English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 174

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

__ARCHIVEDTALK__

Locking pliers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Andy Dingley on 11:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Locking pliers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) Equinox (talk · contribs) Hoary (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Locking pliers is an accepted generic title. Commercial brands are (US) Vise-Grips and (UK) Mole wrenches. Vise / Vice is a commonplace US/UK s/c spelling difference. "Vice grip" is widely seen as a UK (possibly more Australian) local respelling of "Vise Grip" into the local spelling of "vice". That much is, I think accepted. Now, the question is, should the lead of this article give "vice grip" as an alternate name, and do this in Wikipedia's voice? i.e, should WP propagate a common misspelling as if it were a more formal name? This mis-spelling is even rarer in the UK, as "Mole wrenches" are more numerous and their name is used widely and generically. Have you tried to resolve this previously? How do you think we can help? Should WP's voice be used here, to present this with the weight of an alternate name (recent versions have scatter-gunned every possible combination of hyphenation too, which is even more unclear). Or should this be presented as a mis-spelling, although still in the lead? Is that useful (we don't normally concern ourselves with listing obvious and trivial mis-spellings). Summary of dispute by Equinox Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hoary I hadn't thought that en:WP had a responsibility to avoid "propagat[ing] a common misspelling"; anyway, a spelling of a word (as opposed to a name) that appears in multiple printed sources worth taking seriously is no longer a mere misspelling, whether or not one likes the spelling or chooses to use it oneself. No, there's no pressing need to mention "vice grip" (or any other orthographic variation on "Vise-Grip") in the first sentence. However, the sentence that now reads "Mole" and "Vise-Grip" are trade names of different brands of locking pliers, yet mechanics and do-it-yourself hobbyists and craftspeople generically refer to locking pliers as "Vise-Grips" in the US, and "Mole wrenches" in the UK would be beneficially replaced by something like "Vise-Grip" and "Mole" are trade names of different brands of locking pliers, yet mechanics, DIY hobbyists and craftspeople refer to locking pliers generically as "vise-grips" (particularly in the US) and "mole wrenches" (particularly in the UK), with minor variations of spelling. ("Spelling" here used with unusually but I think permissibly wide reference: I'm trying to avoid "orthography" as a much less widely known term.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Very minor rephrasing of the recommended text -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Locking pliers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) They're notified via the article talk: page, where they're both active. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2019 (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.

Talk:People's Mujahedin of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Kazemita1 on 06:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:People's Mujahedin of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days  Users involved Kazemita1 (talk · contribs) Alex-h (talk · contribs) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) Saff V. (talk · contribs) Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs) Mhhossein (talk · contribs) Forest90 (talk · contribs) Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) El_C (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A group of editors based on sources shown in the following link believe a sub-section with title "Ties to KGB" is due for inclusion in the MEK article. The other group disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=889238040 Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have inquired about it on WP:RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=895595162&oldid=895595035 How do you think we can help? Please, resolve whether having a section is due or undue given the sources mentioned in the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=889238040 Summary of dispute by Alex-h Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Icewhiz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Saff V. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sa.Vakilian Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mhhossein Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Forest90 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Stefka Bulgaria Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by El_C I, actually, am the uninvolved admin who encountered this dispute through a report on An3 (perm link). I subsequently fully-protected the article for four days. El_C 07:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:People's Mujahedin of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days 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.

Cartoon Network

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Electricburst1996 on 14:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? No, but others have. Location of dispute Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Electricburst1996 (talk · contribs) HappyINC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview HappyINC keeps re-adding information on the recent Cartoon Network website hacks. I maintain the position that the information is not relevant to the article, since the hackings did not affect the United States Cartoon Network site. Another issue I have with HappyINC's edit is that it uses loaded words and phrases like "causing a shocking outrage to viewers". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Although I haven't really taken any steps, a talk page discussion was started by other users, with User:HurricaneGeek2002 saying it's not very significant and should not be added. So far, that's the only input given on the matter in that discussion. How do you think we can help? I think taking this matter to DRN will allow a consensus on this issue to be formed by allowing multiple editors to weigh in. Summary of dispute by HappyINC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cartoon Network 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.

