Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Arabian Gulf - name vandalizing discussion

Closed discussion

Stewart Nozette

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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 Wikipedia 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 Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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.

Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Blue (Bill Mack song) (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? Okay the main thing is none of the sources on the second page where it concerns Mack is reliable they can all be contradicted by more reliable sources on Billboard.com where I have found that Mack never once released the song as a single. Second of all it breaks the rules as Rimes is most commonly known for the song not Mack and worst an ADMIN started the page and should know better then that. But no matter what I've said I'VE been the one bashed for it because I won't let them break the rules. So if possible I'd rather have someone better in the matter and everything can be seen on the following pages, User:Kww, my archive and talk page, User:Moriori, User:Fastily is the one who suggested I do this so I am. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Kww (talk · contribs) Moriori (talk · contribs) Richhoncho (talk · contribs) I do not want the 3 users mentioned in this dispute to make any comments as they have already bashed me enough. I don't need it. Swifty*talkcontribs 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 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=Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song)}} --~~~~ 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? The page needs to be moved back to Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) and Blue (Bill Mack song) needs to be redirected to it. Swifty*talkcontribs 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Blue (LeAnn Rimes song), Blue (Bill Mack song) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's note: It is not appropriate to ask that other editors involved in a dispute not comment here. If you are asking that a page be moved, then this is not the forum for that. See WP:RM for that purpose. If you're complaining about other user's conduct, then WP:ANI is probably appropriate. This forum is to attempt to settle content (only) disputes, ordinarily through discussion and compromise. I'm not going to close this request immediately because I'm not sure what you really want; if it's something other than obtaining a page move or discussing user conduct, please clarify below. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I just discovered that there is an unexpired RFC on this subject at the article page, so this is either filed at the wrong venue or violates the guidelines of this noticeboard limiting requests to content matters not undergoing other processes, so I'm closing it after all. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:19, 7 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.

Ooty

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Ooty (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? Ooty is also a railway station and as such I added the article to [Category:Railway Stations in Tamil Nadu]. But one user Surajt88 dis-agrees with this category and has already reverted the category more than twice. Since I don't want to break 3 revert rule and so starting discussion here - as advised by him also. He says Ooty is not a railway station. It is a town. I wouldn't mind adding it to a category like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu. to create a new category like [Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu] and is not ready to accept that a railway station will obviously will be place which is either a town or a village. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Surajt88 (talk · contribs) Jethwarp (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=Ooty}} --~~~~ 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? Please see Ooty Talk Page -[2] How do you think we can help? Please advise if a town or village has railway station - Can we not just add the article to Category : Railway Station in XYZ. Jethwarp (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Ooty discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) Where categories are concerned, I've looked at the discussion mentioned in the opening, and I'd like to know something. Ooty may be both a railway station and a town, but which is this article primarily about? If this article is about the town, and not specifically about the train station, I would say the train station category is likely inappropriate. The question: would a separate article about Ooty Railway Station meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If so, perhaps Jethwarp can find reliable sources and write a separate article about the train station. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Kindly note the other discussions pertaining to this dispute here and here Suraj T 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I noticed that Ooty Railway Station is indeed notable and created the article. Anyway, the actual dispute arose when I asked Jethwarp to refrain from adding railway station categories to articles of towns and cities, which they have done on numerous occasions as can be seen from their contribs. Suraj T 05:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC) It is so nice of Surajt88, who suddenly noticed that Ooty is also a notable railway station and created new article after the DRN was placed and a suggestion of creating Ooty railway station article was given by User:Sleddog116. But my original question still remains to be clarified. In India - many towns and villages are connected by railway station. It is not possible to create a Railway Station article for each and every town & village. For example - Brajrajnagar Railway Station is also a railway station, which is located in Brajrajnagar town. Further, this would lead way to creation of many hundreds of one line articles for railway station for each & every town / village, which I think should be avoided. Instead, just adding Category of railway station to an article of town / village - just gives the reader of article knowledge that okay - the town is connected by rail road also. Further, I am also not agreeable to Surajt88's suggestion given [[3]] of creating categories like Category:Towns with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu because this will lead to unnecessary categorization when Category:Railway stations in Tamil Nadu is already there. Further, there are villages also, which have rail road station, for that someone would suggest please create Category:Villages with Railway stations in Tamil Nadu, Category:Villages with Railway stations in Karnataka, Category:Towns with Railway stations in Karnataka & so on & so on leading to complex categories and complicating the matter further. Jethwarp (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Yes, many towns in India are, I'm sure, connected by rail. However, not all of those railway stations are notable. As far as categories are concerned, it doesn't really make sense to categorize a town by something that's there in it. For instance, Martinsville is a town in Virginia, and its main secondary school is called Martinsville High School (which has a separate article). It wouldn't make sense to categorize the Martinsville article based on the school - even though the article might mention the school, the school has its own article. In other words, any categories pertaining to the school would be attached to the article about the school, not the town. Similarly, the article about the train station would have the train station categories, but categorizing the town article under railway stations wouldn't make sense. (And creating all of those off-the-wall categories would create unnecessary categorization.) Sleddog116 (talk) 00:31, 4 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 Mole (MC/producer)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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 Wikipedia". 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Richard F. Cebull

