Knowledge

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)#Non-notable awards (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Saiph121 (talk · contribs)
• SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs)
• Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs)
• Betty Logan (talk · contribs)
• Shearonink (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Consensus dispute in relation to the Non-notable awards which Even applied to some credible and notable film critic organizations within the main article of Beauty and the Beast accolades section

These were the list of these film critic organizations in which awards or nominations being listed earlier to the Beauty and the Beast accolades section that were being removed due to the fact that these were "non-notable awards" despite that these were considered as notable and credible film critic organizations that had direct-linked articles to Knowledge.

• Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association
• San Diego Film Critics Society
• Chicago Film Critics Association
• St. Louis Film Critics Association
• Women Film Critics Circle
• Seattle Film Critics Society
• Houston Film Critics Society
• Casting Society of America

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

the resolution of this dispute was only taken through forming a new consensus in relation to the current consensus dispute that should determine that awards belonging to the credible and notable film critic organizations must really be considered as notable awards and not non-notable, the ones that only have direct-linked articles to Knowledge.

How do you think we can help?

allow the current consensus to rule out that awards belonging to the credible and notable film critic organizations must really be considered as notable awards and not non-notable. These should only to be applied to film critic organizations with direct-linked articles to Knowledge. Film critic organizations with no direct-linked articles to Knowledge should not be included.

Saiph121 disputes the consensus achieved on the talk page: only awards with blue-link (non-redirect) notability should be included. This also reflects the MOS guideline. While this discussion has been here, discussion has continued on the article's talk page, producing a broader consensus, agreeing with the first (and the MOS). Saiph121 has again restored the awards against the consensus. This has become a recurring problem. While I am willing to continue discussion here or at whatever other forum Saiph121 chooses to shop these issues around to, I am starting to get the feeling that no consensus or decision that is anything less than 100% inline with Saiph121's opinion will be resolve the issue. - SummerPhD 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is the inclusion criteria for listing awards in the article. Is the awarding organization having an article a sufficient indication of notability such that any award they issue will inherit that notability and be considered significant enough for inclusion or whether the award itself needs to show notability with an article about the award itself indicating that notablility? Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I am growing weary of being dragged to this board every time it blows up at this article. I am not actually involved in this dispute (and off-hand I cannot even remember if I have ever edited the article) and I have not been following this particular dispute but my thoughts are consistent with those spelt out at Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolade. The guideline states Awards included in lists should have a Knowledge article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included. The MOS makes it quite clear that only awards with dedicated articles are automatically incorporated into articles. I suggest this case is closed and that Saiph draw up a list of all the awards they would like to add to the article on the talk page, with a clear rationale of how each one complies with the inclusion criteria. If these awards have dedicated articles then Saiph will win the argument very easily, but if they don't then the significance of these awards is going to have to be demonstrated with reliable secondary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Filer has notified the other editors. There has been some conversation on the article talk page; however, not much is discussed on policy. Additionally, I am leery of Saiph121's constant use of DRN in order to replace adequate discussion and subvert consensus reached on the talk page of the article that they never agree with. I will only open this if all three other editors agree to it. @SummerPhDv2.0, Geraldo Perez, and Betty Logan: Please advise if you are willing to partake in this and if you believe it would be beneficial. Nihlus 06:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Consider opening a discussion to ensure a resolution on the current consensus dispute and furthermore, I'm making a Requests for Mediation to call on other editors in answering the resolution. Saiph121 (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to handle editorial discretion type issues such as this one on the article talk page. I think a consensus is firming up there and an WP:RFC on that page might be a better way of involving more people and formalizing a decision if that is the goal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment An WP:RFC within that page maybe another suitable possibility but still recommending a discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard as the current consensus is really disputed and polarizing and its resolution had to be its main goal in resolving it. Saiph121 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Secondary volunteer note - What does the filing party expect to achieve by moderated discussion with three or more editors who disagree with them? Please explain why moving the one-against-many discussion from the article talk page to a noticeboard is likely to be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Please do not overwork the dispute resolution system by also requesting formal mediation at the same time. That may result in both requests being rejected because the other request is also pending. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Consider the first request relating to forming a discussion to dispute to proceed. Only consider the formal mediation request to be implemented when the discussion is done. Saiph121 (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Child soldiers in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fugitivedave (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Apparently hostile repeated reversions by another user for reasons I can't understand. Sought explanations but response has been hostile. See issue on talk page about me having more more than one Wiki account (this is MY bad - I'm new and I didn't realise).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried reverting the reversions and seeking an explanation.

How do you think we can help?

If you can help us to discuss the content issues properly on the talk page, that would be good. This hasn't been successful so far.

Sock account not a newbie else how would he know this exists? So not partaking Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Altruism (ethics)#Nonsense (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Epipelagic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor (Epipelagic) tries to insert the following sentence in the mentioned article:

"However, he did assert that, beyond "just courtesy of the heart", it was a "duty" to treat those weaker than oneself "more delicately" than one treats oneself and one's equals." These words are a distortion of a Nietzsche quote.

The original quote is (in ):

"For the mediocre, mediocrity is happyiness; mastery of one thing, specialization as a natural instinct. It would be complietly unworthy of a more profound spirit to have any objection to mediocrity as such. Mediocrity is needed before there can e expections; it is the condition for a high culture. . . . Who do I hate most among the rabble today? The socialist rabble...."

The sources mentioned by Epipelagic also refer to this quote, but regrettably distort it. This is the quote in original German language: "Für den Mittelmässigen ist mittelmässig sein ein Glück; die Meisterschaft in Einem, die Spezialität ein natürlicher Instinkt. Es würde eines tieferen Geistes vollkommen unwürdig sein, in der Mittelmässigkeit an sich schon einen Einwand zu sehn. Sie ist selbst die erste Nothwendigkeit dafür, dass es Ausnahmen geben darf: eine hohe Cultur ist durch sie bedingt. Wen hasse ich unter dem Gesindel von Heute am besten? Das Socialisten-Gesindel..."

I am native German and can confirm that the quote was fateful translated. Epipelagic insists on Kaufmann's interpretation but Nietzsche's actual words are twisted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See talk-page.

How do you think we can help?

Epipelagic seems to be an ideologue, I do not feel that my discussion with him was very useful. He mainly makes no logical arguments. He said for exampel: "As it turns out, on Google the term "the mediocre" is associated with Nietzsche 184,000 times. But the term "the weak" is associated with Nietzsche 292,000 times. So it is you that is trying to propagate false information and talking complete nonsense. " I do not know how to deal with such a person, and therefore ask for help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. I am willing to try to act as moderator, although I don't know how well this will go. Please read the mediation rules. Please pay particular attention to the rule to comment on content, not contributors, and stop complaining about each other. Please state, in one paragraph, exactly what you think needs to be changed in the article (or what needs to be left alone). The subject of the discussion is the article, not the editors. Also, I am assuming that the subject is Altruism (ethics), and not the article about Nietzsche. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The article in question is Altruism (ethics) and I am not disputing anything about the article as it currently stands. However, in acknowledgement of the concerns of the disputant, I suggest using a less contentious approach by decoupling the disputed sentence from too much reliance on the specific passage by Nietzsche, and directly quoting Kaufmann instead...

According to Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche "insisted up to the very end that to treat those who are weaker than oneself more tenderly than oneself or one's peer is 'not just a courtesy of the heart,' but a duty."

--Epipelagic (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Kaufmann refers to a specific passage from Nietzsche's book "The Antichrist". He refers to the corresponding page number for just this quote. Unfortunately, Kaufmann distorts Nietzsche's words. Nietzsche does not speak of "the weak", as Kaufmann says, but of the "mediocre".

