This is an archive of past discussions with User:Robert McClenon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
United States
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Shoreranger on 14:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC).
Closed as not started. Two of the editors, including the one who disagrees with the other three, have not responded, and so apparently are declining moderated discussion, which is voluntary. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. At this point, there seems to be a rough consensus for the inclusion of the subsection. The disagreement can be handled either by the editor who has the local minority viewpoint recognizing that they are in a minority, or by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Three editors agree but twice another editor has removed a subsection to "Culture" in the article which the first three agree should introduce the reader to the reality that African-Americans are a unique population in American society because of slavery and its legacy, which prevented them from fully participating in mainstream culture and resulted in a significant parallel body of artistic expression that eventually gained internal and external appreciation. The legacy of the use of law, politics, and social convention to suppress African-American culture is unique within American society and requires inclusion in the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by إيان
I agree with everything Shoreranger has said on the matter, here and on the talk page. Dhtwiki was the lone objector involved in that talk page discussion. For me, the consensus was clear for Shoreranger to make the changes they sought to make, but perhaps this mediation will more provide a more solid consensus. إيان (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Dhtwiki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
United States discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other three editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - User:KlayCax - Are you interested in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - User:Dhtwiki - Are you interested in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Khangar (community). Making statements on the talk pages of other users stating that you want to discuss is a good start, but the actual discussion should be on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page,for at least 24 hours, with at least two exchanges of viewpoints. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. In the meantime, use the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Description of the dispute: My edits to the article are well-referenced and adhere to a neutral point of view. However, other users have repeatedly reverted the changes without providing specific reasons or engaging in constructive dialogue. I have tried discussing the issue on their talk pages, but we have not reached a consensus.
I encourage them to review and modify the content as needed, rather than reverting to a previous version.
I believe that we should focus on modifying the article in question to address any potential issues rather than simply reverting to a previous version. If there are specific concerns about neutrality or accuracy, please identify them so that we can work together to find a suitable resolution. It's important that we collaborate in good faith to ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information for all users.
Summary of dispute by Discospinster
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I, along with User:MrOllie, have addressed specific concerns about User:Python2019's editing in several places, such as in edit summaries, on their talk page, and on my talk page. Python2019 simply responds with "let's discuss this" and continues replacing cited content with uncited, non-neutral content. ...discospinstertalk 16:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Khangar (community) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing discussion as refusal to assume good faith by one of the parties makes this a non-starter. Editors seeking to discuss behavioural issues may do so at WP:ANI. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This concerns a paragraph added by Fredo038 that contributes to enrich the content with known and sourced facts. This paragraph was maliciously deleted by XAM2175 with inappropriate and inconsistent reasons. XAM2175 does not provide any scientific argument for his approach. As a specialist in the subject, this paragraph is a very important element for the understanding of the use of these thermometers. I am waiting for the paragraph to be restored so that it can be improved.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The only way to resolve the conflict is to restore the paragraph in question and have XAM2175's action recognized as an act of vandalism as defined by Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by XAM2175
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Miller%E2%80%93Casella thermometer discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - Fredo038, the dispute resolution noticeboard is for resolving content disputes. We do not determine what is or is not vandalism nor do we edit the articles discussed. We serve as a discussion forum where a volunteer moderator guides parties in a dispute in a calm and purposeful discussion to resolve the dispute. I also note you have not notified the other party in their talk page appropriately. When starting a case here, you are expected to let the other editor know through their talk page (such as by using {{DRN-notice}}). I have done so for you in this case. If XAM2175 is willing to participate, I am willing to moderate a discussion on this issue but I have very little patience for personal attacks or accusing other editors of bad-faith editing (such as vandalism). Nonetheless, I am very optimistic we can quickly find a solution that both parties can agree with regarding the paragraph in question. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I am willing to participate, but I'm not aware of the structure used in this forum. I would also note that Fredo038 made further stringent allegations of bad faith towards me by e-mail before commencing the talk-page discussion, including a claim that I have "massacred" their contributions to Wikipedia. XAM2175(T) 11:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't party to the original dispute, but I've long been both an ally and adversary of @XAM2175 - we mostly agree on each other's contributions, we occasionally differ and revert each other, but I see that as a vital part of the checks and balances that keep Wikipedia. relevant. XAM2175 has never been inconsistent, inappropriate, nor malicious. I am very surprised that @Fredo038, an editor active for five years with 140 edits, would fail so badly to assume good faith on the part of XAM2175. Content discussion aside, the very least Fredo038 should do is to reword his/her statement and apologise. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I want to apologize for the fact that I was a bit too hard on XAM2175. However, I can't accept to say that he is in good faith since the problem is repeated on several Wikipedia pages, precisely targeting my contributions, where he starts by making a lawsuit against me. How do you call that? Good faith suggests that one does not delete contributions of others according to one's wishes and that one starts by discussing with the authors when possible. Fredo038 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
As for the dispute itself, I find my self siding with removal. The very selective content added does not make clear its relevance to this particular thermometer, nor does it offer any insight into the conclusion of the research and how subsequent thermometer designs were improved as a result. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have also contributed in a similar way to many French Wikipedia pages and I have never had to complain because there has always been a respect for contributions of any kind as long as they respect the Wikipedia:Editing Policy which insists that Wikipedia articles do not have to be perfect. Fredo038 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (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.
