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

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.

• Serer religion (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?

On 14 July 2012 User:Eladynnus tagged the Serer religion as WP:POV without an edit summary and left a message on the article's talk page suggesting the Serer culture is not as sophisticated as being portrayed here, see POV issues discusion. In that discussion, they also accused me of deliberately presenting inaccurate information and said they needs a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources. Apparently they had an issue with some images which are actually Serer pictographs. I have told them in that discussion (several times) to be bold and edit the article if they have alternative reliable sources. Instead, they have resulted in edit wars with me by placing tags here, here and here. Even an administrator in that discussion told them their tagging is unjustified, yet they still continued placing tags. I even added an additional ref to the section they take issue with just to keep the peace (better seen here) but their actions have continued (see diffs above). Note also that since this issue started an IP all of a sudden appeared from nowhere and placed a speedy deletion template on the Serer religion article which I have removed here. As of todate, Eladynnus has made no attempt to edit the article other than placing tags (see their contribution history ). Apparently, they are waiting for a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources (see the discussion above). I've told them I have never heard of that, and Wiki's articles cannot be hijacked in that way. The article is fully referenced and they are free to go through the references. With respect, if they cannot read French, that is their problem not mine. Please would someone intervene in this because this issue is getting out of hand. Note that I have also posted a message to another editor who mistakenly reverted my edits without seeing the previous reference I added, and saying my edit summary was contradictory to the templates I removed .

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Tamsier (talk · contribs)
• Eladynnus (talk · contribs)

Eladynnus should be bold and improve the article if they take issue with a section and introduce RS. I have repeatedly told them to be bold and that I do NOT own these articles and anyone is free to edit them. However, disruption and drive-by-tagging of Wiki articles is not encouraged.

• 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 .

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Serer religion}} --~~~~ 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?

When I first saw their tags and the discussion they opened up in the article's talk page, I have repeatedly told them to assume good faith and be bold and improve the articles if they have other reliable sources that supports their claim . So far, they have made no attempt to improve the article other than tagging it. I have also added an additional source regarding the images they take issue with just to keep the peace , but as you can see, they have added back the POV and disputed fact templates on the article .

• How do you think we can help?

With respect, these tags do not belong to this article. All the previous disputes with actual contributors to this article were resolved. If Eladynnus believes otherwise, they should be bold and edit parts of what they take issue with by adding RS to support their claim. I have told them this many times which they have not done. Wiki articles cannot be hijacked, or waite for a French speaker who may or may not turn up to do their work for them. As such these templates should be removed and Eladynnus should be made aware that what they are doing is disrupting the project. They can go through all the Serer related articles under Category Serer people and evaluate them. I have no problem with that, but kidnapping them (per their remark on the disccussion above and elsewhere) is not permitted per Wiki policy.

Tamsier (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Serer religion discussion

First of all, you don't need to specify an edit summary when tagging articles. Electric Catfish 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Electriccatfish2 for your feedback. Perhaps you don't have to but it is considered good practice, wouldn't you agree? Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually did include edit summaries in all of my subsequent restorations of the tags 1 2 3. Eladynnus (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eladynnus, do you believe the entire article is non-neutral, or that specific sections are? If sections, which ones? - Jorgath (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that all of Tamsier's articles are written in a sunny "they believe this-and-this" style which is reminiscent of D&D supplements. The Serer religion article is a good example of this style. I also think that he is attempting to "Sererize" articles about Senegal and The Gambia by "laying claim" to certain ethnic groups, inserting references to the Serer wherever possible, exaggerating the importance of Serer articles by rating the pages himself, and trying to make general discussions of Senegal specifically about the Serer (here). I think the article needs to be rewritten, but due to its sprawl and the way that Tamsier insults those he disagrees with I don't see that happening. Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a situation where an {{expert-subject}} tag might have been more appropriate. Although Tammsier seems to have expertise on the Serer, would you mind standing back and letting another expert evaluate this case as a solution to the dispute? - Jorgath (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jorgath for your contribution. I have absolutely no problem in standing back and letting another review the whole article and any Serer related article as far as I am concerned. In fact, the more the merrier and I have told Eladynnus that in the article's talk page. As far as I can guage with any degree of certainty, Eladynnus's objection is the Serer pictographs (images). Although they have placed the POV template at the top of the article indicating they take issue with the article (as well as the fact template under cosmology section), I'm yet to ascertain what they find to be POV, perhaps Eladynnus can explain. But as far as standing back, absolutely no problem. The more editors and eyes the better. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! Eladynnus, would getting expert eyes on the article be an acceptable resolution for you? - Jorgath (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be good, but I also believe that Tamsier's activities need to be closely monitored by third parties as he has been banned in the past for sockpuppeting and attacking other editors. Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to invite Drmies to this discussion before anything is done as he has interacted with Tamsier in the past and may be able to shed some more light on this subject. Eladynnus (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Drmies supported the original removal of the tag because my most immediate issue was with a section detailing "raampa", a writing system which I and JSTOR had never heard of, and which only had a crank's site as a source. Since the NPOV tag is not for that sort of issue, it was probably right that it be removed at that point. Later I articulated my NPOV concerns more clearly and found the appropriate tag for the raampa dispute, but Tamsier seems to believe that any tags are vandalism and has been posting threats, insults, and ultimatums on the talk page ever since. As you can see from my links above, I've had to restore these tags several times (including once where he didn't mention it in the edit summary 1). Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that Tamsier has added a tag to an article which was only written by me, Peasant leagues (Brazil). Judging from the nasty comment on the talk page and his own attitude toward tags, I can hardly believe that this was done in good faith, although I'll be happy to develop the article further before removing the tag. Eladynnus (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please leave the behavioral issues off of this; the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for content disputes only. If you have concerns about Tamsier's behavior, there are other forums for that. As for your other concerns, I believe that an expert evaluating the page would of course evaluate the raampa aspect too. Below is my proposed resolution. - Jorgath (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jorgath makes a good point. Eladynnus, comments on Tamsier are not for this venue, even though I have plenty of problems with Tamsier's behavior. Tamsier, if you wish to improve our relationship, start by dividing these long sections into shorter paragraphs, s'il vous plait. ;)

  I have no expertise on the subject matter and not much interest, right now, to become an expert, but allow me an observation: I don't see yet that anyone has addressed the language issue and I'd like to state the obvious. Tamsier is obviously correct in pointing out that not knowing French is not their problem. Whatever the French wiki does or does not do is irrelevant here, but citations are citations, no matter which language they are. Having read over the entire talk page again, I find it striking that none of these POV accusations actually state specifically which statement(s) or section(s) or image(s) are supposed to be not-neutral. If the taggers which to make a case for the tags, they should start by making a case for the tags, rather than just play "revert" with an original unexplained tag. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