Both the original first edition and the English translation of H. L. Mencken (and all other versions that are known to me) testify to that. Epipelagic insists that instead of Nietzsche's own words, Kaufmann's "interpretation" should be used. I refer to Knowledge's policy on primary sources:

"Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." NomenNominandum (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we've already discussed that. The original document is in German, and is not appropriate on the English Knowledge. Also, you misunderstand the scope of the quote from Kaufmann. He is saying Nietzsche insisted on this matter all the way through, "up to the very end". He merely pulls an example from the Antichrist that indicates Nietzsche was still thinking that way near the end. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In hindsight, it seems the reason the statement "Nietzsche never spoke about 'the weak', he spoke about mediocre people" caused such problems is because it says something very different from what the disputant intended. I now think what the disputant intended was not this indefensible generalisation about Nietzsche's thinking, but merely a comment about the sentence that was in dispute, "Nietzsche wasn't speaking about 'the weak', he was speaking about mediocre people". Given the misunderstandings caused by these language limitations, there seems little point continuing the dispute. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We have already discussed that, that is true, and if you try to remember: we did not agree.

"The original document is in German, and is not appropriate on the English Knowledge."

Why is that the case? Are you referring to an existing policy? Non-English sources are constantly used here. Besides all this , the first time we discussed this matter I have already pointed to the official English translation of Nietzsche's works. Is the translation by H. L. Mencken also inadequate? Kaufmann almost certainly used this translation for his own work.

"He merely pulls an example from the Antichrist that indicates Nietzsche was still thinking that way near the end."

It is you who does not understand Mr. Kaufmann here. Kaufmann said: "he insisted up to the very end that to thrat those who are weaker than onself more tenderly than oneself ..." followed by the specific page number. The problem: Mr. Kaufmann quotes Nietzsche wrong here. Kaufmann's thoughts on Nietzsche's former Positions are irrelevant and they are not backed up by evidence.

In the same book, Nietzsche talks about "the weak" as follows:

"What is happiness? The feeling that power increases that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu , virtue free of moral acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice? Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak Christianity."

This shows how misleading Kaufmann's mistake is. Nietzsche says that the weak should perish, a clear contradiction to Kaufmann.

Whatever motivates Kaufmann to distort Nietzsche's position is speculation. Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen of the University of Wisconsin-Madison interprets Kaufmann's impertinences in the book "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" as follows:

"Scholars generally agree that in oder to distnce Nietzsche from Nazism, Kaufmann transformed Nietzsche into a charming and inoffensiv salonfähigen existentialist, erasing the darker elements of his philosophy of power and neutralizing his attacks on liberal idals. Thus instrad of providing a serious reckoning with one of the world's greatest philosophers of power, Kaufmann presented a "King-Kong-inchains"... under heavy sedation"

I refer in particular to the statement "Scholars generally agree", this indicate that this is a general opinion under Nietzsche scholars.

Much could be discussed about Kaufmann, but I think that's not necessary. The article is ultimately not about Nietzsche but Altruism. This controversial sentence does not have to be in this article. NomenNominandum (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen. She just scrapes a page on Knowledge which is viewed on average 4 times a day. She's a historian, not a philosopher, and her claim to notability is that she's recently written a book which deconstructs Neitzche, partly by tracing how Nietzsche's ideas are interpreted in popular American journals and newspapers. Altogether, Ratner-Rosenhagen has a grand total of just 90 citations on Google Scholar, of which 70 citations are for her book. Historians and newspapers seem to generally accept her work but none of the works that cite her book have high citation counts themselves, and there is little evidence that academic philosophers cite her. That's not a compelling track record. For perspective, you might look up the Google Scholar author results for Nietzsche. I agree with you that "the article is ultimately not about Nietzsche but Altruism", and given this current lack of clarity it would be better to just remove mention of Nietzsche altogether. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Epipelagic in the interest of compromise. Nietzsche should be completely deleted from the article. NomenNominandum (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the mediation rules again. In particular, please notice that I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. We already know that back-and-forth discussion has not gotten the matter resolved. Do not reply to each other. Reply only to my questions.

Please state, in one paragraph, what each of you think should be done differently to improve the article and why. It appears that the only issue has to do with what to say about the comments of Nietzsche on altruism. Is that correct? If so, what should be said about his views on altruism? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A compromise has been reached, so that seems to be the end of this discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Robert McClendon for his assistance. NomenNominandum (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I also would like to thank Robert McClendon for his assistance. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic, User:NomenNominandum - Since you weren't using a ping format, the misspelling of my surname didn't matter, but you did misspell it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that a compromise has been reached, which is to leave Nietzsche (who is a controversial philosopher not normally associated with altruism) out of the article on Altruism (ethics). Unless either party objects, this case will be closed as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:University of Paris (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk · contribs)
• SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk · contribs)
• Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk · contribs)
• JeanBirkin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear wikipedia editors,

I would like to bring your attention, specially from those who can understand sources in French language, to a matter that is taking place at the talk page of the article about the University of Paris.

As you can see in the references in the talk page, following the events of May 1968, the University of Paris was divided in thirteen independent universities (named University of Paris 1,2,3…13). Therefore, some of these universities inherited some of the universities’ old faculties. For example, the Faculty of letters - located at the campus built by Robert de Sorbon, aka La Sorbonne - was divided into, at least, four universities. The faculty of Sciences by, at least, three, an so on. 

This year, two of these universities merged into Sorbonne University. The fusion - which is the first one to occur in the Parisian area - was celebrated by an article of Times Higher Education as being the “rebirth of the University of Paris”. Such an article was taken for gospel by some wikipedia users who, based on it, decided to edit the page of the University of Paris saying that 1) the university had being reestablished in 2018, 2) setting all alumni of the prior-1968 University of Paris in the page of the new university. 

Other users have attempted to revert the editing of the page, without success, stressing the fact that, in order to reestablished the University of Paris, all its thirteen inheritors would have to merge. On top of that, by January 2019, other two direct inheritors of the University of Paris are to merge. They are to call the new institution “University of Paris”. By being their direct inheritors, they have the same rights as Sorbonne University to claim that they are the rebirth of the prior-1968 University of Paris. All the other nine universities, and their envisaged fusions, also can make such a claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss in the talk page, but without consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Please - if you can read French - read the official French sources, including the one of the Academy of Paris (which is the official above between the Ministry of Education and all the universities in the Parisian area), read the pages of the universities involved. Read the official document of the creation (and not reestablishment) of the Sorbonne University. Read the opinion of those involved, including the one of a University of Paris president(All these sources are provided in the talk page)

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

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

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

• Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Briancua (talk · contribs)
• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)
• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)
• Steeletrap (talk · contribs)
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)
• ScitDei (talk · contribs)
• Marauder40 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a debate about whether or not including certain details in the lead of the Knights of Columbus article violates NPOV by placing an WP:UNDUE emphasis on them. It has been discussed in both the "Political activities" and the RfC sections on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An informal discussion on the talk page, and a RfC.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like someone to help find compromise language for the lead instead of edit warring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Umayyad conquest of Hispania#Suppression of reference (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iñaki LL (talk · contribs)
• Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
• Marcel Baron (talk · contribs)
• Swazzo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Swazzo refuses to get to the point (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR), and permanently adding in the lead section a out-of-place phrase at all costs, with no sources supporting his claim. I tried to solve his concern by discussing and relocating the phrase, still he comes back to edit warring, and pretending not to understand, a pretty clear case of Knowledge:Disruptive_editing#IDHT.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

Get him/her understand what is going on, and get straight to the point, to avoid an escalation; This is being a straightforward case but equally time wasting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:University of the People#Partnerships (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• דוד שי (talk · contribs)
• Adrin10 (talk · contribs)
• Weatherextremes (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to add a section about partnerships of the University of the People and other universities and corporations. Each partnership has a declaration by the partner as a reference. The section was deleted by User:Adrin10, and the reason he gave for deletion is irrelevant.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried convincing on talk page

How do you think we can help?

