Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 187

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Steak and Blowjob Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ItsGolfTime (talk · contribs)
• Meters (talk · contribs)
• Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs)
• Audigex (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Steak and Blowjob Day is listed as a "satirical" holiday & the dispute is if the term "satirical" should be removed. I reviewed the two references. One is silent on any satire & the other lists "satirical tweets". but don't seem to address the holiday itself. Therefore, I removed the "satirical" term. The editor User:Meters stated the burden was on me to show otherwise. While I do not believe that to be true in view of WP:POV, in view of WP:FAITH I cited other references in the article (there are 34), did some of my own research, & reviewed the deletion log history & other history (this is somewhat analogous to the logic used under Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day#"with little or no observance in reality" that actual practice is difficult to determine). In view of my research, I recreated the edit explaining the logic. This was reverted without addressing the content of the references I cited & instead stating that this has been listed in the article since 2005 (a somewhat questionable standard as the article has been under constant deletion & only was fully established with references around 2018). Also notable that many references have dates in the last 5 years, making the 2005-2015 window less relevant. I again removed & it was again reverted (causing a WP:3RR) situation). The argument then cites the article itself, but no sources. So here 3 reverts have taken place citing no references, ignoring references cited & other logic/arguments to the counter, & seems at an standoff. A third editor did add that this is not practiced, but again no citations to references are provided to that rationale. So the issue is should the term "satirical" without any reference stating that the holiday is "satirical" remain in the article with other references already in the article & logic about counterarguments not usually applying to satire stating otherwise. To be clear, its not who is right, its that the "satirical" nature is unsupported & countered.

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

Discussed on the article talk page at Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day#Why "satirical" holiday

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The first is establishing burden - does WP:POV in of itself place the burden on the party adding a qualifier such as "satirical/non-satirical." The second is irregardless of the party with the burden, how to handle where references & citations show the counterargument & the only rationale given is a conclusory "its not practiced" without any reference cited. The third, and probably hardest, is guidance on how to handle something that is hard to determine - here, actual holiday practice.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gun (staff) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SpinnerLaserz (talk · contribs)
• SimeonManier (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am not Vietnamese nor Chinese but I do know that the Vietnamese have the same weapons as the Chinese but with different names due to influence from China. Simeon didn't believed the sources that I have added to these articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jian&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_(staff)&action=history

I am not sure if Simeon lived nor studied in Asia.

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

Not yet other than to add sources which are reliable to the subjects in question.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please take a look at the sources I added and see if they are fit for these articles. I am not sure if they are different or not but they had similarities to each other. I need someone who is an expert in martial arts and Chinese and Vietnamese culture and history.

As I keep telling you multiple times, if you want to create articles for Vietnamese weapons, create separate respective articles signifying the Vietnamese weapons. No one is stopping you from creating them. What I object to is that you stop inserting content and haphazardly renaming articles related to Vietnamese related weapons into articles related to Chinese weapons. SimeonManier (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yet, you do not answer the latter regarding if you ever lived in Asia nor studied in Asia. If so lived nor studied in Asia, then I can find an expert. What I wanted is too look for an expert on these subjects. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - If the filing party is looking for an expert, they are more likely to be able to find one at a WikiProject than at this noticeboard. If they are looking for a mediator, a volunteer will assist them, but the parties may have to provide the mediator with the background knowledge of the subject. If an expert is desired, try WikiProject Martial Arts or WikiProject Vietnam. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Allowing further time for discussion at the article talk pages might help to find an expert. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Does the filing editor, User:SpinnerLaserz, want moderated discussion, or to look for an expert? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Monosodium Glutamate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MJV479 (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Doc James (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Alexbrn doesn't believe my content should go into the article. He is acting on his own without seeking the approval of other editors.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Continued_edit-warring

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the content belongs in the article however, Alexbrn does not agree. I just want to see other editor's thoughts on the matter, and see if Alexbrn would like to cooperate, seeing as he has avoided cooperation.

Doc James needs to be added. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

As I already said on Talk, the proposed edits are unclear with their repeat invocation of "a study", and try to pass off rat research as though it applies to humans. I can't see any additional value in what is being added. That the complainant has started being personally insulting makes me uninterested in pursuing this seemingly worthless avenue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The content MJV479 is trying to add is already covered by "Specifically MSG in the diet does not increase glutamate in the brain or affect brain function." We do not need all the rest of what they are proposing such as "The claim that MSG is an excitotoxin is not necessarily true." MJV479 can try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "Specifically MSG in the diet does not increase glutamate in the brain or affect brain function" does not specify why. Also that is not completely true because MSG has the potential to affect brain function if it gets past the blood-brain barrier, of course this is not usual and is only possible when the blood-brain barrier is damaged or otherwise bypassed by non physiologic means, but it is still possible nonetheless. MJV479 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Please keep discussion here to a minimum until you have been assigned a volunteer. I have added Doc James to the list of involved users and have given him his own section to add a summary of the dispute. --MrClog (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• • User:MJV479 you should start a RfC not this. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dlthewave (talk · contribs)
• Sirfurboy (talk · contribs)
• Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For most of the past ten years, the "race and intelligence" article has included a section ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=942674047&oldid=942656716&diffmode=source ) about how average IQ scores vary between various regions of the world. This section was boldly removed last month by Dlthewave, with the argument that the section was not relevant to the article. This resulted in an edit war between Dlthewave and two other users, Peregrine Fisher and Jweiss11, who felt that the section was relevant or that longstanding material should not be removed without consensus.

In a discussion in his user talk, Sirfurboy suggested that I propose a new version of this section on the article talk page, modifying it to address the reasons it was removed. Several people are opposed to my current proposal for how to modify this section, but very few are offering any specific suggestions about what must be changed about the section to make it acceptable. Some of the objections raised to my current proposal seem literally impossible to satisfy, given the limitation of what viewpoints exist in reliable sources about international IQ comparisons. Since this section is a longstanding part of the article, it should not be removed in the absence of a consensus to remove it, but there also must be some level of agreement about how to modify the section before it can be restored.

