Discussions on individual's talk pages do not constitute a discussion of the issue for the purposes of this board and there has by no means been enough discussion on the article talk page itself. Filing editor has a clear COI, and so should not make any further edits to the page, but may request edits on the talk page. If you believe you are at an impasse, you can request a WP:3O or a WP:RFC, but until there has been quite a bit more discussion on the talk page, no dispute resolution can be handled. The discussion on the other editors talk page was completely inappropriate and remember WP:CIVIL is one of the pillars of editing. I would suggest if you want an engaged conversation- you owe Mr. Ollie (talk·contribs) an apology first. They are not obligated to interact with a hostile editor. You have dug yourself a hole to get out of before a constructive conversation can happen, however- if you are willing to begin again civilly, I'm sure other editors would be happy to work with you to find a solution. If, after a prolonged discussion (and an apology) you still are not able to find a solution, you are welcome to re-open a case here. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2022 (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.
There had been an existing link to a simulator of the Prague Astronomical Clock. I added a link to my own simulator. Since that could be considered a conflict of interest, I can sort of see why that one new link would not be allowed, but another editor deleted BOTH links, and is steadfastly against either link being allowed. I think these simulators are a valuable aid to anyone trying to understand how the clock works and how to read it. One other observer of the dispute agrees.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I did talk with Mr. Ollie on his talk page, but (my fault) that conversation got a bit heated. I then discussed it more civilly in the articles talk page. There's not much discussion there, but it just seems like an impasse, and not too many other people are paying attention to this article to add to the discussion.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
We need more input from someone else, or it will just be an edit war if I try to restore one or both links.
Summary of dispute by Mr. Ollie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kraljmatjaz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Prague Astronomical Clock 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.
Closed as beyond the scope of this noticeboard. This appears to be a content dispute that has been complicated by a block threat by an involved administrator. If so, it needs to be dealt with at WP:ANI. If it isn't a case of administrator involvement in a content dispute, then what it is should be resolved at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (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.
In 2016 Raindrop73 had added excessive information on the majority of Pennsylvania school district pages. I had been making a slow attempt to clean up school district pages, while Graham87 has been going through and deleting the majority of information for school districts in PA. Much of the state level information was inappropriate for the article and I was attempting to consolidate it into pages such as "teacher strikes in the united states" which took an incredible amount of time and effort. I recently replaced half of the information Graham87 deleted as an attempt to compromise and work on making a final fully editorialised page. We have reached a fundamental disagreement onto the level of information which should be on school district pages, specifically the discussion has been over Sayre Area School District, but it applies to most districts in PA.
Third parties have acknowledged the wikipedia value of some of the information that has been deleted.
I have attempted to reach consensus and/or compromise while being met with threats "I will have to block you" (on my user talk page), and ad hominems.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please provide guidance onto what is appropriate for a school district article.
Summary of dispute by Graham87
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sayre Area School District discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
From a disinterested editor: I realize most of the discussion should occur between the two disputants, but it would be very helpful if editors would sign their posts so others can follow the discussion and sort out what's in question. BTW, this is true of other DRN's.
Thank you. Allreet (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2022 (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.
Closed. The filing party is topic-banned from this topic area, and has now been partially blocked from the article page and the article talk page. There is discussion at WP:ANI, but there isn't an active content dispute. Editors in good standing can discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2022 (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.
(As the main ones, but many more).
Dispute overview
In the List of largest empires page there is clearly a big mistake regarding the size of portuguese empire and Brazil empire. The brazilian empire is listed has being bigger than the portuguese empire at their peaks. This is however not true, the entire of Brazil once belonged to Portugal. The justification in there is "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822." Despite the source that states that the portuguese empire had 5,5 million km2 at it's peak being reliable, this is false, as can be seen in the talk page and in the archives plenty of users provided enough evidence to dismiss this figure, including as valauble sources. A consensus has yet not been made because of only one user named "TompaDompa" who doesn't feel like reaching one.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By taking a look at all the evidence provided by users against the 5,5 million km2 figure in the last couple of years and by doing that reaching a consensus once and for all.
Summary of dispute by SpaceEconomist192
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ygglow
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TompaDompa and others
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of largest empires 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.
Closed as fizzled out. There has been no response from the parties 28 hours after Nightenbelle gave the parties 24 hours in which to reply or the case would be closed. If the parties have resolved the case, that is good. If not, they should resume discussion on the article talk page, or leave the article alone. Consensus is required to make any changes to the article. Report disruptive editing to Arbitration Enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2022 (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.
“During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK”[1]
Ghazzzalch reverted saying "Rajavi’s position toward terrorist attacks is also covered in the section "Assassinations". So the article is already too long and no need to repeat its contents all over the article". But this is not repeated in the article.
Then Iskandar323 said this quote should be in another article, but the quote is about People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran.