Please return the section "Partnerships" to the article

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sorbonne University (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:University of Paris (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk · contribs)
• SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk · contribs)
• Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk · contribs)
• JeanBirkin (talk · contribs)
• RaphaelQS (talk · contribs)
• XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I would like to bring your attention, specially from those who can understand sources in French language, to a matter that is taking place at the talk page of the article about the Sorbonne University.

Following the events of May 1968, the University of Paris was divided in thirteen independent universities (named University of Paris 1,2,3…13). Therefore, some of these universities inherited some of the universities’ old faculties. For example, the Faculty of letters - located at the campus built by Robert de Sorbon, aka La Sorbonne - was divided into, at least, four universities. The faculty of Sciences by, at least, three, an so on. 

This year, two of these universities merged into Sorbonne University. The fusion - which is the first one to occur in the Parisian area - was celebrated by an article of Times Higher Education as being the “rebirth of the University of Paris”. Such an article was taken for gospel by some wikipedia users who, based on it, decided to edit the page of the University of Paris saying that 1) the university had being reestablished in 2018, 2) setting all alumni of the prior-1968 University of Paris in the page of the new university. 

Other users have attempted to revert the editing of the page, without success, stressing the fact that, in order to reestablished the University of Paris, all its thirteen inheritors would have to merge.

On top of that, by January 2019, other two direct inheritors of the University of Paris are to merge. They are to call the new institution “University of Paris”. By being their direct inheritors, they have the same rights as Sorbonne University to claim that they are the rebirth of the prior-1968 University of Paris. All the other nine universities, and their envisaged fusions, also can make such a claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written on the talk page of the article Sorbonne University and University of Paris, without consensus

How do you think we can help?

Read the talk page of Sorbonne University and University of Paris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Disney Channels Worldwide#Disney Asia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• User 261115 (talk · contribs)
• Spshu (talk · contribs)
• Bankster (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is with several articles related to Disney channels, the articles are Disney Channels Worldwide (this one), List of Disney XD TV channels and Disney International HD.

The main issue is with the Disney India channels and their distribution to other countries in the Indian subcontinent. It is a very common thing for the countries in Indian subcontinent like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives to use Indian feeds of the channels with a small number of channels from Southeast Asia. But the mentioned countries have the Indian versions of Disney channels. Spshu thinks that these countries don't have the Indian channels and instead have their own channel feeds operated by Disney India. You can see on Disney XD list page that Sri Lanka is listed as a separate channel market when it is actually a peripheral market to the Indian one. I tried my best to fix it and explain, but I keep getting reverted.

The second issue that was recently brought up was Disney India's channel launch in the Maldives. Again, they are the Indian versions including Disney International HD, an India only channel. I gave a source for this launch on the talk page. He again thinks that Maldives get a separate version of Disney International HD compared to the Indian version. Like I said before these countries take channels from India and not have their own versions.

The final issue is the programming list at Disney International HD. I tried to add all the shows currently running on the channel with a source, and upcoming ones with source provided. But I keep getting reverted to his version that only has programmes mentioned in a news article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain this in detail on the talk page, but Spshu keeps reverting and forcing his revision to stay no matter what.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be helpful if someone who is familiar with this topic and complying to Knowledge guidelines could comment on it and help us reach a consensus on the issue. Currently this dispute has not been resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will act as the moderator in this case. Please read and follow the rules. I have not researched this dispute. It is up to the parties to provide brief concise information. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be changed (or what they think is right and should be left alone)? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:User 261115, User:Spshu, User:Bankster ??

Firstly with the Disney International HD article, Maldives should be listed in the broadcast area of the infobox. I have already given a source for this. There is no "Maldives version" it's the Indian one like I said before these countries normally take the Indian channels. And the programming list should have all the current shows currently playing on the channel, they're even mentioned on the official corporate website. I also gave source for upcoming programmes. With the Disney XD TV list, Sri Lanka should be listed in the "other" column in the India market as it's just the Indian feed, not a dedicated Sri Lanka feed. Same goes for Pakistan, Nepal and Maldives. I think User:Bankster will be able to explain the SEA Disney Channels better as I'm not 100% sure about my claims. User 261115 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Can users Bankster and Spshu please each state, in one paragraph, what the issues are? (A statement above that is three paragraphs doesn't count.) This noticeboard is for relatively simple content disputes that can be resolved in one to two weeks. If the issues are complicated and can't be formulated in two to three days, then I will have to forward this dispute for formal mediation where the mediator will have more time to get the editors to tease out the details. So, please, be concise. Is the real issue whether to have a long list of channels and countries, where sometimes one country is feeding off another country's channel? If so, is there any reason not to list all of the countries? Is the issue something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue spans couple of articles. First, Spshu addresses a badly-structured organisation of the Disney networks in Europe and Southeast Asia in List of Disney XD TV channels and Disney Channels Worldwide. For Europe, he uses the MAVISE website, which isn't concise and isn't accurate, for Southeast Asia and India, he treats every country the networks reach as different market for different assumptions (aka, thinking that the launch of the networks in a country means the launch of different localised channels, despite the references not saying so and the networks having only one channel for each brand). For Disney International HD, he claims that the Maldives is receiving the channel as a localised network, despite the references not mentionining any localised launch and only addressing the Disney deal with a local TV provider to distribute the Indian channel in the country (Diraagu). He constantly assumes his own positions and force them with no other editor giving a third voice. Spshu claims our contributions are original research, while his assumptions aren't. --Bankster (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Let's start over. It appears that different editors have issues about different related articles. If the discussion can't be focused, it may be necessary to refer the whole issue to formal mediation, which can take months, so let's try to get focused. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what articles are the subjects of discussion, and what content they think should be changed (or left alone) in the articles, without naming other editors. (If you can't explain the issue without naming other editors, you haven't pinned it down as a content issue. That doesn't mean it is a conduct issue. It only means that it hasn't been pinned down.) Will each editor please state what article or articles are involved, and what they think should be done differently, or left alone? I will expect answers within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Disney International HD channel is available in Maldives as officially announced by Disney India. It is not its own feed it's the exact same feed as the Indian one taken from satellite, so Maldives should be in broadcast area of the infobox. The programming list should list all the current shows on the channel, and they're even mentioned on the official corporate website. I gave source for upcoming shows. With List of Disney XD TV channels, Sri Lanka should be in the India market, not its own as the country is getting the Indian feeds. Same goes for Nepal, Maldives and Pakistan. They should also be listed as the other countries in India market of Disney Channels Worldwide. User 261115 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The argument is over the three articles: Disney Channels Worldwide (Particularly List of Disney Channels Disney Asia/SE Asia channel), Disney International HD (DisInt) and List of Disney XD TV channels (Perhaps, we should included Disney Channel (Southeast Asia)). It has to do with whether or not some countries have feeds originating in other countries or their outright channels. I stand by sources that indicate a Malaysia channel (which has not been announced by Disney India) and an Asia/SE Asia Channel, just also available in Malaysia. Maldive should be list as a channel not a feed of the India Channel based on the source. List of programs on DisInt should be kept to source non-primary sourced shows per WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:NOTEVERYTHING (although I was allowing those source by the Disney India site to be listed) as the lists are not suppose to be complete. Spshu (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the dispute involves Disney Channels Worldwide, Disney Asia, Disney International HD, and Disney India. Are there any other articles in question? Can each editor please specify, in one paragraph, what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I said before, the article List of Disney XD TV channels is also involved. It has the same issue with the Southeast Asian network being divided into several channels according to their countries' launch (Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, etc), when it should be unified as a sole channel, since there is no reference of Disney launching independent Disney XD channels in each Asian country. Same applies for Sri Lanka, with the list charting it with its own channel, when the Indian variant is distributed in that country instead. That article has other issues, though, as it lists the United Kingdom feed to be broadcast on other countries apart from Ireland (such as Germany, Iceland and the three Baltic countries), also charting ex-Yugoslav countries (such as Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia) separately, when it reality these countries share a single feed also broadcasting for Turkey and the Middle East and Africa (interestingly enough, South Africa is charted separately, when it should be included in the MEA region). Also to note that there is an inexistent IPTV Russian Disney XD channel listed in that article for Lithuana, when it doesn't exist; Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia receive the channel from the Scandinavian network, via an English or Russian audio track enabled since 2012. Ironically enough, the Scandinavian feed was also split into different countries for no reason (charted as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland).