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Global_variation_of_IQ_scores
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#I_reverted,_again._Do_you_like_it?_Do_you_not_like_it?
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Global_variation_of_IQ_scores%3A_proposal
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263#Jweiss11

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need help determining how this section must be modified before it can be restored to the article.

I agree with K.e.coffman's comment that this filing is premature due to the ongoing discussion; at the very least we would need to add a half-dozen or so involved editors since the four mentioned here do not speak for everyone.

Multiple editors have raised concerns that the proposed rewrite of the Global variation of IQ scores section focuses heavily on Hunt and Rindermann, two sources which must be treated as fringe per the RSN discussion linked by the filer. The filer has identified these as the best available sources on the topic.

Rewriting the section is a necessary step towards potential inclusion, however some editors are putting the cart before the horse by taking the position that this section must be included and then insisting that either "the best available sources" must be used or other editors must provide better sources. If the objections are "impossible to satisfy" due to limited viewpoints covered by reliable sources, this may be a sign that the content does not meet our due weight requirements.

I feel that the current discussion regarding the rewrite contains the constructive criticism requested by the IP, even if it is not what they were hoping to hear, and that we should continue to discuss this on the article talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hunt and Rinderman are not fringe sources per the RSN discussion. Please reference the discussion on the RSN noticeboard for more info. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, RSN discussion was brought up at article talk, not here. Here's the permalink. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Although my edits to this article have been minimal and not touched this section, I have been following the debate, and did indeed suggest a rewrite of material might find a way through the deletion/reinsertion impasse. I understand why editors removed the material, but did not entirely agree with it. Problems with the material removed are (1) the section appears to confuse race with nationality (2) it contained a back and forth between those for and against strong hereditarian positions. (3) there was a leap from IQ testing to intelligence despite known problems with that. However it did contain information about systematic reviews and analysis that did draw attention to the problems - including that confusion of race and nationality. I also did not entirely agree with the deletion because the attempts by Lynn and Vanhanen to extend an observation that was hitherto based very largely on US focussed studies with a US centric notion of race is, in my opinion, notable inasmuch as it describes the nature of the controversy, and is also illustrative of the methodological problems of Vanhanen and Lynn. Thus I think a neutral point of view demands some coverage of this subject as long as we understand the article to be about the notable race and intelligence controversy (and that is my understanding as to what the article is about). I think the section, rewritten in a mainstream, NPOV manner is notable and I think the IP editor's suggestion went some way towards achieving that. I would probably wish to edit the proposed material, but that is allowed. The question here is only whether the matter should be covered at all, and I think it should. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is definitively not about the "Race and Intelligence Controversy" as has been discussed and as consensus has concluded. In fact, there is already an existing article on this particular subject: History of the race and intelligence controversy 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This filing is premature. There's a proposal on the Talk page where the matter is being addressed: Global variation of IQ scores: proposal. The proposal was opened by the OP and the thread has not yet closed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The dispute over this section's removal has been ongoing on the talk page for a month, and has yet to resolve anything. Based on the general lack of support for my latest proposal, it's unlikely the current discussion will resolve it either. Isn't a month of unproductive discussion adequate for dispute resolution? 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on the general lack of support for my latest proposal... -- the answer appears to be right there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This request for dispute resolution isn't about the particular proposal that I made two days ago. My proposal is only the latest in a series of unsuccessful attempts at resolving the month-long dispute over this section's being removed without consensus, which has been discussed in two other talk page threads as well as at Arbitration Enforcement. That's what needs resolving. 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that this filing is premature. Well-sourced, long-standing material added via consensus was removed without any discussion and without consensus. Several involved editors including K.e.coffman are stonewalling any efforts to include a discussion of the “hereditarian” position (unless that position is labeled fringe or racist) in the article, regardless of what reliable sources say. The same behavior has been happening at human genetic variation where user:sirfurboy is removing (without discussion) long-standing material added via consensus, and then reverting efforts to restore the material (again without discussion). IP above has been tremendously patient and acting in good faith. The same cannot be said for some editors with an environmentalist viewpoint. The only solution that will satisfy them is to label any accounting for genetic differences between groups of people as “white supremacist”. The irony is evidence points to NON-white populations having the highest genetic predisposition for what is commonly defined as intelligence. So tell me, how is this position white-supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reversion of material at human genetic variation was material repeatedly reinserted by the sock puppet Sprayitchyo, and examination of the edits reverted will show that every "editor" asserting that material has been banned or blocked as a Sprayitchyo sock. So very curious, then that an IP editor's first and only contribution to Wikipedia is to complain about that matter in an obscure location such as this one, no?  Looks like a duck to me. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The material should not have been removed in the first place. It was long-standing and had consensus. It was then removed without discussion or consensus. The question is why was material removed (again) without discussion or consensus to remove? 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about the material at R&I or the material at Human genetic variation? If the former, then read the above again. I have never touched that material. If the latter then it is off topic here, was not longstanding, and you are defending the edits of a sock puppet. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Trauma trigger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pengortm (talk · contribs)
• Bilorv (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement about how to best summarize the article with regard to costs and benefits of trigger warnings. One editor thinks several relevant scientists being critical of trigger warnings should be included in the lead. Another editor thinks criticism should only be included after more peer reviewed research is conducted.

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

[29]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some clarity on wikipedia standards as applies to this particular situation. We seem to have reached an impasse and a skilled wikipedia editor would be helpful for some broader perspective.

Disagreement is over the proposed lead text: While research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited, several scientists with knowledge in this area have suggested that trigger warnings may be counterproductive and actually increase anxiety and PTSD symptoms. This is a medical claim so WP:MEDRS applies. Initially, we had no MEDRS-appropriate sources for this text, but after some discussion and compromise we found sourcing for the text: Research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited.

