Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution 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 help: 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. Become a volunteer 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 Wikipedia 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 remember: 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 Wikipedia, 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. Open/close quick reference 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).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4	Closed	Gabriellemcnell (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 10 hours
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article	In Progress	Instantwatym (t)	3 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 6 hours
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	New	Avi8tor (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Avi8tor (t)	11 hours
Australia-China relations	Closed	MatthewDalhousie (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 11 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 11 hours
Tulsa	Closed	Vectormapper (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	18 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 10:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

– New discussion.

Filed by GHcool on 22:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GHcool (talk · contribs)
• ImTheIP (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:ImTheIP insists that a random black and white photo allegedly identifying anonymous Palestinian refugee belong in this article. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images, it does not. We edit warred about it a little bit: first I removed the image, he removed it back, I added images of my choosing, he removed them and claimed that I was making a WP:POINT. It appears to me that he believes that he owns the article. As of this writing, the inappropriate photo is still in the article and I fear that no matter what I say or do, it will remain there unless an outside party gets involved.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This can be resolved in three possible ways (in no particular order): 1. I must be made to understand that this photo is appropriate. 2. ImTheIP must be made to understand that this photo is inappropriate. 3. Both Option #1 and ImTheIP must be made to understand that the images I added are also appropriate.

Summary of dispute by ImTheIP

Thanks for filing this complaint GHcool. This dispute is over illustrative images on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article.

I felt that the article lacked images, so I added a few on October 26; portraits of Mahmoud Abbas, Normal Finkelstein, and Desmond Tutu, a photo of two Palestinian refugees, and a map of the West Bank barrier.

The same day, GHcool removed the photo of the Palestinian refugees: "removed random irrelevant photo" I returned the photo on October 29: "the section is about palestinian refugees, hence a photo of palestinian refugees is relevant" GHcool removed it again on November 2: "removed random irrelevant photo" I reverted that edit and three other edits GHcool had done the same day on November 3: "Rv, please discuss these changes on the talk page" There's also a bunch of discussion on the talk page under the two sections Background and Impertinent_revert.

On November 4, I wrote why I thought the photo of the Palestinian refugee was relevant and GHcool responded by writing Fair enough, I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit. They proceeded by adding a photo of David Ben-Gurion declaring Israel's independence, the logotypes of the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties and Hamas, and a photo of a protest sign showing Israel's flag next to Nazi Germany's flag. I reverted on November 5: "WP:POINT edit". GHcool restored on November 7 and I reverted, again referring to WP:POINT. I wrote on the talk page: "Please stop edit warring and instead edit collaboratively. If you fail to do so I will file a complaint with the administrators" GHcool apparently filed one first.

There have been other disputes too which you can read about on the talk page. I feel like I have done my best to engage GHcool in debate but GHcool has frequently left me hanging. They say they are very busy and don't have time to respond to everything on the BDS talk page Fair enough, but editing contentious articles without having time to discuss might be problematic. I have no problem working collaboratively with GHcool, but they have to understand that we have to discuss things through. ImTheIP (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note* Please make sure all editors involved are notified and when ImTheIP (talk · contribs) Confirms they are willing to participate we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Durga

– New discussion.

Filed by MRRaja001 on 11:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Durga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MRRaja001 (talk · contribs)
• Lk568354 (talk · contribs)
• Basavaraj Patel (talk · contribs)
• 245CMR (talk · contribs)
• Rosguill (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In Hinduism there are primarily three main sections, Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism. So, in the Durga article there are views relating to all these sections. Main problem is According Vaishnavism tradition, Goddess Durga is considered as one of the three major forms of Lakshmi as prakriti in which she represents tamas (dark), who helps Lord Vishnu as Purusha in destruction and a celibate. The Shaivism and Shaktism traditions consider Durga as the Consort of Shiva. The main concern is how to satisfy all the sections. Should we include both "Shiva" (according to Shaivism & Shaktism) and "a Celibate form of Lakshmi" (according to Vaishnavism) to infobox consort section, if yes then how, (celibate Durga is not married and don't have a consort) or should we leave it blank for neutrality, Thank You.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Durga

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I want you guys to go through the references, decide and give your opinions and resolve the problem.