Most of the article is referenced by MAVISE, which provides data from European channels. However, most of the information provided by the database is not accurate or is plainly wrong, since it does not represent the channel's distribution in the region. --Bankster (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the editors consider taking this discussion to the talk page of WikiProject Disney. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If there are any specific clearly defined content issues where compromise can be worked on, we can continue discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be fizzling out. If the parties wish to continue discussing, they can still do so here, but I have suggested that they discuss at WT:WikiProject Disney. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jeanmb1 (talk · contribs)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)
• Doc James (talk · contribs)
• Famousdog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article keeps being changed without reasonble nor valid explanation. This has become an editing war. Primary sources have been adequately used. The secondary source used by others in the dispute is only making reference to CES efficacy in treating acute depression ("Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 7: CD010521) This secondary source does not apply nor relate to the other applications/uses of CES. There aren'tmany secondary sources for CES that are reliable, hence primary sources must be used for other treatments. The other editors have not provided other secondary sources to make their point or improve the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Used talk page and reviewed edit history.

How do you think we can help?

Help balance the article first paragraph and address sources. Editors selectivly allow primary sources to support their opinion, delete other's primary sources when they don't agree and don't offer any secondary sources to replace them.

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

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

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

• Knowledge talk:WikiProject Trains#Oakland Coliseum station (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Titanosaurus (talk · contribs)
• Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs)
• Morphenniel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am currently having a disagreement with Pi.1415926535 and Morphenniel on the necessity of the bus service table, platform layout diagram, and usage of the airport logo in the article.

For the past couple of months, I have been adding information to the article using other articles about rail-bus interchanges that also have bus service tables for reference, including a couple of good articles like Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and Flushing–Main Street (WP:ATAIDD). My primary motivation for adding this information is my knowledge on the subject, in addition to BART/AC Transit officially establishing the Oakland Coliseum station as a major bus station/transit center (Source 1, Source 2), so naturally I think that the article should have information about where the buses go, kind of like how the airport articles on here have information on where flights go. The 12 bus routes that serve Oakland Coliseum carry over 2.5 Million Passengers a year combined (The rail stations in the complex see a little over 2.6 Million Passengers a year for comparison Source 1 (Starts at Page A-1), Source 2 (Page 20)). The idea of bus tables, platform layout diagrams, and airport logos that indicate which connecting bus routes serve an airport as being too excessive hasn't really been enforced on the other articles that I referred to in editing this article (some of which were deemed to be good articles by some editors of the very same WikiProject Trains where my edits are being disputed), so why is it all of the sudden being strictly enforced on this particular article?

I think that Pi.1415926535 is removing information simply for aesthetic reasons without considering the actual informative content that he would be removing, and that Morphenniel is just being disruptive. If I am in the wrong I will be more than glad to remove the table, but I think that my edits have certainly been informative and relevant to the subject, and are in line with many other esteemed articles on here about bus-rail interchanges.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Pi.1415926535 has started a discussion on the WikiProject Trains talk page, but has yet to respond to what I think were legitimate and appropriately sourced arguments that support my point of view. Morphenniel on the other hand keeps linking to the "Knowledge is not a travel guide" policy without really addressing the solution I suggested of creating a uniform guideline for articles like this, has derided my thoughtful and well-researched contributions to this website as "nonsense", and is making false accusations about me without addressing my points or making any otherwise meaningful effort to reach a resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I think that you would be able to help facilitate a more productive and serious discussion on this issue. I am planning on improving other similar articles with similar information, and I feel that with your guidance, there can finally be a somewhat uniform guideline for what train/bus station articles should look like. WP:NOT does somewhat address this issue, but some members of the WikiProject Trains group appear to loosely and rather hypocritically decide which articles they want to apply it to as aforementioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before this case can be taken by a moderator, we need to determine what article the discussion is about. The purpose of this noticeboard is to have relatively short informal discussions, lasting one to two weeks, intended to improve an article. Is the subject of the discussion an article about a station, multiple articles about multiple stations, the Trains Project, or what? It seems that the previous discussion has been scattered all over. Will each editor please state what article or articles they think are the subject? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Titanosaurus, User:Morphenniel ? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Err, nope. Titanosaurus's continued zero-sum ownership attitude, personal attacks, and unwillingness to follow basic editing requirements like using edit summaries and reliable sources indicate that this is a behavioral issue rather than merely a content issue. Morphennial and I have raised that numerous times, and I do not believe that any productive content discussion can occur under that cloud. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To keep it brief, Pi.1415926535 wants to get rid of what I feel are encyclopedic and informative pieces of information on the Oakland Coliseum station and Eastmont Town Center pages, including the usage of the Airport Logo next to connecting bus routes, the table listing all of the routes that serve the bus terminals at the Eastmont Transit Center and Oakland Coliseum station, and the Platform Layout diagrams, while I want to keep them. Pi.1415926535 has taken exception to the "tone" of some of my arguments supporting my point of view, while I have likewise taken exception to some of the rather authoritarian statements he made "You need to cease adding large amounts...(sic)" while supporting his point of view. I think that with a moderator overseeing our discussion, we can finally have a rational and productive discussion and can otherwise finally come to an agreement on what ultimately would be best for this article and other similar articles that I plan on adding information to in the future. TITANOSAURUS 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Titanosaurus is adding information to articles that is non-encyclopedic. It is very detailed information on buses, specifically destinations, plaforms, intermediate stops etc. etc. This is essential turning articles into travel guides. That is against WP:NOTGUIDE. Titanosaurus argues that this policy is vague, but equally he has not made a compelling argument for why the information he is adding is encyclopedic either. I agree that it is verifiable, and has sources, but the fact remains that it is not encyclopedic. I know he has put a lot of effort into his work ... but Knowledge has no need for this information on buses. A simple link to he webpage of the transit operator is all that is needed. What Titanosaurus is doing is simply replicating/duplicating that detailed information here. In some cases he can simply refer to the article on Knowledge for the bus company, but even that is beyond him.