Talk:Sampling (music)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Popcornduff on 11:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sampling (music) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Popcornduff (talk · contribs) Liftarn (talk · contribs) Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I and another editor, Liftarn, disagree over whether to include a paragraph in the article Sampling (music) in the section " Legal and ethical issues". The paragraph summarises a case of plagiarism in a particular song by Timbaland. We seem to agree that the section should not merely list every case of plagiarism in sampling history. Instead, cases should only be included if they've had a notable impact on legal and ethical issues in sampling. We disagree about whether the sources demonstrate this. Sergecross73 responded to a request for comment and felt the paragraph should not be included. The discussion has lasted over a month, with no consensus in sight. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Placed a request for further opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums 11 days ago. So far, only Sergecross73 has responded. How do you think we can help? We need some more experienced editors to review the sources and help reach a consensus about whether they justify the content. Summary of dispute by Liftarn The Timbaland plagiarism controversy gives a description of the case in question. It is an interesting example since Timbaland refereed to what he did as "sampling" when what he did was mute the bassline, add some drums and song on top of an existing track and passed it off as his own work. This new and novel definition of what sampling is should be enough for the case to be included, but it has also have a lasting impact on what is called "collective forensic musicology" and it is used in books about music education. // Liftarn (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sergecross73 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Here’s my take on it, as the only person who looked into the dispute from the WikiProject notification. “Sampling” is a widely used technique in modern music. As is frequently an issue on Wikipedia, is “example bloat” - everyone always wants to add their preferred example to illustrate an idea. Because there are just thousands upon thousands of examples of sampling in music, Popcornduff requested that he prove his specific example regarding Timbaland was particularly noteworthy. He’s provided a couple relatively weak sources noting Timbalands sample usage, but no particular commentary on its importance or impact. He wants to make grand claims of importance, but popcornduff and I have pointed out that none of his sources back that claim. He insists they do. We’ve asked him to outline the exact content he’d add, and the exact content from the source he felt backed the assertions. He has so far refused to do so, stating he feels he has already proven his point (even though he’s 0 for 2 on convincing anyone.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC) List of sources from Liftarn Wow... There is a lot of them... That Timbaland plagiarised Sunni's track: Zeilinger, Martin J. (2013). "Chiptuning Intellectual Property: Digital Culture Between Creative Commons and Moral Economy". Journal of the International Association for the study of Popular Music. 3 (1). Cuepoint: Was Timbaland’s Skillful Sampling a Cultural Crime? "Chris Abbott: Doin' it for themselves: what's going on in Timbaland?". C64audio.com. 2007-01-18. Archived from the original on 2009-08-15. Retrieved 2010-02-28. That he refereed to it as sampling: "Elliot in the Morning - Timbaland interviewed transcript". Retrieved 2010-02-28. That is had a lasting impact: Tobias, Evan (1 sep. 2014). Promising Practices in 21st Century Music Teacher Education. Oxford University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780199384754. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Talk:Sampling (music) discussion  Note to participants: All participants have been informed of this dispute resolution request via their talkpage by me. Discussion will start only after all involved editors have given a summary of the dispute. MrClog (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: I hereby open this dispute resolution. Please note that this resolution is meant to find a compromise that you all can agree on, and that this resolution is non-binding (but it is very much requested that users do follow the agreed-to decision). @Liftarn: It seems like a good first step to me that you list all sources that support your side of the story under "List of sources from Liftarn". MrClog (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: @Liftarn: If possible, could you share the specific quote in which Evan Tobias says that it had a lasting impact, that would be great. Note that unless Tobias explicitly states that Timbaland plagiarising and calling it sampling had this lasting impact, it could be considered WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, you’ve pretty much experienced one full cycle of the looping argument we’ve had going on with Liftarn now. He’ll list off a few sources, but refuse to explain what in the source specifically verifies the claim. And while of course off-line sources are generally acceptable, his refusal to supply or understand the issue here - that we need a source that explains impact specifically - makes me rather wary to be persuaded by a source I can’t verify the contents of personally. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)*{{  Volunteer note: @Sergecross73: @Liftarn: @Popcornduff: I have managed to find an online version of the book Liftarn uses as source, and the closest to the "lasting impact" claim I could find was this: The phenomenon surfaced throughout the Internet and eventually in mainstream media sources across the world, forcing Timbaland to address the issue in interviews. Even after the case was officially closed in 2007 (according to a statement by the original composer of “Acidjazzed Evening”), the discourse continued through text-based comments and video responses posted on YouTube or related sites, a process that continues years later. Note: This is part of a copyrighted work of Evan Tobias, shared under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law. From my perspective, this doesn't prove that there was this lasting impact, therefore making it WP:SYNTH. Thoughts (especially from Liftarn)? Also, saying that the fact that it is used as an example in the book proves it had this impact is also SYNTH. --MrClog (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, you citing SYNTH runs parallel with our claims of “not being supported by source” - I think we’re all arguing the same thing against Liftarn here. It’s been days here, and had been going for days at the talk page prior, and there’s still no actually excerpts from reliable sources. I’m getting the vibe Liftarn doesn’t have anything specific prose in a source to verify his claim, or he would have presented it by now... Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Please explain how WP:SYNTH is applicable here as there is no synthesis. FYI, there is en entire section of the book with the title "Timbaland steals music? A case of collective forensic musicology". // Liftarn (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Let's use the ABC structure: Timbaland said his plagariasm was sampling ("A") and this is used in a book as example ("B"). You argued that it therefore had a lasting impact ("therefore C"), but this violates WP:SYNTH, which states: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. I have read the part on Timbaland in the book and nowhere does it seem to say and/or explain that the example had a lasting impact. MrClog (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC) That is incorrect. A and B are not connected, thus it's no synthesis. The lasting impact is implied with the phrase "continues years later". // Liftarn (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Timbaland justified plagariasm with sampling ("A"), this has been discussed for years ("B"), therefore it had a lasting impact ("therefore C"). The source doesn't argue that C is true. THe fact that the case has been discussed for many years doesn't neceessarily prove it had a lasting impact. You should bring WP:RS that say that it had a "lasting impact", and saying that the fact it has been discussed for many years proofs this impact is WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC) No, it has been discussed for years, thus is had a lasting impact. "A" does not enter into it. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Certain murder cases have been discussed for years, yet they had no lasting impact on the legal/ethical aspect of murder. "Discussed for years" doesn't necessarily mean "lasting impact". MrClog (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Thank you. That is finally a valid argument instead of the straw man. It certainly changed the interpretation of the Berne convention and US law. See International Copyright Law: U.S. and E.U. Perspectives: Text and Cases (p. 198-204). Also see Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective (chapter 13). // Liftarn (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC) If you can’t find a source that directly states it, then it’s not a valid addition according to Wikipedia policy. It’s original research to equate “lots of mentions” to “lasting impact”. If you can’t pull an excerpt from a source that directly verified your addition, it’s either WP:SYNTH or a source verification error. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Oh, like "The decision is notable for its sweeping conclusion as to what constitutes a U.S. work under § 411."[1] // Liftarn (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC) That seems like a good source that supports your claim to me. @Sergecross73: @Popcornduff: What do you think? MrClog (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't buy it. The source, if I'm reading it correctly, states that in this case the court decided the work in question could be considered a US work. The source then gives an example of another, later case, when a different court reached the opposite conclusion. I think the "sweeping conclusion" here means that the court's conclusion about which works fall under US copyright was "sweeping" (ie included a lot of different works), not that it had a sweeping effect. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Your claim seems to be unsupported by the source as it says "Given the ramifications of the ruling in Kernel, the case may well go up on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.". Another article says "As a result of this decision, foreign authors face increased uncertainty as to whether the provisions of the Berne Convention will serve to exempt them from the copyright registration requirements applicable to owners of U.S. works."[2] and "the court’s decision adds yet another reason to the long list of reasons why foreign authors should consider timely registration of their works with the U.S. Copyright Office, despite the exemptions provided by the Berne Convention."[3] // Liftarn (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC) That 1) is all speculative, with no examples of how it has changed anything and 2) describes US copyright law generally, n:ot sampling specifically. This really isn't a great or necessary example of an ethical and legal issue in sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Liftarn, what do you think about Popcornduff's comment? MrClog (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC) He is entitled to his opinion, but I think the facts speak for themselves. // Liftarn (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Uhhhh it really feels like Popcornduff’s statement would require a bit more of a rebuttal from you here if you’re deciding to stick to your guns on this. Usually when someone says “there’s no evidence”, you...counter it with evidence...? Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Sergecross, what do you think of Lifturn's newest sources? Popcornduff (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC) He didn't say there isn't an evidence (as there is). He just don't like it. Facts should matter, not personal taste. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley have indeed (as the sources say) had a major impact on how internationally copyright law is interpreted in the US. While the impact is on anything published online it stems from a case of sampling. // Liftarn (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC) But time and time again, you cant (or aren’t) explaining how. You say “no you’re wrong” and “look at the source” but you never really explain your understanding of what the source says other than a basic “the source says so”. It’s clear you’re adamantly arguing something...but it continually feels like you yourself don’t even understand the crux of your own argument. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC) OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler way. Don't hesitate to ask if something is unclear. Timbaland found a track by Glenn Rune Gallefoss. He muted the bassline, added drums and song. He then published it as his own work (for simplicities sake we can leave out the ethical aspects of that). This he (and several media articles) refereed to as sampling. OK, so this is a case of sampling according to himself and several sources. You with me? It later went to court as Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley. So we have a court case about sampling. In the case it was ruled that if you published something on a diskette in Australia it was a US work. This reversed the precedence from Moberg v. 33T LLC. Possibly as a revenge for Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick. Anyway, as the sources say this new way to interpret the jurisdiction of works published digitally is a major game changer. // Liftarn (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC) It's the final part we're questioning: "a major game changer". I don't see how the sources you have provided demonstrates how the game has changed, for the reasons I gave above. Can you address those concerns?Popcornduff (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I'm thinking about this some more, because I'm trying to figure out how we'd incorporate what you're saying here into the article, if we were to do it. I actually have no idea, based on your summary above, what the outcome for Timbaland was. I tried reading the Timbaland plagiarism controversy article, but it's not clear there either, and it's not an easy article to read generally. I tried rereading the source mentioning the "sweeping changes" we discussed before, but it seems to have been moved behind a paywall - perhaps something has changed on my end? As best as I can manage right now, the relevant parts of what you're arguing should actually amount to something like this (very different from what you've added to the Sampling (music) article so far): In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after sampling a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published every country with internet service, including the US. The work therefore satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission. Does that look reasonable to you? But please note that I would not advocate to include this in the article, as it lacks the critical element: what makes this different from any of the thousands of other plagiarism and sampling disputes, why is this more important, what lasting impact has this had? I can't find anything in the sources we can use to add to the text I wrote above. Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC) In short the case caused a fundamental shift in how online publication and international copyrights work. Basically the court threw out the Berne convention. That is no small thing. // Liftarn (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC) And yet the same source also says that in another, later case, a different court reached the opposite conclusion, indicating that it might have had no lasting impact. The sources you're relying on now also phrase everything in terms of general copyright law, rather than giving specific indication about how this affects sampling. We're getting lost in the swamp here. Stand back and look at the big picture. This section should summarise major legal and ethical arguments in sampling, ones that really changed things and are important to sampling. Like Sergecross said a thousand years ago, we can't throw in every case. We have to figure out which ones are a big deal and which ones aren't. This one isn't a big deal. Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I think you are referring to Moberg v. 33T LLC that was in 2009 and before Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley (2011).[4] "On October 6, the United States Court for the District of Delaware ruled in a case of first impression that a photograph posted to the Internet from a foreign server is not a “United States work” within the meaning of section 411 of the Copyright Act, and thus need not be registered in the U.S. in order to bring suit for infringement.". The case Moberg v. 33T LLC did not change anything as it just preserved the status quo. However Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley reversed that and it's a big deal. // Liftarn (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC You're right, I misread the source. The case you're talking about did indeed come after the other, not before. Sorry about that. ... But in my view it still doesn't provide any evidence of any lasting impact. And that's what I've been asking for since day one. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC) This has dragged on for almost two months, now, so here are (hopefully) my final thoughts on this matter: Like Sergecross said, there are countless examples of court cases and disputes over sampling we include in this section. But this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of such events. It's supposed to be a concise summary of major events that have shaped the use of sampling in music. We have a few weak sources that describe the Timbaland incident, but nothing to show it has had any serious impact on anything. The source Liftarn is pushing now focuses mainly on the implications for copyright in general, with little discussion of what it means for sampling, and with no examples of anything having changed. As you can probably guess, I would still prefer to exclude the Timbaland incident in this article. But in the interest of reaching some conclusion, if other editors would like to review these sources again, and feel they demonstrate reason to be included in this article despite my objections, then I'll live with that. Sergecross73? MrClog? Any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC) I’m pretty much in the same spot as you. As I’ve said since the beginning, I could probably be swayed if Liftarn proposed specific prose, a specific source, and the specific excerpt of the source that backed it. But I still don’t think he’s managed to do that. (If I missed this in the massive wall of text above, feel free to re-add it down here, with the 3 parts I’m requesting. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC) As I've made the edit[5] there is some very specific text right there, but the main points I'm trying to get across is 1) Timbaland expanded the definition of sampling to also include taking someone else's work and pass it off as your own with just some minor changes. (This is the ethical aspect) The resulting court case reinterpreted US copyright law contra the Berne convention (this is the legal aspect). // Liftarn (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC) The text you added doesn't make clear what relevance, if any, the case has. The quote from Timbaland is baffling, and the supposedly important part (the outcome of the lawsuit) isn't mentioned at all. I notice you haven't responded to my proposed text, above. Popcornduff (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC) That would work with some tweaks. The text "after sampling a composition" is incorrect. Something more in line with reality would be "passing off somebody else's work as his own. Something he called sampling". Or "Apart from the lyrics the song was nearly identical to used a piece from 2000 for the Commodore 64." // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Due to holidays, I'll not be able to further be engaged with this dispute resolution. I'll change the case status to reflect this and to request other volunteers to take over. --MrClog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: I will resume moderation from tomorrow forwards. --MrClog (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: @Liftarn: Popcornduff proposed the following text: In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after sampling a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published in every country with internet service, including the US. The work, therefore, satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission. (emphasis mine and two small grammatical fixes) You said the part I now emphasised was wrong. Could you propose a specific rewrite for that part of the text? --MrClog (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC) The problem with that text is that it gives the impression that Timbaland sampled (as in used a small portion of) the original track while in reality he passed off someone elses work as his own after some minor changes. I think the technical term is "biting" but I'm not sure about the terminology. Timbaland claimed it was just sampling., thus expanding the definition of what sampling is. I think this should be made clearer to the reader. // Liftarn (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Liftarn, what if we change the emphasised part to read after copying parts of a composition and add ..., claiming it to be sampling. to the end of the first sentence? --MrClog (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Sounds good to me. // Liftarn (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: @Popcornduff and Sergecross73: The proposed text now reads: In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after copying parts of a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission, claiming it to be sampling. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published in every country with internet service, including the US. The work, therefore, satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission. Are you okay with adding this text (plus references) to the article? --MrClog (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC) From a copyediting perspective "claiming it to be sampling" ain't too hot. I could find other ways of phrasing that, but why do we need to hedge it at all? Sampling is sampling whether you do it legally or not. And besides, Timbaland can't claim to have sampled it and say it was his own work. I still think this entire story is not worth adding and overall to the detriment of the article, but I can live with it. If Sergecross is still not happy with it then unfortunately I'd have to go with them. Popcornduff (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC) @Sergecross73: --MrClog (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC) It reads like a bit of a tangent, but at least it’s much better sourced version of it now. I can live with it, though I do hope that Liftarn plans on maintaining the article for a long time - I’d see this being trimmed out pretty quickly if anyone was ever doing a serious cleanup or GA/FA push. I think the only reason there is any debate at all about this is because of the lack of interest/participants. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Are you willing to change the text to address Popcornduff's concern and then implement it in the article. Also, do you plan on maintaining the article (as per Sergecross's concern)? --MrClog (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Sure, I can do it. But just to be clear here, is he suggesting that editors may knowingly and willingly ignore the sipute resolution? // Liftarn (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Liftarn, I think he means that other editors may remove the part when doing a cleanup. They may not know about this dispute resolution, and dispute resolution is not binding. Can I close this dispute as resolved? --MrClog (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Fine with me. // Liftarn (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC) And the section is already blanked by Popcornduff.... // Liftarn (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, because you added a version of the text that wasn't agreed on, with the wrong sources. I think I explained my rationale clearly in my edit summary, but I'll continue this discussion on the Sampling (music) talk page instead of here. Popcornduff (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC) That is nonsense. It's the exact text we agreed on. It's very hard for me to guess what you feel is not supported by sources when you constantly refuse to say and I have to guess and then you just blank the entire section. I think this dispute resolution need to be reopened. // Liftarn (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2019 (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.