2020 United States Presidential Election in Pennsylvania
Closed as improperly filed. The filing editor has misspelled the usernames of some of the listed editors and has not provided notice to any of them. Also, with nine editors, an RFC is probably a better way to resolve this dispute, and moderated discussion with a large number of editors is also likely to end with an RFC. The filing editor should recheck the usernames of the other editors before refiling this request, and should notify them of this filing, or should use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This dispute is about what types of maps to allow on the infobox of the article. There are currently maps showing results by county, municipality and precinct. There has been discourse on whether or not results by other forms of government or subdivisions should be allowed, such as results by congressional district, Catholic diocese or state patrols. A user posted a map of election results by Catholic diocese, some people thought it was a joke map or an Election Twitter meme and supported removing it. The user who made it said she made it as a serious map and not a joke. In the Talk section of the article, someone linked to a Tweet trying to make it seem like it was a joke but the Tweet was taken out of context. Some individuals support allowing more maps as it can provide useful information about voting patterns by religion, education and more in their view. The talk section of the Catholic diocese map drama was closed by someone, however there is still discourse and debate over the usefulness of these maps and whether an online encyclopedia should hold these maps.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There was extensive discussion on the Talk page of the article before it was closed by someone. The conflict has also been discussed in other spaces (as the Wiki discussion page mentions Twitter), no agreement has been reached between the 2 sides.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Help determine if the Catholic diocese map should be allowed on the Wikibox and setting future standards for what types of maps should be allowed on there as there is no clear consensus on if precinct maps should be allowed or results by Congressional district or stuff like state patrols and Catholic diocese. There is no set standard in place and the debate over the rules is heated.
Summary of dispute by Stuart8
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AveryTheComrade
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dingers5Days
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CharolttesMaps
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Planetberaure
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ElipsActual
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Alexcs114
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gust Justice
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2020 United States Presidential Election in Pennsylvania discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. There has not been real discussion at Talk:Military budget of Russia, only one post by each editor. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. The filing editor also makes some questionable statements, such as that they wrote a 90+ citation article, and another editor deletes it. These statements are not the reason for closing this case request; the lack of any prior discussion on the article talk page is the reason. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I wrote a 90+ citation article drawing from Wikipedia approved 'acceptable' sources, calculating the military spending of Russia. I put it in UNOFFICIAL estimates and some editor keeps deleting it. I only used the sorts of sources one would see in The Economist, and cited EIA, World Bank, SIPRI, Rostat, Russian Ministry Of Defense, and other reputable sources. I extensively used archive.org for citations when the original was unavailable.
Some editor just deletes it because I cited my own article. This is a synthetic article: combining primary research. It is not an analytic article: I do not need to be an expert to cite the research. I am an expert, but fine, let's dismiss that aspect.
They should EVALUATE THE RESEARCH instead of dismissing. Is wikipedia a consensus engine, or an encyclopedia? If the former, then fine. Delete away. But if it's actually an encyclopedia, then the factuality of my claims must be evaluated.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Deny Hypnôs or anyone the ability to delete an article without first evaluating it. It does not matter that I wrote it. The article is filled with auditable math. Discovery. Theoretically the purpose of wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Hypnôs
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Military budget_of_Russia#Unofficial_estimates discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not accepted by other editors. The other editors did not respond, 48 hours after they were notified of this filing, except for one editor who stated that they are not participating. Resume discussion on the article talk page. See the guideline on ethnicity or nationality of persons. If discussion is inconclusive, consider the use of an RFC. Report disruptive editing at Arbitration Enforcement, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Currently, Kazimir Malevich is listed as a Russian artist. This stems from the failure to differentiate Russian and Ukrainian culture during the 19th and 20th century because of the destruction and oppression of Ukraine's national identity by the Russian empire and USSR. This has reflected itself in older academic writing. These old sources can no longer be used as as a basis to list Malevich as Russian. New articles reflect the realization of Ukrainian figures as UKRAINIAN and the decolonization process of Ukraine's culture and national identity. While its true that Malevich lived in Russia and the USSR, he self identified as Ukrainian a number of times and his art was profoundly influenced by Ukraine and his identity as a Ukrainian, by his own admission and the style of his work. Malevich's Ukrainian identity is the root of his notability, he is no different than figures such as Taras Shevchenko and other Ukrainian politicians alive during the same time who lived in Russia and were no less "Russian" than Malevich but are undoubtedly considered Ukrainian by wikipedia and every other relevant academic institution. This debate has been going on for a year, with almost all editors agreeing Malevich is Ukrainian. Except for 2.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Help the opposing party see the light (the light being that Malevich is Ukrainian)
Summary of dispute by Skyerise
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sinestro
Kazimir Malevich must be recognized as a Ukrainian painter.
The Russian Empire was as imperialist as it was a multi-ethnic state. It is wrong to judge the person's identity by the name of the Empire and not by his actions (art and written documents) and views during his life. Malevich's early years in villages and settlements throughout Ukraine, his early exposure to Ukrainian culture and traditions, and the later association with Kyivan artists had a profound impact on his artistic development.
Malevich wrote two autobiographical essays in 1923-25 and 1933. In the latter one he wrote explicitly: "... We reminisced about the Ukraine. We were both Ukrainians.".
The latter autobiography, in which he clearly identifies himself as Ukrainian, can be interpreted as a veiled form of protest against the man-made famine known as the Holodomor, which occurred in 1932-1933. As an artist, he depicted the tragic situation of Ukrainian peasants during the forced collectivization and the Holodomor. His pencil drawing "Three figures or "Where there is sickle and hammer, there is death and hunger", shows three figures with their facial features replaced by sickle and hammer, a cross and a coffin. His other works "Enslaved Ukraine", "The Man Who Runs" are also dedicated to this event.