Morphenniel (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I am willing to try to moderate this. I hope that the editors can justify my willingness to take on what may be difficult. I see that there are hard feelings. Please refrain from expressing them. This may go a little beyond the usual scope of this noticeboard, because it appears to apply to multiple articles. Please read my mediation rules and follow them. In particular, comment on content only, not on contributors. Do not complain about the other editors. That will distract from the serious business of getting this resolved. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not help. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That was already tried. Address your answers to me, not to each other. Do not discuss the articles on article talk pages; discuss the article or articles here; we need to keep this centralized. Do not edit any articles that are in question. Now that I have restated the rules, I have an opening question, and then a main question. The opening question is: Are all of the editors here willing to engage in moderated discussion, and to try to follow the rules that I have set forth? You may answer yes or no. Participation here is voluntary but encouraged. If you answer yes, you are expected to follow the rules. Now: It appears that the issue is that one editor wants to add a lot of information to various articles that another editor thinks provide excessive detail about tangential stuff such as bus connections. In one paragraph, please state whether that is the issue, and please state concisely why your position is consistent with Knowledge policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort in attempting to resolve this Robert McClenon, I am absolutely willing to engage in moderated discussion to finally bring an end to this "skirmish" if you will. I want my bus service tables in the Eastmont Town Center and Oakland Coliseum station pages to be re-inserted back into the pages, even if they have to be slightly edited, because both places are major bus stations in a dense and largely transit-dependent neighborhood, and consensus on this matter has apparently been reached in the past that supports my stance of a simple table displaying where services at a particular transportation hub will take you not being a violation of the "travel guide" policy in several articles, including good articles like Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway) and John Glenn Columbus International Airport. A similar platform layout to the ones that I want to keep on the Oakland Coliseum station article can also be found on the aforementioned Coney Island page, and I think that a platform layout diagram is a rather easy and helpful way to depict the layout of train stations (especially the Amtrak station in the Oakland Coliseum complex) for those who are not too familiar with railroad operations, even Pi.1415926535 himself seems to be having a little trouble figuring out the layout of the station, as he erroneously referred to the what is in fact the Westernmost track of the Amtrak station as the "Southernmost track" of the station in his earlier summary of this dispute. Lastly, the usage of the Airport Logo in the article next to connecting bus routes to Oakland International Airport also falls in line with content found on other peer-reviewed articles like Flushing–Main Street (IRT Flushing Line), and AC Transit itself utilizes the Airport logo at its bus stops and on the buses themselves for depiction of airport services to passengers as currently seen on an image on the Oakland Coliseum station page. TITANOSAURUS 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that one editor wants to include extensive bus service tables in two articles that are not about bus stations. It appears that other editors disagree. Is that what the dispute is about? If so, why should bus information be included in articles that are not about buses? If that isn't the issue, what is the issue? Is there an article about the bus routes? If not, would that be an answer? However, if what is being proposed for inclusion is detailed bus schedules, that doesn't seem appropriate, but maybe I have missed something, such as a guideline that all articles in Knowledge should contain bus information. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Oakland Coliseum station page is about an intermodal transit hub served by AC Transit (bus), Amtrak (rail), and BART (metro), while the Eastmont Town Center is about a mall with a major bus terminal (called the "Eastmont Transit Center") served by AC Transit located at the southeastern corner of the mall, here's a link to a page where AC Transit officially acknowledges both aforementioned places as two of its transfer hubs and has more information about them. Here is a link to my sandbox, where I am currently displaying examples of the bus service information that I want to re-insert onto both pages, the 1st and 3rd tables are the tables that I would like to re-insert onto the pages, while the 2nd and 4th tables are "compromised" tables that I would also be fine with re-inserting onto both pages if the 1st and 3rd tables are found to be too "travel guide"-y. The style of and information displayed in my original bus tables were influenced by the List of bus routes in Brooklyn page. My inspiration for creating the tables in the first place comes from similar information displayed on other good articles about intermodal hubs/airports, specifically Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue, Flushing–Main Street, and John Glenn Columbus International Airport. I probably would have thought that the information might have been a bit too "travel guide"-y myself before seeing those three pages, but the positive reception to those three pages (including Good Article ratings by WikiProject Trains on Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue's and Flushing–Main Street's talk pages) eventually changed my mind and ultimately drove me to create similar information for the two articles we're discussing right now that I think falls right in line with the information displayed on those three good articles. Lastly, for what it's worth, there is indeed a List of AC Transit routes page that displays somewhat similar information to the information that I want to put on the Eastmont Town Center and Oakland Coliseum station pages. TITANOSAURUS 02:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is problematic, and is going nowhere. I would like to try one more time to see if we can resolve it. It appears that one editor, User:Titanosaurus, wants to add a large amount of information about bus service that seems to be extraneous to the articles in question. Two other editors seem to disagree, but do not seem to discussing their disagreement. If there is no further discussion by the other two editors, I will have to close this thread as failed, and will recommend that a Request for Comments may be the best way to resolve this. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I will ask all of the editors to explain the issues one last time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we have an outcome. Titanosaurus appears to have ceased his unnecessary additions, and that's great. Provided he now desists any further, then we have a resolution. I take it that should he re-commence that this will be seen as a gross violation of this successful dispute resolution. Thank you! - Morphenniel (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have explained my side of the issue several times and I do not know what else I can possibly say at this point. The articles are partially about bus stations and should have bus information on them as such. I appreciate your help, but if any further productive discussion cannot commence, then I will indeed follow your suggestion and take this to the RFC board where this can hopefully be settled once and for all. TITANOSAURUS 00:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to review the status of this case. It appears that one editor thinks that the addition of bus information has stopped, and another editor says that they should add that information. Unfortunately, the editors appear to be editing in an intermittent on-again-off-again fashion, which is fine for editing Knowledge, but causes dispute resolution to drag out. Unless at least editors reply with differing viewpoints with 24 hours, I will have to close this thread as having fizzled out, and recommend that one or another of the editors use a Request for Comments or attempt formal mediation (but recognize that a mediator may demand timely participation). This thread will be closed in 24 hours as fizzled out unless the editors express an interest in continuing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Adam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elpiniki (talk · contribs)
• Alephb (talk · contribs)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
• Ian.thomson (talk · contribs)
• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made an edit with one sentence and three footnotes. I also changed an additional part of the text that (without support) stated something was a majority opinion. My content was removed, and I was sent a personal message indicated that I had not substantiated my view (despite the three footnotes to mainstream academic sources). Upon closer review of the article, I noticed what appears to be vandalism. Most mainstream Christian entries are missing from an article about a Christian historical figure. I'm perfectly happy to have all views represented, but I am not happy to have the mainstream view (with which I agree) aggressively suppressed while other views are not. I've asked repeatedly for suggestions on how to re-word this entry to accommodate all views, but the other users offer no suggestions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I'm trying to follow Knowledge's instructions for how to resolve this - to the best of my understanding, this is the next step.

How do you think we can help?

This is the addition/change I am trying to make Traditional Christian teaching is that the Book of Genesis, which tells of the life of Adam, was written by Moses (with 3 footnotes that won't fit here). The modern Jewish teaching is that . . .(I've offered to change the word Jewish if there's a better word. Please offer an acceptable way to word it to accommodate all views.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User talk:AlistairKelman#Certificate of life (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AlistairKelman (talk · contribs)
• Guy_Macon (talk · contribs)
• Philafrenzy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It all started with my writing a short piece for WikiTRIBUNE https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2018/01/19/humanrights/how-i-used-wikipedia-to-prove-my-wife-was-alive-and-change-bureaucracy/41541/comment-page-1/#read I am a barrister with a great deal of professional experience in dealing with matters. My essay was reviewed by a professional editor on WikiTRIBUNE as can be seen from its talk page (unlike other publications such processes are documented with detailed metadata) The WikiTRIBUNE editor approved my essay for publication. However as a result someone writing under the pseudo name “my name is not Dave” removed the two key paragraphs from the article. All my contributions to Knowledge are under my own name, my real name, and I put my reputation for truth and honesty at stake for every amendment I make or article I write. The two contributions to the article I inserted in 2016 are as follows and are essential for properly addressing the problem. With them removed the problem could reoccur for UK citizens and their removal undermines the information available to council staff and pensioners:

User Philafrenzy said "Please try adding material from a law book or a similar source" But the fact is that I am a published author of textbooks on law and practice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have put a note about this in the Feedback page for consideration by Jimmy Wales and Natalia Avdeeva (Head of Digital Products) at WikiTribune so that they are aware of the problem

How do you think we can help?

