypmatycznyFacet has removed a whole passage referring to published sources in Cambridge University Press and Ignatius Press, saying it was "Clearly Ideology-based fragments". You can view it here. Apparently he has his own criteria of discernement which sources are ideologically based. But the criteria are not clear to me and they do not match the Wikipedia standards of neutrality policy to show a subject from every possible points of view.
Users involved
SypmatycznyFacet has had some periods of being blocked in Polish Wikipedia.
Resolving the dispute
I have had with SypmatycznyFacet nearly one month long editorial conflict in Monogamia article in Polish Wikipedia recently. The Polish administrators have asked him to stop editing the way he did and blocked the page for a moment, see here. The administrators have proposed a new schema of the article. For further details you may contact Loraine, she is fluent in English. SypmatycznyFacet, while he cannot freely act in Polish version, has started his dubious edits in the English one, (see link above).
Please check if his edit is an abuse to Wikipedia neutrality. If you think it is, remind him about the neutrality of Wikipedia and how it has to be understood.
Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Monogamy discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi there Quodvultdeus, and thanks for posting here. My first reaction is that this really needs to be discussed more on the talk page. I see you have asked a general question there about the passage in question, but there isn't any reply yet from Sympatycznyfacet. If you don't agree with their edits, then I suggest reverting them, then following through with more discussion on the talk page. A good model for this is outlined at bold, revert, discuss. It would also be a good idea to say precisely which parts of their edits that you do not agree with. Until there has been some substantial discussion of the issues on the talk page, it is really too early for dispute resolution. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Blofield mass creation
|Sorry, this isn't really the right place for this either. This doesn't seem like the kind of dispute that can be mediated, and there is no policy or guideline against it that we can try to find a compromise on. The best thing to do would be to start a discussion at the village pump, and then hold an RfC to try and get a consensus for a policy change. Regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
I believe Dr. Blofeld is mass creating pages without proper approvals/consensus/etc, and likely using his account via a bot to do so. I have attempted to discuss it with him on his talk page, but have gotten very terse and rude reponses. I also mentioned this on the notability notice board before I was able to discover the mass creation policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a page in the archives I think which should dismiss these accusations and an explanation of what is happening is given on my user page as to their purpose and cleanup intended is mentioned to User talk:Fram. Nothing more I can say. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox blah |param1 = {{subst:PAGENAME}} |param2 = |param3 = {{subst:PAGENAME}}, Sweden }} '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a [[river]] in Sweden. {{Sweden-geo-stub}}
I'd probably think it's just a redlink elimination attempt, or just another mass creation. HurricaneFan25 14:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, everything should be ok if it wouldn't be erorrs at these articles. User:Dr. Blofeld takes only one district ignoring that most rivers passes more than one district or even country. Also, I think it's very imporant to write at least with what bigger river it joins. If these things would be fixed I think such articles can be created. Hugo.arg (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand this user. I warned him not to create articles with errores but that was simply reverted [29]. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to affirm this work as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. To be useful, however, stubs need to have enough information to allow other editors to identify which topic the page is about and locate sources. I recently started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_templates_and_non-Latin_names about a related problem—where stubs are being nominated for deletion by non-native speakers because stubs are missing the topic name in some or all of the languages in which sources are likely to be found. Bearing this in mind, where-ever possible these kinds of stubs need to have the name of the topic in as many languages and scripts as possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
All encyclopedias have entries for distinct geographical entities such as rivers. I looked thru Dr. B.'s recent Lithuanian river creations - they do all have articles in the LT Wikipedia. I don't think incompleteness - such as missing the info that a river that flows mostly thru LT but probably rises in Latvia - is a sufficient reason to inhibit this process. (It's different from biographies of living people; no one is hurt by an omission or error or even passing vandalism.) On the LT WP, most of them are ref'd to extremely expensive books, so I can't personally verify most of them immediately. But I think it's safe to say at this point that they are very unlikely to be hoaxes, copyvios, promotional, or any other of the things that call for speedy deletion. I appreciate these articles' existence and I think future generations will too. Novickas (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Mass creation of articles is one thing, mass creation of unsourced articles is another. The only verification done before creating e.g. Vabala is the check that it exists in another unreliable source, Wikipedia. The article there[30] has no sources at all. Can we at least put a stop to the creation of unsourced (or wiki-sourced) articles in such a manner? I have also asked Dr. Blofeld in the past to start articles on rivers with "The X is a river" instead of "X is a river", but I notice that this simple change isn't implemented.