It is essential to recognize Malevich as a Ukrainian painter to understand the full extent of his artistic contributions. Many museums around the world (Stedelijk Museum, Metropolitan Museum and Museum of Modern Art) have already embraced this perspective.
I accept the rules of the dispute resolution.
Summary of dispute by Mellk
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There has been an online campaign to change this, so naturally we had a bunch of newly created accounts and SPAs (including the filer) arrive at this particular article without regard for the guidelines which has required the article to be protected a bunch of times. The vast majority of RS say one thing and there is no good reason to not follow the guidelines on this. Mellk (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ymblanter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not interested in participating here. We have a bunch of relatively new accounts, some of them likely socks of blocked users, all of them pushing POV. The link at the talk page shows that this is a personal POV pushing by a single person who has a lot of energy but is not a respectable academic.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Krispe13
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by LeviFreiglichter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kazimir Malevich discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Malevich)
I have some preliminary comments on this dispute.
First, the filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. They should do this on their user talk pages. {{DRN-notice}} may be used for that purpose.
Second, this is a contentious topic. Editors who agree to participate in this dispute resolution are agreeing that they are aware of the contentious topics procedure. I have written a set of rules that apply to dispute resolution in contentious topics areas. The ArbCom has established these procedures to minimize battleground editing about areas that have historically been real battlegrounds. In this case, the tenses of the verbs in referring to the battleground are both past tense and present tense. So if you agree to take part in this dispute resolution, you agree that you have been alerted to special procedures for dealing with disruptive editing.
Third, this appears to be only secondarily about article content, and primarily about policy, of how to refer to the nationality of a person who was born in Kyiv in the late nineteenth century, because article content should follow policy.
Fourth, I will be making an inquiry at a policy-oriented forum as to what Wikipedia policy is about referring to the nationality of a person who was born in Kyiv in the late nineteenth century. These rules will also apply to any discussion at any other forum.
Fifth, please state in the section for your statements that you accept the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The editors have already been let know. Bigshlomo (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I’d also like to comment that “a person who’s notability is due to his Ukrainian identity” is a more fitting than “born in Kyiv” since that what this dispute revolves around. There’s also already precedent to name figures like this as Ukrainian. Bigshlomo (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Malevich)
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.
Daf James
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Caerdyddcymru on 20:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC).
Closed as not an article content dispute, but a question about a draft. The filing editor was given advice about how to improve the draft. Any future questions can be discussed with the reviewer or at the Teahouse or the AFC Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have contributed an article about the Welsh writer "Daf James", which I have extensively sourced his successful career over the last 10 year. This has been declined within an hour as not a notable person or insignificant sourcing. As such I'm seeking your resolution on whether this should be published.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Send a message to which I received an automated response re resolution.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Review the article I've submitted an make an independent decision. Daf James has been described as the future of Welsh theatre, so this is clearly a notable person within Welsh culture that deserves a page. Also, this week alone his BBC drama Lost Boys and Fairies has been described in the media as ground breaking.
Summary of dispute by Caerdyddcymru & Jamiebuba
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Daf James discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Courtesy link Draft:Daf James this is a declined draft not an article, the draft needs the addition of independent sources and can then probably be accepted there is NO dispute? Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Asked and answered at AfC Help Desk, April 20. Creating editor acknowledged advice given there. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2023 (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.
Caso Apoquindo
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Frutillente on 04:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC).
Closed as wrong venue and wrong encyclopedia. This appears to be a content dispute about an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Discuss on an article talk page, in Spanish, in the Spanish Wikipedia. If that is inconclusive, follow whatever dispute resolution procedures are available in the Spanish Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I'm sorry as the dispute in spanish, but a brief overview of the matter is: I believe the proper title of the page should be "Masacre de Apoquindo" or Apoquindo Massacre. This is due to two main reasons: the first is that it was in fact an event in which chilean police forces murdered innocent civilians as they surrounded insurgents who had stolen a bank. The second is that there was another "Caso Apoquindo" related to sexual abuse of children, and improper labeling of the incidents could cause confusion. Alpinu has reverted my changes without proper justification and has threatened for my account to be blocked due to "arbitrary changes" despite the fact that I gave an extensive justification when editing the page. They also deleted the category of "Masacres de Chile" with no primary or secondary sources backing up Alpinu's claims.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I tried discussing this on my own discussion page, where I was notified that I could be blocked due to arbitrary editing. [[2]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would like for you to review the evidence I brought forth arguing why it is more proper to a) have the title of the page be "Masacre de Apoquindo" (If it has to do with the page url, I can understand it being different) and b) why it should be included in the list of "Masacres de Chile".
Summary of dispute by Alpinu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Caso Apoquindo discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
What? This seemed to be something disruptive, both the filing party and the another party wasn't editing on such article and the talk page of this article is not exist. -Lemonaka 04:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be about es:Caso Apoquindo. @Frutillente: This noticeboard only deals with disputes in the english Wikipedia. If your dispute is on eswiki, you will need to follow whatever proccess eswiki has to solve editing disputes. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sorry to trouble you! Thank you for the help. Frutillente (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as declined to participate. Three of the editors have said that the request for moderated discussion is premature, and none of the other editors has said that they want moderated discussion. If there is a content issue, resume discussion on the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This article is about an organisation called GISAID which is behind a virus genome database. The database was established as a collaboration between the GISAID organisation and the Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics (SIB), whereby GISAID would provide funding for the SIB to establish the database. In 2009, the two organisations fell out with SIB disconnecting the database from GISAID, alleging that the agreed funding had not been provided. A legal dispute ensued, with GISAID suing the SIB. These events were covered in the media at the time, and are not for the most part in dispute here.