Summary of dispute by Rosguill

I intervened earlier in this dispute to break up an edit war. I don't pretend to have much of any knowledge about the subject matter, but I actually think that there's a very clear answer to what to do here from an editing perspective. Infoboxes are only for summarizing the most important information that a reader could look at to get a brief summary of the article. A mythological being's status as a consort is not must have information for the infobox that would require us to implement some sort of compromise that presents multiple perspectives, and thus the infobox parameter should be excluded in the event that major perspectives cannot be easily summarized. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 245CMR

I am not favouring any party but I am 65% with the inclusion. As I said, the relationship between deities differs from texts to text. As there are hundreds of texts, only widely accepted versions are included in the infobox. There are so many well known deities, who are associated with different deities by some community. Some of them are:

• Kartikeya, god of war, has multiple martial statuses. In North, he is considered celibate. If not, he is associated with Devasena only. But in South, he has two wives — Devasena and Valli. But in the Infobox, only one view is included and rest is explained in the article itself.
• Ganesha, god of beginnings, has similar situation, but in the Infobox, his wives in contemporary Hinduism is mentioned.
• Lakshmi and Sarasvati are two prominent goddesses. There are spouses of Vishnu and Brahma respectively. Sometimes these mothers are associated with other deities. Lakshmi has been associated with Yama, Indra, etc in early texts. But now everyone knows who her consort is. Sarasvati is associated with Vishnu, Ganesha or even as a celibate goddess. But in contemporary Hinduism, she is viewed as Brahma's spouse.

According to me, consort can be added with a note or explanation in the lead as Durga is mostly considered Shiva's wife.
Reference

Durga discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note* Unless you are having an argument with yourself- you need to list the other editors involved so that they may participate. Also- the DRN does not "make decisions" We mediate discussions and help users make their own decisions. If you are looking at outside eyes to view the conflict and contribute opinions- you may want to try a WP:RFC before opening a DRN. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I've added the Users, @Lk568354:, @Basavaraj Patel:, @245CMR: - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: Is there a reason why only one of them was notified?

• Volunteer Note* @MRRaja001:@Lk568354:@Basavaraj Patel: are you all willing to participate in this discussion? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:, I am ready to participate but I would take time to put my views. Pls don't close the discussion..💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 05:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC) @Nightenbelle:, Yes, i'm willing to participate. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001:, @Nightenbelle:, where should I start writing my veiws — here or the talk page of Durga..💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 12:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@245CMR: Add your comment to the "Summary of dispute by 245CMR" section. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert Garcia (California politician)

– New discussion.

Filed by Zoof91 on 05:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Robert Garcia (California politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zoof91 (talk · contribs)
• MalcolmKincaid (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A sub-section titled "Political activities" was added in the "Early life" section. User MalcolmKincaid continues to delete the entire section and has failed to propose edits. He believes it should not be included anywhere in the article. The sub-section was written from a neutral POV and was properly cited to reputable news outlets. Dispute resolution is necessary to avoid an edit war.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Garcia_(California_politician)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarification is necessary to determine what information in the sub-section is permitted in order to prevent an edit war.

Summary of dispute by Zoof91; MalcolmKincaid

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have proposed a sub-section that discusses Robert Garcia's political activities during the period between his involvement in student government and his election to City Council. MalcolmKincaid believes the edits are biased and/or irrelevant. Zoof91 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert Garcia (California politician) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: I just notified the other user on their talk page. Zoof91 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• (Regarding my revert, I have no opinion about the content and merely enforced WP:ONUS at the end of an edit war. I have great trust in Robert McClenon, who has the experience and competence to resolve such cases amicably.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• See talk page for further discussion on proposed edits. Zoof91 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: I think both sides have finished spelling out their positions on the talk page and it would be worth the while to have a moderator make a decision. Zoof91 (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Garcia)

The first step is to determine what sort of moderation I will be doing. In any event, please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Comment on edits, not editors. It appears that the issue has to do with whether to include a paragraph or paragraphs about his earlier political activities. Will each editor please state, one more time, concisely, exactly what they want the article to say about the disputed section?

One of the editors seems to want me to make a decision. That isn't what is done at DRN. There are two options that I know we can pursue. The more difficult one, which might take two weeks, is to work out a compromise, if there is a compromise. The less difficult one is a Request for Comments. This only takes a few days to work out the wording of the RFC, but then the RFC runs for 30 days before it is closed. Do the editors want to try to work out a compromise, or to let the community decide? Enter your statements in the section for first statements. Do not reply to each there, or go back-and-forth. If you want to reply to each other, you may do so in the section for back-and-forth discussion (but it may be ignored).

Please state briefly what you want in the article, and which method of resolution you want to try. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Garcia)

I think the RFC will be necessary since the dispute turns on whether to include any information, rather than what specific information.

I propose that the article state the following:

Garcia was the California Youth Coordinator for the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign He also founded the Long Beach Young Republicans in 2005. Describing himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, Garcia guided and organized the Young Republicans, which developed a charter that was recognized as an official club by the Los Angeles County Republicans. Garcia also worked as an aide to Frank Colonna when he was on City Council and ran Colonna's unsuccessful bid in the 2006 Long Beach, California mayoral election.

Zoof91 (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing both of us out. I appreciate you taking the time.