So both their reasons for not wanting this in the article don’t seem very reasonable. I asked an admin, and they suggested I should try a dispute resolution.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By checking the reasons that Iskandar323 and Ghazzalch have given for not wanting this information in the article
Summary of dispute by User:Ghazzalch
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There has been some kind of consensus in the previous discussions that this article is too long, and should be shortened. Under this pretext, Fad Ariff was removing some important anti-MEK details (such as[1]) from the article, and in the same time was adding some pro-MeK details (such as[2][3]) to it. Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing I reverted them all. Because I saw them as a whole. But Fad Ariff preferred not to narrate the whole story here. He picked up a single edit and brought it here, arguing that why we should not be able to add a well-sourced material to the article. To show that he is not even sticking to this partial logic, I recently added a well sourced anti-MeK material to the article. He reverted it immediately, arguing that Ghazaalch says the article is too long while adding more cult content to the article. I asked him here that If you agree with me that the article is too long and you revert what I add, then why you insist on restoring what I reverted? And why you took this case to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? What is the dispute here? We both are doing the same thing. No answer yet. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:Iskandar323
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I would not call this a dispute per se. Fad has tried and failed to achieve consensus, and is using this forum as a means of get around their lack of progress on the talk page. If we are talking about the single line mentioned above, its addition would be fairly meaningless, since the article already explains the chronology of the MEK's increasing deployment of political violence in considerably more granular detail. The turning point is in 1980, when "the group began clashing with the ruling Islamic Republican Party while avoiding direct and open criticism of Khomeini." It would therefore fairly meaningless to add a far broader statement noting that they were not clashing in 1979, which is less precise information than that which already exists. This only leaves the part about is "raising the status" of Rajavi, which, without elaboration, is a rather trivial and tangential detail. The article is long enough and history is not a popularity content. And if it were to be elaborated, it would be better to do so on the page for the individual. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:Fad Ariff
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Replying to Ghazaalch, the content in this dispute is not "pro" anything, it’s just content by a good publisher and author. About Ghazaalch’s response that I reverted one of his edits, the short answer to that is that I reverted it because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article (while the information in this dispute is not in the article). It’s fine if Ghazaalch wants to open a separate dispute about that edit, but they still have not provided a reasonable answer for removing the content in this dispute (neither here nor on the talk page). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Iazyges: they have now been notified. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer's First Statement
I believe most DRN volunteers have not opened this case because by nature, it is going to be contentious due to the subject matter and editor's passions on the subject. I am willing to attempt to mediate this case, however- I am going to use This set of rules to do so. Please review them before we proceed. Some key things I want to highlight from that set of rules: 1. Be civil. I will issue one warning, then I will end the discussion here if things get uncivil. Comment on content- not editors. 2. Be specific- generalizations do not improve the article. I am not a subject matter expert- so I need specifics and clarification when I ask for it. Assume I have read the article (I have) and the talk page discussion (I have). Do not assume I am aware of external sources or debates on the subject (I am not). 3. Be concise. No single response by an editor should be longer than 2000 words. If you can't say all you want to say in 2000 words or less, pick what is most important to you and we will circle back to the rest later. Finally 4. Talk to me, not to each other. If things go well, I may add a back and forth discussion section in the future, but for now- just talk to me and let me filter and clarify.
Now- do all involved editors agree to this and want to continue? If so- please indicate under your section. Once we have a quorum (at least 2 out of 3 willing to proceed) we will begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It is Tuesday 5/3/22 at 1:15 PM CST I will give involved editors another 24 hours to respond, and then I will close this due to lack of participationNightenbelle (talk)
Ghazaalch's section
Iskandar323's section
Fad Ariff's section
I am pleased to say that I will follow @Nightenbelle's suggestions. I also agree that it would be best to keep to the content of the dispute itself and avoid anything unrelated. Thanks @Nightenbelle: for taking the time, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have from here onwards. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
^Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN978-1845192709. He succeeded in looking after the organization during the Islamic Revolution by preventing it from acting violently against Khomeini's government. Rajavi's successful management raised his prestige within the organization.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Articles are supposed to be mainly built upon secondary sources.
The issue then, is the debate between these 2 positions: Whether . . .
(my opinion) (1) Church Fathers (4th-6th centuries), (2) Magisterial pronouncements (5th-21st centuries), and (3) Large Medieval and Modern Theological Compendia (such as Thomas Aquinas' 13th century Summa Theologiae, and Cornelius Lapide's 17th century Great Commentary on Scripture, should qualify as such secondary sources, when they comment upon what is generally regarded as primary sources within Catholic theology, namely Sacred Scripture (and in exclusively Catholic topics like this one, occasionally also the Fathers Themselves, are regarded as a primary source; especially when evidencing extra-scriptural oral Sacred Tradition; but not, I contend, when they are doing exegesis of even older written Scriptures);
or (their opinion) whether all these (#1-3 above) ALSO constitute primary sources, so that no one may cite #1-3, unless they also cite (what they call a "secondary source," namely) a modern (20th century) theological book-or-journal.
I contend that Option #2 is entirely against this Wikipedia guideline . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#How_to_classify_a_source
. . . and that the Fathers & Historical Theologians should need no modern contextualization, but are clear enough, and should be able to speak for themselves.
At issue is whether we are going to crown Modernity exclusively, or Patrimony, too.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Decide once and for all, whether pre-20th century works can be admitted as secondary sources.
Summary of dispute by Veverve
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I disagreed with the user on them using the Church Fathers (CFs) directly in a systematical manner in a very long (80 000 kb) table to claim CFs' alleged support for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. This is because I believe CFs are not clear when writing, and that even if they were there has been centuries of debates within Christianity on what they meant; so, using them directly should be done with great care, something which such this table cannot do. Also, the Immaculate Conception is not accepted by most historical Christian denominations. I also disagree on CFs, the Catholic magisterium, and very old theologians being used as secondary sources; I stated that even if technically the CFs - and it also applies to the magisterium and very old theologians - could be considered as secondary source, they should not and were not be used as such ("Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:PSTS). Even if you want to use technicalities to argue the CFs are secondary sources, from what I see users use them with WP:PRIMARYCARE as they consider them as being far from self-explanatory and as being prone to various contradictory interpretation (see also WP:ONUS related to this). Doing an OR interpretation of the texts of the CFs on a debated point of theological doctrine is not acceptable (here)).
