Misplaced Pages

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

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254

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.

• Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism (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?

There is disagreement about whether the template should exist at all.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• BoDu (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
• PRODUCER (talk · contribs)
• Jean-Jacques Georges (talk · contribs)
• Nuujinn (talk · contribs)
• Свифт (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

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

Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism.

• How do you think we can help?

I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved.

BoDu (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism discussion

Oh dear, another controversy about Yugoslavia in World War II. Great, just what we needed. Thanks for informing me : anyway, I have not really taken part in the controversy as I have lacked the time to contribute to the english[REDACTED] lately. Still, I do think there are some POV issues involved in this template, as in many Yugoslav-themed articles. My position in a nutshell is that the template should not exist at all, or rather be replaced by a template which would include everything regarding the Yugoslavia in World War II and not try to push forward any judgement about anybody. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The template topic is inherently focusing on a specialized negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Surely this is about whether the existence of the template is warranted by the sources and in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2. For example, it is abundantly clear from the exhaustively sourced material in the Chetniks and Pavle Djurisic articles that Chetniks and Djurisic collaborated. Djurisic was awarded the Iron Cross by the German commander in Montenegro, for Pete's sake! JJG's suggestion that no-one should be trying 'to push forward any judgement about anybody' is surely a contradiction to the encyclopedic nature of WP. If the reliable published sources make judgements that collaboration was a significant issue in Yugoslavia in WW2 (and they resoundingly do), then my view is that the use of the template is appropriate in that context. If collaboration is significant in context, then it does not matter if, as North8000 suggests, it is inherently focusing on a specialised negative aspect. It is significant, and this justifies the template. I must say I feel the cold hand of POV touching my shoulder on this one, and I must also say that there are quite a few editors on these articles that are from the countries involved, who have strong sympathies for one of the nations or ethnic groups involved, or have strong views on the events of WW2 in Yugoslavia (ie axes to grind or at the very least a perceived conflict of interest). I have observed that these feelings and sympathies can lead some editors far away from the sources. BoDu for example, who has brought this dispute here, makes it clear on his user page that he despises Tito and is a fan of a member of the WW2 Yugoslavian government in exile (Grol). I do my best to WP:AGF regarding all editors, and I hope BoDu does his best to keep these feelings at bay when he edits articles that relate to Tito and the Partisans or Serbs involved in WW2, but if he has those views, he's pretty close to the problem, and it makes it much harder to discuss these things with him because his view is not necessarily based on reliable published sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. BoDu never brings up sources, and on the singular occasion he did bring-up a source, has been caught blatantly falsifying it (apparently listing a publication and an author with random page numbers hoping he wouldn't get called on them).

@North8000, "not pushing judgement on anybody" sounds very zen but it really makes no sense. We must represent what the sources have to say, no more no less. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges and North8000 that the template should not exist. Almost all countries that were under Axis occupation do not have template about the collaborationism (I found only Denmark). BoDu (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you do. Deleting content and whole templates is a small price to pay as long as you can delete the sourced information as "collateral damage". -- Director (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Having extensively read the discussion at hand, and arguments for and against the template, I would like to assist in the resolution of this dispute. Firstly, I wish to address that given that editors in this matter have a horse in this race it is essential that inflammation of the situation be minimised. People feel passionate about things, and when you butt heads with someone with opposing views whether intentionally or unintentionally it is always a distressing issue.

The matter of the template appears to have a pre-existing consensus as to it's neccessity, and all elements therein are extensively sourced. I am assuming that the extensive sourcing is in place due to the controversial nature of the issue. Whilst no one wants to hear bad things about their nation or ethnic group, and whilst people have varying views on history based on personal experience, these issues border on original research and emotive elements that cannot be dealt with within Misplaced Pages.

We have guidelines and policies to assist us with these matters, and in situations like this it is probably more prudent to take issues with the policies that allow something you disagree with rather than turning to an article to champion your cause.

My grandfather was a Yugoslav partisan, although I know nothing about the matter beyond that, so I shall leave my interaction on this matter purely as commentary rather than determined dispute resolve.

To my credit, half of my family were on the allied side, the other half on the axis side, from British naval and air force officers, to a member of the SS, the partisan grandfather, etc, etc. So I swiftly learnt to have no vested interest in those sorts of issues to survive family gatherings; but again I feel that this (whilst not reflected anywhere on Misplaced Pages and thus is purely me being transperent and open about something personal in my family history that may be held against me by participants in this dispute) may be enough to remove me from the argument.

If on these grounds any party would like me to step away from this dispute I am more than willing to do so. We have numerous active volunteers who are here to help you, and as much as I would like to assist I can just as easily ask another volunteer to step up. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course its sourced. Thoroughly sourced. And all participants aside from BoDu have taken that into consideration. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 5 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.