Men Going Their Own Way

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by NathanHollister on 15:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Men Going Their Own Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) Bilorv (talk · contribs) Jorm (talk · contribs) Dispute overview They keep posting a link to the SPLC page, stating that SPLC calls MGTOW a hate group. SPLC does NOT actually list MGTOW as a hate group, and now the person is starting an edit war. SPLC does not say what they say it says. They are citing unreliable sources, misqouting sources blatantly, and writing the article in a non-neutral way. This violates the premise of an encyclopedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have talked about it in the talk page, and I noted that they are posting wrongly socurced material over and over. They don't listen. The source does not claim what they say it claims. How do you think we can help? Please remove the unsourced material listing MGTOW as a hate group. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The article's lead section originally said, "The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified the community as a male supremacist group, placing it "on the borders of the hateful incel community". While this is an accurate and neutral summary of SPLC's statement, it is not an appropriate summary of the "Reception" section. After discussion on the talk page, the three sources' statements were summarized as "The community is a misogynist male supremacist group." Soon, several once-and-done IPs arrived and removed the statement, insisting it is wrong and unsourced. Once the page was semi-protected, NathanHollister arrived, after a 3 year absence from Wikipedia. Their edit summaries are often inaccurate, describing additions of POV material as typo corrections and improving readability. Moreover, their edit warring against four editors repeatedly ignores the relevant discussion. Now another long-dormant account, Jtcampbell baseball, has joined in. Whether this is meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry or simple off-wiki canvasing has yet to be determined. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bilorv Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is not a case of a content dispute, but of a POV-fuelled editor edit warring against current consensus. Their violation of 3RR shows they have no interest in actual constructive argument, as does their refusal to engage with the substance of the points made at Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#SPLC_in_lead and their answer to the question above of "How do you think we can help?" with "Please [enact my opinion of what should be done]". Editors genuinely interested in reasonable discussion should join existing discussions at the talk page. I should add that I wasn't notified of this case filing by NathanHollister but by Jorm here. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jorm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nathan is one of a cadre of drive by Men's Rights activists who DO NOT HEAR or engage with the discussion at all and blindly reverts. There are not one but two edit warring threads about him open, both of which seem to be pending action on this waste of time here.--Jorm (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC) The filer is blocked now for socking, so maybe we can move on.--Jorm (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Men Going Their Own Way discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. (The other editors appear to be aware of this filing, but notification is still required.) If proper notice is given, participation here is voluntary. If proper notice is given and the other editors agree to discuss here, we will discuss here. While waiting for proper notice or for agreement to discuss, edit-warring is not permitted, and may be dealt with by sanctions. If proper notice is given and the other editors decline to participate, edit-warring is still not permitted and may be dealt with by sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (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.

Olympic Torch Relays

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by RainbowSilver2ndBackup on 00:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? No, I have not discussed this issue on a talk page yet. Location of dispute Talk:1998 Winter Olympics torch relay (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Talk:2000 Summer Olympics torch relay (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Talk:2006 Winter Olympics torch relay (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk · contribs) Aleenf1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Aleenf1 basically removed important details about these relays. He removed the edits by an IP on the 2000 Winter Olympic Torch Relay. The evidence came from a site called Sportcal, just google the torch relay and you will find cities and towns that are part of the relay. He reverted edits of the IP. I had to revert back to the edits of the IP because there are proofs which is on Sportcal. The reason why I wanted to add (https://www.shinmai.co.jp/feature/olympic/alacarte/s-japan.htm) is because I want to the readers to visit the news articles from a Japanese perspective. He even remove these info made by the IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Winter_Olympics_torch_relay&diff=816127355&oldid=815987143) in the 2006 Olympic Torch Relay. I had to revert to the edits made by IP because these info are from the official PDF of the 2006 torch relay (https://web.archive.org/web/20060217202304/http://ftp.torino2006.it/uploads/pdf/PercorsoCompleto.pdf). I did reason with him but he thinks that I've ignore it, misunderstood it or something else even though I (and the IP) provided sources for. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried explaining with proofs and everything but it didn't work was well. How do you think we can help? Try to have Aleenf1 accept these urls because they are have more info and details surrounding these relays. Summary of dispute by Aleenf1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Olympic Torch Relay discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. How do I cancel the dispute? RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2019 (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.