I propose that the POV tag at the top of the article be replaced by an {{expert-subject}} template with appropriate parameters filled. The in-section tag should be left in place so as to help guide any expert(s) to the locus of the dispute. Both of you would then step back from the article until such time as expert attention has been given to it. Would this be acceptable to both of you? Drmies hasn't yet weighed in, but would you be OK with this resolution too? - Jorgath (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problem with that. Tamsier (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sure--I don't see much of a problem with that either provided that there is some specificity to it, and that someone on the talk page explains exactly what the problem is. Funny thing is, for all I know Tamsier is somewhat of an expert here. If the only problem is "does this French source verify the information?" then I find the argument for the tag rather weak. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If that's actually the only problem, I read French nearly fluently. - Jorgath (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I would love to hear what the actual problem is. FWIW, I'm a talented and experienced French kisser and if properly imbibed can recite Boris Vian. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm just saying yes here to keep the peace, although I agree pretty much with Drmies observations. I see no justifiable reason for tagging this article but if others think otherwise, then there is no problem.Tamsier (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support this. Eladynnus (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You were asked a question above as to what you find to be POV or non-neutral about the article. Do you want to address that in the relevant section? I'm sure it will help others including myself because I still haven't a clue other than your objection with images.Tamsier (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have changed the tag over as per the proposal. I'll leave this open as to Eladynnus' answer to the POV question for a little while, although I encourage them to post that to the article talk page instead/as well. - Jorgath (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Jorgath--let me propose something here as well. If there are no specific indications of where and how the article is not partial (indications that cannot be derived from opinions about Tamsier or extrapolations from a set of other articles), then there shouldn't be a tag at all. I want Eladynnus to put his money where his mouth his, if you'll pardon my French. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I looked at some of these articles a while ago and was not happy about what seemed to be exaggerated claims. I certainly saw some interpretations by French authors being put forward as fact and made some minor changes, which Tamsier agreed to. Specifically these were archaeological interpretations of prehistoric artefacts deducing that they showed certain aspects of religion existed much longer ago than any would be expected, and from my studies of English speaking archaeologists I know that these interpretations would in many cases not have been entertained by them.(Sorry, this is a clumsy way of putting what I see as the problem). I would guess that the problems I saw exist elsewhere in related articles, ie interpretations being put forward as fact. A large part of the problem may simply be that only one archaeologist has studied these cultures, and that archaeologist may have an approach that other archaeologists would not share. There's really no way around that except to make sure that the articles make it clear these are interpretations. Of course, there may be criticism of Gravrand somewhere which would be useful. An example of the problem I see is States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes. Gravrand here is basically saying that Serer culture is 10,000 years old. I've read quite a bit of archaeology, and I've never seen a claim that an existing culture is anywhere near that old. Claims that the concept of reincarnation can be shown to have existed that long ago I find equally dubious. I don't know the solution to this, although it would be nice if there were any other experts besides Issa Laye Thiaw, Cheikh Anta Diop and Henry Gravrand. And for the record, I don't consider that Alan Rake, used at States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes as a source for this long time depth, to be a reliable source and I'm bothered that a non-archaeologist would be used for this. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • With this edit Tamsier added considerable content. Specifically, he wrote "They were settled people at the time of the Neolithic Era, about 10,000 years ago". This is cited to page 50 of this book. Can someone else comment on whether the source backs the claim, as I don't think it does. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The Kingdom of Sine is claimed to be much older than the 14th century, see for instance Timeline of Serer history. The article says it was renamed in the 14th century. However, other sources contradict this. Islamic Society and State Power in Senegal: Disciples and Citizens in Fatick by Leonardo A. Villalón calls it "One of three Serer kingdoms to emerge between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries". And "A nomadic caste: the Fulani woodcarvers historical background and evolution M Dupire" - Anthropos, 1985 - JSTOR "In the case where a non-centralized society became a kingdom in the past (13th century), as among the bilineal Serer of Sine". I'm not convinced I don't see POV problems, specifically presenting a time depth as fact when other sources don't suggest this. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• If I may respond to Dougweller. You and I had this discussion before in the archaeological notice board. And as I said in that that thread, the Serers are mostly dominant in Senegal hence the reason why there are more French sources. Any edit that is made in reference to archaeological sources is made exactly in the light of archaeological evidence. Indeed there is little if not anything at all in the Serer religion article that actually deals with Serer archaeological sites. The article is mainly religious, just like any other religious article on English Misplaced Pages. I also think that you are forcusing too much on Gravrand which is fine and understandable because I have cited him where appropriate. But as I have told you before, there are several other sources (yes most of them in French) such as the works of Charles Becker ("Vestiges historiques, trémoins matériels du passé clans les pays sereer". Dakar. 1993. CNRS - ORS TO M); Cyr Descamps, Guy Thilmans & Y. Thommeret (Les tumulus coquilliers des îles du Saloum (Sénégal), Bulletin ASEQUA, Dakar, Université Cheikh Anta Diop) and many others by Descamps who carried out a detailed archaeological excavation back in the 1970s. You are free to rebuke Gravrand, Thiaw, Diop, or anyhbody else, but they are reliable sources and I have no problem if their is another reliable sources that says otherwise. As regards to the Bafour link you provided above, that was a citation error (a transitional error) as it is the work of Gravrand I am citing there. But since you and I have already had this dicussion before, and considering the fact that it was I who made that external link in good faith so that others can evaluate the sources themselves, I thought you would have realised that was an error on my part rather than trying to hold that against me here. This is the first time I realised that error since I expanded that article. And since you and I have had some conversations about history/archaeology, I would have appreciated a little note on my talk page the minute you realised the error. You are not obliged to do that of course, but it would have been appreciated. If I may now moved on to your next point (the Kingdom of Sine). Provided you know the history, there is nothing contradictory with the King of Sine article and the work of Villalón you cited above. 