The user has shown heavy POV. The problem is not that the user has POV or is expressing them, but that the user does not seem willing to separate their POV from WP's philosophy. The user stated for example:
that CFs are evidencing extra-scriptural oral Sacred Tradition (on this very resolution; Sacred Tradition is not accepted by most Protestants)
that the CFs are sometimes systematic and rational, not mysticism-based (here; not accepted by EOrthodox)
judging by both time-duration, and numbers of adherents, Magesterium is the ✅MAIN/MAJORITY view, even in general Christian topics. [Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population] (here; it is worrysome because it seems to indicate that the user believes whatever the Catholic Church declares as heresy, dogma, etc. should be stated objectively as such on WP)
support from (1) the greatest Catholic theologian in history [Thomas Aquina], who has been endorsed by 10 popes, (2) while quoting the 2nd greatest Catholic theologian in history, + (3) the most widely used modern Catechism . . . all of that . . . DOESN'T prove that the Catholic Church "has long held" said belief? (here; relying on partisan medieval sources and Catholic-sponsored catechism to prove historicity of something is unacceptable, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies).
There is a clear consensus here that Octavius2's edition proposal (the 80 000 kb table on the Immaculate Conception with CFs) is not acceptable.
As for the resolution proposal wish of Octavius2: I think deciding whether such and such theologian is added to an article as a source and how, whatever their century may be, is to be decided on a case-by-case basis (or in the example of this discussion, multiple cases at once for various reasons).
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Octavius2 initially entered substantial additions to the article, which was revert and resulted in several discussions about the edits. Much of their material came from roughly 1,200 to 1,600 year old sources that have been interpreted differently by numerous Christian traditions in the intervening centuries (something the article discusses). However, these sources were directly cited by the editor to formulate a defense of the Catholic doctrine. Instead of citing a reliable source that discussed how Catholics developed this doctrine from the sources, the editor altered the page to be primarily their own apologetics on the subject. While certain aspects are impressive–I believe roughly 2,000 words translated by the editor–they constitute a very obvious example of original research. The editor was told by three other editors that this was the case in discussion and a fourth has said so in their revision of the research by Octavius2 on Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Octavius2 won't accept a consensus that their edits are improper original research, despite cordial explanation of the issue. This is increasingly feeling like a CIR issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jdcompguy
Without speaking for other editors, Octavius2's presentation of the dispute does not at all represent what I see as the fundamental issue, which is original research. (From my perspective, the primary/secondary source distinction is almost completely irrelevant here.) In the disputed edits, Octavius2 makes claims such as "The Catholic Church has long held belief in the Immaculate Conception," but does not cite sources making this assertion. Instead, Octavius2 is the one making the assertion, and backing it up with citations of a few examples of theologians from Church history (whose thought supports the Immaculate Conception even if they themselves don't claim it). The problem (in this and other examples) is that the sources do not make the assertion themselves. This assertion (in this particular example) should be easy to support, however, because there are surely reliable sources that say it, but Octavius2 does not seem to be willing to find such sources. The issue is not so much the sources Octavius2 uses or the assertions Octavius2 is making, but rather that Octavius2 is not matching up assertions with sources that support them. To put it simply: instead of A<ref>A</ref> and B<ref>B</ref>, Octavius2 does A<ref>B</ref> and then gets frustrated at being asked to correct this. Jdcompguy (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Immaculate Conception discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note I'm not entirely sure of the ability for this to be resolved at DRN as it seems the other parties see this not as a content but as a conduct dispute. I'll leave it up to another volunteer's discretion whether to general close or propose a way to engage in moderated discussion. I do not consider myself impartial enough in this dispute to properly moderate it neutrally or provide an effective close, both due to my involvement in WikiProject Catholicism as well as my strong opinions on the core of the dispute. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 04:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep it a clear-and-simple content issue, right now: Is there an old-age-cut-off date for Secondary Sources?
Afterwards, then we can open new disputes, if necessary, to move on to their other conduct issues, but this content issue is first, and paramount, not just for my purposes (since it was the stated reason for removing my contributions), . . . but for the whole spectrum of Theological Articles: For another article has already being impacted by this, the one on the Perpetual virginity of Mary, where my similar Church Fathers' chart was removed there, too, accused of being "no[t] reliable sources." Octavius2 (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
volunteer noteOctavius2 If that is what you are wanting decided, that is well outside the scope of DRN. That is a policy question for a wide range of articles you are wanting decided by a mediated conversation between three users. It sounds like, since this is a strictly source validity issue, you might have better luck over at WP:RSN where there are reliable source experts who can give better insight to what is policy and would be the place to discuss possible RS policy changes. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Dispute closed - Okay. Then unless someone else comments to the contrary, within a day or so, then I'll close this dispute, as out of scope. In fact, I'll be returning this debate to the local Christianity Noticeboard talk-page, as I just found much more relevant WP guidelines, at (on their side) WP:HISTRH, and (on my side) Reliable Sources on Religion.