Cuban sandwich

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Zeng8r on 11:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Cuban sandwich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zeng8r (talk · contribs) Averette (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Long-time editor Averette is trying to insert POV material again, after an identical attempt in 2009 that had to be resolved with the help of a third party. Averette left Wikipedia for quite a long time. He resumed editing a couple months ago and got himself temporarily blocked in an unrelated dispute, then returned to this article and began editing in the same POV manner as he did 10 years ago. MANY good sources were added during the last dispute on this topic. They disagree on the origin of the sandwich, so the text has long reflected that uncertainty. The problem stems from the fact that Averette insists that the sandwich originated in his hometown (Key West) and demands that the text reflects his belief. I have repeatedly pointed out that the experts disagree, and that even some of his favorite sources also express uncertainty about the origin, but he has repeatedly changed the text with very little discussion. And after every attempt at discussion this week, his edits have become even more obviously POV. Since the article in question is not monitored by many regular editors, I thought I'd request a third party to take a look and give some input. Thanks... Have you tried to resolve this previously? Repeated discussions / discussions on the talk page with little response and repeated attempts at discussion on Averette's talk page, which he usually deletes. How do you think we can help? Third party intervention settled the same issue with the same editor in 2009; hoping it will again. Summary of dispute by Averette Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cuban sandwich discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Civility is required here, as everywhere in Wikipedia. Civility warnings are not in order here. Leave them on the talk pages of the uncivil editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Without wading into the debate itself, I was reviewing the article history, and edit summaries like this are a MAJOR problem. @Averette: "Vandalism" is NOT a synonym for "things I personally disagree with" and if you continue to use that word as though it were some magic spell that makes your own preferred version of the article stay, and makes other people's go, it will not end well for you. It is NOT vandalism, and if you continue to mis-apply that word to the edits of people who have a different perspective than you, regardless of how this discussion ends up, you won't be around to enjoy the results of it. Consider this a clear warning. --Jayron32 11:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC) User:Jayron32, this is standard behavior, at least according to recent history [[6]]. POV pushing and aggressively so at that and it appears to be more acute then just this one issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC) If so, WP:ANI is right over there... --Jayron32 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC) User:Jayron32, I'm confident that if you see no need for scrutiny (as a responsible admin is capable of deciding) it would likely be the same there. There is not one particular set of actions that may help here but if you are going to bring up specific issues and there is a history it seems appropriate to point out recent incidents which have also led to other actions [[7]]. It is helpful to understand background when considering how to resolve this conflict. My ANI days are voluntarily numbered, I occasionally look there but my desire for involvement there with anything short of egregious issues can not be understated. I find I am more productive and less likely to be a dick to others and I like low key editing at this point, much more pleasant. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I never stated that I "see no need for scrutiny". You said that. I said that if you think it DOES need scrutiny, ANI is the place to get that scrutiny. I have avoided taking any position one way or the other on the matter. It may very well need more scrutiny. It may not. I don't know. My directing you to ANI took no position one way or the other. --Jayron32 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I may have misunderstood your post and its intent as I believed you may have misunderstood me. This wasn't a criticism and I hope it didn't come off that way just an explanation of why I brought up a conduct issue at a content noticeboard. I'm sorry to bother you and again I didn't think it was egregious to that point it was simply my main thoughts here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC) NOTE: (I added this same note on the article's talk page but thought I should add it here, too, for some context.) You might think that it's silly to argue over a lunch food, and in the big scheme of things, you'd be right, of course. But the Cuban sandwich is at the center of a long-running friendly semi-rivalry between Tampa and South Florida. Mayors and other public officials have taken positions, and a 2007 content dispute in this very same article was covered in the Tampa Tribune. As you can see, some people take the issue very personally. And as with all articles about controversial topics, it's important to keep a balanced, well-sourced approach that includes all sides. The article was built through consensus back in 2009, and my argument is that there's no reason to alter that balance now. Zeng8r (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I get you and understand completely, try and watch a Colorado-New Mexico squabble on the origins of green and red chile...fun stuff. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, you are mistaken [[8]], it was received and completely ignored. Also if you see above, the filer states attempts were made on that person's talk page prior to doing this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2019 (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.

Talk:2019 Indian_general_election

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Muthalganesan on 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2019 Indian general election (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Muthalganesan (talk · contribs) Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I had provided several links across a wide date range explaining about the terror attacks had influenced the Indian election - and it certainly was a major event in the Indian media. She has a long history of showing up on articles to bias it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Since the election is current news, the most I have done is discussed on talk page How do you think we can help? A sensible person would allow the edit. It has notability and has also had a profound effect on the security situation of South India. Summary of dispute by Ms Sarah Welch See. I am surprised someone so new to wikipedia and so few edits, apparently knows me! Anyway, there has hardly been any substantial discussion on the article's talk page, fwiw. The affected article is among the 100 top high traffic wikipedia articles in recent weeks, and the OP's stance/behavior there and this request is difficult to understand. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:2019 Indian_general_election discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. OP has not discussed this situation previously on a talk page. They have made one post before coming directly here. I am not directly involved in this dispute but have made the OP aware of the relevant policy and guideline by posting to their user talk. Tiderolls 16:57, 19 May 2019 (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.

User talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Michaelgmitchell45 on 18:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Ronz#Concerning the BLP vios in two articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michaelgmitchell45 (talk · contribs) Ronz (talk · contribs) drmies (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I made two additions to the Nicole_Eggert page, which I believe to be encyclopedic. Final version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Eggert&oldid=897711553. One concerned her bankruptcy, the other her first assault claim against DJ Lethal, which was dismissed at trial . In addition, I added a sentence to the section on her claims with regards to Scott Baio, noting that he had taken and passed five polygraphs, which is in alignment with the DJ Lethal verdict. These changes were very well sourced by multiple citations for each component, from mainstream sources that are often used. The wording of each addition was neutral. The elements were clearly encyclopedic. All of these items were deleted without explanation by user ronz. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have conducted a lengthy and respectful dialogue on user ronz talk page, seeking in good faith to understand the basis for these deletions. I have sought compromise in the content. I have sought understanding of the rationale. User ronz has rebuffed each attempt, and int fact edited one of my comments from his talk page. He has escalated his rhetoric, including implying threatening actions towards my user status. I do not believe his deletions to be merited. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate a consensus from other experienced editors on whether these deletions were merited, and seek consensus on restoring them, with or without edits that the consensus may suggest. Summary of dispute by Ronz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by drmies I think the edit history speaks for itself--editor proposes something, it's not accepted, editor reverts, it's again not accepted, editor threatens to escalate, editor escalates. Rather than let talk page discussion take its course, they take their bad manners here--and I say "bad manners" because all this is unnecessary, and I sure didn't see much "respectful dialogue" on Ronz's talk page. I wouldn't be be surprised if Ronz chooses not to respond here, since there really is no dispute to resolve: the editor isn't looking, I think, for a solution to a dispute about an edit. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC) User talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articles 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.

Talk:Erdős number#Scientiometrics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Wikiman2718 on 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Erdős number#Scientiometrics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Joel_B._Lewis (talk · contribs) David Eppstein (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute originated when I attempted to add "Scientometrics" to the "see all" section of the page Erdos number. My edit was reverted, and a discussion opened emerged about whether or not the Erdos number is a scientometric index. I supplied a reliable source demonstrating that it was. In order to link to the Erdos number's position in the tree of knowledge, I proposed in the talk section the following change to the lede. The Erdős number (Hungarian: [ˈɛrdøːʃ]) is a scientometric index which describes the "collaborative distance" between mathematician Paul Erdős and another person, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers. The same principle has been applied in other fields where a particular individual has collaborated with a large and broad number of peers. References A vote overwhelmingly opposed the edit on the following basis: 1) WP:TECHNICAL 2) Some editors do not believe that the Erdos number is a scientometric index. This concern was not well-sourced. Following the BRD guidleline: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion..." I boldly edited to lede to address the concern WP:TECHNICAL. The edit was reverted without seeking consensus, and I was accused of edit warring for having made it. I accused the reverter of edit warring for having reverted it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion How do you think we can help? A moderator decide how Wikipedia's guidelines should be applied. Specifically: 1) Do the sources justify the claim that the Erdos number is a scientiometric index? If not, is the Erdos number a bibliometric index? 2) Does the proposed compromise contain a submarine link? 3) How much weight should be given to the tree of knowledge? Summary of dispute by Joel_B._Lewis I do not have anything to add that cannot be gleaned from the article talk page. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by David Eppstein Except for Wikiman2718's bull-in-a-China-shop attitude, escalation to noticeboards, and stubborn reinstatement of his preferred version despite opposition on the talk page, this is a boring content dispute. It is already under discussion on the article talk page and forum-shopping it here accomplishes nothing useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by XOR'easter I was tagged, so I'll add my summary, concurring with the two by JBL and David Eppstein above. This exercise in forum-shopping is a silly escalation of a dull argument by an editor who repeats talking points verbatim rather than engaging with good-faith objections. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:Erdős number#Scientiometrics discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The opener has indicated that he considers this issue resolved ([9] [10]). --JBL (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (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.

List of music considered the worst

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Electricburst1996 on 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of music considered the worst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Electricburst1996 (talk · contribs) Interlude65 (talk · contribs) Micky Moats (talk · contribs) A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) Rjrya395 (talk · contribs) Ferret (talk · contribs) Wanna Know My Name? Later (talk · contribs) Batmaniacdc27 (talk · contribs) SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) A lad insane (talk · contribs) Noelrock (talk · contribs) Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) Tosk Albanian (talk · contribs) Glumblebee (talk · contribs) GenQuest (talk · contribs) IndyNotes (talk · contribs) Herostratus (talk · contribs) Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) LM2000 (talk · contribs) Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A protracted, heated content dispute over the inclusion of the Beatles album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has been going on since September 2018, when an anonymous editor reinstated it after a similarly protracted dispute from 2014 was resolved at the end of that year. Attempts to resolve the dispute this time around have been met with no success thus far. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussions were held - an RfC held there was closed as "no consensus", and a discussion on criteria for inclusion has yielded no productive results so far. How do you think we can help? I think DRN can help establish a clear consensus on whether or not the album, in fact, merits inclusion. Summary of dispute by Interlude65 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Micky Moats Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by A Quest for Knowledge Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sergecross73 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rjrya395 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ferret Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wanna Know My Name? Later Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Batmaniacdc27 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by A lad insane Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Noelrock Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Brandt Luke Zorn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tosk Albanian Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Glumblebee Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GenQuest Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IndyNotes Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Herostratus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hunter Kahn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by LM2000 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Curly Turkey Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of music considered the worst 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.

