Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 160

Summary of dispute by Epipelagic

My view is there is nothing more to be said unless the disputant supports his position with appropriate and reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Altruism (ethics)#Nonsense discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other editor has not been notified. The filing editor is advised that if they want to engage in a dispute resolution mechanism, it really is a good idea to register an account. Comment on content, not on contributors. (Is there a dispute about article content? If so, can it be stated without complaining about the other editor?) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what? You insist that your sentence should be in the article. All this has already been discussed. So far your only excuse is that Nietzsche wrote in German. Do you have any reason to assume that the English translation is insufficient? The sentence you want to include in the article is incorrect. The word "mittelmäßig" can only be translated too mediocre. It would be good if a mediator with knowledge of German would be here. NomenNominandum (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources for your claim that "Nietzsche never spoke about 'the weak', he spoke about mediocre people". I pointed out Google associates 292,000 pages mentioning Nietzsche with the term "the weak", far more than it associates with "the mediocre". With numbers like that it would be easy to extract many reliable sources flatly contradicting your assertion. Your (strange and illogical) response is to assert I am not logical and that the "discussion is starting to get very strange". When I quite reasonably concluded that it is you that is trying to "propagate false information and talking complete nonsense", I was merely mirroring back to you your own immoderate language.

It would also help if you produce reliable sources (not alt-right sources) for your position that Nietzsche has never "considered it a duty to help the weak". Also, you should know that quoting sections without discrimination, as you are doing, from the Antichrist is not going to give a balanced view of Nietzsche's thought. By the time Nietzsche was writing the Antichrist, he was manic and well down the path to his final breakdown. That is why it is important to use Nietzschean scholars with a standing like Kaufmann who can reliably disentangle where Nietzsche is.

Considering the level of English you are displaying, it is clear your own English translation will not do. It is in any case, not just a simple matter of mechanical translation. Contacting a mediator with knowledge of German is unlikely to add anything useful to the discussion unless he/she is a specialist on Nietzsche. You keep saying I am trying to insert "my sentence" into the article. No, it is you that are trying to delete a sentence. It was there in the article long before I came along. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SummertimeinCrocodilopolis

Summary of dispute by Canyouhearmemajortom?

Summary of dispute by JeanBirkin

Talk:University of_Paris discussion

•  Volunteer note: @SirJamesMcBiscuit: Please notify the other editors of this discussion as advised in the filing instructions. Nihlus 20:23, 19 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by BrianCUA

There are two editors, Contaldo80 and Steeletrap, who are insistent that a few political positions they Knights have taken in their 130+ year history are worthy of inclusion in the lede. Others, including myself, SarekOfVulcan, Lionelt, ScitDei, and Marauder40 disagree, believing it to be undue weight for the lede, but agree that mention should mentioned in the article. Several policies, including WP:LEDE, WP:DUE, and WP:PROPORTION, have been offered as reasons why the information should not be in the lede. No policies have been cited in the arguments why it should. Instead, ad hominem attacks are made. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SarekOfVulcan

I have become convinced by the discussion that the less we put into the lede, the better. I think there's a place for indicating where they are on the political spectrum and to talk about their attempts (and successes) to influence political decisions, but I'm pretty sure the lede isn't the place for them. In the long history of the Knights, Prop 8 is not their most defining moment. (Disclosure: former Knight, left over political activities contrary to human rights, but still feel able to edit neutrally) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Contaldo80

Summary of dispute by Lionelt

In the long 135 year history of KOC, the Proposition 8 episode lasted only a couple of years. The amount expended, $14 million, is small change compared to the cumulative $50 billion or so spent on charitable giving. The article itself contains minimal coverage of Prop 8 in the body. There's not enough Prop 8 content to "summarize" in the first place. The proposal by Steeletrap is to promenently mention Prop 8 in the first paragraph--an incident which occurred in only 1 U.S. state--despite the distribution of KOC across the globe, is unarguably WP:UNDUE. The text "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues" is the best summary of the content in the article. Another proposal to create separate sections for abortion & LGBT are also WP:UNDUE.