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.
Conversation on the article talk page is stale (a month old). Plus the other editor does not seem interested in participating. I would recomend attempting a WP:3o again- in asking, make sure you mention that all IPs are the same editor so you don't get another denial. Or you could try WP:RFC. I also want to second the strong recommendation that IP editor make an account to facilitate conversation and reduce confusion and clear up possible sock concerns. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2022 (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.
Disagreement about how much should be included in the article regarding recent scholarly opinion suggesting that the (lost) scrolls were authentic, and whether said position should be characterized as "fringe".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Guidelines as to what should be labeled fringe and how best to balance the inclusion of a diversity of scholarly opinions.
Summary of dispute by GordonGlottal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Shapira Scroll discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note Waiting for other party to indicate willingness to participate before I open this for moderated discussion. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
BTW this might be best suited for WP:FTN, but I am willing to help the participants draft an RfC or other type of open discussion for that noticeboard, if that is something you both would consider useful. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:03, 4 May 2022 (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.
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor may have resolved the matter by creating a second name article. Second, the replying editor has made conduct allegations that will complicate any discussion here. The replying editor is reminded to assume good faith but is told that if they want to make conduct allegations, WP:ANI is the forum. (A better alternative would be to apologize, if the allegation was unintended or mistaken.) Discussion should resume at the article talk page without casting aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2022 (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.
There is an ongoing content dispute of over a month’s standing over the addition of the spelling Mya. user:JesseRafe claims said addition is “nonstandard” and not notable. I have provided multiple citations, including from a scholarly source, indicating that it is a spelling variant and also that it is notable because it is among the top 300 most common names for girls in the United States. The editor has persistently reverted the cited addition and refused to engage in a meaningful discussion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would hope that this editor will be more willing to engage in a productive discussion with a third party involved.
Summary of dispute by JesseRafe
My takeaway is the other editor made the same mis-formatted attempts to include "Mya" as an IP, and failed to provide any legitimate sources, or understand the standard of notability or consensus. They used a fake ISBN to pretend to have a book, which I think is egregious (If you google that number string and "ISBN" you only get their contributions to the Maya and Rachel name articles, no booksellers or publishers. If they wanted to write an inline sentence that "Mya is also gaining in popularity" with a cite to SSA or similar, that'd be one thing. But adding it to the lede in bold is, IMO, clearly undue for a variant that is not once mentioned on the page again. It's superfluous and almost silly. If there were Myas mentioned on this page, it'd be a complete non-issue. Given that they're not mentioned as notable people once on Maya, then Mya as a spelling doesn't need to be in the opening sentence. JesseRafe (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Maya (given name) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - A Third Opinion might be a way to resolve this. If the parties request a Third Opinion, a volunteer may provide one. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - The filing party has created another article, Mya (given name). Maybe this resolves the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I still want to add the spelling Mya to the article Maya (given name), so I don’t think the dispute is resolved. The other editor is not engaging in discussion and has not responded to the invitation to participate in the dispute resolution. A third party opinion would certainly be welcome.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
What is this "fake ISBN"? casualdejekyll 23:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know what he’s talking about there. I suppose it’s possible I copied the ISBN wrong by mistake but the books are ones I have on my bookshelves or on my Kindle app and the information is readily verifiable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The book in question is Oxford Dictionary of First Names, by Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges, published by Oxford University Press in 2006, second edition. ISBN 0-19-861060-2. On page 199, the entry for Mya lists it as a “modern coinage of uncertain derivation; possibly a respelling of Maya or Mia, influenced by Myra.” The entry under Maya on page 190 gives the account about Maya Angelou acquiring her nickname because her brother called her “mya sister.” The two other books I mentioned above list Mya as a Maya variant, as do multiple websites. The notability of the entry, as a I’ve said elsewhere, is due to its relative popularity. This spelling was among the top 200 names for American girls for about 20 years, per the Social Security Administration, and is still among the top 300 names. I’ve provided the references requested and, as far as I’m concerned, more than established notability. Mistakes in formatting can be fixed but it hardly seems to be assuming good faith to accuse me of “pretending” to have a book. The spelling variant belongs in the article because it is one of the most used respelling of the name. I created the article Mya because the other editor kept reverting the cited additions to Maya. He asserted there are no other notable Myas when there were in fact a number of articles about people named Mya when I searched for them to list them under notable people in the article. I actually think the information in the new article should probably be added to Maya because it is the same name and it makes most sense to have all of the information in a single main article rather than split up into multiple articles with each spelling variant separate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This is why it's hard to take this user at good faith. He/she must know exactly what I mean by "fake ISBN" because they made up an ISBN to include a specious source to backup their claim. See this diff at Maya, if you google "100306845245" you will only get the Wikipedia article for Rachel (given name) and guess who also edited there? I didn't remove it lest charges of wiki-hounded be levied, but it's clear this user just bluffs about having these books - very unlikely to have made a simple typographical mistake in the exact same manner twice, or maybe this is a case of CIR? JesseRafe (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
No, I did not make up a fake ISBN or the contents of this book. I am simply not great at formatting citations and used the wrong ISBN for a book I had and then attempted to correct it. I copied and pasted the citation to other articles who save time and the mistake apparently was repeated. I’ve gone back to try to fix the error. The title and the authors and the edition and publisher and publication dates are right, if you care to search for the book(s) on Amazon, even if the ISBN is in error. Let’s try talking about this rationally without accusations or insults. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
As for the Lansky book, I have an eBook version. The ISBN for the eBook version is 978-0-306-922985. I must have copied the ISBN for the wrong edition off the Amazon listing, but it’s the same book and author. And, for the record, I have no idea what you mean by CIR or some of the other shorthand you are using for various Wikipedia rules. I am citing from books that exist and that I have on my shelves or in my Kindle or from sources on the web. I made some mistakes with the format of said citations with the ISBN but the content is still verifiable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, thank you for calling my attention to the problem with the ISBN number on the Lansky book citation on the Rachel article, which I have tried to correct. The information in the entry itself has always been accurate and I own the book.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2022 (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.