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

Talk:Kay Ivey#Abortion bill details

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Activist on 09:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Kay Ivey (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Activist (talk · contribs) StAnselm (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've been trying to reason with editor StAnselm for four days. This editor has been reverting my well-sourced edits on the Kay Ivey article starting on 19 May at 10:50, again on 20 May at 23:19, again at 22:21 on 22 May and 23 May at 00:20 and 8:25 for a 3R violation. I've discussed my edits extensively, provided extensive references to the legislative and judicial history that led to the widely discussed in U.S. Media analogous situation, the court precedents in both Alabama and the adjacent state of Mississippi, United States, the current case in Mississippi, the judge's comments in that case, and I've offered and implemented a prospective compromise. I've done so at the article's talk page, on my talk page, on StAnselm's talk page and I've gotten nowhere. I note that StAnselm has been accused of engaging in edit wars numerous times in the past 13 months. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No other steps beyond my outreach to StAnselm and finally seeking the opinion of third parties. How do you think we can help? I think reviewing the histories of the article, the article's talk page, my talk page and that of StAnselm's and the offering of a third party perspective communicated to each of us will hopefully be helpful. I have found this dispute to be very enervating and time consuming to me. Thank you for your willingness to work toward resolution in such situations. Summary of dispute by StAnselm Activist added content to the article, which I reverted as being undue weight. He then kept adding it and I kept reverting it. We have not been yet able to achieve consensus on the talk page. My argument is that details (like a 99-year jail term) belong in the main Human Life Protection Act article, and are irrelevant to the biography of the Governor who signed it into law. Activist appears to misunderstand the nature of wikilinks ("To expect Wikipedia readers to go searching for an obscure article... is absurd") and considers the removal of the information to be censorship. StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:Kay Ivey#Abortion bill details discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. I have requested temporary full protection of the article to pause the slow-motion edit-warring. The parties might alternatively consider either a Third Opinion or the BLP noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2019 (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.

Draft talk:National drinks

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by BrieDeChevre on 21:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Draft talk:National drinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BrieDeChevre (talk · contribs) Rybkovich (talk · contribs) AngusWOOF (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I submitted a page on "National drinks" which has been declined primarily because the editor dealing with submissions thinks that it could be combined somehow with the "List of national liquors" page. Rybkovich and I believe that two separate pages would be best. A discussion of this issue can be found in the talk page for National drinks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? So far we have just had a discussion amongst the 3 of us. How do you think we can help? You could help by giving your opinion on the matter, and perhaps in other ways also. Summary of dispute by Rybkovich The Draft:National drinks article was created by newbie @BrieDeChevre: who intended to list drinks that are identified by countries as their national drink. @AngusWOOF: rejected the submission, stating that "This needs to be discussed first whether to split national drinks from national liquors." Pre existing "National drink" (not plural) reference pointed to "National liquors", however the scope of the liquors article was never intended to include other kinds of national drinks. Another grounds for refusal was BrieDeChevre's categorising the countries by their geographical region, not alphabetically. Further, AngusWoof pointed out that there are no legitimate sources that list non-alcoholic drinks as national drinks. Finally, AngusWoof thought it was wrong to include descriptions of the drinks, and that just a simple listing with references should be used. I don't think any of those objections justify rejection of BrieDeChevre's submission. Rybkovich (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AngusWOOF Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My concerns are mainly along the lines of listcruft WP:LISTCRUFT and indiscriminate listing: Content fork WP:CFORK with List of national liquors. A list of national drinks would be a superset of all the liquors there. Listing the drinks twice. Once under region, the second time under alphabetical order. Note the List of national liquors is a simple listing without flagicons or regional divisions: Country: drink1, drink2, etc. Excessive descriptions of the drinks themselves. It does not need a detailed paragraph of what Boba tea is, rather, it should describe how it is recognized as a national drink, or be a simple listing. What if two countries claim boba tea as their national drink? Original research - what qualifies for the list should be documented by reliable sources saying that it is a national drink, not just that it is a popular drink) and not the editors' popular opinions. It also should be supported by multiple RS if it appears the first RS is some writer's opinion and not officially noted. Historical national drinks. What about countries that no longer exist, but have a national drink? Should they be noted? I also wanted more than just a handful of participants to discuss this so as to see what the community thinks of spinning off the list. If you're all okay with the superset and can get the list under control then it can come out of draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Draft talk:National drinks 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. This noticeboard is not the usual place for discussing whether to accept a draft as an article. That is normally done by discussion between the draft author and the reviewer. If that fails, and the draft is moved into article space, a deletion discussion can be held to decide whether to keep two articles or the merge one article into the other. At this point, it appears to me that the draft article is not sufficiently complete to be accepted into article space, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Thank you. Can you please specify your objection? Do you think more countries should be filled in under each category? The draft has not been requested to be deleted, and @AngusWOOF: requested other editors to comment. Rybkovich (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Hi @Robert McClenon:, and thanks for your comments. Above you state that "the filing editor has not yet notified the other editors". Am I the filing editor? On the Draft talk:National drinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page I wrote that I submitted our issue to dispute resolution and I pinged the other 2 editors (@AngusWOOF:@Rybkovich:). Is there another way that I am supposed to notify them? BrieDeChevre (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC) User:BrieDeChevre - Yes. On their user talk page. Some editors do not have ping enabled, and some talk pages are robotically archived quickly. {{drn-notice}} is one way to do this. If they have already responded, it is not necessary to notify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks @Robert McClenon:. I went to AngusWOOF's talk page and notified him that our issues have been taken to dispute resolution and he filled out his section on this disput resolution page and so now all editors have made their contributions to this dispute resolution page. AngusWOOF "declined" my draft submission and said he wanted more feedback from editors before making it an article. I would like clarification when you say that "the draft article is not sufficiently complete to be accepted into article space". Isn't the draft at least good enough to be a stub whereby editors can then help flesh it out? I've seen stubs with like 2 or 3 sentences. What are our next steps? How do we have our case "opened by a volunteer" and have them look at the draft submission and draft talk page and give feedback? Thanks. BrieDeChevre (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Second Volunteer Opinion: I second Robert's opinion that this is not a suitable case for DRN. An author who submits a draft always has the right, at any time, to cut off the review process and move the draft into mainspace (that is, to take it "live"), just as the author had the right to directly publish their draft into mainspace without going through draft review in the first place. The reviews of draft reviewers are, therefore, merely opinions about the draft and the author is wholly free to accept or reject them. That being the case, there is no true dispute to be considered through dispute resolution processes and if the author feels that the opinions are incorrect, then he has the right to see if the published article will survives a merger or deletion nomination in mainspace (very possibly filed by the draft reviewer). Dispute resolution processes are strained for capacity enough without becoming involved in draft articles. I recommend closure of this request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (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.

Talk:Clairo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Benmite on 21:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Clairo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Benmite (talk · contribs) ILIL (talk · contribs) Milowent (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor and I discussed whether or not it is important enough that the subject of the article has received criticism for coming across as "disingenuous" so much that it merits inclusion in the lead of the article, as well as other facts that appear superfluous. Other editors have suggested that this information be removed or at least moved from the lead as well. I separated a decent amount of the information in the "Career" section into separate sections such as "Artistry" and "Reception" because much of it was about her musical style and the reception of her music, but those edits were reverted. NPOV issues seem to exist. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Explained my reasoning, discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? Getting an outsider's opinion in order to curtail any further edit warring. Summary of dispute by ILIL Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Milowent Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Clairo 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.

Talk:Intelligence (journal)#On_the_accusation_of_pseudoscience

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Merewif on 15:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Intelligence (journal)#On the accusation of pseudoscience (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Merewif (talk · contribs) Randykitty (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I attempted to change the claim of "pseudoscientific" into "allegedly pseudoscientific" in the article in question, for there was no reasoning or citation whatsoever given to substantiate said accusation. My edits were reversed twice, and when I attempted to have an open conversation about it, my attempt was ignored by the person who undid the change. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened a topic about it on the talk page, which was promptly ignored. How do you think we can help? A third party evaluation of the arguments might be helpful. Summary of dispute by Randykitty Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Intelligence (journal)#On_the_accusation_of_pseudoscience discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been one post by the filing party on the talk page. The other editor has not responded yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2019 (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.