The rest of the text is non-neutrally written ("several scientists with knowledge in this area" is peacocking), personal opinion and misleading to readers. We have had a suggestion to include something to the effect of: Limited research suggests that trigger warnings may be helpful to people with PTSD and provide no medical benefit to those without it. But the sourcing is not yet there (so more sources would be good). — Bilorv (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be closed. The person who started it apparently decided that not getting an answer within 24 hours (over the weekend, too) was proof that it was ripe for DRN. I've posted a reply at Talk:Trauma trigger#Trigger warning - medical consensus, complete with a source that says that trigger warnings are useful for some people with PTSD. I suggest closing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Hunt (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• You've gone incognito (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The genre of this film was changed many times from thriller to horror and back again, since both are well-sourced for this film. The obvious solution would be to mention both, as leaving out either of these primary genres would leave the article lacking. It seems to me that common sense dictates, that where more than one statement is true, both must be mentioned on Wikipedia, and such has been my experience here for over a decade. Several objections have been raised: WP:SEAOFBLUE, which was resolved after these edits; WP:FILMLEAD, which seems to be based on a overly rigid interpretation of that guideline, as though under no circumstance can there be more than one genre in the lead of a film article; WP:SYNTH, which seems a misunderstanding and not applicable. To explain, the proposed edit does not combine "horror" and "thriller" into "horror thriller", rather says clearly that the film has "alternative been described as a horror or thriller film".

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

Talk:The_Hunt_(2020_film)#Genre:_horror

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. State a neutral opinion on the question in how far does good encyclopedia writing mean we should have both the "thriller" and "horror" genre in this case. 2. State a neutral opinion on whether the relevant guidelines are satisfied by the proposed addition of more than one genre. 3. Remove the personal factor by convincing me that You've gone incognito's opposition to the proposed edit is based on guidelines, rather than on WP:IDONTLIKETHIS, which is the conclusion I have come to based on repeated reverts despite what I consider to be good arguments. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to OP's statement, the "horror thriller" genre claim is unsourced, lacks consensus, and violates WP:SYNTH: i.e., "If some sources say it's a horror movie and others call it a thriller, then it must be a horror thriller." Truth is sources are not really sure as to the exact genre, which is why I had to put up that note on Feb 14 to prevent more edit wars from occurring (diff). OP may have attempted to discuss the edit in the talk but there was no consensus at all, just a bunch of subjective opinions tossed in. (He must think that babbling in the talk is equivalent to building consensus when it's not.) You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - If there is a question for which a Third Opinion would be useful, one can be requested at the Third Opinion noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion is not relevant, since there are more than two parties who took part in the discussion on the talkpage. Naaman Brown agrees with my edit, while Erik seems to be opposing it, at least mildly. Kailash29792 also expressed his disagreement on his talkpage. Neither are edit warring about it, though. If you please, they can be asked to comment here as well. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - Is there any question about whether a film can be listed as having two genres? I don't see a policy or guideline against that. I have not reviewed whether either or both genres are substantiated from the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Some, not me, seem to disagree with what you say regarding listing two genres for a film in the lead section. That is something that mediation should address, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The inclusion of two genres is fine as long as the vast majority of reliable sources classify the movie under that. In the article's case, sources disagree with the "horror thriller" genre since many have called it differently: "action thriller", "political thriller", "satirical thriller", et cetera; hence the note in the opening sentence. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JMKaisar (talk · contribs)
• CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs)
• ApprenticeFan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There was a template called "2020 coronavirus quarantines".

It previously had information only on Chineses cities.

I've improved the template so it can include worldwide information about every country.

But CaradhrasAiguo would rather prefer a new template to be created. He says that this template is for Hubei only.

I disagree, there's no need to remove information on every country but China, since this is used in multiple pages such as:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_responses_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic

The template is also named "2020 coronavirus quarantines" and not "2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2020_coronavirus_quarantines&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2020_coronavirus_quarantines#Remove_Population%2FCases%2FDeaths%3F

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Leave this template for worldwide quarantines, and create a new template such as Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei for use in 2020 Hubei lockdowns.

• Volunteer Note Hello @ApprenticeFan: @JMKaisar: @CaradhrasAiguo: I’m looking at your case and I am not seeing much discussion on the talk page? And I don’t see any discussion with ApprenticeFan, so I don’t see why you brought him here without talking on the talk page. Let me see what other volunteers think. Thanks. The4lines (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)The4lines

@The4lines: I gave a refutation of JMKaisar's incorrect timeline around half an hour ago. Again, I reiterate that I am open to a full-scale WP:TfD, but what JMKaisar has done unilaterally amounts to forcing a cut-and-paste move and is in poor taste. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Italian inventions and discoveries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk · contribs)
• Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

 There are three types of content disputed:

1)Sourced content that is not present in other pages. This seems highly restrictive, preventing new material to be added on Wikipedia by single Users. A lot of sourced material is being removed from the list, the reason being that there isn't a corresponding article on Wikipedia yet. Obviously, the articles creation needs more time and people contributing constructively, which unfortunately is not the case here. 2)Sourced content that allegedly doesn't meet the criteria of an invention or innovation. This is highly subjective. 3)Sources whose textual comprehension is disputed.

Currently, per the literal introduction of the page, all the entries removed starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries&diff=939992605&oldid=939507237 are sourced and I ask for them to be restored. The alphabetical list of Italian inventions could be transformed in a timeline with the help of the community, but not by myself alone. Also, innovations that are not inventions, such as the Galileo's telescope, are either to be restored in a separate alphabetical list or in the same list, whose title "Alphabetical list of Italian Inventions" should then be changed with "Alphabetical list of Inventions or Innovations". Please note that the introduction to the list never claims Italian exclusivity of the items, but, instead, they are objects, processes or techniques invented, "innovated" or discovered, "partially" or entirely, by Italians.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries#Factual_accuracy_and_adherence_to_WP:SAL_/_WP:LSC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries#Galileo_Telescope

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be helpful to work with someone willing to have a constructive approach to the page, so that dubious statements can be fixed and the items restored, with a timeline if it is deemed necessary. Further discussion on the talk page is hindered by the aforementioned rationale behind the removal of the material. Also, if a statement is not objective, that statement could be perfected instead of being removed along with the sources and the listed item.

I continually explain to TriangoloDiTartaglia that the edits fall within WP:YESPOV and WP:SAL / WP:LSC re: Selection criteria is obvious, don't add items and make claims about them in Wikipedia's voice that are not supported by reliable sources, don't make claims that fork with the item's linked Wikipedia article[32][33].