14th century means the 1300s which I'm sure you well know. And that renaming came via Maad a Sinig Maysa Wali Jaxateh Manneh (var : Maysa Wali Dione), the first member from the Guelowar dynasty to rule in Sine. Reading these two articles (Maysa Wali & Guelowar) would explain exactly what Villalón is talking about there. See also : Alioune Sarr, "Histoire du Sine-Saloum" (Sénégal), Introduction, bibliographie et notes par Charles Becker, (1986-87). As regards to the 15th century (1400s), that relates to another Serer kingdom (the Kingdom of Saloum) renamed during the reign of Mbegan Ndour who regined c. 1494. You may see the work of Abdou Boury Ba, "Essai sur l’histoire du Saloum et du Rip" (avant-propos par Charles Becker et Victor Martin), Bulletin de l'IFAN, tome 38, série B, numéro 4, octobre 1976. I find it rather offensive that I am being accused here of deliberately presenting inaccurate infor. I would not necessarily take great offense to it coming Eladynnus, but when it comes from another editor like Dougweller, that my integrity is put into question, I take great offense to that. I may be very vocal and sometimes rather stubborn, but I respect the the field of history and African history far to much to do anything that tarnishes the profession. As of today, I will create no more African articles in English Wiki. Thank you all for you contribution. Tamsier (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. I don't think it is your integrity but perhaps your zeal, and we are all careless at times. I am a bit uncertain what you are saying about the Kingdom of Sine, but the articles do seem to suggest it is much, more earlier than the 14th century and was simply renamed then, whereas the sources I see don't support that. And as we've agreed, I think, "They were settled people at the time of the Neolithic Era, about 10,000 years ago"." should clearly make it Gravrand's opinion. I don't know of any other claims for a 10,000 year old culture and I find this one extremely dubious. And as I've suggested, one problem is too few opinions which then makes the articles pov. I'm sure that there are sources that provide alternative suggestions as to the origins of these groups. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article in the timeline has already mentioned the "proto-Serers", therefore there is nothing "dubious" at all. The work of Gravrand is backed by Becker, Descamps, etc. You are free to read them. As regards to the Kingdom of Sine, it is just as reported by the prevailing view on the history of Sine and Saloum, and that is the work of Gravrand's "Cosaan" and "Pangool" or Alioune Sarr's "Histoire du Sine-Saloum", contributed to by Becker. You would be hard press to find any scholar writing in detail about the history of Sine or Saloum without reference to Sarr's work or Gravrand's. As I said before, it was renamed in the 14th century (before 1400) during the Guelowar period. However, if you want to go further back to it history, you will need to go back to the Lamanic period. See Alioune Sarr "Histoire du Sine Saloum", you may also see the work of Niokhobaye Diouf ("Chronique du royaume du Sine", Suivie de notes sur les traditions orales et les sources écrites concernant le royaume du Sine par Charles Becker et Victor Martin. Bulletin de l'Ifan (1972)) and Henry Gravrand's ("La civilisation Sereer Cosaan", les orgines vol.1 (1983) & "La civilisation sereer Pangool", vol 2. (1990). Tamsier (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT - For the record I have corrected the citation error raised above by Dougweller and added a ref to a claim made by another editor .Tamsier (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier went to WP:FTN about phoenicia.org, a fringe website that also hosts some copyvio, and in my reply to him I've raised the issue of the name "Raampa pictgraphs", a name that seems to only appear at phoenicia.org and our articles. These are normally referred to as rock art of the Tassili n'Ajjer or Tassili n'Ajjer rock art - there is quite a bit of literature on this on Google books, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I thought I was clear that I don't agree with the expert tag being added (or rather only the expert tag). I'd like to see at least the "too few opinions" added. It's a bit more complicated for me as I see "Raampa pictographs" as at best OR and possibly POV. I don't think this is resolved. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is also worth looking at the Fringe theory notice board following a query that I have opened . Dougweller also seem to assume that I have I said the rock arts of the Tassili n'Ajjer are called Raampa. I have never said the rock arts of the Tassili n'Ajjer are called Raampa. I challenge them to prove otherwise. Any reference that I have ever made regarding the Tassili n'Ajjer is in reference the Serer Pangool, not Raampa. Please do not confuse the two and please do not misrepresent me as you did above and in your edit summary here. Tamsier (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • QuestionGood faith, please. I've asked what these "Raampa pictographs" are. You are the editor who has added them to articles. They don't seem to exist outside Misplaced Pages and a fringe website. If these aren't the rock art at Tassili n'Ajjer I'm sorry, but you haven't yet explained what they are. We shouldn't be using a name for them that doesn't exist in reliable sources. Where are they, what do reliable sources actually call them or how do they describe them? I thought this was a simple question, but it doesn't seem to be. We shouldn't be calling them the Raampa pictographs, that's a form of original research - we shouldn't be the source of a name for these. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I am so sorry you are having difficulties understanding me all of a sudden. Since I have explained and told you twice what they are called at the query I raised at the Fringe theory notice board (inc. the article), following the edit summary you left at Serer religion , not to mention citing a reliable source , I get bored having to repeat my self over and over again. Read the query I've raised at the Fringe theory notice board where I have not only told you what they are called, but possible reason why they are not coming up on the net etc. Just because something is not visible on the net does not mean it is false. If you still cannot/do not want to believe me (your choice), then buy the ref. If you cannot afford it, then borrow it from your local library. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you live in the UK? If you do, then there is place called the British Library, in London, they have all the books that have ever been published (most anyway), go there and request it. Oh by the way, I am striking out my comment above regarding not creating any more African articles. There is more at stake here, and I have never bowed down to bullies. Provided I haven't broken any rules which warrants my departure, no amount of houding will force my departure from this project. Considering your long history of adding unsourced material to Wiki articles , I am somewhat surprised you all of a sudden became the "guardian of referencing". The article and all Serer /Senegambian /African related articles I've initiated or edited are referenced and the references support the claim. Even another editor told you so in reference to Serer. If this behaviour continues, I will take this to AN/I and all the way to ArbCom if necessary. I'll stop here for now and save it for the next forum if absolutely necessary. Tamsier (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Well done for finding the 2nd edit I ever made to an article, my 3rd edit ever (I've made over 40,000 edits to articles since, many adding sources) , and turning it into a "long history of adding unsourced material." And I've told you before you wrote the post above that I also like books and have a good collection myself. You read my post saying that at FTN on the 26th and replied to me. There you seem to be saying that Gravrand does not refer to them as the "Raampa pictographs" but speaks of Serer symbols and accused me of various vile activities. I'm not saying these don't exist. I am asking a pretty simple question, where are these located? I'm also asking if this rock art has a name besides a location, in French if it's only in French, if English an English name is used. I'm disappointed that you are being so confrontational - I'm certainly not bullying or hounding you, I am trying to understand you and these articles. I really would prefer not to be involved in this at all, and had dropped it before this DRN came up. Seeing others concerned I felt I should comment. And now out of the blue I have another editor coming to me expressing concern that there is "(undue weight) of Serer people related content across many African articles." Not a complaint about their content in this case, just undue weight and I have no comment on that at the moment at least. Before I start editing and changing "Raampa pictographs" to something else, I hope you will help me come up with something appropriate and reliably sourced. I have no idea why you think I believe everything needs to be on the web, I can assure you that I've told several editors that this is definitely not the case. One other thing, I don't think Rake, Alan, "New African yearbook" is a reliable source by our criteria for history, except perhaps recent history, but I'd like your comments on that. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment on "something is not visible on the net does not mean it is false"--I've looked using ProQuest, JSTOR, EbscoHost, Expanded Academic ASAP, General OneFile, Article First, ECO, Ebooks, WorldCat, and a couple of others, and what I've learned is that "Raampa" is the alternate spelling of a movie called Rampa (film). There is nothing else--nothing at all. Combine this with the complete absence of the term from Google books and there is no other possible solution: it does not exist. This is not "it's not visible on the net": it's not visible in any database. That these searches are done via the net is immaterial. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For the purposes of transparency it is note worthy to have a look at the comments that has been going on between Dougweller and I including diffs to relevant pages . Sadly this is now outside the remits of this forum and I will be escalating it in due course. I know Jorgath is on Wiki break so hopefully when he comes back he can reach a decision and put a closure to this. As for the other issues, they will be filed in the appropriate forum. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I was about to save a post earlier saying something similar, but held it back to see if a last appeal to Tamsier would be successful, but unfortunately it failed and he wants (I left out the 'me' here) to be desysopped and said he will not answer my question about Serer pictographs. I don't see much chance of resolving the issues here. Of course there are some places where an expert would be great, but equally there are places where it is either too few opinions(and all we need to do is about some other perspectives), or where the issues revolve upon NPOV and sources(such as the claim for Raampa writing at Saafi people). I don't think there's any one size fits all solution. I would say that where appropriate NPOV tags for these articles should be added to sections, not the whole article. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you meant I (Tamsier) want you (Dougweller) desysopped. You are the administrator I am not. So I will assume that was a human error. Furthermore, all the questions posed to me by Dougweller including in my talk page and at FTN (see links above) have been answered. What became apparent to me was that, Dougweller understood the answer I gave and repeatedly kept giving him, but he was playing games, but must of all, wasting my time (see the diff to my talk page). Everything that I have said about Dougweller, is backed up with a diff. The source cited is reliable and verifiable which he can easily verify either by buying it or going to his local library (or inter library loans). The source has also been peer reviewed (Ps - Af). It is not for Dougweller to set policy. He also does not know the qualifications of any of the scholars other than what he thinks. If he has reliable sources that supports his claim, he should cite them in the relevant section. I have no idea why he thinks I would waste my time adding false references to article (which is exactly what he was accusing me of) when I have several books, scientific work about the subject. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Even Jorgath (who speaks French) told Dougweller he has gone through the Serer articles and the sources cited by large supports the claim. I will not speak for Jorgath, I'm sure Jorgath can do that by himself when he is back and if he needs to. My big issues with Dougweller will be addressed in the proper forum, but I think it is material that I highlight these points here as well. Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• @ Drmies from your observation and experience, is every non-English word on the internet? Also have you tried Serer symbols (which is English - from Greek, symbol I mean) as stated to Dougweller at FTN and my talk talk including the Serer religion talk page (before Dougweller)? That Rampa film is different from Raampa. Perhaps spelt the same or similar but totally different. That happens.Tamsier (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I left out the 'me', but it was pretty obvious what I meant. I do not think Tamsier is adding false references(although like me he makes mistakes and has mistakenly added the wrong reference before). I do think that he states as fact what should be attributed to an author as their belief or interpretation, and I think he isn't right about the Gravrand article as Gravrand is not an expert on writing, the journal is not about writing, and the article in question doesn't seem to have made much impact, and certainly not whatever Gravrand said about Raampa writing. I don't know what he means by the reference to the film unless he's suggesting I can't tell the difference between the film and whatever Gravrand is writing about. Ah, I have probably responded enough, I'm being pushed into defending myself instead of talking about the content issues and that's not the way to go, other than to ask Tamsier where he answered by questions about the location of these Raampa symbols, which I thought he'd refused to answer. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Missed Drmies' comment, striking mine. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier, you misunderstand. "That Rampa film is different from Raampa"--yes, that is what I said. What I also said is that not a single one of those databases contains the word besides that one different use. Your question, "is every non-English word on the internet?" is a ruse. I don't know and I don't care whether it is or isn't. What I do know is that no scholarly database that I searched even mentions the word. No articles in print (or not in print, or out of print) in journals indexed by any of those databases mentions the word. That's nothing to do with the internet, as I explained above, and as you surely understand. I've asked interlibrary loan for that 1973 article and I'm anxiously awaiting it: if it mentions the word it would be the only one in the world that I know of. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I have said on your talk page that I have the 1971 paper on Serer symbols and Raampa but since you have had no luck finding it on the net, Raampa can be deleted if that is the consensus, no problem. Apart from the images, it is just one sentence in the few articles it in. It is not even a stand alone article, so no big deal. Will await Jogarths return. Tamsier (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• EDIT I've removed the one sentence remark from Serer religion and changed image head. Left the tags there. The person who added them can remove them or justify their inclusion if they still take issue. Tamsier (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your recent edits. In fact you removed the tag you also removed the material I'd tagged when I removed the contentious source (tagging it rather than just removing it), so all's well. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. It looks like there's been a lot of discussion above, and the dispute may now be resolved? Is that a fair assessment of the situation, or is our assistance still needed? Steven Zhang 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Steven Zhang, for me it is resolved. If other's agree and have no objection in removing the two tags in Serer religion and the tag in Saafi people (an article affected by this discussion), then those can be removed. I would prefer someone else to remove them. If however they still take issue and believe the tags should be left, perhaps it would help to know what the problem is now. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Steven, the initial issue - the POV tag - is, I believe, resolved. The issue with Raampa is either an issue for an expert or for WP:RSN, in my opinion. - Jorgath (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• The tag added to Saafi people has been removed by the inserter, I've striked off that sentence above. The remaining issue is Serer religion - the one line sentence has been deleted as noted above.Tamsier (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've closed this discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:12, 1 August 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.