Talk:God

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by MusenInvincible on 12:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:God (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MusenInvincible (talk · contribs) Unibond (talk · contribs) Epinoia (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Epinoia and User:Unibond have been disruptively reverting a well-sourced edit contribution to God article by their own opinions without any strong argument to back the claim that my edit must be removed. At the same time, the attitude the users have also been showing an persistence act of ownership content (WP:OWN) and a lack of collaborative spirit to support other editor to build Wikipedia together. Even though I reword my previous edit with additional references for improvement and answer his objections, these two users refuse to listen to reasoning and insist on deleting my contribution blatantly as it were a vandalism content. I have discussed my edits extensively on the talk page but the users seem do not care about it. So I put this case to DRN, to know that "Should a referenced content edit following the Wikipedian rule be removed from an article without valid justification"? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, I have discussed this issue on the talk page extensively without any good result. How do you think we can help? I hope through this noticeboard, the experienced editors or administrators in Wikipedia would help me to check these well-sourced edits [11] [12] then decide "Do these content edits should be removed from God article or keep it stay?" and how to correct the content to make it suitable to the article. Thanks! Summary of dispute by Unibond Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Epinoia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The article God deals mainly with theological concepts of God, such as theism, deism, atheism, etc. It is a general article and does not go into specific detail about how different religions view humanity's relationship with God beyond a general sub-section, Relationship with creation. The editor in question added a section, Figures with God attribution, about the special relationship between God and the Israelites and about how Moses, Abraham and Muhammad are referred to in the Torah and Qur'an with no mention of how other religions approach this issue. Such particulars are too specific for a general article on God. In the Talk page discussion, the editor did not provide any compelling arguments on why the edits should be kept and consensus for inclusion was not reached. As the section was outside the scope of the article, there was no way to improve the edit to make it suitable for inclusion. There was no article ownership, abusive reverts, disruption or lack of collaboration involved. - Epinoia (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:God 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 notified the other editors. There has been no discussion on the article talk page within the past week. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2019 (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.

Talk:Håkon Wium Lie

– New discussion.

Filed by Elmats on 00:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Håkon Wium Lie (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elmats (talk · contribs)
• permenee (talk · contribs)
• Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should the article contain information that the magazine this person cofounded is controversial and right-wing? The discussion contains arguments to and from, i will try to refrain from reciting them here in interest of being objective.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk about it on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

I think giving guidance on whether this information should not be included on the page.

Summary of dispute by permenee

The dispute is whether the term "controversial Norwegian right-wing" should be used on a BLP page, wrt. ownership in the Resett online newspaper. Guidance from senior editor Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs) seems quite clear: the use of "right-wing" is problematic. Still, the conflict was filed for dispute resolution by Elmats (talk · contribs).

In addition to the arguments put forward by the senior editor on the talk page, I believe the term is not fitting for these reasons:

1. information about a newspaper's bias should appear on the wikipedia page of the newspaper itself, rather than on bio pages of founders/owners. For example, one does not link to the "liberal Washington Post" on Jeff Bezos' page.
2. the Resett online newspaper has a well-developed wikipedia page in Norwegian which does not use words like "controversial" or "right-wing"
3. the term is possibly libelious unless one has very clear evidence about support for controversial right-wing causes. No such evidence has been provided.
4. on the contrary, the two initial editors of Resett were an Utøya massacre survivor (Bjørn Ihler) and a researcher who was most famous for warning against bombing Libya (Helge Lurås). Supporting these is probably more left-wing than right-wing.
5. the current editorial board of Resett is more diverse (in terms of skin color and sexual identity) than any other Norwegian newspaper, and articles by left-wing authors appear regularly (e.g. Lars Birkelund). Labelling the newspaper as "right-wing" is therefore simplistic at best, dangerous at worst. In any case, such labelling should not appear a bio page.
6. According to Wikipedia's policies "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives".

The proposed use of the term seems to be just that: a tittilating claim, which should not appear on a BLP. Permenee (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by jon_harald_soby

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

Talk:Talk:Håkon Wium Lie discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• @DRN volunteers: - A volunteer is requested to open this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, one of the involved editors is yet to submit a statement. --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• We really could need some help on this page Elmats (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MrClog, User:Elmats, User:permenee - The editor who has not made a statement has not edited in a week, and edits sporadically, so that they are not likely to take part in dispute resolution. If the two editors who are watching this case wish to engage in discussion, we will continue to request a volunteer. Otherwise, the case will be closed, and the other editors will be advised that they can revert the edits by the intermittent editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe three editors have made statements. On the Talk:Håkon Wium Lie page there are statements from User:Elmats, User:permenee, and the senior editor User:Jon Harald Søby (who is a wikipedia spokesperson in Norway). Jon Harald provided guidance which should be enough to resolve the conflict. However, User:Elmats didn't agree and chose to send the case to dispute resolution. Unless User:Elmats is willing to respect the currently provided guidance, I think it's best to find a volunteer to try resolve. Permenee (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur that the dispute resolution can continue without [[User::Jon Harald Søby]]. I also was not aware that he holds an official position with Wikipedia. That certainly makes it feel more complicated. Elmats (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made another attempt at resolving this without dispute resolution; I've taken out one word (right-wing) and left the other (controversial). If this edit is not reverted, we can all spend our time on more productive matters. Permenee (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

But this is just reverting to your preferred version. That's not a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute. I've suggested several other resolutions on the talk page, all of which you have rejected because you don't want Resett to be presented as right-wing. I'm putting back the information you removed. Elmats (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My preferred version is one without the "controversial right-wing" in it. I believe a bio page should not try classify the bias of newspapers or add titillating claims. Further, we have senior Wikipedia editor/steward (User:Jon Harald Søby) guidance on this, so the case should be fairly easy to conclude. Permenee (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just to make it clear: Even if (User:Jon Harald Søby) writes on his user page that he is a steward, that doesn't make him one. He hasn't been an official steward in over 5 years, look at your own reference. And, he himself also makes it clear that on Wikipedia it's the content and not the editor that matters. You can read it in his own words in this interview where he defends Anders Behring Breivik editing Wikipedia. I've made the case for why it's relevant to include this information on the talk page, and that there isn't really a good case for taking it away. I don't see Søby's opinion holding any authority that changes that. You're just removing information that creates a more complete biographical picture of the candidate. Elmats (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being silent here, I've been busy with other stuff and didn't really see myself as an active part of this dispute. And you are absolutely correct, User:Elmats, my voice shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's, I'm just a regular volunteer (and apparantly have a very outdated userpage here…).

I noticed the disagreement in this article on the English Wikipedia while I looked into the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia article about Wium Lie, which had had the same dispute (with the same participants). When I noticed that there was a dispute here as well I suggested to resolve it by essentially copying the solution that another user used in the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, where the article was restructured. My main objection to the article was that half the lead of the article was dedicated to Wium Lie's part-ownership of Resett, which in my eyes seems out of place when his claim to fame is creating CSS and being the CTO of Opera Software.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Resett is a right-wing newspaper nowadays, but from the sources in the article from when Resett was founded (when Wium Lie seems to have been most involved), it doesn't seem like that was the intention. I do tend to agree with User:Permenee that it would be better to leave classifications of the newspaper to an article about it (surely it would be notable even in the English Wikipedia), and to leave it out of the articles of individual owners, especially with regards to BLP. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2019 (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.

|}

Talk:Håkon Wium Lie

– New discussion.

Filed by Elmats on 00:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Håkon Wium Lie (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elmats (talk · contribs)
• permenee (talk · contribs)
• Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should the article contain information that the magazine this person cofounded is controversial and right-wing? The discussion contains arguments to and from, i will try to refrain from reciting them here in interest of being objective.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk about it on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

I think giving guidance on whether this information should not be included on the page.

Summary of dispute by permenee

The dispute is whether the term "controversial Norwegian right-wing" should be used on a BLP page, wrt. ownership in the Resett online newspaper. Guidance from senior editor Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs) seems quite clear: the use of "right-wing" is problematic. Still, the conflict was filed for dispute resolution by Elmats (talk · contribs).

In addition to the arguments put forward by the senior editor on the talk page, I believe the term is not fitting for these reasons:

1. information about a newspaper's bias should appear on the wikipedia page of the newspaper itself, rather than on bio pages of founders/owners. For example, one does not link to the "liberal Washington Post" on Jeff Bezos' page.
2. the Resett online newspaper has a well-developed wikipedia page in Norwegian which does not use words like "controversial" or "right-wing"
3. the term is possibly libelious unless one has very clear evidence about support for controversial right-wing causes. No such evidence has been provided.
4. on the contrary, the two initial editors of Resett were an Utøya massacre survivor (Bjørn Ihler) and a researcher who was most famous for warning against bombing Libya (Helge Lurås). Supporting these is probably more left-wing than right-wing.
5. the current editorial board of Resett is more diverse (in terms of skin color and sexual identity) than any other Norwegian newspaper, and articles by left-wing authors appear regularly (e.g. Lars Birkelund). Labelling the newspaper as "right-wing" is therefore simplistic at best, dangerous at worst. In any case, such labelling should not appear a bio page.
6. According to Wikipedia's policies "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives".