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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? [4] 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 Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Jeremy Lin

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Jeremy Lin (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? Whether certain quotes in the Jeremy Lin article should be quoted boxed. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Muboshgu (talk · contribs) Bagumba (talk · contribs) Chrishmt0423 (talk · contribs) Festermunk (talk · contribs) Editors may take note of Muboshgu's pattern of disruptive editing behaviour [5], [6], [7] of adding disputed content without explaining them on talk page, in violation of WP:REVEXP.Festermunk (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 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=Jeremy Lin}} --~~~~ 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? Extensive discussion on this issue on Jeremy Lin's talk page and a request for third opinion that hitherto has remain unanswered. How do you think we can help? To help determine whether or not the quotes in dispute should be quote boxed. Festermunk (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Jeremy Lin discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Please consult the 3RR notice board. Editor in question doesn't like our consensus on the page in question, and after some attempt to discuss, devolved into edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC) No, the consensus issue has been discussed at length in the talk page, in particular paragraphs 6 - 11, where the distinction between an assume consensus and an established consensus is drawn. The fact that the user is unaware of the distinction should come as no surprise however as the user's has made no attempt [8], [9] and [10] to even explain his/her changes to the article on the talk page. Third party opinionators should also note that the user's first response this content dispute was to take me to the the edit warring administrator's noticeboard instead of trying to go through the normal channels of dispute resolutio first, implying a clear lack of understanding of how the dispute resolution works by the opposing user. Festermunk (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Fester, you reverted three separate users more than a half dozen times. Read WP:3RR. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk's note: The issue of whether anyone has or has not edit warred is not an appropriate subject of discussion here, per the guidelines of this noticeboard. Please refrain from making any comments upon or evaluations of any other user's conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Festermunk has been blocked at 18:12, 7 March 2012 with a duration of 24 hours for Edit warring: Jeremy Lin. Table the discussion till the OP is able to respond Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I fully concur with my colleague Hasteur's suggestion and believe than nothing further should occur here until Festermunk returns from his block and indicates that he wishes to continue this discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC) There does not appear to be any policy or guideline violations ( edit-warring aside) in the dispute. Editors should understand that consensus is not always unanimous.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 8 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.

Jim Higgins (Irish politician)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Jim Higgins (Irish politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User "Snappy" constantly deleting both material relevant to the public figure in question and the picture that accompanies the article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Snappy (talk · contribs) 86.42.187.164 (talk · contribs) This is ongoing hand has been occurring for over 18months 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=Jim Higgins (Irish Politician)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes - reverted to original posts and requested Snappy to desist. How do you think we can help? View picture inad information Snappy is deleting and decide if it is superflous. 86.42.187.164 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Jim Higgins (Irish politician) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Rhino tank