The mass creation also contains errors, e.g. the article Weser (Ourthe) already existed as Vesdre for some years here. There also need to be checks on translations, e.g. do we want Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Bastia or Saint-Jean-Baptiste Church, Bastia (and there are quite a few of these church articles created already)? What with the names of rivers that run through different countries? Now, the first country Dr. Blofeld tackles gets priority, even though that may not be the best name for it? The Wisznia runs for 15 km in Poland, and for some 85 km in Ukraine. But our article uses the Polish name for it.
I think it would be better if these articles were created by a bot (run by Dr. Blofeld) with some control and some agreements, e.g. the need to have at least one reliable source, and the need for a better starting layout (it is a bit ridiculous that someone is going to correct all disambiguated articles like Bieke (Bigge) to remove the disambiguated part from the body of the article and the infobox). By having prior agreement before a run starts, things like the naming of French church articles can be handled before these are created. Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Good point Fram and I had forgotten about the The thing, not that I ignored you. Although any article which says river of lithuania is still not erroneous as it is true but in a minority of cases may be cross border. Overall I'd say the benefits outweigh the negative. The Ukraineian name for the river you mentioned google translates as Cherry which is too literal. When I started the articles as Eglise I was using the current system used for many churches in Paris. We have tens of articles as Eglise in the same way we have them with Gare de for railway stations. Overall the positives outweigh the negatives I think especially if we view wikipedia as a project which will be around for future generations. What I want, and this was proposed at WP:INTERTRANSWIKI long ago, is to create an Interntranswiki bot which ransacks categories on other wikipedias and creates a missing directory where there are no en: links and attempts then to create them extracting some basic facts. I am clueless about coding though, if I was I'd have been running a bot for years and we'd probably have 10 million articles by now and most of the stubs of decent quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
WTF are you on about? We have List of rivers of Hesse etc by state and a general List of rivers of Germany. Given that the vast majority could be written into full length articles how exactly would this be productive? @Shakinglord, and you're surprised? People just please stop moaning and let us get on with developing wikipedia s a website. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Most wikipedia articles, especially in the early days began as "providing little or no value". Do you think we have developed to what we are today in size by everyone article being generated fully as you see it today? You are missing what building an encyclopedia collaboratively actually means and what wiki technology entails and that as a resource we are still in our infancy. If you start to view wikipedia as a long term project which will be around for generations and we are to truly achieve wonders you will see the eventual purpose of what I'm doing. If we want a "complete" encyclopedia NOW then unless this site grossly changes its way of editing and purely focuses on quality then I am not willing to bow down on a whim to those who don't like it. As I say on my user page if we were a seriously scholarly encyclopedia we would build wikipedia GA quality article at a time and only permit that level of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It was all Magic 8-Ball when the project started. Many articles are still being created by translating from other wikis, there's a presumption - not proof, but strong presumption - of existence and verifiability there. You can't know when any new stub will be edited again or how much. And Dr. B did choose which to create. To demonstrate the uncertainty, I'll add a sentence about drainage basins and a reference to all of Dr. B's new LT river articles over the next week, making them 2-sentence referenced stubs. There is a very comprehensive LT Ministry of Environment page for this [31]. I imagine there are similar pages for other countries and maybe other country project editors will contribute similarly. (An announcement at country project pages would be nice, Dr. B, since probably not everyone reads Alex's New Article Bot entries.) Creating unreferenced stubs on encyclopedic topics using other language WPS, with context, like 'x is a river in Lithuania', is not explicitly deprecated AFAIK. If it is, let me know. I don't see it in Wikipedia:Stub. Novickas (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just like this eh?. And please stop shouting in capital letters, we hear you...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't give two hoots what you or anybody else thinks Gaijin. This is my last post here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Merovingian mass creation
This is a disscussion from AN. BeebleRox informed me to take the disscussion here. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Merovingian continues to make articles about astrology, sometimes a single minute apart, likely a an automated bot. This may be a violation similar to DR. Blofield's mass creation incident's. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
"This may be a violation similar to DR. Blofield's mass creation incident's.". "Violation". LMAO. Who is this guy? Why don't you actually do something for wikipedia Olaf instead of, well, hanging around here like an annoying little git.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Protect IP Act
|RFC under way. Feel free to relist if RFC does not bear fruit prior to its 30-day expiration. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
An editor is acting against the consensus of other editors, using citations that don't say what the editor claims they say, claiming sources are not reputable, removing appropriate tags, editing other users posts on the talk page, and generally being very pedantic about every single edit by any other editor. In response to this editor's constant reversion of my edits I have explained very clearly and concisely why I am making the edits I do, but they just keep reverting them.