The outcome of this legal dispute was that GISAID (which had brought the action) was ordered in 2014 to pay $1M to the SIB. This is attested to by primary sources from the legal action, a secondary legal source, and most recently a news article in Science magazine. The current dispute is over whether it is reasonable to include the outcome of this legal dispute in some form in the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Providing mediation, advice on Wikipedia policy, and advice on next steps.
Summary of dispute by BD2412
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It is a bit premature to bring this issue to DRN. I see that not all participants in the discussion appear to have been notified/listed as participants.
With respect to the point in contention, which is a court decision awarding arbitration damages in a proceeding well after the dispute itself was effectively resolved, there is an absence of consensus on the question of whether this information is at all noteworthy. As explained repeatedly in the discussion, outcomes on post-litigation motions are run-of-the-mill occurrances that are routinely excluded from articles on entities because they will inherently be WP:UNDUE. Properly explaining the actual legal insignificance of such an occurrance would take a disproportionate amount of text in the article. There are sources that discuss the effect of the 2009 dispute on the actions of the parties. There is, as noted in the discussion, no source that specifies that because of the 2014 decision, anything at all changed with respect to the parties. The important information is already in the article, and editors on the talk page are welcome to try and generate a consensus there before escalating this here. BD2412T 16:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I did not want to spam editors who had only made passing comments in this dispute, but have now notified/added all editors. The existing talk discussion on this issue has involved 48 messages to date. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AppleBsTime
Agree with the comments of User:BD2412 that this seems an unnecessary escalation, and if the complaint were to be accepted, it's contrary to WP:UNDUE. I have a hard time seeing how a dispute that had no visible impact on either of the involved entities is encyclopedic in nature. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by CNMall41
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It can be very frustrating for new editors to understand why good articles will include or exclude certain things. I think BD has done a very patient job of explaining this, in this situation.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
GISAID discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Windows 11 version history
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Awesome Aasim on 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC).
Closed as premature. Neither the discussion on the article talk page nor the discussion on a user talk page has at least two posts by each of two users over a period of more than 24 hours. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new case can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I am trying to remove the latest version content that has been split onto a separate page because I believe that listing it on the main page would result in violations of Wikipedia policies like WP:NOTCHANGELOG. However, I have not gotten any response, and any attempt to reinstate my edit has resulted in further reverts. I have pinged them on the talk page but they have not responded.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
It might be helpful to discuss whether this split is actually in line with policy, or if the old content is in line with policy, or both, or neither. I do want an uninvolved opinion from other experienced editors into the matter to see which one is better.
Summary of dispute by Asdasf asdas
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Edgardo Aurellano
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Windows 11 version history discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. There has been intermittent discussion, but the discussion should include at least two posts by each editor within 24 hours. Resume discussion on the talk page. If discussion is inconclusive and lengthy, a new case request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User D Lazard keeps removing well-known connections between the dual numbers and more advanced topics in mathematics. These connections are well known as I have found from discussions with algebraic geometers, logicians and topos theorists. In particular, the spectrum of the dual numbers is well-known (at least, among the algebraic geometers I've spoken to) as a simple example of a non-reduced scheme. For logicians and topos theorists, the dual numbers show up explicitly in Lawvere's Synthetic differential geometry. The dual numbers are also mentioned by name in the article on Exalcomm.
Lazard argues that there aren't any references to this by name in the literature. I personally doubt it, but I haven't worked deeply enough in the above areas to be sure that he's wrong. I've certainly spoken to experts in the above areas and these connections are known to them under the explicit name dual numbers.
The edit war story is this: Some users added this advanced material some years ago. Then Lazard removed the material. Then I reverted Lazard's revert 2 years ago. Then Lazard reverted my revert just after. 2 years later, I've restored the material, and begun this process here. We haven't heard any 3rd opinions yet. I might've been too hasty in reverting. Thank you.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk page discussion where only myself and Lazard have participated.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Say whether the material should be kept. Or satisfy Lazard's concerns.
Dual numbers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dhaka
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by UnpetitproleX on 14:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC).
Closed as no response. Neither of the other editors has responded, three days after they were notified of this filing. Neither of the other editors has edited within the past five days. The filing editor should edit boldly to include the material that they previously added that was reverted. If the other editors resume editing and revert the edits again, the filing editor should discuss on the article talk page. The other editors are advised to discuss rather than reverting without discussion. The filing party may use a Request for Comments if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I edited the Dhaka article to add content about partition-related history (in particular the partition-induced demographic shifts in the city), using three scholarly sources. An editor seems adamant that these will not be added to the page, and keeps reverting every edit related to it that I make to the article (123). Despite multiple requests for sources on the talk page to demonstrate why the content doesn’t belong in the article, the editor hasn’t really come up with any sources. My sources, to which I’ve added another (non-scholarly) one, are available here.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
At the very least a solid reason for why scholarly-cited additions to the article do not belong there.