Gentlemen, we now have a reason to close this discussion, and unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to, I will close it 24 hours from now.

The reason to close comes from user Still-24-45-42-125: "My stated reason for invoking dispute resolution was to get a straight answer out of Belchfire. If you're not interested in helping, then close this now as unresolved, and I'll take this to a forum that is interested in enforcing Misplaced Pages policies."

WP:DRN is not the right place to "get a straight answer" out of someone. Nor do we "enforce Misplaced Pages policies". WP:DRN is for resolving content disputes. Therefore I am planning on closing this case as being fundamentally incomparable with the purpose and goals of WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Political positions of Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs)
• Belchfire (talk · contribs)
• ViriiK (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Belchfire made a series of edits that removed a large amount of content from the article, including all mention of Romney's creationism and many essential details about his shifting views on abortion. I carefully reverted some of the changes while keeping others. Now there is a dispute over whether to keep any of the deleted material.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened up a Talk section. So far, I have not been able to get Belchfire to come to the table and explain why he deleted so much. ViriiK's participation has been, in my opinion, evasive and unproductive.

How do you think we can help?

I imagine that you could get Belchfire to participate in the discussion and explain what his edit comments hinted at. Perhaps you can get ViriiK to stop playing burden tennis, too, but that's not as important.

Opening comments by Belchfire

I'm not sure that this disagreement is resolvable at DRN, for a several reasons.

First, this isn't a "small content dispute" (quoted from the top of this page). The triggering event was a single reversion (diff) that undid more than 10K of incremental edits (about 8-10 of them, I believe) undertaken over a period of 7 days.

Second, this issue has not been "discussed extensively on a talk page" (quoting from above again). Still-24 initiated this process before any discussion could take place. We can see by comparing these diffs, from the article and from Talk, that he announced his intent to launch DRN just 27 minutes after the last edit. Mind you, this was before I even had a chance to respond. I actually received the DRN notice at :14 minutes after the hour diff, just as I was posting my response in Talk diff, at :16 after the hour.

And finally, once again quoting from the top of the page, this noticeboard is not supposed to be used "where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes." Arguably, this is precisely such a situation.
I misread one of the guideposts when I was composing this, missing the word "do" in the phrase "However, we do accept disputes..." This partly explains one of Guy's responses to my remarks below. However, I refer back to the beginning of that bullet point, wherein it is explained that DRN is "not a place to deal with disputes that solely concern user conduct...", and I want to point out that content disputes can easily mask an underlying conduct issue. Similarly, DRN can be abused to foreclose an AN/I complaint, which may very well be the place this dispute would have gone, had this DRN not been initiated preemptively.

Now, I'm more than willing to discuss my edits, that's not a problem. But I just want to caution the DRN volunteers and the other participants that, due to the sheer size and scope of Still-24's reversion, the discrete changes accumulated over a full week of re-writing sections of a good size article probably number in the neighborhood of 3-4 dozen, and the changes deserve to be dealt with individually. Based on my understanding, that's well outside the scope of how this noticeboard is supposed to function.

So, I offer that this DRN should probably be suspended, if not closed altogether, while the normal means of collaboration are given an opportunity to succeed. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by ViriiK

I've been an editor here for years and I frankly enjoy it. Now this just happened to be the first time I've been involved in a dispute resolution for unknown reasons except Still-IP.

My question still remains that Still-IP needs to answer: Are there any changes in particular that you object to? ViriiK (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I have no choice but to abstain from this. ViriiK (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lionelt

Regarding the substance of the issue, Belchfire did explain his edits. In the edit summaries and on the talk page. His reasoning included: off-topic, irrelevant, partisan cruft, content from 2007, etc. The only issue here is that Still doesn't like the edit and likes the explanation even less. WP:IDONTLIKE. – Lionel 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fair to allow a short statement disputing the "carefully reverted" claim, but I ask everyone to please leave it at that rather than making further comments about user behavior. We really want to focus on article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Again the "political silly season" edits occur - and one is reminded of those who sought edits saying Sarah Palin believed dinosaurs were "Jesus ponies" etc. The use of "religious tenets" of any sort as political ammunition is abhorrent to anyone who actually cares about genuine political issues. One may, if one wishes, look at the nature of edits by any specific editor and find those who are most egregious pushers of the "silly season edits." The case at hand is, alas, one precisely in that category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please comment on article content, not user conduct. If you still have an issue about user conduct after we resolve the article content issues, I will direct you to the right place to deal with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. My comments were directed exactly at the content of edits during the political silly season, and did not single out any particular editor nor make any untoward comments about any particular editor. The content issue boils down to:

Should political BLPs make a big deal over theological issues which are actually neither political issues nor biographical issues?

Which I think is sufficiently concise, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Caption1
• Caption2

Political positions of Mitt Romney discussion

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

Note: I am going to wait a day or so until Belchfire either makes a statement or it becomes clear that he isn't going to make one before opening this up for discussion. Also, I noticed that some of you have participated in previous dispute resolutions. Please be aware that the rules have changed. We were getting long threads with multiple issues that were very hard for the volunteers to keep track of. The new DR procedures are designed to keep the statements concise and to the point. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting too. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be watching this one as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Because we are trying something new, everyone should feel free to go to Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard and comment on whether we should handle this case differently, leaving the discussion about the Political positions of Mitt Romney here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am now opening this for discussion. I ask everyone to please be concise, and to focus on article content, not user conduct. If someone makes a claim and someone else disputes it, leave it at that. We can evaluate the claim / counterclaim without a long discussion about who's argument makes sense. Be calm cool, logical, and provide evidence for anything that is likely to be disputed. Thanks!

So, disputed content: retain or delete? Or keep part of it? Or modify it in some way? I am looking for a rough idea of how many editors support each of those options. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a listed party in the dispute - I try to avoid WP:DRAMA - but I've done lots of work on Romney-related articles. I've taken a look at this and put my comments at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Trimming too much. Executive summary: I think a few of the removals were unwise and should be reversed or modified, but the article was indeed in need of an overhaul and I don't see a systemic problem in what Belchfire did. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Guy, with all due respect, you seem to be blowing right by the opening statements made by Lionel, ViriiK, and myself. This is not really a content issue. Moreover, I've seen how this process works, and it's not unreasonable to surmise that we could be here for weeks if we try to follow the usual approach. Please, I would like to see Virii and Lionel weigh-in on what I just said before we try to proceed with this any further. We have a square problem here, and DRN is a round hole. Belchfire-TALK 21:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If, as you claim, this is not a content dispute, how do you explain the following edits? Diff1Diff2Diff3Diff4Diff5Diff6 That sure looks like a content dispute to me.