The proposed use of the term seems to be just that: a tittilating claim, which should not appear on a BLP. Permenee (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by jon_harald_soby

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

Talk:Talk:Håkon Wium Lie discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• @DRN volunteers: - A volunteer is requested to open this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, one of the involved editors is yet to submit a statement. --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• We really could need some help on this page Elmats (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MrClog, User:Elmats, User:permenee - The editor who has not made a statement has not edited in a week, and edits sporadically, so that they are not likely to take part in dispute resolution. If the two editors who are watching this case wish to engage in discussion, we will continue to request a volunteer. Otherwise, the case will be closed, and the other editors will be advised that they can revert the edits by the intermittent editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe three editors have made statements. On the Talk:Håkon Wium Lie page there are statements from User:Elmats, User:permenee, and the senior editor User:Jon Harald Søby (who is a wikipedia spokesperson in Norway). Jon Harald provided guidance which should be enough to resolve the conflict. However, User:Elmats didn't agree and chose to send the case to dispute resolution. Unless User:Elmats is willing to respect the currently provided guidance, I think it's best to find a volunteer to try resolve. Permenee (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur that the dispute resolution can continue without [[User::Jon Harald Søby]]. I also was not aware that he holds an official position with Wikipedia. That certainly makes it feel more complicated. Elmats (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made another attempt at resolving this without dispute resolution; I've taken out one word (right-wing) and left the other (controversial). If this edit is not reverted, we can all spend our time on more productive matters. Permenee (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

But this is just reverting to your preferred version. That's not a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute. I've suggested several other resolutions on the talk page, all of which you have rejected because you don't want Resett to be presented as right-wing. I'm putting back the information you removed. Elmats (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My preferred version is one without the "controversial right-wing" in it. I believe a bio page should not try classify the bias of newspapers or add titillating claims. Further, we have senior Wikipedia editor/steward (User:Jon Harald Søby) guidance on this, so the case should be fairly easy to conclude. Permenee (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just to make it clear: Even if (User:Jon Harald Søby) writes on his user page that he is a steward, that doesn't make him one. He hasn't been an official steward in over 5 years, look at your own reference. And, he himself also makes it clear that on Wikipedia it's the content and not the editor that matters. You can read it in his own words in this interview where he defends Anders Behring Breivik editing Wikipedia. I've made the case for why it's relevant to include this information on the talk page, and that there isn't really a good case for taking it away. I don't see Søby's opinion holding any authority that changes that. You're just removing information that creates a more complete biographical picture of the candidate. Elmats (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being silent here, I've been busy with other stuff and didn't really see myself as an active part of this dispute. And you are absolutely correct, User:Elmats, my voice shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's, I'm just a regular volunteer (and apparantly have a very outdated userpage here…).

I noticed the disagreement in this article on the English Wikipedia while I looked into the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia article about Wium Lie, which had had the same dispute (with the same participants). When I noticed that there was a dispute here as well I suggested to resolve it by essentially copying the solution that another user used in the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, where the article was restructured. My main objection to the article was that half the lead of the article was dedicated to Wium Lie's part-ownership of Resett, which in my eyes seems out of place when his claim to fame is creating CSS and being the CTO of Opera Software.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Resett is a right-wing newspaper nowadays, but from the sources in the article from when Resett was founded (when Wium Lie seems to have been most involved), it doesn't seem like that was the intention. I do tend to agree with User:Permenee that it would be better to leave classifications of the newspaper to an article about it (surely it would be notable even in the English Wikipedia), and to leave it out of the articles of individual owners, especially with regards to BLP. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2019 (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.

|}

Talk:Håkon Wium Lie

– New discussion.

Filed by Elmats on 00:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Håkon Wium Lie (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elmats (talk · contribs)
• permenee (talk · contribs)
• Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should the article contain information that the magazine this person cofounded is controversial and right-wing? The discussion contains arguments to and from, i will try to refrain from reciting them here in interest of being objective.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk about it on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

I think giving guidance on whether this information should not be included on the page.

Summary of dispute by permenee

The dispute is whether the term "controversial Norwegian right-wing" should be used on a BLP page, wrt. ownership in the Resett online newspaper. Guidance from senior editor Jon Harald Søby (talk · contribs) seems quite clear: the use of "right-wing" is problematic. Still, the conflict was filed for dispute resolution by Elmats (talk · contribs).

In addition to the arguments put forward by the senior editor on the talk page, I believe the term is not fitting for these reasons:

1. information about a newspaper's bias should appear on the wikipedia page of the newspaper itself, rather than on bio pages of founders/owners. For example, one does not link to the "liberal Washington Post" on Jeff Bezos' page.
2. the Resett online newspaper has a well-developed wikipedia page in Norwegian which does not use words like "controversial" or "right-wing"
3. the term is possibly libelious unless one has very clear evidence about support for controversial right-wing causes. No such evidence has been provided.
4. on the contrary, the two initial editors of Resett were an Utøya massacre survivor (Bjørn Ihler) and a researcher who was most famous for warning against bombing Libya (Helge Lurås). Supporting these is probably more left-wing than right-wing.
5. the current editorial board of Resett is more diverse (in terms of skin color and sexual identity) than any other Norwegian newspaper, and articles by left-wing authors appear regularly (e.g. Lars Birkelund). Labelling the newspaper as "right-wing" is therefore simplistic at best, dangerous at worst. In any case, such labelling should not appear a bio page.
6. According to Wikipedia's policies "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives".

The proposed use of the term seems to be just that: a tittilating claim, which should not appear on a BLP. Permenee (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by jon_harald_soby

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

Talk:Talk:Håkon Wium Lie discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• @DRN volunteers: - A volunteer is requested to open this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, one of the involved editors is yet to submit a statement. --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• We really could need some help on this page Elmats (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MrClog, User:Elmats, User:permenee - The editor who has not made a statement has not edited in a week, and edits sporadically, so that they are not likely to take part in dispute resolution. If the two editors who are watching this case wish to engage in discussion, we will continue to request a volunteer. Otherwise, the case will be closed, and the other editors will be advised that they can revert the edits by the intermittent editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe three editors have made statements. On the Talk:Håkon Wium Lie page there are statements from User:Elmats, User:permenee, and the senior editor User:Jon Harald Søby (who is a wikipedia spokesperson in Norway). Jon Harald provided guidance which should be enough to resolve the conflict. However, User:Elmats didn't agree and chose to send the case to dispute resolution. Unless User:Elmats is willing to respect the currently provided guidance, I think it's best to find a volunteer to try resolve. Permenee (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur that the dispute resolution can continue without [[User::Jon Harald Søby]]. I also was not aware that he holds an official position with Wikipedia. That certainly makes it feel more complicated. Elmats (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made another attempt at resolving this without dispute resolution; I've taken out one word (right-wing) and left the other (controversial). If this edit is not reverted, we can all spend our time on more productive matters. Permenee (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

But this is just reverting to your preferred version. That's not a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute. I've suggested several other resolutions on the talk page, all of which you have rejected because you don't want Resett to be presented as right-wing. I'm putting back the information you removed. Elmats (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My preferred version is one without the "controversial right-wing" in it. I believe a bio page should not try classify the bias of newspapers or add titillating claims. Further, we have senior Wikipedia editor/steward (User:Jon Harald Søby) guidance on this, so the case should be fairly easy to conclude. Permenee (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just to make it clear: Even if (User:Jon Harald Søby) writes on his user page that he is a steward, that doesn't make him one. He hasn't been an official steward in over 5 years, look at your own reference. And, he himself also makes it clear that on Wikipedia it's the content and not the editor that matters. You can read it in his own words in this interview where he defends Anders Behring Breivik editing Wikipedia. I've made the case for why it's relevant to include this information on the talk page, and that there isn't really a good case for taking it away. I don't see Søby's opinion holding any authority that changes that. You're just removing information that creates a more complete biographical picture of the candidate. Elmats (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being silent here, I've been busy with other stuff and didn't really see myself as an active part of this dispute. And you are absolutely correct, User:Elmats, my voice shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's, I'm just a regular volunteer (and apparantly have a very outdated userpage here…).

I noticed the disagreement in this article on the English Wikipedia while I looked into the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia article about Wium Lie, which had had the same dispute (with the same participants). When I noticed that there was a dispute here as well I suggested to resolve it by essentially copying the solution that another user used in the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, where the article was restructured. My main objection to the article was that half the lead of the article was dedicated to Wium Lie's part-ownership of Resett, which in my eyes seems out of place when his claim to fame is creating CSS and being the CTO of Opera Software.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Resett is a right-wing newspaper nowadays, but from the sources in the article from when Resett was founded (when Wium Lie seems to have been most involved), it doesn't seem like that was the intention. I do tend to agree with User:Permenee that it would be better to leave classifications of the newspaper to an article about it (surely it would be notable even in the English Wikipedia), and to leave it out of the articles of individual owners, especially with regards to BLP. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Airports#RFC_Destinations:_United_Express_and_United,_like_it_currently_is,_or_no_standard_way_is_ok

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Blissfield101 on 21:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#RFC Destinations: United Express and United (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Like it currently is (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Or no standard way is ok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved All of the users in the above link (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a discussion going on as to whether or not we should consolidate the mainline/regional airlines on the Airline and Destination tables on airport pages. The Airline and Destination tables have been a source of various disputes over the last few years as to how to cite them, what information should be included, etc. A little over a year ago, there was a proposal to merge the regular ("mainline") and regional carriers together in order to eliminate redundancy, reduce inaccuracy and to make the information easier to cite. However, it was reverted shortly thereafter. The above proposal was brought up again recently, and users began showing support for consolidating mainline/regional carriers, including myself. Due to the support, I began changing the tables to reflect the support due to (at the time) there being no major opposition. As soon as I started, several users went up in arms over the changes and began coming to the page to object. I have no issue with users who object, however, the issue is most of those said users have not provided any objective reasons supported by Wikipedia policies as to why the old format should remain. I am requesting dispute resolution to help resolve this issue and get insights from experts in Wikipedia policy. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We are attempting to have a discussion, but there is disagreement over how the tables should be formatted in light of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc. How do you think we can help? Better explain what Wikipedia policies are in regards to the Airline and Destination tables in airport articles and to state which way they should be formatted/cited or if they should be removed. This has been an ongoing issue and it needs to be resolved once and for all. Summary of dispute by All of the users in the above link Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Airports#RFC_Destinations:_United_Express_and_United,_like_it_currently_is,_or_no_standard_way_is_ok 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.