The WP:LSC seems to be obvious and has not been disputed[34].

It should be noted TriangoloDiTartaglia's edits have been a continuation of a line of contiguous WP:SPA accounts: User:Altes2009, User:In Ratio Veritas, all "Italian centric", sometimes aggressively PUSHing, and even deleting talk they don't like diffdiff.

It should also be noted that removal of dubious claims from this list has been pursued by other editors so this is not just a dispute with me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - User:TriangoloDiTartaglia, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr - Is there a continuing interest in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding me, there is. If anything else, we can discern original inclusion in the list from factual inaccuracy, so that content that is factually accurate, but is contrasting with other pages, can be included in them too. Some items were corrected, those corrections are fine. I am concerned about the deleted ones.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Since User:TriangoloDiTartaglia appears to be editing from a POV (manifesto here), and considers any opposing point of view "censorship" or "vandalism"[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43], the user seems to have a dispute with WP:COPO. I am not sure what DRN is going to accomplish. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - If one editor wants moderated discussion and the other editor doesn't think moderated discussion will be helpful, then moderated discussion probably isn't feasible, and the best route is probably Request for Comments. If the parties want assistance in formulating the RFC, I will assist them in formulating the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• I share the concern of User:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr about the inability of DRN to proceed to a constructive resolution of the dispute, since DNR exists for content debate, not user behaviour polemics. However, in closing the case and moving to a more appropriate place for the dispute, the reasons and the specific party hindering the resolution shall be outlined in the summary. If User:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr has any other argument apart from pitful argumentum ad hominem, I kindly invite him once more to a moderated debate. In both scenarios, volunteer's assistance would be appreciated.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. There was also a previous report at WP:AN3, which ended with nothing.

Location of dispute

• Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)
• Ohsin (talk · contribs)
• Alexandermcnabb (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article's subject was convicted in court in a civil case. It has been ruled by a civil court that the subject of this article has abducted daughters and threatened his wife.As per comments here and on my talkpage, he was not convicted, there was a declarative ruling. Doesn't change my argument a bit though. Which in all countries I am aware of implies that the conviction ruling was based on a balance of probabilities (>50%) and not above a reasonable doubt (which is far higher, some say >95%, for example). A certain editor decided that nevertheless the words "on the balance of probabilities" should be added.[44] I have repeatedly undone this, as 1. this sounds apologetic = POV and 2. we do not use this formula on other articles which mention civil convictions rulings.

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

Talk:Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum#Probabilities

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Judge by the arguments if this addition is needed and wanted, or had better be left out.

Unbelievable! He just doesn't get it! It was a civil law case, to do with his treatment of his wife (or one of them), who was suing him, so he wasn't "convicted" of anything, nor could he or anyone else have been convicted - yet he uses the word 3 times above. The judge found ("ruled" in legal terms) that he had done this, but importantly, this was on the civil law standard of the "balance of probabilities", not the criminal law one of "beyond reasonable doubt". He keeps insisting this is unimportant, or so obvious that everyone will get it, but his own language shows that he has still failed to grasp what happened at all. So how likely is it that the general reader will understand this? He already raised this at ANI (he should add a link above), & just got his knuckles rapped for it - they are getting rather fed up with his regular appearances there I think. WP:FORUMSHOP applies. Four editors have now commented on the other side of the argument on the article talk, and just been met with various disparaging dismissals. There were further comments when he raised it at ANI, but I'll let him dig that up from the archives. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok (see below) for "ANI" read WP:ANEW (the edit-warring noticeboard), but he still needs to dig up the link, as relevant comments were made there. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I am unimpressed to find myself listed here as an involved party, having received no notification of the matter being raised on this page; and not having edited the article concerned, or its talk page, for over a week.

That said, Debresser's conduct has been highly disruptive, and has shown a very weak understanding of the circumstances under discussion. Their attempt at raising a WP:3RRN case failed spectacularly, when it transpired that they were the only editor with more than three reverts, gaming the 24-hour limit, and had not been honest about how many reverts I had made.

I asked them on the article's talk page, on 11 March, "what... do you think Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been convicted of?" They failed to answer then yet repeat the allegation here, that The article's subject was convicted in court - an egregious violation of our BLP policy; and a fallacy, as there is no such thing (other than in an unrelated military sense) as a "civil conviction" in English law, and the subject - whatever we may think of their actions - has in fact not been convicted of any crime. A boomerang block and topic ban would be in order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I note that Debresser has now made major revisions to the OP here, to which I responded, not all of which are marked as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I also note that despite the diff in my previous comment, Debresser is now denying this, with further false claim about what they changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing here offered up that changes or adds a counterpoint to the perfectly valid and sensible arguments of the editors who disagree with Debresser. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to say here, while in lead section it appears enough to suggest the fact finding ruling was from a civil court but the section about Haya's departure and ensuing child custody battle needs expansion with proper context, it should be noted there that ruling was based on 'Preponderance of the evidence' and that Sheikh Mohammed willingly didn't participate in the process to counter allegations and ruling also notes in past criminal investigation in Shamsa's case could not proceed due to denial of access to her in Dubai. At the moment this is just edit war over three words with personal attacks thrown in.  Ohsin  18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing You noted incorrectly. The only revision is conviction -> ruling, and all instances are clearly marked. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 22 March

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Two of the other editors have commented, but the other two need to be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There has not been any discussion of this dispute at WP:ANI. (If there were, it would have to be resolved before a case could be considered here.) There was a report at the edit-warring noticeboard, which has been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Linked this discussion now above, as per request on my talkpage. It lead to nothing, and I didn't think it much relevant, but no problem. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Debresser, Johnbod, Pigsonthewing, Ohsin, and Alexandermcnabb: If the requested assistance is "Judge by the arguments if this addition is needed and wanted, or had better be left out", is there any particular reason why a RFC has not been initiated, considering it would allow for many users to weigh in on the issue? --MrClog (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Obviously a question only Debresser can answer; no one else wanted this. Perhaps he is saving that for a third go. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • An RfC about what? To reiterate what I said in the WP:3RRN discussion; "The solution is for the correct, cited wording to be restored, in line with our BLP policy, and Debresser to stop - or to be stopped from - edit warring to remove it, based on his fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of the basic nature of the judgement to which it refers. The latter is not an issue on which there can be compromise, any more than we can compromise by saying that the Earth is half flat, or that the moon landings only half happened." Several others have already commented; not one of whom has agreed with Debresser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