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. That's what article talk pages are for; use it. Discussion on a user talk page is useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, and besides the discussion on the user talk page has not been extensive. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2022 (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.
Hello, I ahave been trying to edit the english page of Rui Rio, leader of the opposition in Portugal, because there is false and biased information, and my edits keep being reversed. For instance, they say Mr. Rio announced his resignation, but that is not true, he simply announced he wouldn't be running for party again.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Can you advert the other users that they are providing false information?
Summary of dispute by CatiaEditsWiki; Volten001; LongLivePortugal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rui Rio 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.
Great Translation Movement
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Someone97816 on 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC).
Closed as very premature. There has been no discussion at the article talk page. There has been one post to an editor's user talk page, which does not constitute discussion, and is not at the article talk page. Discuss at the article talk page to get the additional opinions. That's what the talk page is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2022 (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.
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.
The filing editor has started an RFC. There has not been any response to the RFC, but an RFC should run for 30 days. The filing editor may neutrally publicize it by posting links to it at WikiProject talk pages. The RFC will resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2022 (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.
There are a number of discussions between @Zefr and me regarding the appropriate content. The two issues are:
- I believe a large randomised clinical trial should be mentioned, even though it is a primary source (it meets the 'worth mentioning criteria') the other editor refuses to accept this. An RfC did not result in a conclusion
- A revised and tidied up version of the article was reverted by @Zefr without explanation.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have tried to discuss with the other editor and accepted advice regarding encyclopaedic relevance (e.g. more emphasis on secondary sources), but have also explained my reasons. I have initiated an RfC but there was no open discussion.
- a decision whether the large RCT can be included based on Wikipedia rules
- a decision whether the revised version meets wikipedia criteria.
Flavan-3-ol 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.
Closed as pending in another forum. This is a dispute about the content of an article that has been nominated for deletion, and the Articles for Deletion discussion is in progress. The first question to be decided is whether to keep or delete the article, and that is made in the AFD. There is no need to discuss anything else separately until the question of whether to keep the article is resolved. During that discussion, it is best for the full version of the article to be visible to the AFD participants. If anyone thinks that the article should be trimmed, that is a valid input to the AFD.
If, as appears likely, the article is kept, the second question is article content. Discussion of article content should be on the article talk page (that's what it's for) after the AFD is resolved, and should take into account what is found by the closer. A second DRN request can be opened after the AFD is closed, but only after there has been new extensive discussion that takes the close into account. Any disruption of the AFD should be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (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.
Content dispute on an article up for deletion. Because I'm the nominator, there's the inevitable suspicion that I'm reverting additions of content solely because I want to see the article deleted, though I did of course point out actual problems with these additions as well (SYNTH, not the right place for it, etc). It's clear that whatever I say is going to be interpreted under those lens so there's little point to continuing in the talk page any further. None of the editors insisting on the content additions have done much to explain why their edits are improvements per WP:BRD, but since there's two of them they can in theory team up and push me to the WP:3RR corner, so it's better to have this actually discussed here rather than have it solved on a procedural trick.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Avilich started a PROD on this article. As a member of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I had a look and decided there was enough content to merit a stand-alone article, and deprodded it. I then made some more edits for clarity, following the original Roman sources and one or two secondary sources I was able to find. I left out some material that wasn't clear to me. Avilich then initiated an AFD on the article. In the course of the deletion discussion, another editor pointed me to another source that helped me make sense of the material I had left out, and I expanded the article, only to have my edits reverted for reasons I thought made no sense in light of what was said in the AFD discussion. I restored the edits, which were reverted a second time, and Avilich insisted that it needed to be discussed on the talk page—apparently expecting me to initiate the discussion, and with the understanding that my edits could not stay unless he agreed with them.
Another editor who came into the AFD saw what was happening and restored the material I had added, giving his reasons on the article's talk page, only for Avilich to revert the article for a third time. With neither side willing to budge on the talk page discussion, and the main arguments against including the material being that the changes shouldn't be made during an ongoing AFD, without discussing it on the talk page, or while there was no resolution of the dispute on the talk page, I decided three days later to restore the material I added—and two days later Avilich reverted it for the fourth time, "per talk page", as though there were some sort of consensus against the changes, or a block on the edits as long as he didn't agree with them.