A review of the talk page shows that we have consensus. The issue is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.– Lionel^(talk) 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Steeletrap

Summary of dispute by TonyBallioni

I have no interest in the Knight of Columbus. My only comment there was that I do not think that it is necessary for individuals to disclose whether they are a member of a voluntary association, and that our COI policy hasn't historically been construed to suggest this. For religious groups, there is a particular chance of harassment that would come with requiring this. No clue where the dispute currently is, and unless there are questions about the COI guideline, I don't think my views will be of much help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ScitDei

I was not originally part of the dispute, however I tried to propose statements to which both sides could agree on. My first proposed statement was in principle agreed upon by all. However, the line was reverted back whenever it was incorporated in the lead.

1. Now since KOfC is spread in many countries and it has strongly supported/opposed many other policies in different states, the mention of its support for Proposition 8 or its donations for this cause in the lead would be WP:UNDUE.
2. Mention of KOfC as religious right in the lead would also be inaccurate, even though it has mainly stood with major religious right causes, it has also stood by Christian Left causes like social justice and racial equality

However both of these should be detailed in the relevant sections in the article.--~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 05:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Marauder40

Knights of Columbus discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. However, there is already a poorly stated RFC in progress. Although the RFC is not worded in a neutral way that will result in effective resolution, it does for now take precedence over all other forms of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I brought this here is that no outside voices are currently contributing to the RfC. It is the principles going around and around. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - It isn't clear from the filing editor's comments whether the filing editor is trying to resolve a content dispute or is trying to promote discussion. If the objective is to promote discussion, that isn't the purpose of this noticeboard, except as the discussion resolves any content issue. The purpose of any discussion in Wikipedia should be improving content. Wikipedia is not a debating society. If the purpose of this filing is to promote discussion in general, it can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• If the objective is to resolve a content dispute, there is already an RFC, and it can either be allowed to run for 30 days and then be closed with a consensus, or allowed to run for 30 days and then closed as no consensus because never properly stated (a more likely result), or withdrawn. If it is withdrawn, it can be replaced by a better RFC, and a volunteer here will assist in wording the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Is the filing editor trying to resolve a content dispute, or to promote discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The goal is to reach consensus on some language for the lead. Any help getting there would be appreciated. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer note - Does the filing editor have a particular preference for what they want to be in the lede? If so, have they tried bold, revert, discuss? If they don't, and are just trying to promote consensus, then they are welcome to become a volunteer here and try to assist in consensus, but for this article, in that case, they are advised to try to mediate on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer note - Is there a specific disagreement about the lede? If the objective is to get agreement about the lede, then presenting two or three choices in an RFC may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by Kansas Bear

Summary of dispute by Marcel Baron

Hello, first I want to apologize for my low level of English, I'm learning.

So there is a problem with Swazzo removing my references, and adding unfounded information, that the invasion of Spain would have been ordered by the Umayyad caliph al-Walid, which is false, no evidence to say that, all the Arab-Muslim historians of the time agree that it was Tariq, on his own initiative, who made his expeditions to Spain, I added a source: Ṭāhā, Abd al- Wāḥid Dhannūn (1989-01-01). 'The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain'. Routledge. p. 85: but it is constantly suppressed by Swazzo. The historian Abd al-Wāḥid Dhannūn Ṭāhā mentions that several Arab-Muslim writers state that Tariq would have decided without informing his superior to cross the strait, an initiative that would have caused the wrath of Moussa Ibn Noçair

Whether moussa ibn nocair (the so-called superior of tariq), or al-walid, neither was aware that Tariq was going to cross the Straits of Gibraltar. Marcel Baron (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Umayyad conquest_of_Hispania#Suppression_of_reference discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. The filing editor should notify the other editors. The filing editor, while mentioning another editor, did not list them; I have added them to the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. If the filing editor needs help in notifying the other editors, please ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this noticeboard is to improve the articles by discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for responses from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by Adrin10

Summary of dispute by Weatherextremes

Talk:University of_the_People#Partnerships discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Please notify them. If you need help, please ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by SummertimeinCrocodilopolis

Summary of dispute by Canyouhearmemajortom?