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
I have requested an rfc but have received no input from any other editors.
We have arrived at an impasse and need the input of other editors.
Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Protect IP Act discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Eugene Sternberg
|Closed as filed in wrong forum and now filed in proper forum. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Though I can not find the source, I suspect the recent largescale additions to the article are a copyright violation, added by an account with a history of copyright issues.
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
I've contacted the user and requested a listing of sources, then followed up to ask whether the content was copied from a published source. There's been no response, and the user has continued working on the article.
A thorough check of the content for copyright violations, reversion of content if need be, and possible administrative action, if deemed necessary, with respect to the user.
188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Eugene Sternberg discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|Sorry, you need to actually discuss this on a talk page before you can bring it here. Also, please stop edit warring on the article, both of you. Admins will probably take a dim view of any more reverts. All the best, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
A Wikipedia user is continuously making an edit which is not sourced. I reverted the edit numerous times although it has not made a difference.
11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote back on their talk page.
11coolguy12 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote on the user's talk page about the un-sourced edit and the fact that it needs a reliable source.
11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
By providing advice on how to resolve the dispute.
11coolguy12 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
WWE RAW discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|No discussion here since my posting/advice. Feel free to re-open down the track if necessary. Steven Zhang 21:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
We contest a sentence near the beginning of the article: "The potential for abuse is low and is similar to that of other benzodiazepine, (BZD) drugs." We have presented extensive evidence, from psychopharmacology textbooks and other well-recognized authorities, indicating that this sentence is false. Doc James says that this sentence pertains only to *therapeutic* use of the drug (i.e. use strictly within medically prescribed parameters). But this caveat needs to be conveyed by the sentence itself, if the sentence is not to be seriously and dangerously misleading. Part of the disagreement here regards Wikipedia readers' likely interpretation of the word "abuse," and we ask that the reviewer(s) of this covnersation include an evaluation of that issue. We note as well that the disputed sentence is contradicted by information contained not only in other Wikipedia articles, including those on "Benzodiazepine" and Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome," but also in the alprazolam/Xanax entry itself.
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
We have been discussing this issue at length on the alprazolam/Xanax talk page since the beginning of September. About a week ago, we requested a third opinion, but were advised instead to make a request to this dispute resolution noticeboard.
In order to move the dialogue on this matter forward to resolution, we request a careful reading and review of the discussion on the talk page. We ask that a neutral person (or several) – someone who does not know Doc James and has not worked with him in the past on any Wikipedia project -- give us an independent evaluation of the issues involved in this disagreement.
Rbarglow (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Alprazolam/Xanax discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan
|DRN seems premature, as discussion is still going on. If you need outside help, please try WP:3O first. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
The page is proposed for deletion . One of the reasons for deleting it is said to be lack of references . I want to add references to the article for preventing it from deletion . User Orartu thinks all of the references can't be used in the page because the references are not related . In the article Kurds in Azerbaijan , Orartu deletes my disambiguation template because she thinks the existence of the page Azarbaijani Kurds is wrong , and the disambiguation is then have to be deleted.
Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Please explain to this user that I'm not her enemy and we may have conversation .
Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Azarbaijani Kurds, Kurds in Azerbaijan discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Elizabeth Rauscher
|It's too early to come to DRN. I've not seen much discussion at the talk page at all - try continuing there, first. If necessary, request a third opinion. If you request a 3O and still no progress is made, feel free to come back here, provided meaningful attempt at discussion is made. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Apparently, User:Dreadstar thinks it is okay to revert nearly every edit I've made to this article as I try to get it to conform to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. I cross-listed this to WP:FTN because of the content issues, but I think that essentially this editor is claiming ownership of the article. I think the best thing to do at this point is simply revert him until he goes away because he makes no coherent arguments on the talk page yet insists that there needs to be a discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure what more can be done here, but would welcome some help.
Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth Rauscher discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|Discussion should continue on the talk page. There is useful and productive discussion happening there, and because of this there doesn't seem to be any need for further dispute resolution at this time. Please remember to be civil in the discussion, and to stick to Wikipedia's content policies. If discussion stalls again, you can always file a new dispute here. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
Complete highjack of Yadav page.The article is manipulated and talks only about negatives of Yadavs.So many evidences have een overlooked.Negative Citations from same references are used and positive citations from same are not considered. Most of the people in India disagree to what is mentioned in the article(as is evident from the latest discussions) but the same has been overlooked as user Sitush and User Fowler&fowler have something against Yadavs and being veteran editors have considerable support of wiki administrators.Anyone trying to correct the article is either banned or blocked.This is clear misuse of Wiki admin powers.Please go through the latest discussions throughly and find out yourself that only user Sitush and Fowler&fowler have problems with correct facts and with support of few wiki admins they have completely hijacked the page
Users involved
Resolving the dispute
Yes, we tried to resolve it through discussions on Yadav page.Despite citing references and raising issues over biased and dubious nature of the artcle, no action was taken by admins and they continued their support for User:Sitush and user:Fowler&fowler
Please remove protection from the article and Wiki admins should e unbiased.Or else we will raise a request with government to ban Wikipedia in India because enough is enough
22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yadav discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Is that a legal threat in the originating notice above? - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
User 18.104.22.168, I hardly noticed any negativity in the article. Well, Shudra, yes, but that does not equate to Asprushya and according to some brahmins, all non-brahmins are shudra. This is a bone of contention in many caste articles. Please don't waste too much time fighting over that issue. You should instead spend your efforts on improving the section on post-independence history of the Yadav. What I find missing in the article is any mention of Lalu Prasad and Mulayamsingh Yadav or discussion on their rise to power. Basically the last sixty years are wrapped up in one small paragraph.
User, 220.127.116.11, you claim that some of the editors involved in editing the Yadav page may be high caste people who hate Yadavs. Why do you have such a narrow view ? Have you considered that not only they may not be high caste, they may not even be Hindu or Indian In fact, they could be from any corner of the world. Please don't assume that only Indians have interest in articles on castes.Jonathansammy (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In response to Sitush's question about the legal threat, it initially looked like one to me, though apparently is more just disruptive but not a threat. Comments like these are unhelpful to the dispute resolution process. If all of you are willing to approach this in a calm, civilized manner, I suggest taking this back to the talk page. If DR is still needed after that, we will be here to assist. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
|This discussion has grown too large for this noticeboard, and should be taken to either RfC or the Mediation Cabal. My personal recommendation is for mediation, but the final choice should be up to the involved editors. If you need further guidance on which to choose, please ask me on my talk page. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
|Closed discussion
Dispute overview
infobox and sources for the article are in question. 1. loss and casualty section of infobox. 2 use of non neutral sources as Source. Please guide us about the 1 Information in the casualty section of the Infobox. at present the other user is trying to place those information in the Infobox which are normally not included by wp:TREND . as they are mentioned in article , mentioning all of them will make the infobox unduly large. 2 also comment on the use of PAF official website as source for IAF losses in the 1971 war.