    @Pigsonthewing: With an RfC, all these different inputs can be combined in one place to officially determine consensus on the issue, to avoid any misunderstanding or willful blindness as to what is the current consensus. --MrClog (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

    • We are up to four opposed to Debresser at the talk page, plus the two very experienced admins on WP:ANEW, neither of whom expressed any sympathy with his position. Under all normal circumstances this would represent a stronger "official" consensus than most things on WP attain, but this is Debresser. You have put your finger on it with "willful blindness as to what is the current consensus". Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with an Rfc. I came here because I was hoping for a simple policies and guidelines-based decision, since I think the issue is straightforward enough to not need broad discussion. For the record, I strongly condemn Johnbod's persistent personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: We don't issue decisions as to who is correct here. Rather, we mediate discussions between willing editors to reach a non-binding compromises when it comes to a content dispute. So unless all involved editors want to have a mediated discussion here hoping to reach a compromise everyone can agree with, there isn't much DRN can help you with. --MrClog (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Have opened an Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Trauma trigger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pengortm (talk · contribs)
• Bilorv (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement about how to best summarize the article with regard to costs and benefits of trigger warnings. One editor thinks several relevant scientists being critical of trigger warnings should be included in the lead. Another editor thinks criticism should only be included after more peer reviewed research is conducted. This was listed ~10 days ago and closed in the hopes of more discussion happening on the talk page. There has not been any discussion since 3/16.

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

[45]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some clarity on wikipedia standards as applies to this particular situation. We seem to have reached an impasse and a skilled wikipedia editor would be helpful for some broader perspective.

This discussion should be closed; further discussion is a waste of time at present as we have as much consensus as we're going to get for the lead's current content. WhatamIdoing has provided routes for the article's body to be expanded in a sensible manner, which is the real solution here. If Pengortm wishes to improve the article then they should begin by adding this source to the body and finding similar sources to use (but not cherry-picking sources to support their own opinion).

I think this should be closed. Pengortm appears to be using this noticeboard in an effort to embarrass other editors into spending their time talking to him. This editor could have {{ping}}ed one of us if he really thought that it was urgent to have yet another reply on that talk page on his schedule. It's not even clear what Pengortm thinks should be done in that article (beyond him apparently wanting other people to keep spending their time talking to him). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to reply a bit to the other editors who appear bothered that I have listed this here. I did not mean this as an embarrassing, punitive, or derogatory step, but to broaden the discussion since we seem to be at an impasse. The issue summary as I see it is that I feel that it is appropriate summarize the views of multiple scientists quoted in the body of the article in the lead. Bilorv has objected to this on the grounds that this goes against WP:MEDRS and that more peer reviewed information needs to be found to back this up first. While I disagree with Bilorv, I think this is an honest disagreement and different interpretation of wikipedia standards and practices. We have tried to discuss our varying interpretations but seem to be speaking past each other. As I understand it WhatamIdoing has not objected to the summary I suggest on WP:MEDRS grounds like Bilorv, but on the grounds that they feel that there is missing content in the body of the article. I am open to adding well sourced content to the body of the article of course, and adjusting the lead accordingly. However, it is not clear to me what content is specifically missing which other editors feel should be added (simply referencing an entire book and saying add stuff from that is not productive)? Unless and until the body of the article is changed, I think it is standard practice for the lead to summarize the body as it exists now. I do hope another editor can weigh in here. If I am offbase, do please explain why, but I think we are having some honest disagreements and could use some additional perspective. If I should have waited longer for discussion to accumulate on the talk page to list this, please let me know--I thought 10+ days was reasonable, but could be offbase of course.-Pengortm (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• James Bradley (former slave) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deisenbe (talk · contribs)
• CaroleHenson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue has to do with only one specific question: the value of recent (since 1950) newspaper articles on the man the article is about. My position is:

a) there is no source for information on this man's biography before he arrived in Cincinnati, other than his autobiographical statement and reports from contemporaries about what he said to them;

b) no recent article makes a reference to any new source of information; therefore,

c) these articles used by Carole Henson, while secondary, are not to be relied on when they make unsupported statements about this man's life, such as his having spent time in northern Kentucky (this from a source promoting travel in Kentucky), and

d) using the nineteenth-century primary sources, his own statement and direct reports by persons present about what he said, makes for a better, more accurate article.

I'll let CaroleHenson say for herself what her position is.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Newspapers_have_to_come_out

Note that on the article's talk page there is talk between myself and CaroleHenson about other issues; this request is for comment on the issue of sources only.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make a recommendation about whether the primary sources used by me in the article before Carole Henson got involved with it in February (as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bradley_(former_slave)&oldid=939446245) should be preferred, as more accurate or reliable, than the magazine articles she has replaced them with.

I am trying to sort out your key points for a second opinion:

• You believe, especially for the period before he goes to Lane, that "the only source is his own statement".
• If a source provides any information that is not in Bradley's statement, you find that to be false information.
• Regardless of whether a source would be considered a reliable source (newspapers, books) in other instances, if you find that they published something you don't agree with, they are not a reliable source.
• You question even his own statement about being admitted to Lane, because you don't think it's likely that it happened... although I have mentioned above that there are tons of sources including Bradley that say he enrolled there. (I would agree, though, that he wouldn't have been ready to attend the literary or theological departments.)
• The means to me that you think that Bradley's statement is always the right and true source, unless something does not make sense to you. Then, it (and all the other sources that state the same thing) should be ignored.

What you have not said, but I interpret: You removed anything from the lede/intro that did not come directly from Bradley... well, and also information that came from Bradley about his life before Lane.