• The Mole (MC/producer) (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?

This page was deleted due to the artist being "too obscure for Misplaced Pages". After a message was sent to the administrator TParis (who happens to be on Administrator Review), I received a response requesting that I send references proving the validity of the artist's worth. I sent a very large list of references, and have received no reply.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jonah Mociun (talk · contribs)
• TParis (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=The Mole (MC/producer)}} --~~~~ 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?

As mentioned prior, TParis requested references, which I gave, yet the page remains deleted. It is extremely disheartening, as an independent artist, to see my long track record disappear from the internet, not only on Misplaced Pages but in a very large number of web sites dating back to 1999. The fact that this page, which I did not create by the way, was deleted due to obscurity, is yet another kick in the face to someone who has purposefully remained independent, turning down deals, for moral reasons, from Sony, Virgin, and others. I feel like Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent the free press, which is rapidly dwindling. And to delete a page due to an artist's "obscurity" seems not only unnecessary but counter to what is purported to be a system of interoperability. I have changed my stage names numerous times over the years and represented a variety of relatively short-lived collectives, thereby making my name difficult to track, but I believe that an honest search for terms such as "The Mole", "Th' Mole" "DJ 0.000001", "Magical Bass" and "Motion Recordings" should give some idea of the validity and influence of my work. I have worked prominently with many non-commercial labels and organizations including Magical Bass, Motion Recordings, The Motherboard, New Cocoon, Hectic Records, Daly City Records, Fresh yO!, Anti-Party Records, Chickenhed, Vaatican Records, SPAZ, Iceberg, Circuitry Audio, Diseased Records, Paramanu Records, Milled Pavement Records, Ramadon Recordings, and others. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

• How do you think we can help?

Please re-instate said Wiki page, considering above-mentioned points.

69.230.109.25 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mole (MC/producer) discussion

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.

• Carlingford Lough - The border (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?

I am just looking a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a needless POV push on this particular page and I would like to see if an Admin can see an overwhelming consensus on this change?

Certain users have been pushing the viewpoint that Northern Ireland is not a country and hence does not have an international border with ROI. The term International was removed from text, leaving the border. Either international should be restored to the text or the pipe should be removed.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Gravyring (talk · contribs)
• Gravyring (talk · contribs)

The page is largely held back in its content by a number of Irish Nationalist POV pushers, who seem to want to pretend that NI does not exist as a country. Currently there is a discussion on the location field of the infobox which currently pipes to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. So there is a contradiction.

• 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=Carlingford Lough - The border}} --~~~~ 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?

Topic discussion with no reasoning to objection.

• How do you think we can help?

There are a number of inconsistency's on the page, but POV pushers are prohibiting the addition of accurate edits.

1. The term International was removed without consensus. A revert is necessary.

2. The location field should be changed to Northern Ireland to mirror point 1 and to be consistent with 'basin countries' field and the map of Ireland showing both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland.

Gravyring (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough - The border discussion

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.

• Richard F. Cebull (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?

Cebull is in the news for forwarding an email about Obama. I tried to add a clause about the content of the email. Users on the talk page have offered a series of changing arguments as to why the content should not be added to the article. These arguments include: I have misunderstood the joke; there is no agreement about what the joke means; "there are BLP issues involved here"; the article doesn't contain enough detail about other aspects of the bio; and "that's three voices compared to one".

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs)
• Bernardoni (talk · contribs)
• Jokestress (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=Richard F. Cebull}} --~~~~ 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?

Please review the suggested addition and advise whether it is an appropriate addition to the article.

— goethean ॐ 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull discussion

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.

• History of Bahrain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Naif Hazazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seven Seas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hormuz Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Saudi Gazette (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 user "Uishaki" is vandalizing the internationally-recognized geographic name of the Persian Gulf. I (user:Kamran the Great) undid a few of their edits and left message on talk page, with references. Their response on my talk page, although civil, is unacceptable and lacks any reliable evidence. Uishaki has then proceeded to make the same change to other pages.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Uishaki (talk · contribs)
• Kamran the Great (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=Persian Gulf - name vandalizing}} --~~~~ 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?

discussed on talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Asking the other user to stop disruptive and incorrect editing.