I am not blowing right by the opening statements. I am in the early stages of getting everyone focused on content instead of conduct. As for this taking weeks, I suggest waiting a few days to see whether progress is being made before worrying about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just reverted a comment that was a complaint about other users. Don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, as for the content that was disputed here: Diff1Diff2Diff3Diff4Diff5Diff6 Retain or delete? Or keep part of it? Or modify it in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess you could say in a nutshell that three of us have already defined our positions on that. All six of those diffs are back and forth reverts of the exact same content, which I had edited out, Still-24 put back in, and VirriK reverted back out. If consensus here is limited to the four parties in the dispute, three of us have already spoken. I suppose we could wait for Lionel to check-in. Belchfire-TALK 23:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the edit which they warred to prevent, it comes down to a few specific changes:

1. I restored the well-cited statement that Romneycare is a lot like Obamacare, for NPOV.
2. I restored the entire (large) Abortion section. Romney's views are nuanced and appear to have evolved and the cut-down version was neither accurate nor neutral. It's possible that it can be trimmed without running into these issues, but Belchfire did not succeed.
3. I restored the entire (small) Evolution section. Romney's views are well-cited and entirely relevant, given how nuanced his view is and how important it is to his base.

These are the content issues. I understand that some people want to take the counterproductive step of making this personal, but I'm not interested in drama. I'm here to fix a broken article. I welcome comments about these three content issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Before we get too deep into the reasons why this particular often-reverted text should stay or go (reasons which are important), I want to make a quick consensus check. Who (not limited to those who are named or have have posted on DRN) agrees with you? Who opposes? If the consensus is overwhelmingly in one direction and neither version violates a Misplaced Pages policy, then the editor with the minority view needs to convince someone else if he hopes to ever have his way, and the majority really needs to pay attention to his arguments and explain why they oppose. All of this needs to happen in a friendly and collegial atmosphere; we all want what is best for the article and for the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (I support Belchfire changes & Wasted objections): Belchfire's changes were with good intentions and detailed in why he made the changes and Wasted took objections to some of the content which were put back. The issue if there was one is resolved between those two editors. I supported Belchfire in making the content changes which the revert did not have an explanation at the time. ViriiK (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (discussion of reasons reserved for when we reach that point) Belchfire-TALK 01:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, by my count I have:

Objects to removal: Still-24-45-42-125

Supports removal: ViriiK, Belchfire, Lionelt

Partially supports removal, wants some put back in: Wasted Time R

Could not tell what position is: Collect

Let's talk about Wasted Time R's suggestions.

Still-24-45-42-125, could you live with Wasted Time R's suggestions, or will you only be happy if it all goes back in?

ViriiK, Belchfire and Lionelt, could you live with Wasted Time R's suggestions, or will you only be happy if it all stays out?

How about partial agreement? Can we agree on even a small portion? ViriiK, Belchfire, Lionelt, is there anything you can live with retaining? Still-24-45-42-125 is there anything you can live with deleting? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with Wasted Time's work. I'm not sure how it addresses the three specific deleted items, though. So far, I haven't seen anyone even try to explain why we shouldn't mention RomneyCare's well-noted similarities to ObamaCare or Romney's views on evolution. Likewise, I haven't seen anyone defend the neutrality of the much-reduced Abortion section. This is the actual content dispute, but I don't see anyone talking about it. If you just want to count heads and ignore policies, the dispute resolution will have failed, and it's off to the next step, which I believe is an RfC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A three vs. one consensus is generally enough to settle a content dispute, but I am still shooting for an agreement or compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Lionel. Belchfire-TALK 02:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Guy, I'm not against collaborative reversion per BRD and I welcome reasoned critique and adjustment of my edits, such as we have seen from Wasted Time R. Belchfire-TALK 02:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the deleted content, and Wasted's thoughtful suggestions, and I think Belchfire did not delete enough. The article is a rambling, meandering hodge podge and I think as editors we should be embarassed at the state of the article of a presidential candidate.– Lionel 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was fine with deleting all while subjecting all the edits to changes in the discussion pages as I did in the first place with a valid reasons on why they need to be kept or removed. When I looked at Belchfire's changes, he did remove a lot that were valid. ViriiK (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't remember seeing these valid reasons. Perhaps you could share them here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing 4-1 consensus favoring status quo ante and a resumption of collaboration between willing editors. Is that a fair assessment? Belchfire-TALK 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't remember? "Are there any changes in particular that you object to?" I've pasted this question at least 3 times to you and you avoided answering that question every time. ViriiK (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your summary is incorrect. I posted on the talk page and asked Belchfire to explain. He has yet to do so. I've asked him again, just now, and he's still unwilling to do so. You're not Belchfire and you can't answer for him. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked me "but I don't remember seeing these valid reasons." How was I representing Belchfire? Hint: I wasn't. Again you don't remember? "Are there any changes in particular that you object to?" I've pasted this question at least 3 times to you and you avoided answering that question every time. ViriiK (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Belchfire. Now that you're here, perhaps you could answer the question I asked above. I think that would be helpful in determining the reason for this content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hint: we're trying to resolve a content dispute. The only thing that will help at this point would be for Belchfire to justify deleting the three items I mentioned. Anything else, including your quest to find behavioral issues in everyone but yourself, is a distraction. Thanks, but I'd prefer not to be distracted. It's counterproductive.

Belchfire, I'm asking again. Please share your reasoning so that we can resolve this content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve, unless I misunderstand, what Still-24 is asking for is an explanation for the series of edits he reverted. He says I never gave one in response to his query, but I did, and it's been posted on the article Talk page since last night at the same time this DRN was opened. I offered the diff in my opening statement, but here it is again: I elected not to respond to these repeat requests because, quite frankly, Still-24 has seen that explanation and he knows it's there. Belchfire-TALK 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I filed this request because I couldn't get Belchfire to offer a clear explanation for his edits. Why did he remove the section on Evolution? Why did he remove the part about ObamaCare and RomneyCare? Why did he strip out most of the section on Abortion and leave it POV? These are fair questions. I await a candid and comprehensive answer. I am prepared to escalate as needed until this is resolved, so you might as well just answer me, Belchfire. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems he did provide an explanation. And that tone can easily be perceived as hostile. An attempt to strong-arm your way rather then work with the editor even after he explained himself is not a good thing. More so since your own reply came after his and ignores his own post in which this information is revealed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is factually incorrect. I have repeatedly requested that he provide a specific reason for the removal of each of these pieces. He has repeatedly refused to.