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Rhino tank (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 dispute relates to the “Rhino Tank” M-4 Sherman Tank variant. EyeSerene insists on reverting the text to read “Hedgerows” when these were, in fact, Brocage. This is no mere semantical difference; A hedgerow implies these were thin, spindly affairs that should have been breachable with mere machetes (or even bayonets), whereas a bocage is a wall of rocks and other rubble built up over hundreds of generations that served to clear the fields of said rubble and to hold water for irrigation. This is the difference between a rock wall (these are said to have inspired later HESCO Barriers) versus barbed wire; The rock walls (think about those words, “Rock Walls”) would stop bullets, men, and even vehicles. Attempts to penetrate these rock walls were generally unsuccessful (including using tanks to punch a small hole into the walls, into which “spent artillery shells” though who’s exactly wasn’t mentioned filled with high explosive were shoved), at the cost of an average of 2.3 sappers (demolitions guys) per wall; In each and every such wall addressed, at least one sapper died, and in many of them teams of two died as teams. The use of the word “hedgerow” thus denigrating those who faced these improvised fortresses. It has been pointed out that the rock walls were topped by hedgerows, but these were actually wild thickets. Personally, I’m inclined to let the particularities in this regard drop; As long as the nature of the defenses (high thick rock walls, not spindly ornamental bushes) is correctly addressed. FWIW, I hope to close this matter quickly. I did try discussing this on the effective talk page, but EyeSerene has chosen to decide that I agreed that these were hedgerows, then waited a few weeks and reverted the page (in other words, as soon as I turned my back). Rather than just accept he was wrong, he seems to WANT me to bring it here. So here it is. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs) EyeSerene (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=Rhino tank}} --~~~~ 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? Please see Rhino Tank Talk Page -[11] How do you think we can help? Explain in small words the difference between a “hedgerow” (thicket) and a brocage (a rock wall that may or may not be topped by a thicket) to EyeSerene. Explain to him that the stupidity of Americans really doesn’t change the facts- This was a deadly fortress, not a briar patch. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Rhino tank discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Bocage is French for wooded countryside, not an impenetrable hedgerow in Normandy. The latter was called hedgerow by American and British soldiers. The Rhino tank modification was made for pushing through extremely dense French hedgerows found in Normandy. Your story about the price paid in sappers is an extraordinary claim backed up by nothing. Men were killed going through the bocage because it was very often covered by armed defenders on the other side, not because sappers were blowing themselves up. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Hastings and Beevor, two authorities on Normandy both refer to bocage (not brocage) as the terrain and countryside. Beevor (p. 246) states (in reference to the US Army); "they had to cope with the marshaland and hedgerows of the bocage...". Another author, Major General Belchem (Head of Montogery's operations and planing staff from 43-45) gives a quite detailed description; "The hinterland, though mostly flat, is bocage country. The word is difficult to translate, but broadly it means mixed woodland and pasture terrain, with numerous winding side-roads and lanes bounded on both sides by high levees or banks, topped by tall thick hedgerows which greatly limit visibility" (p. 24). I have other references, but they all say much the same thing. On another note, a glance at the discussions so far (on user talk pages as well) lead me to suggest that Andering starts assuming good faith a little bit more. The talk pages don't really back up his description of events. Ranger Steve Talk 08:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Mr Reddson has also made these claims on the main M4 Sherman page. If he provided a source to support his position this discussion would be worthwhile, otherwise I believe it is going to be very one sided since the historiography does not appear to support him (not to mention there is no need to slander Americans). Just taking a quick look through my collection, I can add the following to the above provided by Steve. “…Normandy bocage – small, hedge-rowed fields in hilly, broken countryside.” - Copp, Fields of Fire, p. 80 “…the bocage, with very high and steeply banked hedges, surrounding raised fields, often no more than 100 yards across. In addition the countryside was sprinkled with orchards, woods, and small but stout stone farmhouses and out-buildings, often nestling in rising and dipping valleys and ravines, cut by small but troublesome rivers.” -Buckley, British armour in Normandy, p. 9 “..bocage was nearly80km in depth and lay to the west and south-west of Caen between the Orne and Vire rivers. … consisted of irregular small fields, usually little more than 100 square metres in size, separated by high earth banks, on top of which grew dense bushes and trees. Running along these banks were sunken tracks, often overgrown and some so narrow that once in them tanks could not turn or even traverse their guns. Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pp. 50-51 Comparing Germany to Normandy, Stacey comments: “The Lincoln and Welland Regiment also had difficulty; apart from dealing with continual obstacles, they had trouble maintaining communications between tanks and infantry platoons because of "thick hedges, resembling those found in the bocage country of Normandy".” Stacey, The Victory Campaign, p. 600 RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (E/C with Enigma so posted as new comment) Forgot to add this; "Another soldier came up with the suggestion that steel prongs should be fitted to the front of the tank, then it could dig up the hedgerow... Culin went away and developed the idea... With a good driver, it took less than two and a half minutes to clear a hole through the bank and hedgerow." Beevor, p. 257. Hope it helps, Ranger Steve Talk 08:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (ec with Enigma and Ranger Steve) I think this is essentially a case of WP:IDHT. It has now been explained to Andering J. REDDSON a number of times by a number of editors that the situation is exactly as Binksternet and others describe above. "Bocage" (not Brocage, which means something to do with contract commissions) is the general name for the entire landscape. "Hedgerows" is the word the sources use to describe that part of the landscape that caused both sides such difficultly in Normandy in 1944. That Andering J. REDDSON apparently believes "hedgerows" to mean some kind of ornamental garden shrubbery is irrelevant, and that he then tries to impose his misunderstanding on an article is against content policy and introduces semantic errors. In an effort to compromise and clear up any misunderstandings I've rewritten the article a number of times, removing the contested term from the lead and adding sourced explanation so that readers don't make the same mistake Andering J. REDDSON has. I was under the impression we had sorted this out on the article talk page a while ago, but apparently not. See my latest attempt to reach a compromise; this thread on Talk:Rhino tank, and my latest rewrite to the article itself. As a final point I notice that Andering J. REDDSON has now enlarged the dispute to another article. EyeSerenetalk 08:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Further to the above, the US Army Green books describe bocage as such: "...the Bocage (hilly wooded country extending south of the Bessin and Cotentin nearly to the base of the Brittany Peninsula)," (p. 180, Cross-Channel Attack) and "the bocage country, were earth dikes averaging about four feet in height and covered with tangled hedges, bushes, and even trees. Throughout the entire country they boxed in fields and orchards of varying sizes and shapes, few larger than football fields and many much smaller. Each hedgerow was a potential earthwork into which the defenders cut often-elaborate foxholes, trenches, and individual firing pits. The dense bushes atop the hedgerows provided ample concealment for rifle and machine gun positions, which could subject the attacker to devastating hidden fire from three sides." (p. 284, Cross-Channel Attack)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Breakout and Pursuit, also part of the Green Books official history of the US Army, describes the modified Sherman as “"Rhino Tank with Hedgerow Cutter" (p. XV). The book goes on to describe the development of the Rhino modifications: “Ordnance units converted ordinary Sherman tanks into dozers by mounting a blade on the front. Some hedgerows, however, were so thick that engineers using satchel charges had first to open a hole, which the dozers later cleared and widened.22 ... Ordnance units and tankers throughout the army had devoted a great deal of thought and experimentation to find a device that would get tanks through the hedges quickly without tilting the tanks upward ... As early as 5 July the 79th Division had developed a "hedgecutter," which Ordnance personnel began attaching to the front of tanks. Five days later the XIX Corps was demonstrating a "salad fork" arrangement, heavy frontal prongs originally intended to bore holes in hedgerow walls to facilitate placing engineer demolition charges but accidentally found able to lift a portion of the hedgerow like a fork and allow the tank to crash through the remaining part of the wall. Men in the V Corps invented a "brush cutter" and a "greendozer" as antihedgerow devices. The climax ... was achieved by ... Curtis G. Culin, Jr., who welded steel scrap from a destroyed enemy roadblock to a tank to perfect a hedgecutter with several tusklike prongs, teeth that pinned down the tank belly while the tank knocked a hole in the hedgerow wall by force." (pp. 205-206)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC) All this additional information is excellent :) Does anyone mind if I steal the fruits of their labours here? If it leads to expansion and improvement of the Rhino tank article I think this DR process will have been quite successful. EyeSerenetalk 09:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Feel free - I'm not at home now, so I don't have the full refs - but I imagine you have Beevor and Hastings, and Belcham's book has all the details here. Ranger Steve Talk 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Likewise. The details for the Green Books can be found here. The entire collection is available and free to access. Furthermore am pretty sure Pursuit and Breakout contains the photo, used in the article, on page 206.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) From Enigma's post above - "bocage was nearly 80km in depth" - now that would be a pretty thick hedgerow if that's what bocage meant! Ranger Steve Talk 10:19, 9 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.