Andy Ruiz Jr.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Dmoore5556 on 01:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Andy Ruiz Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SWAGnificient (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Andy Ruiz Jr. was born in California and is an American boxer. An editor continues to modify/revert lead content and infobox to state he is Mexican (based on his ethnic heritage and his participation in Olympic qualification/trials for Mexico in 2008). I believe this sort of difference of opinion is covered by MOS:ETHNICITY, which other editors have also highlighted and applied in the past 24 hours. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've highlighted MOS:ETHNICITY in edit comments and in discussion on the article's Talk page. I've stopped editing the page per DISENGAGE and to avoid over-reverting. How do you think we can help? Would appreciate third-party assistance in reviewing the lead in question and reviewing application of MOS:ETHNICITY. Summary of dispute by SWAGnificient Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Andy Ruiz Jr. discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Is this a dispute where a Third Opinion could be requested first? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2019 (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.

Laki language

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Ahmedo Semsurî on 21:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Laki language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ahmedo Semsurî (talk · contribs) Shadegan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview "Laki language" is an article which for years have failed to give readers unbiased information regarding the classification of the language. Now, the most informed linguist about Laki is Anonby who argued in 2016 that: "Most linguists... classify Laki within Kurdish, although it is unclear whether it is best classified as a separate of branch Kurdish (as shown here) or as a variety of Southern Kurdish. Still, some speakers of Laki and many Northern Lori speakers consider it part of the Lori group."[13]. Thus, I decided to make profound changes and the result was[14]. However, as soon as I was done, one user chose to revert everything and we returned to this[15]. Now, I tried to make them use the talkpage[16] but only received conspiracy theories about me pushing for 'pan-kurdism' and ethno-centrism. Nothing about the content or their problems with the academic sources I gave. Some time after, I went to ANI to explain the situation but it ended in a stalemate and still no constructive criticism by the one user.[17]. I still have not received any comment on the problems my edits have. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Communication, talk-pages, ANI How do you think we can help? I believe DRN can encourage the user to just explain once his issues instead of him keeping up the personal attacks, so we can solve this. I need a clear explanation of why my edits keep getting removed, when it's based on academia contra the current version which is based on unattainable references, dead links and unsourced sections. Summary of dispute by Shadegan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Statement by El_C The disruption in the Kurdish set of articles over the last few weeks has reached fever pitch. I blocked multiple editors (including Ahmedo Semsurî this week) and semi or extended-confirmed protected tens of articles. I'm at the point where I'm ready to be outright draconian with issuing topic bans, so all participants better be on their best behaviour. That means no innuendo. It means focusing on applying due weight to available reliable sources, so that the material fairly represents scholarly and mainstream consensus (and if that consensus is split, then also note that). Enough nonsense and shortcuts — time to get serious. El_C 00:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Laki language discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - This dispute is also pending at WP:ANI. It is true that it is going nowhere at WP:ANI, which places the filing party in an awkward position. It also appears that there has been a move discussion, which was closed with a consensus not to move. Is this a conduct dispute, or a content dispute? A case of editing against consensus is a conduct dispute. Is this a case of ignoring the consensus, or a separate issue from what was decided by the merge discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC) The move discussion was a separate issue wherein I failed to gain support for my request. That matter is concluded. This is a dispute over the content of the Laki language article. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by 'decided by the merge discussion' --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC) User:Ahmedo Semsurî Since Shadegan has not replied at WP:ANI, I have asked them to reply and discuss their edits there. We cannot require them to discuss, but if they do not discuss, a topic-ban may be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC) They have responded at ANI now but without substance. From now on, I won't respond there so will wait for them to respond here. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Dear all, excuse me for my late, I have addressed the ethnocentric edits done by user:Ahmedo Semsurî several times in the recent days. If you have a look to edit history of these pages (Laki language, Laks (Iran), Iraqi Lurs, Feyli Lurs), during last weeks, you will see that this user has tried to deviate the contents in a way to include these as only innate Kurdish ethnic issues by deleting sources about other theories, other classification debates etc. I tried to stop him/her to do that and he/she started edit warring in pages Lurs, Southern Lurs, Qadam Kheyr, etc for revenge (They were related to other Iranian tribe) and slandering several times. I wonder how the trend is done so appaently without any reaction by wikipedia adminitrators! I have made edits in the page Laki language some last months and I mentioned different ideas and believes about the indepency of that language, being a dialect of Luri or a dialect of Kurdish but the mentioned user has tried several times to delete the citation except for Kurdish. He even had tried to change the page totally and moving it to the name Laki Kurdish!! [18] instead but he/she failed by thorough opposed discussion by several users. I expect the administrators to have a simple look to the mentioned issues and decide which user is deserving topic-ban.BestSHADEGAN (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Repost of my reply to these claims: How can adding templates for unsourced information on Qadam KheyrLursSouthern Lurs be edit war? And you still avoid answering the simple question: What part of the academic sources do you have a problem with? Stop focusing on me but the content.--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator Okay. I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Read and comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but do not clarify the issues. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions. You will respond to my questions. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. (If the article is edited, I will request a block.) Comment on content, not on contributors. (Any comments about the other editors will result in a warning or a request for a block.) I do not know about the Laki language, and how it differs from and is related to other languages. The parties are expected to inform me and each other and the community. Each editor should, within 24 hours, state briefly how they think the article should be improved. The subject of this discussion is the article (not the editors). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors I will try to make this concise. The classification of Laki has become complicated because of one major element: the relationship between Laki language and Laki people. Aliakbari describes the issue very consice on page 9 (2014) and gives three possible classifications for Laki language (which he calls 'a', 'b', 'c'). However, linguists have distanced themselves from the 'c' classification: Linguist Anonby who is an expert on this vernacular, writes in footnote 6 that: Most linguists... classify Laki within Kurdish, although it is unclear whether it is best classified as a separate of branch Kurdish... or as a variety of Southern Kurdish. Still, some speakers of Laki and many Northern Lori speakers consider it part of the Lori group.. We also have Iranica Online who uses Anonby, Fattah and other like-minded linguists and write the classification of Laki as a dialect of Southern Kurdish or as a distinct Kurdish language in its own right remains controversial in the literature. So, the discussion on Wikipedia should be whether Laki is a fourth Kurdish language (beside Kurmanji, Sorani, Southern Kurdish) or simply a dialect of Southern Kurdish. The article should also mention how Laki is not perceived as an independent language or a Luri dialect, despite the popular belief among Laki speakers themselves (the belief that Laki is Luri is prominent among Lakis). The current version of the article does not elucidate this discussion at all. Contrarily, the article is trying to portray it as if there is a scholar disagreement on whether it is a Kurdish dialect, Luri dialect or an independent language. My proposal stands: This article should only rely on recent academia that give the readers reliable information on this topic. Also, the three sections 'Laki and Ancient Persian', 'Comparison between Laki, some other Kurdish varieties, and Persian', 'Comparison between Laki and some other Lurish varieties with kormaci alfabet' seem to be original research. Before it was removed by Shadegan, I added a cognate table which was sourced.[19] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC) I also want to add that I believe the article should primarily constitute of academic oeuvres written by linguists (phonologists included) who are experts on Laki specifically and have the vernacular as focal point. That is, I don't believe the article should depend on scholars who peripherally occupy themselves with Laki, since these classify the language without commenting on their act. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2019 (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.

Talk:Religious and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Sfbmod on 20:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sfbmod (talk · contribs) Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A moderator is constantly removing primary source references regarding Albert Einstein's personal religious views claiming they are 'editorializing' and threatening to block my contributions for being 'bollocks.' Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asking them to allow the primary sourced references to paint the more accurate representation of the content. How do you think we can help? Allow the content that contradicts this contributor's opinions contrary to the content in question. Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Religious and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - There are several problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. Second, there is already a case at the fringe theory noticeboard. This noticeboard does not handle cases that are also pending in another forum (although one option is to close the dispute at FTN). Third, the other editor has given the filing editor a vandalism warning for a contentious edit that is not vandalism. Fourth, the filing editor is editing against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2019 (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.