If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong by telling me what his specific reasons are. I'm betting you won't be able to, precisely because he's never shared them. If he has no stated reasons, then we can only assume that he has no good reasons. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It clearly states in edit summaries, "rearrange section for coherence, rm multiple redundancies, rm multiple irrelevancies, retain evolution of positions over time", " rm irrelevance, creationism not an issue in any campaign Romney has contested". His own diff clearly states his intention to clean up and fix it. DR is not about etiquette, but about article content and we have made point that his intentions were good faith. Let's get back on topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Still-24-45-42-125. Provide a list of diffs including every one of those repeated requests. After each diff, provide a diff of every direct reply, no matter who wrote it and no matter whether you accept the answer or not. If indeed you have not received adequate answers, that will be obvious from reading the diffs. If you have received adequate answers but refuse to accept them, that will be obvious from reading the diffs as well. It is always best to work from actual evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, see below. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point (and carefully reading Still's posts) - add me to the "oppose Still's opinion on content" column - making it a clear 4 to 1. I hope this helps. Collect (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that we have a party who has announced he isn't going to accept the result of this DRN process if he doesn't get his way, perhaps we should close it now, since it seems to be a waste of everybody's time. Indeed, it probably has been a waste of everybody's time to continue so far beyond the point where the consensus view became clear. Of course, if Guy wants to continue reasoning with Still-24, that is between the two of them. But for myself, I will merely record the (now) 5 to 1 consensus and move on to more fruitful endeavors. Thank you all for participating, and thank you Guy for your saintly patience. Belchfire-TALK 18:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to warn you that it is uncivil to attribute positions to me that are not my own. I'm looking forward to hearing your concrete explanations so that we can begin the dispute resolution process. A show of hands is not a resolution, it's a vote, and this isn't an election. As I said below, so far, all I know about your view is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm sure you have reasons; all you have to do is share them. Until you do, this dispute cannot be resolved. It can be closed, but that would only lead to escalation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just having noticed there is a DRN discussion, I'll just throw in that there is a lot of dated, irrelevant, WP:Undue quote size, etc. material in this article that needs cutting. I can't speak for his other edits., but in the one discussion I was involved about Belchfire's edits (Afghanistan issue) I actually ended up cutting more than he had, because material did not comply with sources, wasn't sourced, or was an absurdly long quote from 2008, when there was no material from 2012, which I added. But in general I hope that all editors - as "wikipedia first" editors - will try to do the same thing in each section and not be committed to keeping dated and WP:Undue material. CarolMooreDC 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon suggested that I provide "a list of diffs including every one of those repeated requests. After each diff, provide a diff of every direct reply, no matter who wrote it and no matter whether you accept the answer or not".

Keep in mind that this is a best effort, not one guaranteed to be perfect, so if you think I missed something, or mismatched a question and answer, please let me know and I will correct this timeline.

QA

A

QA

QA

QA

A

QA

QA

QA

QA

A*

QA**

Q

Q

Q

Anyhow, there you go. The pattern I found is that attempts to get direct answers were met with comments about how many people support Belch. Belch eventually admits that he has no intention of answering*, pretending that what he posted on the talk page is an answer. Later, Chris tries to answer for Belch**, but succeeds only in pasting edit comments into an incoherent mess. At the end, Belchfire states that he's no longer willing to participate and calls it a big waste of time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like you asked one question, got two answers, and then filed a case at DRN. All of your diffs after the third are from the DRN case itself. You can't blame anyone for not answering your questions here, because I have been trying to keep a close reign on the discussion, telling everyone again and again to focus on the article content, not user conduct. Whether someone explains his edits when asked is a user conduct issue. Also, I have been closely monitoring the DRN discussion and correcting those who have, in good-faith, strayed into unhelpful territory, and I have seen any real misbehavior by you or anyone else here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are factually mistaken. I asked a question and got one "answer": ViriiK insisting that Belchfire's edit comments sufficed and then playing burden tennis. I waited, didn't see a response from Belchfire, and then filed the DRN. After I filed it, Belchfire answered.

The problem was his "answer" amounted to WP:IDONTLIKE. At no point did he explain why he deleted any of the three pieces I restored. I broke the question down into three, one per piece, and asked it again. I have not received an answer. If you believe I have, please show me the diff. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Filing at WP:DRN within 2 hours of complaining about the problem does not help. Belchfire had not even had a chance to properly respond to the comments by the time you filed for WP:DRN. Blechfire's post came three minutes after you filed and it probably took far more then three minutes to write. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's say I waited 12 hours instead. What would have changed? Belchfire never did properly respond, no matter how much time we gave him. He's being evasive and that is why this belongs in DRN. And he's still evading the question. The way I see it, if all he has is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I get to ignore it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are now faced with a strong WP:CONSENSUS on your edits. I suggest that your "I get to ignore it" is fraught with perils for you continuing as a Misplaced Pages editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am once again requesting a direct answer to my perfectly reasonable question about why Belchfire chose to delete these three pieces. Unexplained deletions, regardless of consensusvoting, are a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The deletions were explained, just that you will not accept them. Deletions can be explained as deleted by consensus, and just having consensus to delete some content needs a reason. So there is a reason of which you left out. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll explain briefly why I disagree. Consider this paraphrase of a real example of an argument I recently offered:

"I removed the defense of Romney's Olympic gaff because it was from lone contrarian in a sea of criticism, so it would be WP:UNDUE to give it equal weight, and would likely violate WP:FRINGE."

Now, this may be a good argument or a bad one, but at least it's on the table. Someone could point out that we have additional sources to show that this contrarian's views are considered important, or that there are other contrarians as well. The point is that there's something to discuss, an explicit basis that can be questioned or endorsed. Contrast this with:

My fellow conservatives all agree with me that the article shouldn't mention Romney's position on evolution. If you don't like it, we'll edit war against you and win.

This is essentially what we have from Belchfire. Why shouldn't we mention his position on evolution? He won't say, so there is literally nothing for me to respond to. I could point out that teaching "intelligent design" is highly controversial and therefore relevant, and even back it up with reliable sources, but I'd be arguing against a ghost. All he'd have to do is repeat that he doesn't like it and neither do his fellow conservatives. That's not an explanation so that's not a binding consensus. It's tag-team edit-warring and article WP:OWNership.

My stated reason for invoking dispute resolution was to get a straight answer out of Belchfire. If you're not interested in helping, then close this now as unresolved, and I'll take this to a forum that is interested in enforcing Misplaced Pages policies. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"...a lone contrarian in a sea of criticism..."

That was poetic, Still. Now, in the faint hopes that it will resolve one of your remaining complaints, allow me to point out that the Evolution matter was, in fact, explained. My edit summary for that diff reads: "(→‎Evolution: rm irrelevance, creationism not an issue in any campaign Romney has contested)". This was also pointed out to you by ChrisGualtieri, right here in this conversation. And yet, instead of simply acknowledging that you do not accept that explanation, you steadfastly insist it was never offered. How come?