WikiTribune and Wikipeadia need to work our a co-existant set of rules so that Knowledge is prepared to accept that an article which has been published in WikiTribune after a defined editorial process can be treated as coming from a citable and hence reliable source.

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Max Fleischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oliszydlowski (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Max Fleischer was an American, born in Krakow under the then Austro-Hungarian Empire. The province was Galicia, Referring to that region as "Austrian Poland" is confusing, redundant,and inaccurate. While Karkow has been included into Poland as of 1919, it was not considered to be "Poland" in 1883.

All records, including Birth Records, Immigration Records, Naturalization Papers, and Census Records consistently state that the country of origin for Maz Fleischer was Austria.

The Fleischers always stated they were Austrians. They spoke German, not Polish. Their ethnic/religious association was Jewish. They were not "Poles," and were not "Polish Jews."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to contact the poster twice without response. But subtle changes have resulted.

How do you think we can help?

Two statements need correcting.

1) Max Fleischer--Polish-American 2) the province of Austrian Poland

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:March 14 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1891 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lynchings#"largest known mass lynching in US history" (edit | talk | history | links | "largest_known_mass_lynching_in_US_history" watch | logs)

Users involved

• MopTop (talk · contribs)
• 198.84.171.88 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The claim that this lynching was "the largest in U.S. history" is under dispute.

I cited a reliable source for this claim, Dr. Richard Gambino, who based his statement on data found in the NAACP archives. I also cited a page on the Library of Congress website, which repeats Gambino's claim, demonstrating that the LOC considers Gambino a reliable source. Gambino cites the definition of "lynching" in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which distinguishes lynchings from massacres. That has always been my understanding of what the word meant.

User 198.84.171.88 believes the definition of lynching is broader than that, and should include massacres, such as the Chinese massacre of 1871, in which people were killed for racial reasons without being accused of a crime.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed. Got nowhere. Created a Request for Comments. Got a couple of comments, but not enough for a meaningful consensus. 198.84.171.88 just keeps making the same contested edits over and over again.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to see some other experienced editors who understand the Knowledge guidelines to discuss the issue, and if they can arrive at a consensus, I'll accept it. In the meantime, I'm going to revert 198.84.171.88's edits again because I don't believe he has made his case convincingly.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Charles Dutoit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jburlinson (talk · contribs)
• Petrov2017 (talk · contribs)
• SovalValtos (talk · contribs)
• Zocke1r (talk · contribs)
• freshacconci (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article in question is for Charles Dutoit, orchestral conductor. One editor persists in adding material sourced to the "comments" section of a classical music blog named Slipped Disc. I have deleted this material several times as being unverifiable, yet it keeps being brought back again and again. In addition, the same editor, Petrov2017 repeatedly deletes lines from the "lead" of the article which are germane to the overall content of the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The editor in questions, Petrov2017, has been asked to engage on the talk page of the article but has not yet done so. Several editors have used Petrov2017's talk page to request that he cease disruptive editing. This has also been mentioned several times in edit summaries for the article on Charles Dutoit.

How do you think we can help?

1. Agree that internet forum postings and comments from blog posts are unacceptable as reliable sources. 2. Agree that the "lead" should contain material germane to the article as a whole.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Dawnseeker2000#Not a sock puppet (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Carlton25 (talk · contribs)
• Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi,

I am new to the Knowledge. I have been reading for a long time but now wish to contribute to the platform. I started out as many might, by making some small grammar corrections, spelling mistakes etc as the Knowledge welcome screen suggested. It sent me to random pages where I made small edits to learn the system.

I started making larger edits to pages I had facts and citations for but found a user called Dawnseeker2000 suddenly revert some of my changes. I requested information as to why on his talk page and he deleted it calling me a sock puppet. I attempted to re-engage with him and have put a new entry on his talk page asking for more information and to engage with me. He has still not replied (although has to subsequent messages from other users) and instead reverted other edits I have made, this time calling me a troll.

I imagine this user is a long time wiki admin and looking after the best interests of the platform. However, I am not a sock puppet or a troll and have only engaged with Knowledge in a way that it suggested when I signed up, by making small grammar and spelling changes. Where I have made larger changes, I have researched first and cited factual information only. His (or her) latest revert was on the Erika Sutter page whereby he removed my edit because of trolling. In fact there is a factual error in the first paragraph (there is no evidence to say she was a professor) and instead had a reference from the university she lectured at stating she was a lecturer. Reverted for trolling.

I cannot believe that everyone who is new to the site gets called a troll or a sock puppet. All I am asking for is this user to engage with me properly and allow me to engage with the site and understand why he thinks that. Give me the opportunity to set the record straight and allow me to use the platform properly without continuous stalking from this user overturning all my edits, no matter how small, without good reason.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to engage with Dawnseeker2000 but have had my comments deleted and then ignored

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully open a dialogue. I am pretty new to all this and am a little sad that one of my first interactions is to defend myself from being called a sockpuppet and a troll from someone who refuses to acknowledge my messages. Hopefully you can let me know what I need to do to make this user happy that I am not vandalising Knowledge, but adding cited facts from verified sources and grammar and spelling changes.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kelli Ward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs)
• ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
• MPS1992 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Op is writing about Steve Bannon and Great America PAC which has no relevance on Kelli Ward personally. Also, Kelli has not worked with Bannon she was seen at one event with him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Started discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?

unsure, I have posted edit war notice and am looking for a resolution.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Deleted edits in January 5 and 6 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Human7777 (talk · contribs);
• LouisAragon (talk · contribs);
• MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My edits done in January 5 and 6, 2018 were deleted by other two editors. They asserted that the sources used in the edits are not reliable, and generally, the edits are not neutral. I disagree and offered two options: 1. to revert my edits or 2: to delete some other sources used in the article because of their (un)neutrality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Deleted_edits_in_January_5_and_6,_2018
2. Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Third_Opinion not accepted because more than two editors involved in.
3. Formal mediation. Rejected because other two editors did not want to participate in.

How do you think we can help?

Please, provide a neutral environment for discussion and propose options for us.