There was a clarification by Deisenbe about this list: I do not believe that the only source is his own statement. However, before he arrived at Lane, his statement and the comments of his contemporaries (presumably repeating what he told them) are the only sources I know of. Something like his spending time in northern Kentucky on the way to Cincinnati, I don't believe there is a reliable source for that. deisenbe (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)

Please also see this discussion about removing all newspaper sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: is right in that I made a regrettable and embarrassing mistake regarding Bradley's admission to Lane. She was right and I was wrong on that point. deisenbe (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Deisenbe's comment, I struck out one of the items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I just realized that the version that Deisenbe provided under the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" section was after I had started working on the article. The version of the article before I got involved is this version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: @Deisenbe and CaroleHenson: If you're seeking a third opinion, filing a request for one at WP:3O is your best bet. DRN is meant for situations where an independent mediator is needed to help guide a consensus-building conversation. If you're interested in that, feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page. --MrClog (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I opened a third opinion request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - On hold waiting for a response from the Third Opinion. If the parties are satisfied with the third opinion, this request will be closed. Keeping this request open only in case the third opinion results in a desire for moderated discussion aftewards. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Deisenbe has said here that they do not want to be involved any longer regarding this article. I added back primary sources to the slave narrative (which was his main concern) and am leaving all secondary sources (yeah!). So, we should be able to close this now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Canvas fingerprinting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MrX (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At the time of discussion, two users voiced their skepticism about the proposed merger, but they never engaged nor conclusively opposed the merger. After months, one of them is back reverting the work that has been done in the meantime. Clearly I would be open to renew the discussion, but on the ground that it was previously closed with consensus.

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

Talk:Device_fingerprint#Overlap_with_Browser_fingerprint_and_Canvas_fingerprinting

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By determining whether the discussion should have been considered closed at the 5th of February with consensus (counting two people in favor, the proposer and me, and two people neither conclusively in opposition nor in favor).

• Volunteer Note - It appears that this is a controversy about Merging two articles, and that there was a merge discussion, but that the merge discussion was never formally closed. The parties should follow the instructions in Merging for resolving a merge discussion that involves controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The subjects of the dispute are actually two and apparently independent: the procedure and the merge. On the procedural side, we dispute whether a consensus was reached or not when the discussion halted on the 5th of February. Do I have to file a posthumous request for closure?–Esponenziale (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    What I mean is: could you possibly help us solving just the dispute about the procedure?–Esponenziale (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merger_discussion_and_determine_consensus . Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Personal Opinion - There is a commonly stated idea that formal closure (of RFCs, merges, splits, etc.) is usually unnecessary because there is usually a rough consensus. That may be true, but if there is disagreement as to whether formal closure is necessary, formal closure is probably necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Avantika Vandanapu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GSS (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

If you look at her page from six months ago to now, it has been pulled down to bare bones with practically all of her accomplishments thrown out even when there are several references and videos online. It is almost looking like some editors are maliciously removing content from the page. All requests for suggested edits or questions on their talk pages are resulting in more cuts to the page. This is totally punitive.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#Avantika_Vandanapu's_edits_reverted

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review the content on Avantika's page six months ago. Help us in identifying accomplishments that seem uncorroborated and how we can resolve. Not all content may appear in a newspaper but we can provide screenshots from movies or TV shows where her name appeared. Or you can watch these shows online as independent reviewers. Give us a viable option on proving the content reliability instead of just shooting down.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Insilico Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• David_Gerard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There’s a situation between me and User:David_Gerard. I’m a science communicator and published an article about a biotech company in accordance with WP:PAID. David_Gerard reverted my edit without any reasoning. On the talk page he acted in a rude manner and ignored WP:DR. My request for advice to improve the submission was left without an answer. I’m also concerned that he may be biased on the matter, because he had a strong professional disagreement with the CEO of the said biotech company.

As David_Gerard refused to discuss contribution and focused on the contributor, it’s impossible to reach a consensus. I don’t want to reverse his edits and start an WP:EDITWAR. This situation requires both a mediator and an unbiased opinion and recommendation. I’m acting in good faith and I want to improve the article.

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

Talk:Insilico_Medicine

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By evaluating the attempts to find consensus by both sides. And by giving advice on how can I improve the draft, as the other wikipedian denied me any constructive recommendation.

This is a paid promotional editor, trying to play Wikipedia rules to get the promotion she's being paid for into the encyclopedia.

The promotional editor in question added a long slab of ill-referenced promotional text; I reverted it, on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't here to further her business promoting other businesses. Another editor in talk concurred. WP:BOGOF applies - Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to allow the encyclopedia to be biased by paid interests, and the edits can be reasonably assumed bad. Yamla endorsed my edit as a correct editorial decision.

I wasn't aware who the CEO was, and I think the paid promotional editor is stretching by calling the tweet a conflict; it was me trying to get detail on a promotional thing the company had emailed me three years ago. This is an attempt to impeach an editor reverting her paid spam, to get her paid spam in.

I would suggest the ideal resolution is that a paid promotional editor trying to rules-lawyer to get spam into the encyclopedia would be blocked forthwith for not being here to write an encyclopedia. Because this content is being added entirely as paid promotion, and not for encyclopedic purpose. Paid commercial editing is inherently bad faith editing, as this current action demonstrates - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll correct myself, in reaction to Robert McClenon's note - I'll say that I'm of the view that paid commercial editing inherently tends bad faith editing. I do think this is an example. The promotional editor's motivation is entirely to get paid, and nothing to do with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I will provide some long comments without changing the status of this request.

First, the filing editor, who is a paid editor, is asking the other editor for assistance or advice. No editor is required to give assistance or advice to another editor. There is a guideline, Do not bite the newcomers, which states not to be unpleasant, rude, or hostile to new editors. There is no guideline against ignoring new editors. There is also a pillar of Wikipedia that says not to be unpleasant, rude, or hostile to any editors. The BITE guideline simply amplifies it with regard to new editors. The other editor is choosing not to interact with the paid editor.

Second, the requirement for paid editors to disclose is meant to limit or minimize paid editing. It is not meant to encourage them, or to provide them with any special rights other than the right of every editor to be created with civility.