Users involved
1A lot of damage can be mentioned in infobox of both the Indian and pakistani sides, that does not mean we have to add it. these are extra information that cannot and should not be added in infobox. also there has already one dispute above in dispute on "Operation Trident (1971)" . 2 PAF official website does not Give the Value for PAF aircraft losses (while it can accurately give it) for obvious reasons but no the PAF Website gives IAF losses. The user is trying to use another site which has mirrored this info as a neutral source for this change.
Resolving the dispute
tried on talk pages , no uses user reverts me and complains on Antivandal for getting me blocked.
please guide us on 2 points.
ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
1. Military Conflict Infobox
the Description on the heading above is enough, i would only include few examples for showing the wiki trend . Iran–Iraq_War, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Red Army invasion of Georgia, Kosovo War, Battle of Nanshan. Many more can be included but i think this is sufficient. This Dispute has arisen because there had been an attempt to misuse the Infobox Casualty and loss section to highlight] the damage that Pakistani forces did on Indian harbours airfields etc. The Edits on infobox completely disregard the format of the infobox, the user instead of making an attempt to understand what needs to be placed in the infobox and what not, [[includes needless extra information , which (after noticing) i tried to remove with reasoning, but the other editor assuming bad faith took an offence and reverted it saying vandalism (without discussing) and at once appealed for my blocking at wp:AIV (which was promptly rejected later). In order to prevent a furthur edit war, i have left the article in the incorrect state and i have brought the matter here. I request opinion of other editors on this issue.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Citation for lost Indian aircraft
Enough discussion for the issue has not taken on talk in the first place. Instead the user chose to editwar every time changing the pretext of removing cited material from article. First he objected on reliability of the sources provided for the damages to the airfields, then he started with trend when he could not get it removed. The fact is that those damages did take place and have been placed as such in other articles. Another point is that he only removed the damages from only the Indian side under the pretext of making the infobox short (while that too was not needed). Secondly, dbigxray is trying to wrongly frame the issue. The downed Indian aircrafts are not only cited by the PAF site but also another defense website which dbigxray has been eagerly quoting on different issues [35] in the very previous section of the same talkpage. Now when the same site is giving the information which he doesn't like, he is calling it a mirror site just on the basis that the text is similar even though it has been well placed on the site in context to other content. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This whole dispute is part of the ongoing friction between pro-Pakistan and pro-Indian editors. A pro-Pakistan bias should not be allowed to creep into the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again you two - I must say I didn't expect to see you back at this noticeboard so soon! I have a few points to make about the discussion that I have seen here:
I am of half a mind to tell you both to scrap the article and to start again from scratch. In fact, a good way of doing things might be for both of you to create a special page in your userspace and write the whole thing again section-by-section using quality sources, comparing notes as you go. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. As this doesn't look like it is getting resolved here, would you both be willing to take this to the Mediation Cabal? I think mediation would be the logical next step if you are still not agreeing over the content here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- ^ G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman, L. Smolin, OPERA neutrinos and relativity, arXiv:1110.0521.


text:
Our Story
Ram Electronics, Inc. was originally incorporated as R. A. Miller Electronics Corporation. Established in 1970, the company's first products were antenna matching networks and magnetic compasses.
In 1979, the name was changed to Ram Electronics and the business was expanded into the production of printed circuit board assembles and electronic modules. Through the eighties, Ram's business grew, supplying electronics to the U.S. Government. Ram produced electronic assemblies and modules for various military radios and communication systems, data processing, control systems, electronic sensing and indicating apparatus. Ram Electronics grew to a 60 employee company in less than three years and was rewarded with the Small Business Administrator's Award of Excellence in 1988.
At the turn of the decade in 1990, Ram reached a cross roads, with rapidly evaporating military contracts. It was decided Ram would shift the majority of it's efforts to commercial electronics, designing and manufacturing products with the same technical expertise that was utilized for the military. As with any major cultural shift, the transition was not painless, having to lay off employees and institute drastic down-sizing.