I said that while these edits may be factual, they are irrelevant to the page. I pointed out that we can look at politicians and notable figures in the greater Los Angeles area such as Eric Garcetti and you will see no mention of miniscule notes that have been rarely mentioned in print and are not notable on their Wikipedia pages. I also said that the edit that they have continued to attempt to include is minute and rarely if ever mentioned when talking about Garcia in local and national media, and that it seems as though this information was intentionally searched for and included. However, I have since refrained from continuing to make that point as to not attack the editor or question their intentions. I'd also add that if you look at the talk history of the page in question, you will see that there have been past instances of irrelevant information included for specific purposes. Please let me know if you have any other questions. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Garcia)

. I would dispute that the information is minute or irrelevant but rather is part of the political evolution of a politician. That makes the information relevant. It would be different if the page was about a doctor or actor. As the page stands now, there’s mention of his political activities in college and then skips to the election to City Council. The page contains a gap of what happened between that time, that’s what this section attempts to provide information on.

Additionally, although page does mention he was previously a Republican, there is a different between a person who is a member of or voted for a political party and a person who is actively involved in a party. Millions of people fall into the former category, fewer people fall into the latter.

The proposed section speaks for itself in terms of how the media has covered this information in the past. Not only have multiple news outlets mentioned the information but it has occurred at different times in the past. Zoof91 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

– New discussion.

Filed by Humanengr on 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Eb.eric (talk · contribs)
• Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dr. Ryan of the WHO, in 10/5 remarks given to the WHO Executive Board said (per CNN) "Our current best estimates tell us that about 10% of the global population may have been infected by this virus," Eb.eric removed related text (“About 10% of the global population … may have been infected.[CNN]”) from the Infobox, saying on Talk: “The CNN story is a misquote or at least misinterpretation. 10% is not the best estimate,” inaccurately citing a 10/12 WHO Press conference Q&A transcript as rationale. A 10/5 AP story supports the quote given by CNN. [N.b. This dispute begins at the last unindented portion of the Talk discussion linked below.]

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Offer a suggestion and/or request a response from disputants.

Summary of dispute by Eb.eric

The statistic comes from reliable sources (the CNN story mentioned), but the source of that (Dr. Mike Ryan) later clarified that he did not mean that 10% was the best point estimate of the worldwide number of infected, and that it may be lower. Thus, we should not include the 10% figure as if it is accurate. We should wait for a reliable estimate, which the WHO intends to report. The clarifying remarks are found here: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript---12-october-2020. Eb.eric (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa

Was not comfortable w/ wording used for the article... (however at this point I might concede)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

COVID-19 pandemic discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note = A third party editor, User:Humanengr, filed this case. Thank you. They may not have been familiar with the requirement that editors be notified of the filing, so I have notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• There has been further discussion at Talk. Given that at this point there is only 1 active objection and the page is subject to discretionary sanctions, am I permitted to edit the Infobox to reinsert text? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - It appears that the page is only under discretionary sanctions, and not under any of the more specific restrictions such as 0RR or 1RR that are sometimes used to implement discretionary sanctions. I think that this means that you may edit the page if you do so cautiously. I would suggest stating on the talk page that you are about to make the change. Then if anyone objects, you can discuss. That is my reading. Be respectful of other editors, and you have been; discretionary sanctions are only needed because some editors lose respect for other editors when they are pursuing TRUTH. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I posted on talk, waited, and after seeing no response, made the change. Perhaps we should wait a bit longer to see if objections are raised there before proceeding further here?? Thank you for the guidance. Humanengr (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (covid)

I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules. You are responsible for having read the rules and for obeying them. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want to change (or leave the same) in the article, and you may provide one paragraph telling why you want that. It is my intention that this discussion end in one of two ways, either of which is satisfactory. The first is a compromise, and the second is a Request for Comments. If you have a strong desire for one type of resolution or the other, please indicate. (However, if there is disagreement as to what to do, an RFC will be used.) If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it only in the space provided. The space for editor statements is for statements to the moderator and the community. Please tell briefly what the dispute is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: It appears we have reached consensus on Talk, so no need to pursue further here. Thanks again for your help. Humanengr (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (covid)

.

Russell Islands

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Geographyinitiative on 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Russell Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Diannaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the basis of "the spirit" of External Link policy (WP:EL) on Wikipedia and/or copyright issues, a link which is obviously helpful to the readers was removed from the page.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Russell Islands

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I feel that dispute resolution experts can probably make a determination on whether keeping the link on the page is useful to the readers and whether there is a copyright issue.