Summary of dispute by JeanBirkin

Summary of dispute by RaphaelQS

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure anymore if Sorbonne University is truly the re-establishment of the old university of Paris because another fusion of universities in Paris is currently occurring with the name... University of Paris^[1] --RaphaelQS (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by XIIIfromTOKYO

Talk:Sorbonne University discussion

• Volunteer note - There were two threads that appeared to be almost the same. I have closed one of them. The filing editor should notify the other editors. Please do not bludgeon the process by filing multiple dispute resolution requests. It annoys people and wastes time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As the users that defended the idea that Sorbonne University was the rebirth of the University of Paris were Sockpuppets [] of a user who was previously blocked from editing French Universities articles User_talk:Launebee#Topic_ban - and RaphaelQS finally agreeing with the fact that the former statement is not accurate - wouldn't be appropriate that a more experienced user reverts the two articles, especially the one of University of Paris which is much older and used to be much longer, to its former version? --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@SirJamesMcBiscuit: Is this DRN necessary now that two of the users you listed have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets? Nihlus 20:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There is a very long history of contentious editing about the various universities in Paris, and this history has involved sockpuppetry (and evidently still does). It doesn't appear to me that the blocking of the sockpuppets completely resolves the issue. Due to the long and troubled history of editing of these articles, I think that formal mediation, which could take one to several months, might be better than trying something quick here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

However, is a volunteer willing to try to handle this matter, at least on a preliminary basis? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I have reverted some of the biased edits of the sockpuppets. However, due to the long-lasting history of disputes regarding Parisian universities within English wikipedia, and also given the fact that many of these universities are envisaging fusions among one another as well as the symbolic use of the marks “Sorbonne” and “University of Paris” to promote themselves among international audiences in the months to come, I think this long-lasting feud is far from its end.

I suggest we all keep track of these pages and raise the flag whenever a user starts editing articles saying that a given university is the “main inheritor”, “the re-establishment”, etc, of the old University of Paris/Sorbonne. This seems to be the rule at French wikipedia, which, naturally, seems to have a stronger control regarding the content that is put forward on the pages of their own universities. --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SirJamesMcBiscuit - I am not saying that we can't attempt moderated dispute resolution at this noticeboard. However, what I am saying is that, looking over the recent history and remembering some of the older history, I don't think that any of the informal methods of dispute resolution will work well. My own opinion is that, because of the history of sockpuppetry, it is in order first to deal with the conduct disputes, and only deal with the content disputes after the conduct disputes have been dealt with. I would propose that the ArbCom, which among other things has privileged access to CheckUser data, etc., be asked to look into the conduct disputes, issue any necessary bans, and then turn the matter back to the community for content dispute resolution. I won't try to mediate a discussion until the conduct disputes have been dealt with. If any other volunteer wants to try, I will encourage and help them, but be skeptical. That is my opinion. I think that there is such a long history of conduct issues, including sockpuppetry, that an ArbCom case is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Good ... so my work here is done.

--SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - It appears that the filing editor is withdrawing this request. I am leaving this request open for 24 hours in case any other editor who is not a blocked sockpuppet wishes to request moderated dispute resolution. However, I recommend that either formal mediation or arbitration are more likely to be effective. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by Spshu

Summary of dispute by Bankster

Let's start with the List of Disney XD TV channels issue.

Spshu re-organised the list and separated many countries which share network feeds as independent markets. This is a problem not only present for European channels (which he tries to defend himself using the "reference" provided, a MAVISE list, not reliable since it doesn't have precise information and is often off about the network's structure) but also for the Asian region, where Disney XD only has one sole channel in Southeast Asia, based in Malaysia but covering surrounding countries via different feeds according to their geographical location. These feeds often have different characteristics but their programming schedule is exactly the same i.e. Malaysia having 4 audio tracks enabled for its feed (Malay, English, Tamil and Chinese) while Thailand only having two tracks (Thai and English), but programming remains in simulcast.

Same goes for India; the Mumbai-based Disney channels are often distributed in surrounding countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka due to geographical and audience advantages. However, the network's Indian feeds remain undivided. Hence, I do not understand Spshu's logic by stating that Maldives, a country that Disney officially stated to launch their networks on its territory via TV operator Dhiraagu, has its own localised feeds. It's so far obvious, by this time, that the Maldives are receiving the Indian channels and not their own; nonetheless, Spshu wants a literal mention about it, and he will not recognise it otherwise. That is original research against him. This applies also to Disney Channel Worldwide for the Southeast Asian and European markets. Lithuania doesn't have an IPTV Disney Channel in Russia. Instead, they receive (along with Latvia and Estonia) the three Disney networks with a Russian audio track enabled for them (launched in 2012). The ex-Yugoslav countries receive the same EMEA Disney feeds available for Middle Eastern and African countries, as well as there are two European feeds shared by three countries (in Central Europe, these are Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary; in Eastern Europe, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova).