Summary of dispute by A.Musketeer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Solomon The Magnifico
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dhaka discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I had been busy elsewhere. Done now. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Question: Seeing that it is now the fourth day since this began, and the other editor does not seem to participate at all, can the silence be taken as no objection? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as also pending in another dispute resolution forum. There is also an RFC, which was also submitted by the filing editor. DRN does not consider any dispute that is also pending in another forum. Let the RFC run for the remainder of its 30 days. Report disruptive editing of the RFC at WP:ANI. Discussion can and should take place on the article talk page, Talk:Charles III, both in the RFC section and elsewhere on the talk page. The task force had an overly optimistic schedule if the plan was to resolve the dispute by 6 May and promote the article to Good Article status. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is over changing the opening sentence of the "Accession and coronation plans" section. Three editors favour the change: 1, 2, and 3. Two editors do not: [1, 2. The remainder of those working on the article appear to be neutral. There has been extensive discussion. However, the situation is now a basic edit-war; one party no longer engages in discussion; the others have reached the point of repeating themselves. This is within the context of a taskforce working over the past couple of months to get the article to GA status ahead of the article subject's coronation on 6 May; the dispute appears to be the one thing now preventing that from happening.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Assist with encouraging some editors to communicate with cogent arguments, show flexibility, and a willingness to compromise in order to find a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible, given the article taskforce's looming deadline.
Summary of dispute by Miesianiacal
The article has been the focus of a taskforce over the past couple of months aiming to get it to GA status ahead of Charles' coronation on 6 May.
Within that effort, it was agreed to conduct a brief RfC on the article's first sentence, to give guidance on what to do with said sentence before the deadline of 5 May.
With the outcome of that RfC becoming clearer as the taskforce's deadline approaches, editors began trying to make edits to other parts of the article body that work in conjunction with the article opening, expanding on the brief first sentence of the lede; first in the lede's fourth paragraph (not the best place, IMHO), then in the "Accession and coronation plans" section (which fits better with the purpose of the lede-body relationship, as defined by WP:LEDE).
Every attempt, however, is simply reverted.
Tries have been made at discussing the matter. However, as I see it, neither party opposed to the changes has presented a credible reasoning for their actions and have been relying on reverting. One is now aiming to start an RfC in the hopes that will render their preferred wording in the article inviolable until well past coronation day.
This dispute is now one of the reasons GA status is being held off. Some editors are flexible and open to compromise. An injection of impartial, fresh input is required. --₪MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 109.etc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DeCausa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GoodDay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm still planning an RFC, concerning this content dispute. In the meantime, I'll wait until the current 'lead' RFC concludes. As for 'here', I'll wait & see, what the other parties input are. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by DrKay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed for various reasons. First, the filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. Second, there is also a Request for Comments in progress at the article talk page. DRN does not discuss an article that is also the subject of other dispute resolution processes including RFC. Third, the filing editor does not seem to be reporting a dispute about article content, so much as a concern about overall bias of the article. A concern about overall bias in an article is a neutrality concern, which is the purpose of the neutral point of view noticeboard. The Neutral Point of View Noticeboard will be a better forum for this concern. File a report at NPOVN that you think that the article is biased, beginning with the lede paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This page is evidently biased from the first paragraph, there is an attempt to dismiss and downplay the love jihad as just a conspiracy theory and clear bigotry against hindus by stating that "Hindu women are possessions of men". The editor outrightly refuses to accept a report from Times of India stating it is not reliable. But at the same time the same page has 24 references stories from times of India.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This page should be unbiased and neutral based on facts and not allow jihadi sympathisers to vandalise the page to suite their agenda. There is an attempt to dismiss and downplay the Love jihad angle like the london grooming gangs. A lone wolf terror attack is still a terrorist act. By dismissing love jihad as just a conspiracy theory this page is being unfair to the victims of love jihad. There are cases of Nimisha fathima, who is in afghan jail after being victim of love jihad.
Love jihad discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as declined by other editor. Participation in DRN is voluntary. I will not offer an opinion on whether the talk page discussion has been sufficient. The editors should continue to discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Aryan race. The editors should be aware that the topic is a contentious topic because the concept of an Aryan race is pseudo-science. Do not edit-war. If the filing editor thinks that the other editor is stonewalling, a Request for Comments may be appropriate. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, or at Arbitration Enforcement if the party being reported has been alerted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
On a series of 12 changes, I made certain improvements to the article content: I copy-edited parts of the content, added material complimenting previous concepts briefly introduced, added citations to academic dissertations, and added a cleanup tag to a paragraph that violated the original research policy. However, all of these changes were mass-reverted by an editor stating that none of these changes made any improvement to the article. It was further reverted by another involved editor for pretty much the same reason, but this editor has not discussed it on the talk page yet. I have explained in extensive detail and provided context to every diff I made, but I have not received an explanation from both the involved editors and the discussion was stonewalled.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I believe the changes I made definitely made improvements to the article, and therefore I would like to restore the changes. The discussion was stonewalled on the talk page, and it is going nowhere. So I would like someone to intervene to resolve the dispute on whether it improves the articles and therefore be restored or not.
Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will not be participating in this DR, as the issue has not yet been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
BTW, I am not watching this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Czello
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Aryan race discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page and the involved editor has been WP:STONEWALLING and reluctant to adopt the proposed change and insisting on status quo stonewalling without a legitimate reason. --WikiLinuz {talk} 01:31, 4 May 2023 (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.
Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service
Closed. Being discussed in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Posted a Help request on the Talk Page, and was advised to raise a dispute here.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please refer to the opening argument I posted in the Help request on the Talk Page for Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. I argue that the rule Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Institutions adduced by User:Neils51 undermines their argument to make 'commission' generic, and in fact states the opposite. 'The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service' in its shorter form is 'the Royal Commission', or 'the Commission', as has been with the article since its creation, until today.