Kamran the Great (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Naming Dispute discussion

Comment by Zero - Although other names exist, the name in English sources for this body of water is overwhelmingly "Persian Gulf" and this has been true for a couple of centuries. We have an article: Persian Gulf naming dispute. The wiki guideline of using common English names doesn't allow any other name in ordinary references. Zero 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: Just a quick reminder to everyone here (I will probably comment more in-depth when I have a little more time) - edit warring (or even stubbornness) is not vandalism. This goes for everyone involved - you may not like the position of the other editors, but the accusations of vandalism need to stop, and they need to stop now, as no vandalism has been committed. Zero: the Wiki guideline is just that: a guideline. Nothing - nothing - on Misplaced Pages is set in stone. That is the entire purpose of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean one particular name can or can't be used. We have to address the problems with the way the dispute is framed before we can adequately address the dispute itself. Everyone: There will be no more accusations of vandalism in this thread - from anyone. Any such accusations will be removed or refactored. I (and I believe I speak for everyone who assists here on DRN) take false accusations of vandalism very seriously, and there will be no more on this thread. Having said that, we can now continue the discussion. I will try to give a more in-depth comment on the dispute when I am less busy and have had a little more time to research the situation, but for now, remember that the correct way to resolve a dispute on Misplaced Pages is by staying cool and addressing edits, not editors. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, sorry if it appeared otherwise. A guideline is something we should follow unless we have a good reason not to. In this case we have an attempt to replace a very common name by a very unusual one in multiple articles, without a sufficient reason being offered. In my opinion, that is an example of what the guideline intends to avoid. It isn't vandalism but it isn't good editing either. It is bad for the comprehensibility of articles to use names that most readers don't know, when there is a very common one available. Zero 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I agree that the guidelines are very clear that we should use "Persian Gulf". The main guideline that is applicable here is WP:PLACE, which says "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Persian Gulf" seems by far the most common name used in English-language reliable sources; there's Britannica and the CIA World Factbook for two, plus the whole of our article on Persian Gulf naming dispute. There is simply no way that "Arabian Gulf" can be used instead of "Persian Gulf". Sorry about this Uishaki, but that's just the way Misplaced Pages works, I'm afraid. As for the conduct of the editors, none of the edits of either editor involved were vandalism, and Sleddog is right that we should be very strict with our use of this word. Next time, I strongly recommend sticking to the definition found at WP:VANDAL. That's not to say that none of the edits were problematic - I think that if Uishaki continues to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf" then he could be sanctioned for tendentious editing. I would say that if there is more edit warring over this, then it would probably be best to start a thread at WP:ANI. Hopefully things won't come to that, though, as ANI threads are rarely pleasant experiences for the editors involved. If anyone has any questions about my comment, please let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stradivarius, you beat me to the punch here. I had actually discussed this with User:TransporterMan already, but it's probably a good time to reiterate it. Uishaki, if you are against the name "Persian Gulf," your only real recourse at this time would be to discuss a possible change to the Manual of Style, but you'll most likely end up with the same results there. It may be time to just move on to other editing opportunities in other areas of Misplaced Pages. I'm going to close this thread now, as all the appropriate action seems to have been taken. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:29, 6 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.

• History of Bahrain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Naif Hazazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seven Seas (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 user "Kamran the Great" is vandalizing the historic geographic name of the Arabian Gulf. You can see a large number of maps who call The Gulf for Arabian Gulf. I just want to change the name to "The Gulf". Please stop him.--Uishaki (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just see here.

• Old maps

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Uishaki (talk · contribs)
• Kamran the Great (talk · contribs)

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.

• Stewart Nozette (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?

In para 4 of Career section it states that Nozette was on the National Space Council under President George W. Bush. He was not, in spite of what the reliable source says. I worked at the Space Council for the entire period of its existence; part of my responsibility was personnel & therefore know for a fact he was never on the Council. I tried deleted the line, Username: Scapler put it back in citing, original research. In an effort to make the claim more factual, I added the word "purportedly worked on...". Scapler took that out as well. I bring this issue to the dispute process only because it is my understanding that Misplaced Pages strives to be a factual medium. Leaving the Nozette Career history as is violates this principle.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Scapler (talk · contribs)
• Whysosirius (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=Stewart Nozette}} --~~~~ 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?

sent a message to Scapler on Talk

• How do you think we can help?

Fina a way to correct the inaccuracy of the Career/National Space Council claim.

Whysosirius (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Nozette discussion

Clerk comment: This seems to me like a classic case of WP:V. Whysoserious - you yourself said that the source provided was reliable ("...in spite of what the reliable source says."), so it would not be correct to remove it (it is, after all, relevant) unless you can provide sources to the contrary (your own experience does not count). If you question the reliability of the source, you should first discuss it on the article's talk page, and if that doesn't yield a solution, you should go to the reliable source noticeboard.

Misplaced Pages does strive to be a factual medium, and the only way we can accomplish this is by verifying our information through reliable sources. We do not have any vested contributors, meaning that what you do outside of Misplaced Pages (i.e. working for the Space Council) doesn't influence whether material is included or not. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:09, 5 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.