Summary of dispute by Geographyinitiative

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The link (Map including the Russell Islands) provides readers access to a detailed, professional late 20th century map of the Russell Islands that names 22 geographical features in those islands. No other resource on this Wikipedia page has this information; neither does Google Maps or Bing Maps. Readers interested in the geography+history of the Russell Islands will obviously find this map a useful resource. For these and similar reasons outlined on the talk page there, Wikipedia & the readers are helped by keeping this link on the page. Drmies believes that the link is either unnecessary and/or can't be linked due to copyright issues. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Addressing the copyright issue (modified repetition of argument from the talk page):

Library Web Material Usage Statement

"Copyright Not Held by University of Texas at Austin
This site provides access to materials, licensed or otherwise, for which the copyright is held by owners other than the University of Texas at Austin. Use of these materials and resources is restricted by applicable license agreement and copyright law." (my emphasis)

The Library is directly stating that they provide access to materials not copyrighted by the library and not in the public domain. It stands to reason that they have the right to provide access to the map, but that Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia may not have the right to allow uploading it. In that case, it seems just fine for Wikipedia to link to the Library's map collection. Diannaa's viewpoint that U Tex is hosting material on their website they are or may not be allowed to host would mean that the U Tex, which hosts a huge collection of maps and is a reputable source, is openly acknowledging breaking the law in their Library Web Material Usage Statement (see above statement; this has been their statement since at least 2018). If the Library can legally provide access, then we can link that (and should, based on the utility of the map to the readers). WP:EL explicitly forsees that this situation will arise, writing
"What can normally be linked
...
Sites that contain ... material that ... cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,..."
which means that there are some things that other people can legally post on their website that Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons maybe can't have a legal upload of, but can link in an external links section. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)

The path of least resistance is to just give up. But I think I have a good case that this map link is worthwhile, is compliant with policy, and is in the spirit of Wikipedia. That's why I submitted this issue to dispute resolution- I want a real answer if one can be given. (I have asked the Copyright Cleanup board to comment here.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drmies

I do not understand why anyone would pick a fight with Diannaa over something like this, and the time has come for an uninvolved admin to determine whether NOTHERE applies for this editor. User:Toddst1 and I have, I think, made up our minds about it. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Russell Islands discussion

•  Note to participants: Hi, please enter summary of dispute above. Thank you! Coastside (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• (responding to cross-post at WP:COPYCLEAN) This has already been dealt with by Diannaa, one of our best copyright admins, and unsurprisingly she's right. The map is definitely copyrighted, there's a note at the bottom which says "© Commonwealth of Australia (1998)". WP:ELNEVER says that linking to copyrighted works should only be done if the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. The website here is not run by the copyright owner, which is the government of Australia. I doubt the usage of that map is compliant with fair use, it's definitely not acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policies. We don't seem to have any reason to think the website has licensed the work from the owner either. Given that I don't see how we can link to it. ELNEVER strongly discourages editors from linking to pages which violate copyright laws, and doing so can be considered contributory copyright infringement. Hut 8.5 18:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Della Duck

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 4thfile4thrank on 04:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC).

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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Della Duck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 4thfile4thrank (talk · contribs) 200.119.60.66 (talk · contribs) JPxG (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A mini edit war. There is an argument over content of the article. I tried to make sue that nothing is changes without consensus. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Della_Duck How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Find out what the issue is and who is right. Summary of dispute by 200.119.60.66 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute revolves around whether or not the "Appearances" section on Della Duck's page is unneeded and excessive, which I think it is, because Della's page is already overly detailed as is with the extensive description of her character and role in DuckTales 2017 and before it. Not to mention that Della becomes a main character in said show shortly after her return to Earth so why is there a need to list her appearances when she is in almost every episode after the second season's halfway point? No other DuckTales character get this privilege of extensive listing of their appearances in media (or fictional character articles in general) so why does Della. If one wants to know what each of her appearances are, that's what fan-made wikis exist for. And fact of the matter is Della is not some super important character to the Disney core universe at large. Outside of her relevance in the reboot, she's been a very minor figure with only a tiny amount of mentions and appearances in previous printed and animated media. An appearance listing is overkill. --200.119.60.66 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by jp×g Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't have a very strong opinion on this. While looking through RecentChanges, I saw a large section being blanked on this article (for what didn't seem like a very cogent reason) and reverted it. When I saw the same blanking again on RC later on, I reverted it a second time and made a section on the talk page: I'm sure that some of the stuff in that section could be trimmed, but removing it seems excessive. Since I don't edit pages for fictional characters that often, I'll defer to precedent, if the consensus really is that this ought to be nuked. That's still pretty much my opinion -- it doesn't make much difference to me either way. 200.119.60.66 responded on the talk page with a pretty well-thought-out comment, and after this, it looks like an additional kerfluffu happened between them and 4thfile4thrank, during which more reverts were made (but no further edits to the talk page as far as I can see). I don't know shit from Shinola about Duck Tales, so if 200.119 made a halfway cogent explanation of why the section didn't belong there (which they've done more than once), it seems fine to me for the section to come out, or stay in, or whatever you fellows decide to do (and if some Duck Tales scholar comes along later and disagrees, they'll have a nice talk page section to figure out why the article is the way it is). jp×g 05:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Della Duck discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.