Summary of dispute by Neils51
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Since this is a capitalization issue rather than an article content issue, I will suggest that the filing editor request a Third Opinion as a lighter-weight process, because a volunteer here will probably also provide a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Thank you. At the time of filing, the issue was already posted to the article talk page, and pinged. This has now been raised here. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not accepted. The other editor has not edited the encyclopedia in five days, and as a result has not responded in five days. The filing editor may edit the article boldly, but be ready to discuss on the article talk page. If the other editor, who edits sporadically, returns, a new request for moderated discussion can be opened here, but an RFC is usually a better way to resolve a dispute with a sporadic editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is about certain lines on the page which are possibly violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies and are not properly sourced. I made some edits tomorrow which were reverted by TrangaBellam. The first issue is regarding an unsourced line regarding "conservative media". This is not mentioned in any of the cited sources and is clearly WP:OR - Have the editors who wrote this analyzed all of the reviews and concluded that "favorable reviews" (according to them) are only present in "conservative media" (Editors have decided political leanings)? The second is about an American political incident, the cited source is this. This article is about an interview with Tony Abbott about India so ideally it should be mentioned in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Salvatore_Babones#India, not in the United States section. Please note that I am not familiar with American politics so there might be things here I'm ignorant about but this dispute is only about the application of relevant policies and guidelines.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A neutral and experienced editor can provide opinions about the application of relevant policies and examine whether those lines are violating the policies or not.
Summary of dispute by TrangaBellam
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Salvatore Babones discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Péter Eckstein-Kovács
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Biruitorul on 05:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Closed. An RFC is being used to resolve the question. Discussion should be on the article talk page, in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the lead section of the article, do we mention the subject’s ethnicity, or do we wait until the first words of the body (one paragraph later) to do that?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please offer an opinion in line with the guideline.
Summary of dispute by Gyalu22
The MOS:ETHNICITY guideline (second example description) instructs the mentioning of the person's ethnicity in the second sentence of the lead. Biruitorul and Aristeus01 reverted the change and hold that Eckstein-Kovács's ethnicity should be completely omitted from the lead despite he, for most of his career was part of an exclusively Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests. They refused to react to my reason for changing during the whole talk page discussion. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Aristeus01
I think the conversation on the talk page says it all. Although consensus was reached, gyalu22 continues to disagree. Another opinion would be more than welcomed.--Aristeus01 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Péter Eckstein-Kovács discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Volunteer Question - Why is there a hatnote about his personal name? That is, why is it necessary to distinguish the native form of his name from Western name order? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this is fairly standard practice for biographies of (ethnic) Hungarian people, all the way up to Viktor Orbán or Franz Liszt. — BiruitorulTalk 04:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs)
I am ready to act as the moderator. The editors should read the ground rules and indicate whether they want moderated discussion. Is the only question whether his ethnicity should be mentioned in the lede sentence? The hatnote states that the native form of his name is family name followed by given name, which is Hungarian usage. Is that in itself a reason why his ethnicity should be mentioned?
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The disagreement is only centred around the lead section. To my understanding the reason invoked for mentioning the ethnicity does not relate to name order but to the relevance of his ethnicity in his political career, plainly speaking being Hungarian he joined UDMR, a political party for Hungarian minority. My reasoning is that the reason for joining a political party or another is not a notable achievement for Wikipedia. --Aristeus01 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I too agree with moderation; thank you for your willingness to help. The dispute does not have to do with the hatnote. Rather, it revolves around whether the lead section (above “Biography”) should mention his ethnicity. Aristeus01 and I argue that the answer is no. This view is grounded in MOS:ETHNICITY and in the fact that all similar articles — biographies of politicians who belong to ethnic-minority parties — follow the same principle: mention citizenship and party in the lead, ethnicity in the body. — BiruitorulTalk 17:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I expressed doubts about the correctness of taking this dispute to noticeboard reading the informal, but if Robert McClenon doesn't hesitate starting the dispute resolution, I only thank his help in it.
Following the guideline cited above by Biruitorul, it's needless to add the ethnicity of the person if it isn't relevant to his career, so this isn't only about that. In the case of Eckstein-Kovács, ethnicity does define importance. He spent most of his political career as a prominent member of an exclusively Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests. The guideline puts its directions regarding this situation as "the second example is someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country (...) we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance." Gyalu22 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
So in the case of Péter Eckstein-Kovács ethnicity is of defining importance for joining city council, or for becoming a deputy? Aristeus01 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I repeat than: he spent most of his political career as a prominent member of an exclusively Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests.
Are we allowed to do these side-discourses here? It was the talk page where you should've looked to engage in a non-moderated argument. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
”Exclusively Hungarian” is factually incorrect; they’ve had ethnic Romanian candidates in the past. — BiruitorulTalk 04:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs)
Please read the rules again. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the space reserved for the purpose. Is the only issue whether to list his ethnicity (Hungarian) in the lede paragraph? Two reasons have been mentioned why his ethnicity is significant, the first being his involvement in a political party for the Hungarian minority in Romania, and the second being that the native form of his name, which is noted in the hatnote, is a Hungarian name. What are the reasons for not identifying his ethnicity "up front"? Are there any other issues?
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs)
To begin with, the hatnote is not controversial. The article’s subject is ethnic Hungarian (nobody disputes that), and it’s normal to place it there.
Moving on: MOS:ETHNICITY states that “in most modern-day cases”, we put citizenship in the lead, and that ethnicity “should generally not be in the lead”. Yes, exceptions can be made, but there really isn’t a compelling case here. We mention his party in the lead (complete with the word “Hungarian” in it, so it would sort of be overkill to hammer that theme twice in the same sentence), we mention his ethnicity right off the bat in the body of the article.