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

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Selsey#Climate Edit War (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs)
• 10 December 2017 (talk · contribs)
• Wilfridselsey (talk · contribs)
• SovalValtos (talk · contribs)
• Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs)
• Dan Koehl (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue involves the a weather box for Selsey that was added as far as I can tell 29 August 2017 and expanded 22 October 2017. The box has been subject to removal and inclusion since. The data appears to come from 5km grid extrapolated data from the met office, there being no weather station in Selsey. How to write about UK Settlements guidance seems to be for use of climate box if there is local data. Though practice seems to be to use or also use a climate box if there is a weather station in the area. Arguments against use of weather box include undue weight, WP:UNDUE, maintenance effort, and against UK guidelines.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Observed edit warring in progress and attempted to raise discussion. Concensus is unlikely to be reached and I have moved to a non neutral position onto how with would go.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a neutral discussion as to whether a weather box is appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

I will try to act as the moderator here. I see multiple editors, and will direct all of them to the mediation rules. It appears that some editors want to include a weather box and others do not. Is that correct? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

.Yes that is absolutely correct--10 December 2017 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

.For practical purposes I would say that is correct. However if the same data was presented but not using a weatherbox we be likely have most of the same issues as mentioned above and on the talk page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

.As an additional concern I have come to suspect we may have Knowledge content copied from UKCP09 (5km) gridded observation datasets source under (UK) Open Government Licence but not appropriately attributed in breach of licence. However some might argue this may or may not be a problem depending on how the Met office web site is navigated and I may have misinterpreted this. In all events my understanding is this would be likely resolvable by correct attributions etc. if necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the issue is whether to include a weather box in the article. What this noticeboard tries to do is to facilitate resolution of content disputes by compromise, but I don't know of a compromise between having a weather box and not having one. Therefore the most reasonable solution is probably a Request for Comments. Are there any other thoughts as to what to do next? Is there agreement that a Request for Comments allowing both existing editors and new editors to express their opinions and state their reasons is the way forward? Will each editor who has an idea for the weather box please prepare a draft weather box. If we get more than one proposal, we can choose between them. If there are any other ideas, please present them within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@moderator. Interim stages between weatherbox and no weatherbox could be:

• Reduction in number of rows in the weatherbox
• Set collapse = yes parameter so the weatherbox initially renders collapsed.
• Use of a Template:Climate chart. Suggested by User:SovalValtos in the discussion on the Selsey talk page and the template suggested on WP:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Geography. An example of a climate chart can be seen at Bognor Regis#Climate.
• WP:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Geography also suggests use of a separate article where climate data is extensive.

Unfortunately all but the last above are ways of presenting the data in the weatherbox differently and most key objections revolve around the sourcing, applicability, usage and sustainability of the data so I personally and not minded to judge any of those possible compromises as acceptable. (Incidently I'm not sure if moving to a different article would be good either).Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@moderator. I am ok with going for RfC if necessary at this stage ... especially as suggested by yourself and User:Charlesdrakew (obviously though I prefer it is resolved here). Indeed I was initially unsure of which direction to forward the dispute and accept I may have made a suboptimal choice. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to correct Djm-leighpark I have not suggested a Template:Climate chart in talk and I do not think it is anyone's first preference. Noone has said that text will not do. The editor who likes a chart 10 December 2017 has also said in this edit that they are 'open to having a discussion about the weather box'. Could they consider that it might be possible to include the information about sunshine hours in text or with links without a weather box? Otherwise, if this cannot be resolved here, I am I am happy to be guided by those who are experienced in these processes as to what to do next.SovalValtos (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First, is everyone willing to compromise on text? If everyone is willing to compromise on text, we resolve the dispute by compromising on text. If even one editor does not agree to that compromise, then we use the RFC.

Second, does anyone think that "nothing" is an option, or do we agree that we use either a box or text?

Third, if we go with the RFC, the two obvious options are the box and text. Are there any more options to list?

Fourth, does anyone object to the RFC? If so, they should state what the objection is, and it will likely be considered and ignored.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@moderator: I am happy for that to be in text/prose provided supported by suitable source. I am a little concerned about about a dataset being regarded as a suitable source should the analysis of it being regarded as Original Research. In simple terms the Met office publishes the tables for the (weather station) at Bognor Regis through a public web interface see averages tab for Bognor. For Selsey this is provdided by downloadable 5km grid datasets and I would caution analysis of these datasets might be regarded as Original Research. So if we were to use the existing citation with the sentence: Over the period 1981-2010 Selsey averaged monthly sunshine hours of 262.6 in July that probably would NOT suffice as a suitable reference if I understand correctly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The dataset is not original research. It is a primary source, the use of which to draw conclusions in the article may be original research. Articles should mostly be written in prose and mainly from secondary sources. I therefor support sticking to text.Charles (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Charles . Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to compromise on text.

I hope I am not straying too far by saying that a primary source dataset for a specific 5km square is NOT specific to the settlement. I doubt the Met Office say it is, given Selsey is partly in four such squares over-lapping its and neighbouring areas.SovalValtos (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that everyone is willing to compromise on text. If no one objects, we have resolution to compromise on text. If there is any objection, we will use the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

OK.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems that we have agreement to compromise on text. Will some editor please write the proposed text about the weather? We can then close this thread unless there is disagreement about the wording of the text. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@moderator: As a startpoint I suggest the wording of the Climate section is as follows whilst remaining open to alternative suggestions:

See also: Climate of the United Kingdom

Selsey's climate is classified as warm and temperate. Although Selsey is situated in the sunniest part of the UK, there is rainfall throughout the year and even the driest month still has rain. Probably the most problematic climatic hazard is wind. The town is situated in an area where tornadoes and waterspouts are common. A tornado in 1986 damaged 200 houses and cut a swathe 70 metres wide. Another tornado in 1998 left an estimated £10m of destruction and damaged Patrick Moore's observatory.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC) .

@moderator: User:Djm-leighpark's suggested text is a good start. I have a concern about the use of the Ref 2. Averages Map source. Has it been added correctly? It leads to a Met Office site page where there is nothing to suggest Selsey is 'in the sunniest part of the UK'. Moving within the site to another page 'Sunshine - Annual average: 1971-2000' there is a map from which it is reasonable to deduce that Selsey is in one of the sunnier parts (Pembrokeshire and Norfolk having others). I would prefer the text to read "Selsey is in in one of the sunnier areas of the UK". Without scrupulously careful wording in Climate sections problems can arise.SovalValtos (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@moderator: Just to confirm I simply took the text directly from the existing article (without thinking too much about it). Especially after quick google I am tending to go with User:SovalValtos unless say User:Charlesdrakew has better suggestion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the original text and inserted the Met Office climate table ref. My feeling was that it was a fairly easy reference to understand. Bognor is classed as the sunniest spot and W.Sussex the sunniest county based on Met Office stats, so we can say that 'Selsey is in the sunniest part of the UK'. However, my original thought was for simplicity, and if any reader wanted to do some more research then the link that we provide to that Met office page, would enable them to do that. So I would be quite happy to go with SovalValtos's wording. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I will change one of the ground rules, since there has been civil discourse between the editors, and allow the editors to talk to each other as well as to me. Please continue the discussion about the text about the weather. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's the weather box that's the issue not the text? As has been pointed out Selsey could do with a Geography section, with climate being part of that, also I would suggest that we need something about coastal erosion and the managed retreat not to mention the archaeology. I am quite confident that that would be developed without dispute, maybe a bit of tweaking. But weatherbox?Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. I think the text can be done and is best done under normal editing collaboration. There's a bit on the notable Medmerry managed realignment scheme in the Bracklesham Bay article and (I could go on and on and on like I normally do ...) ... but these are things under normal collaborative editing which I think we normally do quite well. Believe we should go with the round five amendment with no weatherbox and get out of DRN and create a Geography if/when we need to later outside of DRN.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Time to move on. No weather box and Met Office sources must not be asked to support wording that they will not bear, like any other source.SovalValtos (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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.

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Esperanto grammar#Ci (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mutichou (talk · contribs)
• Funlinguist (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, this is my first experience with dispute resolution so I hope I'm in the right place.

For months, there has been an IP user whose main hobby is editing Esperanto-related articles (especially Esperanto grammar) to promote his point of view on how the language should be.

The involved IPs are: 208.70.40.2, 2600:1015:B001:5166:8D53:E4E4:70F1:CB8B, 2601:805:C002:6420:1DB:A660:733B:1B80, 2600:1015:B02E:9BEE:BDA6:8123:C35E:C479, 2600:1015:B008:AB42:81F3:2956:1A7B:7F9C, Funlinguist (he created an account once after I contacted him), etc.