In 1994, Ram emerged a survivor, successfully making the transition to a commercial electronics design and manufacturing facility. Our new customer base includes Brunswick Corporation, Deutsch Industrial Products, Electro-Matic, Diebold Inc., Whirlpool Corporation, Grand Haven Stamped Products (GHSP), Dura Automotive Products, Eaton Hydraulics, and others.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How To Put Free Ringtones On Your Iphone 5 - EASY MODE - Also Works For All Other Iphones And Ipods
People Who Liked This Video Also Liked
Did this video help you?
Tamora Haymon: that crap didnt work wtf is wrong with u
anthonyfranco88: But when you download from Audiko, it downloads as an mp3, not an m4r file
ticos08: Thanks very much ,,, This was the least complicated method to to move ringtones to iTunes , and then to the iphone ...
سعود حمد: Great ,
But next time don't stick mic on your lips
Mads Isen: Thx
Jatin Gill: thing realy worked for ma i5 !! ...thnkx budy..appreciate ur efforts
Malidens Muthu: it is not copying into my tones library and my iphone doesnt show tones tab itself
help me
Gaye Cairns: Although I could put it into Tones in iTunes, it is greyed out and doesn't play
Janice M: Umm,,, the iphone 5 came out last year but this vid was made in 2010???.. what ????
flylikeabird85: Thanks so much for this. It worked for my iPhone 5s great. Thanks again.
Alain Name: I got the iphone 5 not s or c. Just 5 will this work on my phone?? Thanks!!
paulisawesome10: my m4r wont link into itunes
toots ramrod: Whats the website you get your ringtones from??
ACOOL: "LOL" This guy use Internet Explorer.
g0tst1ngs: just gun put this in mah ahTunes folder
andrea villalba: Great video! Thanks!
vadeem Stamey: this does not work on itunes 11
TeaPips: Great video! Cheers!
TeaPips: Wow it actually worked! I thought this was going to be full of drama but it was so simple.
|GuntownHustle|: http://www.zamzar.com/
How to Put Free Ringtones On Your Iphone 5 - EASY MODE - Also works for all other Iphones and Ipods 5 out of 5


text:
Tag "nec terrain"
AT&T dials up NEC Terrain for rugged user base
Waterproof and rugged, the phone also features Enhanced Push-to-Talk.
NEC Terrain surfaces as future AT&T smartphone
Pictures of an NEC Terrain has been spotted online giving us an idea as to what we might expect out of AT&T in the near future. Photos obtained by @evleaks


text:
Le Boudin Blanc
your comments review this restaurant and win a bottle of champagne
Very average food and indifferent service. We got the impression that the chef didn't care about the quality of the dishes. Also, this is a French restaurant that charges for bread! Do not waste your money but go to Galvin Bistrot de Luxe instead for decent French food and a nice evening for the same price.
Comment on this reader review
- View all reviews by this user
Overall rating
Food 3 | Service 2 | Atmosphere 2 | Value for money 1
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Everything was simply perfect: starting from the courtesy of the staff, the atmosphere, nice and cosy, the crowd and the perfection of the dishes, nothing to envy to a tipycal Parisian bistro.
We particularly enjoyed the truffle and mushroom risotto, the sole meuniere and the parfait au chocolat.
Impressive wine list, probably one of the best in London with over 600 wines: the Burgundy selection is sublime with some very fair prices.
Excellent ratio price/quality in general for the whole dinner.
The right place for a friends gathering or a romantic tete ŕ tete.
Comment on this reader review
Silver Spoon
- View all reviews by this user
Overall rating
Food 9 | Service 9 | Atmosphere 9 | Value for money 9
Sunday, March 24, 2013


text:
Xherdan Shaqiri Surprises Youth Players Dressed Up as an Elderly Man
Always be wary of the old guy with mad skill. Swiss star Xherdan Shaqiri played an awesome trick on some youthful footballers, and all it took was a fake beard and some grandpa clothes...
Switzerland Rise to 2-1 Win over Lithuania
Switzerland enhanced their prospects of UEFA EURO 2016 qualification, coming from behind to run out 2-1 victors against Lithuania in Vilnius...