For Disney International HD is the same: the channel was launched exclusively for India, but available also for the Maldives via Diraagu since its deal with Disney. Neverthless, Spshu has stated that, with the launch of the channel in the country, Disney has launched another feed. This has no sense at all.

The user continues to address WP:ORIGINAL as his only defence on these discussions; however, by relying and tergiverse sources, he is the one committing it. --Bankster (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Disney Channels_Worldwide#Disney_Asia discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has notified the other editors. There has been discussion on the article talk page that has not been conclusive. This case is ready for a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog

Summary of dispute by Doc James

Summary of dispute by Famousdog

Talk:Cranial electrotherapy_stimulation discussion

• Volunteer note - Discussion on the article talk page has been very brief, not long enough to qualify as extensive discussion. Editors are advised to continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by Pi.1415926535

My basic view is this: the article is about a transit station complex. It is not about the services that can be accessed at the station, nor about the infrastructure they run on, except as it relates to the station. That means that information like the fares for the airport connector line, exactly where each bus route goes, and details of when they run and what terminals they serve are simply not relevant to this article. (However, the location of the bus transfer area, which bus routes stop at the station, and the general geographic area that the station serves as a bus terminal for - those are all pertinent details about the station itself.) There is no reason to have a highly detailed table displaying all the service details of the bus routes that serve the station - that's a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not. Similarly, I don't believe that the platform diagram needs to be included - it takes up a lot of space, doesn't show anything not included in the prose, and doesn't accurately show the orientation of the platforms. Past consensus was highly in support of those diagrams on NYC Subway articles, but against them elsewhere (I believe the particular case was the MBTA system). Flushing–Main Street (IRT Flushing Line) is actually a poor example to compare to - it never should have passed a GA review with a giant bus table, a two-sentence section, nor a digression about neighborhood attractions.

I have attempted to clean up the article so it is accurate and supported by reliable sources; my proposed version can be seen here. Titanosaurus has added a great deal of information that I feel is irrelevant or unreliably sourced - that includes the mention of an unimportant security fence (currently sourced with Google Maps, plus two reports that don't actually support the claim and don't even mention the fence), claiming that the southernmost track is the Coast Subdivision (sourced to the non-RS OpenRailwayMap wiki, and contradicting a reliable government report that I cited), and a wordy sentence about the station not having a ticket machine (with an unsourced claim about it being atypical). They have cited OpenRailwayMap and the neighborhood gossip site NextDoor for other claims, and even their reliable sources are poorly formatted. It is similarly misleading to say that the station serves bus routes with X number of riders - that doesn't actually tell us whether those riders actually use the station.

Titanosaurus has been slowly adding this extraneous information to the page (and others) for months now - dozens of small edits without a single edit summary - despite at least one previous request on their talk page. They have reverted every edit that Morphennial and I made to reduce the level of cruft (including a 3RR violation the other day), and responded in what I felt was an aggressive manner at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Oakland Coliseum station and User talk:Titanosaurus#Bus connections, including accusing me of bad faith because I have removed questionably relevant information on several occasions. I understand that Titanosaurus has put a great deal of work into this article, but unfortunately that work has not actually made a better encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles are to provide a concise and relevant overview of subjects, not to provide detailed travel information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Morphenniel

The issue is plain. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If needed, the article can refer to the website of the transit authority. What is being added to this article is essentially non-encyclopedic. Furthermore, the complainant is not abiding by WP:BRD, and is reverting without discussion, even though they know that the content they are adding is in dispute.