OK, I know I said that I was all done here, and I'm going to resume that stance now, as best I can, notwithstanding a further opportunity to so easily chip away at Still's position. Once again, I remind all that consensus was established here quite some time ago, and other editors not involved in this DRN have resumed the work that I was doing on the article before it was interrupted. Carry on. Belchfire-TALK 22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We both know that views on evolution have been relevant in the Republican primaries, as candidates are expected by the religious right to be strongly opposed while Romney's view is (usually) too far to the left to make them happy.

Got plenty more reliable sources where that came from, but you've cloaked like a Romulan, so I expect that you won't even try to rebut my argument. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we now have a reason to close this discussion, and unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to, I will close it 24 hours from now.

The reason to close comes from user Still-24-45-42-125: "My stated reason for invoking dispute resolution was to get a straight answer out of Belchfire. If you're not interested in helping, then close this now as unresolved, and I'll take this to a forum that is interested in enforcing Misplaced Pages policies."

WP:DRN is not the right place to "get a straight answer" out of someone. Nor do we "enforce Misplaced Pages policies". WP:DRN is for resolving content disputes. Therefore I am planning on closing this case as being fundamentally incomparable with the purpose and goals of WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For Still-24-45-42-125, I suggest that you get a mentor (WP:MENTOR) to improve your knowledge of policies and of the wiki in general. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:08, 1 August 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Georgia State University#Primary logo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fomeister (talk · contribs)
• GrapedApe (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)
• Mabeenot (talk · contribs)
• Esrever (talk · contribs)
• Danielklotz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Certain editors insist upon uploading a copyrighted image, that does not meet the fair use criteria. At issue, in my opinion is whether the cited argument that ProjectWiki:Universities "policy" can over-rule WP-POLICY. While WP considers logo's fair-use, seals and other images are not logo's and I believe that they should meet all 10 requirements of fair-use.

Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this dispute, and I apologize for the time it is taking away from your other contributions to Misplaced Pages. In response to your comment, and I apologize if it is a repeat from the previous Section, I would like to re-state the reasoning of my BOLD edit, in order of precedence: 1.) ...respect copyright laws... 2.) ...editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Misplaced Pages... 3.) Nothing, even a Project Wiki uniguide trumps POLICY. ...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope... I ask all other editors to speak to this argument that I am making. There is a free use image to be used to represent GSU, it is their logo, and it is free-use. Why should a WikiProject "policy/habit" be allowed to violate these three items?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to give an example. If Wikiprojects:University decides to include a theme song through consensus, that does not make it right. Common sense tells us that a free-use midi file, versus a copyrighted MP3 file is the way to maintain our Five Pillars. Why ask for trouble, when simply following our own policy in regards to copyright law keeps us safe?

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps, you could put forth your own understanding of policy, and give us your opinion in regards to this matter. Does the image meet all 10 requirements. To me, it is obvious it doesn't meet at least three of them, but I am open to anything that can resolve this dispute. I would rather be spending my time editing.

Talk:Georgia_State_University#Primary_logo discussion

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

• From what I can tell, talkpage consensus goes against this user's position on what to do with the infobox image. I honestly don't see any real dispute here.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but since it is a policy matter it should still be looked into. Though I think it meets fair use guidelines, which might be why the WP group has a standard routed in policy, rather then a standard in contrast to policy. The core of the issue is whether or not the logo permissions are interpreted as fair use. For a formality, the discussion should be summarised here for easy sourcing and archival later. So a rehashing of the RFC is required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fomeister, thank you for the notification of this discussion. As near as I can tell, this is a case of a new editor not understanding fair use and US copyright law. Why it is acceptable to use a university's seal in an article about the university without their permission has been explained to this person by at least half a dozen different people, but he continues to remove the file from the article and is now switching forums since the he did not agree with the consensus that emerged after they started a RfC. I am not sure how else this can be explained to them so they can stop beating this dead horse, but maybe someone on here can figure out a way to explain it to them that will get through. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

From my POV, one editor believes that that the Georgia State University Visual/Identity Guide and the University's VP University Relations should have control over Misplaced Pages content, superseding established US fair use law; nearly all other editors at Talk:Georgia State University disagree.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Re ChrisGualtieri, below is my summary of the discussion at Talk:Georgia State University related to the logo and subsequent RfC. Comments are welcome if I missed or mischaracterized any portions.

Initial concerns were brought forth by User:MLSGSU that the use of the seal in the article violated Georgia State University policy that the seal only be used for graduation and similar ceremonial regalia. User:ElKevbo replied that Misplaced Pages need not follow GSU policy. MLSGSU replied that the logo violated copyright, ElKevbo replied that use in an article about the university was permissible under copyright law as fair use. User:Fomeister disagreed with the statement that use of the seal qualified as fair use. After continued discussion, ElKevbo suggested that Fomeister seek additional input via the RfC process. User:VQuakr, User:Mabeenot, User:GrapedApe, and User:Danielklotz posted comments to the RfC in agreement that use of the seal qualified as fair use. User:Esrever agreed that the image qualified as fair use, but stated that using a free logo instead of (as opposed to in combination with) the seal was an alternative more in the spirit of WP:NFCC. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 31 July 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.

• Libyan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Libyan civil war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A editor is reverting back to another edit which was made by a user as vandalism, forgetting the point that this edit has been made on the same page for a long time, and now this person is frequently removing that sourced content as per his own personal likeness, , , , he is even removing the talks which backup that point in talk page, , and then asks to secure this page, but removes the response which is made on the request page. So i thought of getting this conflict here for solution.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 122.169.17.113 (talk · contribs)
• Lothar von Richthofen (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, they are being informed.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I had discussed them before on talk pages, each of them, the editors seemed to be agreeing, but there was never a fair response from this editor as well as one more, after sometimes when these edits remained, i saw that they are being reverted back for no reason.

• How do you think we can help?

I think the edits which were being reverted by this user should remain, because they are well sourced and made much before the user who he is pointing as banned user in those pages, also the talk pages should be recovered, because there's no permission from those users who's talks have been removed, and they doesn't seem to be vandalism or spam in any kind.

122.169.17.113 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Libyan_Civil_War, Talk:Libyan_civil_war discussion

Not participating in this circus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that this dispute is solved right here, as the editor is not interested in talking about any of the conflict which occurred, hoping to see all the requested changes back. 122.169.17.113 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 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.