Third, advice to the filing editor could be to seek a Third Opinion, except that there has already been a third opinion from User:Yamla, who agrees with User:David Gerard. It appears that User:Birulik has ignored the comment from Yamla, because she has chosen not to list Yamla or notify them. At this point, asking for another mediator could be construed as cherry picking.

Fourth, advice to any filing editor who wishes to improve an article can always be to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Some of the Teahouse volunteers are more willing to assist compliant paid editors than most of the volunteers at this noticeboard. So Birulik can still seek advice at the Teahouse.

Fifth, I will observe that, while Birulik is trying to "improve" the article, it is more accurate to say that she is trying to expand and rewrite it. A question can be raised as to whether it needs to be expanded, based on the size and notability of the company.

Sixth, if Birulik thinks that David Gerard is biased against the company or its CEO, why is she asking David Gerard for assistance or advice? David Gerard has reasonably (regardless of whether they are biased) chosen to stay out of the way except to revert a large-scale rewrite and expansion.

Seventh, I personally disagree with David Gerard when he says that paid editing is inherently bad faith editing. However, he has no obligation to assist other good-faith or bad-faith editors.

Eighth, I will leave this request open to see if a volunteer is willing to mediate it. It may be closed if it is not responded to within a week. However, as noted, Birulik is more likely to get friendly advice at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: I didn’t ignore Yamla’s opinion. The said editor decided no to participate in the discussion on the talk page. Moreover, he took no part in the discussion even though I politely asked him to do so. As of the discussion with David Gerard (he wasn’t that much into it), I followed the logic of WP:DR, as it requires all editors to be polite and respectful regardless of odds. Finally, I applied here to have a content discussion, not the pointless “bad fair promotional paid bias editing”. The Teahouse isn’t suited for content disputes as they will distract the volunteers from helping new editors.--Birulik (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:David Gerard - Are you willing to engage in a moderated discussion here with User:Birulik and a volunteer moderator, or should I close this request as declined by you? (You are not required to engage in moderated discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll decline this one - I think it would be pointless, as this isn't a content discussion, but dealing with financially-motivated promotional editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Birulik - You say here that you wish to engage in a content discussion. On the talk page, what you had requested did not seem to be a content discussion so much as assistance in expanding the article, because you asked have your proposed text marked up. Do you want a discussion of whether to replace the article with your version, or do you want assistance in rewriting the article? It appeared to me that you were requesting assistance, and you can ask for that at the Teahouse. If you want other editors to choose between your version and the existing version, that could be a Request for Comments. What sort of discussion do you want (knowing that there is no obligation to discuss, only an obligation to be civil)? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Malta2019 and Draft:Malta Society of the Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• only self (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An article on Joseph Cassar, Phd was rejected because all of the sources provided are from Malta. He is a Malta figure and in 11/2019 was given a medal by the president for his contrigutions. 1) many other Malta figures only have Malta press 2) I don't think the editor who rejected the article looked at other Maltese figures 3) I don't think the prominence of the person rejected was taken into account I would respectfully like others to review this situation - all Maltese personalities should be treated the same and if someone from a specific country is important it is no reason to reject if they are not in the NYTimes or other paper. Thank you

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

Malta2019, Draft Malta Society of the Arts

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Have another editor or editors review the situation.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• John Merrill (American politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Belledoll (talk · contribs)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content that I added was removed. I understand the one edit since it was verbatim from the article I cited. However, all of the other content was removed and it was fully valid. Specifically, I added the correct date of John and Cindy's wedding. The date they reverted the article to is off by two years. Why in the world, when I included a valid newspaper citation of the wedding, would they revert to an incorrect date?

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

I have tried to go on his talk page, but it isn't very accessible.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please revert to the content that I added that includes the correct wedding date!!

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Covid 19 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Covid 19 stats are totally wrong are far as recovered cases

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

Covid 19 recovered cases are totally wrong every state has recovered cases are you sight reports 0 I’m 90% of the state’s

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

List accurately covid 19 recovered cases in each state

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pickup artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

MrOllie has accused me (A new user) of making edits to articles in exchange of someone paying me. This is absurd and completely false, and just an excuse for him to revert EVERY single change I make to the PICKUP ARTIST article because he is very sensitive over a source that he wants to remain on the article. This source is an unreliable and biased source that promotes some kind of Texan coaching company. I removed it and added it with a page that lists groups worldwide for the 'lairs'.

He has not only reverted this change, but reverted every single minor edit I have ever made. Including a note that female pickup artists also exist. This user is quite clearly deliberately editing the content of this article to suit his own agenda, and he immediately undoes my changes within minutes or even seconds.

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

User talk:MrOllie

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

All I wanted to do was add some unbiased information to this article. He has prevented me from including that female pickup artists exist. I added absolutely no sources for this, just the statement. This person is obsessively getting in the way of making progress on the article, and it seems like he is reverting other people's changes too.

If he could be removed from editing this particular article, that would solve this entirely. You can see on his page that others have complained a lot.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Synethos (talk · contribs)
• Basile Morin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been trying to update the ambigrams page as per new information that was lacking. Most notable is a list of ambigram generators and their history. But also tried to clean up the page, merge some tiny sections and remove some [citation needed] marks here and there. I will fully admit that I am not a wikipedia veteran and not versed in all the rules, and that mistakes were made. However, Basile Morin decided to use this as a reason to revert all my changes, based on some of the mistakes, after which he proceeded to tell me to stop editing.

I've asked questions and tried to defend my actions, conceding where he was clearly right. The response was him digging up more mistakes that I was not talking about, dodging questions and removing more content in a section where apparently he refute that I had a point.

I feel like this is personal and not about the article. Again, I do not disagree with the fact that I have made mistakes, and I am doing my best to improve on that front. I just don't think that that will happen if I am not allowed to make any changes.

edit: he refuses to address my questions of why sections should not exist and decided that I can only suggest edits in the talk page for approval. Is this even allowed?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ambigram#Rewrite

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would help if someone could look at the edits I made yesterday,what was reverted and the talk page and let us know how to proceed here. e.g. why would merging the section 'other names' with the introduction be wrong? Almost every other article has this in the first line. Why have a section on ambigram generators, and not mention the mechanics or history? (even if it was up for a long time, although that might not be the best reason) etc. Are all my edits invalid, because I make mistakes?