Inler Captains Switzerland Side vs. USA
Swiss Mates Back Lichtsteiner's Controversial Comments
Switzerland 3-0 Estonia
Switzerland remain outside the automatic qualifying spots at the halfway point of their Euro 2016 Group E qualifying campaign despite a comfortable 3-0 victory over Estonia. .....


text:
Bad man don't exist
No evil man exists
I know good man don't exist
No righteous man exists
Strong man don't exist
No undying man exists
Weak man don't exist
No just flesh and blood exists
Lyric Meaning
All the descriptors that we use to identify ourselves and each other: morality, mortality, physicality, and all the various dichotomies and contradictions of the human condition, are ultimately worthless/meaningless. At its core, the human race is just a mass of watery meat-sacks; we live, we die. We can "evolve" all we want (as the previous verse alludes) and try and reason that some are "better than" or "worse than" others but we are all fundamentally the same.
Improve the quality of Wiseman Lyrics by leaving a suggestion at the bottom of the page


text:
Definitions for DOMdɒm; for 2 also Port. dɔ̃
This page provides all possible meanings and translations of the word DOM
A male dominator (in sadomasochistic sexual practices); feminine domme
to dominate
Origin: From Proto-Germanic *dōmi, first-person singular of dōnan, from dhē-. Akin to Old High German tuom "I do", Old English eom "I am". More at do, am.
Webster Dictionary
a title anciently given to the pope, and later to other church dignitaries and some monastic orders. See Don, and Dan
in Portugal and Brazil, the title given to a member of the higher classes
Origin: [Pg. See Don.]
The Dom is a mountain in the Pennine Alps above Saas Fee in the canton of Valais. With its 4,545 m summit it is the third highest peak in the Alps and the second highest in Switzerland. The Dom is the summit of the Mischabel range, the highest massif lying entirely in Switzerland. Although Dom is a German cognate for 'dome', it can also mean 'cathedral' and the mountain is named after Canon Berchtold of Sitten cathedral, the first person to survey the vicinity. The former name Mischabel comes from an ancient German dialect term for pitchfork, as the highest peaks of the massif stand close to each other.
Anagrams for DOM »
mod, MOD
Sample Sentences & Example Usage
Non-dom status was meant to be temporary, but it became permanent for some people. Not any longer.
Property developers who specialise in selling to non-dom purchasers may find that the Budget announcements may dampen demand until the details have been fully absorbed.
Images & Illustrations of DOM
Translations for DOM
From our Multilingual Translation Dictionary
Get even more translations for DOM »
Find a translation for the DOM definition in other languages:
Select another language:
Discuss these DOM definitions with the community:
Word of the Day
Would you like us to send you a FREE new word definition delivered to your inbox daily?
Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:
"DOM." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2016. Web. 8 Feb. 2016. <http://www.definitions.net/definition/DOM>.


text:
Guard J.R. Smith is seriously considering signing with a Chinese professional basketball team. And although he hasn't signed a contract yet, Smith has been in touch with teams overseas, his agent Leon Rose confirmed Thursday.
One of the Nuggets' better reserves during the George Karl era, Smith is an unrestricted free agent but is looking to get paid by playing in China during the NBA lockout.
Yahoo Sports reported he's mulling a $3 million deal to play the 2011-12 season with Shanxi. If Smith plays in China, he would not be able to opt out of his contract and return to the states if the lockout ends.
Another Denver free agent, Wilson Chandler, already has signed to play in China for the season.
Smith's return to Denver isn't a sure thing. He often clashed with Karl, and during the playoffs Smith said there was a "strong possibility" he would sign with a new team this summer. He has averaged 13.6 points in five seasons with the Nuggets.
Asked about his relationship with Karl, the volatile shooting guard said in April: "Up and down. Pretty much roller-coaster style. When it's going good, it's going great. When it's going bad, it's going terrible."
Without Chandler and possibly Smith, it would leave a big hole at the shooting guard/small forward spot coming off the Nuggets' bench.