As an example of what Titanosaurus has done, we can also consider the article on Eastmont Town Center. The version as last edited by Titanosaurus was this . I have since edited it down to a more reasonable size per this diff . The article was effectively duplicating work already done in another article, which was List of AC Transit routes. The article on Eastmont Town Center had become swamped and overwhelmed with information on the bus service, which was plainly wrong. My version has kept the basic information, but if a user wants more detail, then they only have to click on the link which then takes them to a more detailed page on the bus service. The article is cleaner, and less like a travel guide on how to get to Eastmont Town Center. I suspect that there are many other articles that Titanosaurus has edited which are now overburdened with information on the bus service, rather than keeping to the specific details pertinent to the title of that article. - Morphenniel (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you straight up adding false information to articles? SamTrans is discontinuing Route 297 this Sunday, and was trying to make the page reflect that. Deletion is not cleanup, and the reasoning behind my edit is something that could have been easily figured out with a couple clicks in a few seconds. I also find it interesting how you kept my omission of Route 297 on the All Nighter (bus service) page, making me question what exactly was the purpose for your barrage of edits today. Your behavior today is a bit unsettling and reeks of WikiHounding. TITANOSAURUS 18:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Oakland Coliseum station discussion

• Volunteer edit - There has been discussion on the project talk page. The filing editor has notified the named editors, but other editors took part in the discussion, and should also be notified. Has there also been discussion on an article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion was started here, but is mainly being discussed at the WikiProject Trains talk page at the moment. TITANOSAURUS 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Titanosaurus: Please discontinue carrying the discussion here or replying to comments made by other editors. This is not the place to do so before the case is opened. Once this case is opened, it will allow you to make your arguments then. Thanks. Nihlus 18:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, will do. TITANOSAURUS 18:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alephb

On 18 January, Elpiniki made an edit (two consecutive edits, to be precise) which included an unsubstantiated claim about "modern Jewish" scholars , attempting to reframe the consensus of modern scholarship on Moses as if it were a specifically "Jewish thing," without the slightest bit of well-sourced justication for this claim. It was reverted. Elpiniki has since made no further attempts to edit Adam, for good or ill, but has simply been insisting that other editors should suggest wording to include more Traditional Christian (as he puts it) content. Given that Elpiniki has admitted that their characterization of a particular view as "Jewish" was just a guess, and given that Elpiniki has not attempted any further editing, I see no reason for this issue to be at DRN. Alephb (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doug Weller

I only found out about this on the talk page, but that's simply because this is a new editor who doesn't understand our processes including our sourcing guidelines, and thinks that all Christians think the same and that his is the mainstream Christian view. None of the editors in the talk page discussion agree with him. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

Frankly, the OP has little idea about our rules. E.g. he ignores WP:VER and WP:IRS, not to speak of WP:RNPOV. I.e. he comes empty-handed (as sources) to our article and insists to change it according to his whims. He also mistook the WP:NPOV requirements stated upon his talk page for attacks upon Christianity. So, until he provides some scholarly sources, there is nothing to discuss. This whole DRN complaint is frivolous and ridiculous, it is one of those dummy bullets shot by true believers against WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Adam discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It has not been extensive. Is this a case where the filing editor is in a one-against-many disagreement with the other editors? If so, I would suggest that they ask themselves whether moderated discussion with a neutral moderator is likely to change the opinions of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by Guy_Macon

Please reject this DRN case. First, Alistair Kelman filed this case rather than participating in the ongoing discussion on his talk page. Second, the Wikitribune page is question was removed by Wikitribune after Jimbo Wales commented "My sincere goal is that every story published at WikiTribune be suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. This means that every claim must be carefully confirmed by either another reliable source or evidentiary support, made as public as it can be made. This story did not meet that. We are still exploring questions about whether or not to allow 'essays' as opposed to hard news stories, and for me, this is another nail in the coffin for essays. The author should have published it on a blog or on Medium or something like that." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Philafrenzy

Summary of dispute by

User talk:AlistairKelman#Certificate_of_life discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Oliszydlewski

Max Fleischer discussion

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

Summary of dispute by 198.84.171.88

Talk:March 14,_1891,_lynchings#"largest_known_mass_lynching_in_US_history" discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Petrov2017

Summary of dispute by SovalValtos

Summary of dispute by Zocke1r

Summary of dispute by freshacconci

Talk:Charles Dutoit discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Dawnseeker2000