Is his ethnicity relevant to his notability? To some extent that’s subjective, but I think not, simply because his notability rests on the fact that he was a member of parliament. Yes, he happened to be elected for a largely ethnic Hungarian party, but he’s notable because he was in parliament, not because he’s ethnically Hungarian. — BiruitorulTalk 20:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Péter Eckstein-Kovács notability comes mostly from his work, as a politician, around minority rights. While not entirely said in the article, he spoke and acted against antisemitism, discrimination of Rroma (Romani) people, and the scarcity of rights for LGBT community. He also resigned from UDMR in 2018 citing discontent with the conservative line followed by the party. Hence, his notability is for defending human rights and minority rights in general, and not specifically Hungarian minority rights, even less so Hungarian minority political representation in Romania (since he resigned from the party). Since notability is the root for MOS:Ethnicity and his activity is beyond Hungarian minority rights, acting (officially and unofficially) on behalf of Romania, his ethnicity expressly added in the lead does not ”link”.--Aristeus01 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs)
It appears that the only issue is the lede sentence. If there are any other issues, please identify them. I am asking each editor to propose what they think should be the lede sentence. Just propose the lede sentence. If you want to state why that is your preference, you may do so in the space for back-and-forth discussion. After that, I will ask each editor whether they will accept any of the other proposed lede sentences. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs)
Péter Eckstein-Kovács (born July 5, 1956) is a Romanian lawyer and a liberal politician. Between February 1999-November 2000 he was the Minister of Minority Affairs in Romania, and between January 2009 and September 2011 he was the President's Advisor on Minority Affairs, a position he resigned from in disagreement with the presidential stand on Roșia Montană Project.
He was a member of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies for Cluj County from 1990 to 1992, a member of the Cluj-Napoca city council from 1992 to 1996, and, as a member of the Romanian Senate between 2004-2008, he was the chairman of its Committee on Legal, Disciplinary, Immune, Justifying and European Affairs.
A former member of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), he resigned in 2018 citing disagreement with the party's policy on legal issues. --Aristeus01 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
^Haskell CF, Kennedy DO, Milne AL, Wesnes KA, Scholey AB (February 2008). "The effects of L-theanine, caffeine and their combination on cognition and mood". Biological Psychology. 77 (2): 113–122. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.09.008. PMID18006208. S2CID3772348.
^Owen GN, Parnell H, De Bruin EA, Rycroft JA (August 2008). "The combined effects of L-theanine and caffeine on cognitive performance and mood". Nutritional Neuroscience. 11 (4): 193–198. doi:10.1179/147683008X301513. PMID18681988. S2CID46326744.
I agree that the participants should not edit war parallel to this DR. That and the CANVAS at WT:MED make it hard to use DR.
Reflecktor: You are – again – posting these very well regarded PRIMARYs without WP:SECONDARY. I – again – support this but you should provide the SECONDARYs. Experience tells me that won't solve the problem, but it will convince other editors such as Bon Courage and will accelerate RSN if this goes to RSN. Bon Courage was wrong to call these crappy but few users will verify for themselves.
(Tangentially, User:Bon courage/Crying "MEDRS!" is funny because I agree, but it seems especially written for someone…who is not Reflecktor.)
Go somewhere else to quarrel. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is this? I explicitly opted out of this DR so why am I being tagged in? What has WP:CRYMEDRS go to do with it? It wasn't "especially written" for Reflektor - I had no idea Reflektor existed when I wrote it so what is being suggested here?. The problem at Theanine is not WP:CRYMEDRS; rather the opposite: trying to use rubbishy sources for human health content. Bon courage (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't tag you and I do not refer to Reflektor. If necessary we can discuss elsewhere. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
what? what does "someone…who is not Reflecktor" mean then? Are you actually saying something or just trying to stir up trouble with vague comments? Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Theanine)
I have posted an inquiry to the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the sentence in question. Are there any other issues, or should we wait for a response from RSN?
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statements by Zefr (Theanine)
Ninth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine)
This secondary source states that in isolation theanine "has little effect on attention switching accuracy in the first hour and only marginal effects on accuracy in the second hour" and that when combined with caffeine, it was "found to induce increases in attention switching accuracy during both the first and second hours postdose of small-moderate effect size". Reflecktor (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Theanine)
Please see the response from the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The sentence in question was seen as being supported only by primary sources and not by medically reliable secondary sources. Does this resolve this article content issue, or are there any other issues that need to be addressed?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statements by Zefr (Theanine)
Dispute resolved and I am finished here. Thanks for your work, Robert. Zefr (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine)
Back-and-forth discussion (Theanine)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed due to no response. The other editors have not replied when asked whether they want moderated discussion. The lack of a response indicate a lack of interest in moderated discussion. Regular discussion at the article talk page should resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The A-10 article has a paragraph that I believe is basically entirely flawed. It presents vague, cherry picked misinformation taken out of context, as well paraphrasing that, as far as I can tell, misrepresents the information in the source.
I have brought up these concerns on the talk page, I have made three very modest attempts to correct some of the issues I have with paragraph. These have all been reverted. Sometimes vague justifications have been given for parts of the reverts, others have been done with no justification other than reverting to the old status quo with no justification.
The editors that have reverted all changes refuse to justify or even discuss their positions, reverting any changes, only making ominous remarks.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There seems to be an impasse. Communications... well, I'd say they've broken down, but they never existed in the first place. Bringing this dispute to a larger audience may help the consensus building process or somehow foster communication between the parties of the dispute.