Thirugnana Sambandar

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thirugnana Sambandar (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 barely know what is occuring. I see reverts of original research, "POV pushing", and unexplained removal of references. I am an uninvolved editor who is reporting this. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) Sivamrutham123 (talk · contribs) Chandrasekhara gurukkal (talk · contribs) Ramakrishnan7686 (talk · contribs) Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) If they understand English well, you can use it. Otherwise, find someone who understands their native or other fluent language. 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 in English. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Thirugnana Sambandar}} --~~~~ 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? George Ho (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Thirugnana Sambandar discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Metrication in the United Kingdom (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 a disagreement as to whether a consensus has been achieved to delete a paragraph from the article (see Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story). Some editors believe that it has been achieved because there is a significant majority wanting it deleted. At least one editor believes it has not, because the discussion was cut short, and consensus declared, before any negotiations on content or compromise wording had finished and before any dispute resolution process had been undertaken as per WP:Consensus. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? DeFacto (talk · contribs) Boson (talk · contribs) Steve Hosgood (talk · contribs) HiLo48 (talk · contribs) Martinvl (talk · contribs) Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs) NebY (talk · contribs) Hotcrocodile (talk · contribs)  The discussion has been acrimonious at times, with at least one user being ridiculed, disparaged and insulted. A false report of vandalism (to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism) drew administrator attention, resulting in one user being blocked, briefly, for edit warring. Resulting admin comments gave succour to those claiming a consensus had been reached. Threats of ANI action (for disruption) against at least one editor, by another, have been issued. 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=Metrication in the United Kingdom}} --~~~~ 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 it on the talk page and had admin involvement. How do you think we can help? We need a strategy to resolve this in accordance with the WP:Consensus policy as there is confusion, including amongst administrators, as to at what point a consensus can be declared to exist. -- de Facto (talk). 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Metrication in the United Kingdom discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. As an impartial admin whose only involvement here has been to block DeFacto (talk · contribs) for edit warring on this subject I have closed the discussion on the talk page. There is no dispute here - there is clear consensus and a case of WP:TE, specifically, a textbook case of WP:IDHT. If DeFacto continues to reject consensus, I will re-block him/her for disruptive editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 12 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.