There are a host of different explanations on the edit history, talk page, and in the AFD being used to justify the continued reversions, but in my opinion none of them were particularly valid, but simply constituted stonewalling in an attempt to keep the article small and less likely to survive AFD. Arguments included:
lack of reliable sources (because Avilich considered all of the sources cited to be unreliable, or to contain only "passing mentions", see below);
lack of significant coverage (because there were no reliable sources, according to Avilich);
lack of notability (because there was no significant coverage in reliable sources, according to Avilich);
content of the article not quite matching the title (probably wasn't the best title for the article when nominated for deletion, but the material I tried to add demonstrates that there was in fact a siege at this time);
being a "spurious event" (no idea what this means, unless the supposed lack of reliable sources means that we can't assume it occurred);
being a "routine" event (see WP:ROUTINE for an explanation that makes perfectly clear that it doesn't apply here);
having only "inherited" notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED; this guideline is not about historical events);
using primary sources (in an article about Roman history, which is only known from Roman sources—although technically Appian is not a primary source);
secondary sources that are "old" (with no claim that they are inaccurate as to what they're being cited for);
recent sources contain only "passing mentions" (other editors found them to be somewhat more than "passing");
content fork of either an article about one of the participants, or an article that didn't yet exist about Caesar's Illyrian campaign in general;
the claim that the siege and capture of the city by Pompeius immediately after it had surrendered to Caesar was a "separate event" that needs to be treated in another article (which makes no sense given the preceding "content fork" argument);
that articles should not be "radically repurposed" during ongoing AFD's (i.e. adding material about what happened immediately after the city's surrender changes it from an article about something that may not really have been a siege to one that includes an actual siege);
that the material should not be added without a talk page discussion;
that the material could not be added while there was an open talk page discussion—even one that had stalled with neither side having any more to say;
failing to meet my burden of proving that the material belonged in the article;
synthesis, since none of the sources explicitly says that the capture of the city and the siege that immediately followed were "the same event";
and I'm sure I could list some other things here that just aren't worth the effort. Every time I try to explain why the material is relevant and appropriate content for the article, new reasons for keeping it out appear. The justifications keep changing, but I don't think that any of them hold water; to me they seem like nothing more than one attempt after another to prevent any changes to the article that might save it from deletion—or, since it doesn't appear headed for deletion, just to prevent it from being improved.
I said that if this continued I would report it at ANI—but faced with that, Avilich brought it here. That may well be the better procedure—I don't usually take disputes further than article talk pages, so I'm not sure whether I should have come here before resorting to ANI. Since the talk page discussion is going nowhere, and Avilich is going to keep blocking the changes unilaterally, simply waiting for a consensus to develop does not seem to be an option. My apologies for the length of this reply. P Aculeius (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Edit: after this was posted, Avilich requested page protection for the article and asked that it be reverted yet again, asserting that editors were improperly editing the article while it was in dispute resolution—which is incorrect, if you look at the article's edit history. An administrator has now locked the page to prevent further editing for two days, leaving the edit summary, "[k]nock it off. Take this to the talk page and seek consensus." However, the editor declined to revert to the version Avilich requested. It's pretty clear from the talk page—and the AFD—that if "consensus" means "agreement among most of the editors that the content belongs in the article", then we already have it; if it means "Avilich must agree to the changes", then we will never get there. P Aculeius (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Spinningspark
I'll try to be briefer than the above. First of all, the events being written about;
Caesar lands in Illyria in pursuit of his enemy Pompey. He captures the town of Oricum, leaves a garrison and moves on. Pompey's navy then blockade the port, attack, and recapture it. There is no dispute over these historical facts and they are described in numerous sources.
Avlich argues the first part (Caesar's initial capture, which was all that was in the article at the time the AFD was launched) is an unimportant event and non-notable. Avlich further claims the second part (Pompey's recapture) is a separate event and does not belong on the same page. Several other editors, including me, disagree and think they can be described by a continuous narrative.
Avlich has single-handedly edit warred to keep this material out. It has now been inserted six times by three different editors, most recently by User:Anaxagoras17 who has not been named as a party to this dispute. It is, in fact, only the second part that is described in sources as a siege, so in my view if anything belongs under this title, it is the material that Avlich is striving to keep out. SpinningSpark 08:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Siege of Oricum discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't think that any of them hold water I disagree; although the rationale of the AfD and of the content dispute have been unduly mixed up above, all of them hold some water. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2022 (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.
Peet's Coffee
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Anaxagoras17 on 00:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC).
This has been discussed twice on the article talk page. It has been one editor vs many both times. The other editors have made their position clear, and there is a consensus to not include the information in the article. If the filing editor would like an outsider's opinion- the parent company is linked on the WP article. The controversy is covered in that article. Since the company is based in Germany, and has promised to make reparations, and is not actively supporting Nazi's- I agree that it is not relevant enough to put in the subsidiary's article. Before you bring this up again, there needs to be new information, or more coverage. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2022 (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.
Peet's Coffee was acquired in 2012 by a German holding company with a controversial history of profiting from forced labor during the Nazi era. There are at least six reliable sources that have commented on the ethical issues of financing a company with money that derives in part from forced labor. One Boston Globe article is titled, "I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?"[1] I have proposed a short, factual section that simply acknowledges this controversy and includes these sources. One year ago, there was consensus against my proposal and I made a newbie mistake of edit warring. I have now addressed some of the concerns raised by those editors and attempted again to add a section about the acquisition and the parent company. One of the editors from one year ago is knee-jerk deleting this section, arguing that ownership by a parent company is irrelevant to the company being owned. This is absurd since just about every company article on WP has information about ownership, and at least six reliable sources have commented on the controversy I am trying to acknowledge. These editors have made little effort to focus on the content (WP:FOC), WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:NEGOTIATE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:DONTBITE or find WP:ATD. A fresh eye on this dispute would be useful. Here is the language I'm proposing:
==Parent company==
In 2012, German conglomerate JAB Holding Company acquired Peet's coffee for about $1 billion. Revelations in 2019 about this parent company's support for the Nazi party and profiteering from forced labor in the 1940s sparked commentary in the press about the ethics of supporting companies whose financing derives in part from the historical use of slave labor.[2][3][4][5] JAB Holding also owns Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Panera Bread, Pret a Manger and other businesses.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A fresh set of objective eyes would be useful as well as an effort towards compromise rather than wholesale deletion.