His activity, by the way, is not limited to the English-language Knowledge: global contributions.

For those who are not familiar with Esperanto, his main goal is adding ci in articles about Esperanto - a second-person singular pronoun that theoretically exists but has never been widely used and, for all intents and purposes, does not exist in the language as it is used. That would be like me replacing "you" with "thou" in all example sentences given in English grammar - maybe not exactly wrong, but misleading as it would imply that it is part of normal usage and it would be confusing for the readers (which it is, by the way).

The user's edit record include putting "Fixed typo" as an edit summary when it was more than that and editing a quote to add words that were never in it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I first discussed it in the talk page, but nobody replied. Then I left a message in User talk:208.70.40.2, and another one, and finally, the user replied to me, but then continued editing as before and never answered another message. I have also left a message in User talk:2600:1015:B001:5166:8D53:E4E4:70F1:CB8B that has been ignored, and other users have messaged him in the same talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

I'm hoping the other user is willing to discuss the issue if other people try to get in touch with him.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Rmelville (talk · contribs)
• Edwardx (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am attempting to change permanently the statement below

"In 2009 Mark Davies, the then-husband (divorced in 2017) of the Conservative MP Mims Davies joined the company as finance director. The company have since donated to her "local party organisation or indirectly via a central party organisation""

to

"In 2009 Mark Davies joined the company as finance director."

The previous statement has no relevance to NewRiver and is of a personal nature and therefore should be removed. Edwardx has repeatedly reverted back to the previous state. When people wish to find out information about NewRiver they wish to find out about company not who the FD was previously married to. I have links to NewRiver and wish the information to be accurate and informative - this information is neither.

There are hundreds of other information that is out in the public that is far more relevant than this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to contact Edwardx to stop this being edited

How do you think we can help?

Prevent Edwardx from re-instating earlier versions

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:The National Memo#Several edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bbarmadillo (talk · contribs)
• Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs)
• Spintendo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It seems like we cannot find a single point of view on the tone and stance of The National Memo website with the Justlettersandnumbers. The discussion has been going on at the article’s Talk page with my point of view summarized in the last suggested edit. Justlettersandnumbers first changed the description of the website from liberal to “left-wing”, later he dropped his claim but also doesn’t support the proposed edits (reversal to “liberal” or “liberal and progressive”). I think that both “liberal” and “progressive” characteristics are well-supported by independent third-party sources of high quality and following the advice from Noyster would like to hear third-party opinion on this subject. This is my first-ever dispute here so I kindly ask to forgive possible mistakes in submitting this request.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requests to the COI editing board, article's Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Including my last suggested changes to the article that are purely factual and well-referenced would help to resolve this dispute.

With this edit I changed

... predominantly from a ] perspective

to

... predominantly from a ] point of view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Alexei Navalny#Link to his official YouTube site (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chris troutman (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)
• Chrissymad (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The question is if a link to the subject's YouTube page should be included. At first, My very best wishes added the link to the infobox and was reverted by Chrissymad. My very best wishes added the link again under "external links" and was reverted. Finally, they added the link as a citation, was reverted, and then re-inserted the citation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It was discussed on the article talk page but My very best wishes has refused to relent.

How do you think we can help?

An outside opinion about the inclusion of the link is needed.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Le Petit Chat#February 2018 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Le Petit Chat (talk · contribs)
• O1lI0 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It seems that this user is frequently accusing other wikipedians of making unconstructive edits. It is the 2nd times he reverted my modifications on two differents articles including and .

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to explain my edits. Also : User_talk:Le_Petit_Chat#arbitration_request

How do you think we can help?

Please make him understand I wasn't a vandal and I was making constructive edits.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Malayalam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nagadeepa (talk · contribs)
• Hyper9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Debate on origins of Malayalam

There has been heated arguments on the Malayalam page. One editor Hyper9 is consistently deleting referenced arguments and distorting/selectively quoting scientific sources to promote his fringe views. 3rd party assistance is needed to maintain an accurate history of the language. I note that this is not a new problem and that he has been previously banned for similar behaviour on this page and others related to Kerala.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted reasoned discussion on talk page to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

An independent mediator to ensure that scientific sources are not distorted and wilfully misinterpreted. I note that the editor Hyper9 has previously be banned for distorting articles on wikipedia based on Indian history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. I will try to moderate and mediate. I don't know anything about the dispute except that it has to do with the Malayalam language and its origins. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Please state, in one paragraph, what you think the issues are. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator and the community. Now: Please summarize the issue or issues briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

. . (1) Malayalam is derived from an ancient West Coast dialect of Tamil. The evidence for this is overwhelming in both the linguistic and historical record. It should be made clear in the opening paragraph that this is the widespread view accepted by most scientific scholars. The fringe theory that Malayalam has an older root independent from Tamil is not equatable.

(2) During the ancient period Kerala formed part of a larger linguistic area called Tamilakam, 'The Tamil speaking region'. Much of the extensive ancient Tamil literature was composed in Kerala including Tolkāppiyam, Ainkurunuru, Pathitrupathu and Silappatikaram. There is no doubt that the language of literature in Kerala was Standard Old Tamiḻ (centamiḻ) at the time and this should be mentioned on the page. Internal historical evidence from the said literature clearly shows a Tamil consciousness among the people of Kerala, who saw themselves as speaking Tamil in a Tamil region.

(3) A slightly different spoken colloquial dialect, preserving some archaic features not found in any of the literary works of Tamil must have also been present in Kerala at the time. This accounts for the differences which has led some fringe scholars (e.g. Govindakutty) to claim an independent origin. However, this fringe view has been jettisoned by more serious and scientific scholars such as S.V Shanmugam and Ramaswami Ayyar.

(4) All of the above points I have made are supported by the following reference which has been distorted by Hyper9:

S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature,Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976)

Hyper9 has used this above reference to claim an independent origin of Malayalam when in actual fact it supports the mainstream view that Malayalam is largely derived from an ancient form of Tamil.

Nagadeepa (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

EDITOR 2 - Hyper9

I don't see why I should proceed with this dispute without the first editor first tending an apology or deleting the kind of words that have been used in this very dispute (dishonest, charlatan etc). Such language appears to highly juvenile and offensive in any discussion, not just a Moderated one. Once this is done can we proceed with the prima facie guarantee that there will be any semblance of a civil discussion from here-on. Hyper9 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gjirokastër (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bes-ART (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• SilentResident (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute for changes made on demographic section using the official government sources of census 2011 held in Albania.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No, because the official sources are considered invalid by the other editor

How do you think we can help?

I need a third impartial opinion for the reliability of resources.

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

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

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

• "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• R9tgokunks (talk · contribs)
• Nihil novi (talk · contribs)
• Staszek Lem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two users have reverted all edits to article attempting to improve it. Some edits were vandalistic, some edits seem like they breach WP:COI, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, or WP:OWNERSHIP. All content was either well-sourced, or was an attempt to clarify or make the article NPOV. (see:).

Update: the sourced content proclaiming many Israeli politicans view the legislation as Holocaust denial is still not there. I feel the content should be re-added. but other users have since left some of the content that was reverted, and another user changed the NPOV word slightly, along with myself adding quotations, but i still feel it isn't enough. "It criminalizes any incorrect public statements that ascribe to the Polish nation collective responsibility in Holocaust-related or other war crimes" It should definetely be changed to "It criminalizes any public statements seen as incorrect" or something similar.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to start and Administrator's notice board post, tried dicussing on both that and the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Getting a third and fourth party to help improving the article.

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

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

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