User talk:Dawnseeker2000#Not_a_sock_puppet discussion

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

Summary of dispute by ScrapIronIV

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof

Summary of dispute by MPS1992

Kelli Ward discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Human7777

I could not understand why other two editors deleted my edits without discussion. They assert that the sources I used are not reliable for the purpose of the article, and challenge my objectivity. I believe that my edits bring some neutrality to the article because the current composition of the article is mostly based on the approach of one side. If they insist that the sources and edits I done are not neutral, I propose to delete some other sources in the article which are much more unreliable than the sources which I addressed.Human7777 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LouisAragon

Summary of dispute by MarshallBagramyan

Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Deleted edits_in_January_5_and_6,_2018 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Discussion here is voluntary, and we will wait to see if the other editors respond. A Request for Comments is still available as a way to resolve this content dispute. If the other editors wish to have moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion; otherwise, an RFC will be advised. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by 10 December 2017

Just look at the difference between the Bognor Regis and Selsey weather boxes. The averages in the Selsey weather box, calculated from the 5x5 km grid squares, reflect Selsey's more exposed position which means lower summer temperatures, higher winter temperatures, more wind and more sunshine. Although it forms part of the data, Selsey's weather box does not simply use Bognor Regis data. As I've said before, the fact that it is in the sunniest grid square warrants a weather box so that all extremes of the UK climate are covered. It would be good to do this for the warmest and the driest places too for example.--10 December 2017 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Wilfridselsey

The problem for me is that a weather box just provides a load of data. IMO most people will find this meaningless unless there is some sort of analysis to support it. Also I think that is important to state that the data, was provided by a weather station, that is not located in Selsey. In other parts of the country the fact that the data came from a neighbouring weather station wouldn't skew the data significantly, however as Selsey is a promontory in the English Channel means that the weather, in Selsey, can be strongly influenced by sea conditions. It would not be possible for the weather station in Bognor to detect this.

Summary of dispute by SovalValtos

Climate in Selsey is best covered in text which can explain and clarify the context. The table gives undue weight to detailed figures which are not even measured data, just being synthesised for a grid square which includes part of Selsey, and which are derived by interpolation and regression. I am not sure where the further calculation of averages come from, WP:OR?. Tables with genuine data from weather stations in a region can be linked from settlements without one. They should not be included in settlement articles where there is no weather station. Including a table as a guide to holiday makers is not a convincing argument.SovalValtos (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Charlesdrakew

This discussion could have been resolved at the article talk page, with a request for comment perhaps. I concur with Wilfredselsey and we usually cover climate on county articles rather that for every settlement. If Selsey is outstandingly sunny that can be stated in prose with a suitable source. It does not justify including a mass of detailed data not even specific to the settlement.Charles (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dan Koehl

Being involved through my revert 11 januari 2018, after which I double checked the sources, and actually didnt find anything supporting the mentioned weather box, but unfortunately forgot about the issue. I now therefore agree with User:Djm-leighpark, on a removal of the weather box and move climate section to subsection of geography. I would therefore back the weatherbox out. I think its good, that this issue was brought to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, in order to support later, similair actions of removing POV claims of climate changes, which are not really supported by relevant sources. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Selsey#Climate Edit War discussion

Summary of dispute by Funlinguist

Talk:Esperanto grammar#Ci discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Edwardx

NewRiver discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers

With this edit I changed

... predominantly from a [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] perspective

to

... predominantly from a [[left-wing]] point of view

with the edit summary neither source says it's "liberal". Both sources (Adweek, Charleston Gazette-Mail) mention it as "left"; neither of them is a good source, but that's what was there. OP objected, listed various sources on the talk-page which variously describe it as "liberal", "left-wing", "pseudo-liberal but right wing", "right wing" etc. Given this, I wrote On the "left-wing" question: I'm happy for that to be removed, given the diversity of opinions in the various sources, edit summary remove the political viewpoint, picture is too confused. It was later removed by Spintendo, added back in the subsequent edit by 7&6=thirteen.

I'll repeat here what I've already said there: this isn't important enough to justify extended discussion. I see no hope of achieving agreement on what the political stance of the thing is, because there's no agreement in the sources.