Summary of dispute by Hemiauchania
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zaathras
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have been attempting for a year... is kind of the crux or the matter, a lone user who refuses to abide by consensus. User has been told, repeatedly, by several editors, that the ties that a company may have had to Nazi Germany in the 40s have no applicability whatsoever to a company acquired by aid parent company in the 21st century. Also curious to note that the warring behavior extends elsewhere]. Ultimately this is a behavioral issue of the OP, not a genuine content dispute. Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
and I made a newbie mistake of edit warring... and yet you did so again today, one, two. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by slatersteven
Note I am involved and issued the edit war warning to them over this issue.
In essence Peet's Coffee was acquired by the JAB Holding Company in 2012 (some 70 years after WW2 ended) and thus we are arguing it is not relevant to a company (peet's Coffie) what was set up 20 years after WW2 ended. As it tells us nothing about Peet's Coffee. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Note as well that this is not mentioned on any of this company's other holdings pages. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Peet's Coffee 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 notified the other editors. The filing editor had misspelled the username of one of the editors, and I have corrected the spelling, but have not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
My mistake. I have notified Hemiauchania. Zaathras and slatersteven are already aware now. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2022 (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.
Closed. The notability tag has been removed by an administrator with instructions not to reapply it. My own opinion is that this tagging dispute has wasted far too many bytes, but that tagging disputes in general waste bytes rather than accomplish anything. Questions about article content can be discussed at the article talk page. Report disruption at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2022 (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.
This new/recreated article was recently nominated for deletion by BeŻet, and was closed as no consensus. BeŻet then opened a talk page discussion about adding a cleanup tag. After 4 days and some discussion, BeŻet boldly added it, only to have it immediately removed by GizzyCatBella. BeŻet reinstated it, and then I removed it, citing WP:BRD and WP:GAME. It was subsequently readded by BeŻet, and the discussion continued. 3 days later it was removed by Metro Siberia and reinstated by Ermenrich. I am bringing this dispute here because a. I don't see that there is consensus to add this tag to the article. b. While BeŻet is to be commended for opening a discussion first, I don't see his bold addition as having merit. He has stated that There is no consensus regarding notability of Lira, therefore the tag is adequate, while I have been saying that the purpose of the tag is not for the purpose of assuaging the feelings of those on one side of a deletion debate, and to cement their position that the subject is not notable, but rather as an aid to get the article improved. The tag reads, Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Since the article already has a fair amount of independent references that go into quite some detail about the subject, I see this tag as being unhelpful. Further, there are already enough eyes on this article looking to add sources, so the tag placement by the AfD nominator comes across as WP:DRIVEBY tagging. Havradimleaf a message 00:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am looking for clarification as to what the true purpose of a cleanup tag is, and whether or not there is a guideline (in addition to essays) governing their inclusion.
Summary of dispute by BeŻet
The tag wasn't added boldly as it was discussed first on the talk page. Before adding the tag/template to the page, I wanted to check if there is at least one other person who thinks the tag should be there. There were at least two other people saying they think the tag should go there, therefore I added it. The notability of Lira has proven controversial, as seen in the deletion discussion, and therefore the tag is appropriate. Any controversial content change would require consensus from other editors, however this is not a content change: this is an addition of a tag that describes the status of the article and the surrounding discussion. The tag should stay there until the notability of Lira is confirmed - that is, a consensus is reached regarding his notability. Since there currently is no consensus, the notability of Lira is unknown, as described by the tag (The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies). The two editors who want the tag removed are treating the inclusion of the tag/template as a content change. BeŻet (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jeppiz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ermenrich
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BetsyRMadison
The deletion discussion finished with no consensus regarding notability and with the Closer suggesting that the article's deletion discussion be revisited after editors wait to see if Lira's alleged 'went missing' stops being talked/blogged about. Given that from the Closer, it makes sense that while we wait, we add the Tag to inform our readers that Lira's notability is still uncertain.