Summary of dispute by Pbritti
I reverted a couple times after the initial edit(s) were reverted because it was obvious that the there was disagreement on the talk page regarding the content before my involvement. I asked Fanccr to explain their edits more succinctly and clearly and to refrain from continuing what was becoming an edit war. They did not do those things. This isn't a dispute of content for me, as I can't even figure out what Fanccr is trying to say in both their article edits and talk page posts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This conversation should have been left at the talk page. Fanccr is a very new editor who, in turning to dispute resolution the instant other editor(s) disagreed or asked for clarification, looks like someone here not for discussion but something else. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Hohum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As far as I can see, I haven't reverted Fanccr. I gave advice that they need to make concrete edit suggestions, not ask rhetorical questions and make accusations. I have no significant opinion on the content changes, other than that need to follow wikipedia policies. Bringing the issue to the aircraft or military history wikiprojects attention might have been move useful than here. (Hohum@) 18:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by ZLEA
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I had reverted Fanccr because they removed the sourced information before a consensus could be established. Fanccr was right to bring up their concerns on the talk page, but when they didn’t get their way, they chose to start an edit war. Furthermore, Fanccr has failed to provide a convincing argument or even alternative sources to back up their claims that the information in question is “cherry picked misinformation taken out of context”, having only presented a few rhetorical questions, which they later answered with original research. - ZLEAT\C 19:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe this is a case for DRN. As Fanccr themselves said, communications "never existed in the first place." If Fanccr wants to "bring this dispute to a larger audience", they should go to the article's WikiProjects before DRN. - ZLEAT\C 01:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Thunderbolt)
It is not entirely clear from some of the statements how many of the parties want moderated dispute resolution. Please read the ground rules, and then state whether you want to take part in moderated discussion. If two or more editors who disagree about content want moderated discussion, then we will have moderated discussion. Otherwise I will close this case and tell the editors to discuss on the article talk page.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Thunderbolt)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not properly started. The filing editor has not listed the other editors or notified them on their talk pages, two days after being asked to list and notify them. The filing editor also has not edited in the past three days, but that does not give them any more time in which to request dispute resolution. When the filing editor returns to editing, they may resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Animation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is over the images that were discovered on a vase in the burnt city. A month ago, after long discussions, we agreed on how to narrate this issue on the animation page based on the sources. After a month, one of the involved users deleted the article without a new discussion and agreement on the excuse that the text was too long. I could not satisfy him by summarizing the text and an editorial war occurred.
The sources clearly say so in this case:
According to historian Richard Foltz, this animated vase, made in Iran, is perhaps the world's first example of animation.[1] .The animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery. [2]
Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi is one of the most famous scientists in the history of animation. Why shouldn't his opinion on this be covered on Wikipedia?
Not only the comments of Mr. Richard Foltz, who is a historian, are deleted, but the expert comments of Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi are also deleted. This has no justification, it is just a matter of taste.
I think you should check what the authoritative sources say and quote them in the article.
My suggested text to cover this topic:
An animated vase, made in eastern Iran in the late third millennium BCE, is possibly the worlds earliest example of animation or the forerunner in this field. when it is spun, the gazelle appears to leap.
Animation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. The filing editor should list the other editors and notify them on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as declined. The filing party notified the other editor, User:Hipal, on their talk page, User talk:Hipal, and Hipal erased the notice. That is a valid method of declining to take part in moderated discussion, which is voluntary, although it is an unfriendly and obscure method of declining. User:Hipal - Please don't erase noticeboard notices. It confuses people. It is less unfriendly to state that one is declining the invitation than to erase it, and the erasing confuses people. Resume discussion at Talk:Sam Altman. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I edited the page to include information about Sam Altman's 3x participation in the Bilderberg group, and it was quickly reverted by Hipal. When I asked about it on the talk page, he accused me of self-promotion. I'm not affiliated with Altman or the Bilderberg Group and the language I used in my edit was neutral. Sam Altman's Bilderberg membership is relevant, is supported by external references, and Bilderberg membership is included in other BLP articles. I don't think it's fair that he can claim my edit is "most definitely self-promotion by Bilderberg Group" with impunity and use it as an excuse to power trip.
I also noticed in the edit history for this page that Hipal had been reverting other users' edits. At the time I fixed it, the page stated incorrectly that "OpenAI was founded as a capped-profit company", something directly contradicted by the source (which is a blog from when OpenAI was founded, stating it is a non-profit in the first line). Hipal had been reverting two other users' attempts to correct this sentence citing "no ref indicated", "needs review to meet independent sources". I corrected the sentence myself and added an extra source (which should negate the reason he reverted the other edits), and Hipal swiftly responded by deleting the entire sentence, commenting "trim - this article is about the person". This just seems spiteful considering he had recently acted twice before (including less than 24h ago...) to preserve the sentence, while it was objectively false no less.
His short response + bizarre accusations + reverts quickly cut off opportunity for discussion and I don't think he's being sincere, so I came here.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
You could help by providing a third party perspective and by recommending persisting my edits. I don't think Hipal is acting in good faith but I think he would likely defer to an external authority since he seems to be a long-time editor. I mostly just want my edits to stick.
Summary of dispute by Hipal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sam Altman discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note:The filing editor has not notified the other involved editor. The filing editor should notify that editor on their talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified the other editor on their user talk page, but the other editor removed the notification with the edit summary, "Premature". Participation in DRN is voluntary. Discussion should continue on the article talk page, Talk:Sam Altman. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