Bbarmadillo seems to have forgotten to disclose his/her paid-editor status in relation to this article when starting this discussion. "As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace" (my bold-face). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers thank you for sharing. A clarification of paid editing status - I didn't know that I should disclose it every time I discuss anything. As I said, this is my first ever dispute on Wikipedia. This status has been clearly stated before making any edits to the article, it is displayed both at the article Talk page and in my profile. Now that I know it is not enough, I am disclosing my status again. I have been paid to editing The National Memo article, but this discussion has nothing to do with it. I just want to describe the website correctly. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Spintendo

I don't see a difference between the terms liberal and left wing. They are hermeneutically identical, as well as semiotically indistinguishable (in their usage specifically as labels for people, or in this case, a person's publication). The COI editor is invested in the assumption that there is a strong difference between the two terms. I believe if there is a distinction, it's likely a regional distinction, in which case the article can only do so much to explain the terms beforehand. With no resolution in sight I deleted both terms from the article, as more trouble than they were worth. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The National_Memo#Several_edits discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon sorry, it is my first Wikipedia dispute ever, so I thought just tagging users involved was enough. I've left them notifications at their Talk pages following your comment. Please also note that Spintendo also shared his point of view at the article's talk page and clarified the positions there. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This noticeboard is a service provided by volunteer editors for the benefit of volunteer editors. Yes, it is necessary that anyone who is not a volunteer editor must disclose their interest. Participation in any dispute resolution process is voluntary (but encouraged). Do the volunteer editors want to engage in moderated discussion to be led by a volunteer moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by My very best wishes

Summary of dispute by Chrissymad

Talk:Alexei Navalny#Link to his official YouTube site discussion

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

Summary of dispute by O1lI0

User talk:Le_Petit_Chat#February 2018 discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Hyper9

I am not entirely sure what the nature of the dispute is. Apart from launching personal attacks, there is little clarity on what exactly the other editor wants to dispute. The references that are provided on the page are the most latest, most authoritative and most relevant. The other editor wants to insert some older and general references that support their own views - which is difficult to accept.

Please note that this very same issue has gone through DRN previously and the current content was arrived at after an agreement between the two editors (one of whom was me). This editor now wants to go and modify this same content without any more authoritative sources in sight !

Talk:Malayalam discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editor. Do both editors want to discuss article content without commenting on each other? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have alerted Hyper9 on the talk page of the article. It is better if we both discuss together in your presence.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There has been some preliminary discussion in the Talk page but it does not appear that this user is interested in discussing it there. I am surprised that a DRN dispute has been opened with barely one response from my side. Hyper9 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear what the dispute is about. Hyper9 has been deleting scientific scholarly references that show that Malayalam is derived from an ancient West coast dialect of Tamil. He is trying to equate the fringe theory that Malayalam is derived from Proto-Dravidian with the established scientific and mainstream theory of the former. They are not equatable, and prominence must be given to the former. Whether on linguistic or historical grounds (which Hyper9 has completely censored) this is clearly the case.

In addition, one of the main references that Hyper9 used in his original DRN debate (S.V Shanmugam) previously has now been shown to have been completely distorted by him. This is a very serious and dishonest action, and I am surprised that the other parties involved in the original DRN dispute did not read the actual source material. There needs to be academic rigour and peer review in the whole process, not merely taking the words of known Charlatans at face value.Nagadeepa (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that I agree with Hyper9 is that the S.V.Shanmugam reference is the latest, most authoritative and relevant.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24157306.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The conclusions in the Govindakutty reference are tenuous which Shanmugam himself alludes to as being untenable. The fringe theory that Hyper9 is promoting is contradicted by his own reference!Nagadeepa (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Gjirokastër discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor needs to list and notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - I have notified the other editors on ther user pages. Sorry for inconvenience (Bes-ART (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC))
    • Note - Are you sure this is the proper place for what you are seeking? Requests for evaluation of RS are submitted to the RSN, not DRN. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:11, 10 February 2018 (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.

Summary of dispute by Nihil novi

Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem

"Polish death camps" discussion

• Volunteer note - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. It is not useful to yell "Vandalism!" in order to "win" a content dispute. This is not the place to report real vandalism, which should be reported to the vandalism noticeboard, and it is not the place to report unreal vandalism, which should be reported to dev/null. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to close this. The other editors have stopped reverting and the edits i intended have been implemented. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (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.