The Tag was not added boldly. Several days of discussion took place prior to adding the Tag. Tagging is not a content change. Tags are used to indicate potential problems with an article and in this case, as the Closer noted, the notability of the subject has not been established; hence the need for the Tag. One reason the filer, Havridum, gives for starting this discussion is because Metro Siberia removed the Tag and their Tag removal was reverted. Metro Siberia is an SPA [4] who joined wiki yesterday and their 3rd ever edit was to remove the Tag. Havradim said he/she intentionally didn’t disclose that the editor is an SPA because he/she didn’t feel it was necessary to include that on this discussion board. I disagree, so I’m disclosing it. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GizzyCatBella
I pretty much echo everything the filer wrote. An AfD just ended a few days ago (note that the AfD has been filed by the same user who now placed the tag) An alleged lack of notability has not been established by the AfD. The closing editor noted - I highly suggest this be revisited when he's no longer in the news.[5]. This tag is being re-introduced prematurely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Please also note that users Ermenrich and MetroSiberia filer Havradim listed above did not take part in the discussion, they only performed reverts.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gonzalo Lira discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - This is a tagging dispute. I do not plan to try to moderate a tagging dispute. My opinion is that the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, and the discussion should be about how the notability concerns can be addressed, and that tagging disputes are a distraction. This does not mean that another volunteer will handle this dispute, and it does not mean that another volunteer will not handle this dispute. If no volunteer offers to mediate this tagging dispute in four or five days, I will close the case as not having a volunteer. If there is also an issue about article content, discuss on the article talk page, and if that is unsuccessful, the content dispute can be brought here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer note - While I would be terribly glad to help out with this dispute, I must recuse myself from doing so as I discussed the AfD with BilledMammal on my talk page (see thread), as I am a native Spanish speaker and they wanted to know more about some of the sources, and am thus involved in the dispute. However I will warn that adding the notability tag in such a short time after an AFD will always be contentious, and doing so boldly even after being reverted is the type of battleground behaviour that is not conducive to the collaborative environment needed to build the encyclopedia. This holds regardless of the validity of the tag, which I do not wikt:prejudge. However, as to the actual content dispute I think it may be best if no volunteer is available that y'all go to VP and inquire on what the community considers to be good practice regarding the notability tag.— Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 05:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer note- I'm not opposed to mediating this dispute, however- I would like more than 2 people to agree to participate first. Also, I would like all involved users to agree that the condescension they are using on the talk page stops right now. I have zero patients for "acting" like the other side is dumb, ignorant, or uneducated. If that works for ya'll and a couple more people agree to participate- I'll get this started. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer note- I'm not strictly opposed to jumping in and moderating either, though this is only going to make sense if all the parties who have been involved in this tagging dispute agree to participate. If no volunteer accepts this, it might be worthwhile to launch an RfC on whether or not to apply the tag to that article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Note – This is a policy issue, about the merit of tagging any article with a notability tag after an AFD is closed as No Consensus, and I took it to Village Pump rather than mediate it. I will advise the participants to look at the discussion of the policy issue of tagging any article after an AFD has closed as No Consensus, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Applying_Notability_Tag_to_Article_after_No_Consensus_AFD. There are some wise thoughts by different editors on both sides of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to bring up my experience on the Gonzalo Lira deletion vote page. I voted emphatically to keep the article, but then someone incorrectly flagged my vote and claimed that my account has made limited edits outside of this page. That is not true at all. My account has 200 edits made on a variety of topics over the past five years. I hope that my vote will be unflagged. Myatrrcc (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Note to User:Myatrrcc - WP:DRN is not the place to take issue with a comment in a closed AFD. I am not sure whether there is a place to take issue with the comment, but it is not DRN. The comment did not bias the final result, because you said to Keep the article, and No Consensus means that the article will be kept. I would advise against making an issue of the comment, because it is now just buried in a closed AFD, and see Streisand effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
and @Myatrrcc I'm going to echo @Robert McClenon here. Editing the closed AfD was also the wrong move, and I have reverted your changes. Please do not edit it again. StarMississippi 18:10, 16 May 2022 (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.
AvtoVAZ
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 88.64.187.33 on 17:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC).
Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion at the article talk page is a prerequisite for almost every form of dispute resolution including DRN and Third Opinion. There hasn't been any discussion, only edit warring. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editor, which is also a problem, but less basic than the lack of discussion. Use the article talk page. That's why it's there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2022 (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.
The User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Urbanoc made the 3rd Revert Rule broken, he reverted more than 4 Times, We need a 3rd Opinion about the AvtoVaz Article and its Template. Regards Please Revet back as my better version. Thanks
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
AvtoVaz
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
yes
Summary of dispute by Urbanoc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
AvtoVAZ 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.
Disputes must have recently been discussed extensively to go to DRN. Might you try getting a third opinion first? You just posted to the talk page today and nobody has replied to you. Give it time.casualdejekyll 15:24, 24 May 2022 (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.
{{Hi, my IP is the one in recent discussion, 208.38.246.41, I just created the user name today so I could file the case. Also besides, me, you can see others have tried, the same users come back and change it back. So there is no debate, we need a 3rd party.}}
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I understand that the iconic character of He-Man has garnered appeal from the gay community. However, his creator, Roger Sweet, not one single time ever alluded to anything than he was a Barbarian heroic character, never in his life did he suggest or imply He-Man was gay. This WIKI has about 5000 words, 2300 of them are DEDICATED to making it all about gay interpretation, citing nothing more than snippets from gay writers and gay magazines. There is more discussion about gay than children or the morality of the character. I initially tried to tone it down just in the intro, MULTIPLE people have commented in the TALK section about this, but it keeps getting ignored and any changes reverted back in minutes.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I believe we need a 3rd party to come in, maybe I am wrong, but I just don't see the context of how one community that represents about 6% of the population, and their interpretation deserves to take over 48% of the WIKI. There is a section to cover the subject matter, and it is HUGE, so that is fine, just leave that subject in that section so if someone wants to read about it they can, but not litter everywhere on the subject that is just a theory.
Summary of dispute by Arjayay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dimadick
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PanagiotisZois
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
He-Man 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