User Synethos is currently building a personal website called "makeambigrams.com" and expects Wikipedia will link directly to it. Action reverted per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Other wrong edits cancelled here, always with discernment and rationale. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Filing editor did not properly notify the other user involved. I have now notified them. --MrClog (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to request you read the discussion. I felt like it would be useful for users to have links to existing generators, including my own. When Basile pointed out that that is not the point of Wikipedia, I conceded, apologize and never brought the subject up again. Meanwhile Basile keeps dodging any other point that I bring up and refuses to accept any of my edits, no matter how small. I keep suggesting to merge the 'other names' section into the introduction, and add historical information about ambigram generators. He has not once directly replied to that, except to tell me that I am ignorant of the topic when I copied the wrong list. (That was unfortunate..but this is stressful) Additionally he keeps trying to dig up stuff on me that he then uses as a reason to not respond to anything else. e.g. denying terminology defined on the page, seemingly because I say it and therefore it is wrong. (The Trump/Clinton image) We clearly got off on the wrong foot here, and I feel like I am trying to be civil, to the point and work with his feedback. I will be the first to admit that I am not extremely well versed in wikipedia doctrine, but I do try to get better. It is very hard this way. Also the fact that he did not address any of the points in this dispute resolution request, but put up the advertising strawman again illustrates the points above. Thanks for looking into this. --Synethos (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Synethos: It seems like this is mostly a behavioural dispute. Do you and Basile Morin still disagree on whether to add specific content to the article or is it solely about behaviour? --MrClog (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• He told me I should not edit and reverted all my edits, so I am would think so. I'm not saying that everything I do should be law, but I think that I suggested changes and information that was relevant.

Most notably the generator history and types, which has been a sizable section for a long time and now got changed into a single sentence. Things like, when was the first generator made, what technology did it use, what technology does flipscript use. He added a sentence about John langdon making part of a font, but removed the information about fonts in general. Someone might have to look over my section for link density and take out what is not needed, but mentioning the websites is unavoidable I think. Perhaps you could take a look at that section? Also thanks for helping! Synethos (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Synethos, if you want a third opinion, WP:3O is your best bet. --MrClog (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: I honestly lost all belief in Basile being fair. I made some more edits, he reverted them all and then made up fake reasons for why. He deleted a sentence he added, but forgot, as non encyclopedic, after I moved it and it looked like being mine. And he put up another strawman about content I added by deleting the longest sensible ambigram sentence, conveniently removing the word sensible so that he could suggest longer sentences. I'm really trying to be constructive here, and the guy wants it to be 'his' article. Synethos (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Same point about Gustave Verbeek, he is now doubting his own content, since I never wrote that section. Sure, people can later revise their own work after reading it a while later, but that is not the impression that I am getting here. Anyway I have the actual comics of Verbeek so I could add to the section, but this behavior has to stop really. Synethos (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Media blackout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AvatarQX (talk · contribs)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a paragraph up under "Contemporary" that refers to the current Tara Reade story as a media blackout. By the definition of media blackout, that is false, since news organizations are reporting on it. Also, none of the sources provided for the claim explicitly call the situation a media blackout, and as such, I believe it is a leap in logic to consider it as such.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_blackout#Biden

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like a third party to consider whether or not the story 1. fits the definition presented in the article and 2. if the sources are explicit enough about calling it a media blackout.

I choose to not participate in any dispute resolution until AvatarQX acknowledges that WP:EW says: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: 'But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense" and commits to no longer edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC) (Removed per comment below.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is being discussed at Talk:Media blackout#Criteria for inclusion. Might I suggest that we centralize the discussion there? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to acknowledge that my behavior on the article was not perfect, and hence that is why I chose to open this dispute resolution, as I care about the content of the article. I have not edited the page since and will not until a third party has decided what is correct in this situation. --AvatarQX (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• John Merrill (American politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have updated his page with cited material. Yet, the editor chose to revert back to INCORRECT information. John Merrill was the first married SGA President at The University of Alabama. Yet, the wikipedia article has the date of his marriage wrong by two years. Is this what wikipedia desires? False information about living people? I am a research librarian and I am sick of these ignorant admins removing material that I cite from valid sources.

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

I have commented on the talk page fro both Seraphimblade and for the page itself.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Revert back to the date that I listed, which is the CORRECT date!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Biographies of Medieval people (mostly popes)

Users involved

• Display name 99 (talk · contribs)
• Surtsicna (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Surtsicna has removed images from numerous biographies of Medieval figures, most of them popes. They have made other changes, some of which I agree with, some of which I have not. The basis for this was that these portraits were imagined portraits made centuries after these people lived and therefore could not reflect what they looked like, in addition to claiming that they were not included in scholarly sources, even though at least one of them, a body image on the article for Pope Eugene III, was. I responded saying that imagined or apocryphal portraits were acceptable on Wikipedia even if there is no exact way of knowing that the person being depicted looked quite like how they are depicted in a particular work of art. I said that a preferred that any image purported to be of a particular person should be used provided it exists. Surtsicna disagreed.

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

[46]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help us decide whether imagined or apocryphal portraits are acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles. This specific dispute portains to less than a dozen articles, but it could have ramifications affecting hundreds if not thousands.

I do not quite see the point of this dispute question. Nobody is disputing that imagined or apocryphal images are acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles. The only condition they have to meet, like any other content, is that they are found in academic biographies of the article subject or in scholarly works of reference. That means that not every and any drawing, by any random, anonymous individual, should be included just because it's available. That is precisely what MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is about. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a dispute about the inclusion or removal of drawings used to represent people for whom no contemporary image is known. The use of such drawings has been common with various historical figures such as kings (in countries when there was no tradition of representational art). (Another such person is Christopher Columbus, of whom no contemporary portrait exists.)

There appears to have been some discussion on the talk page of the other editor. The guidance would be the Manual of Style on images, but it appears to be silent on the specific issue. Discussion on whether to provide guidance about such drawings can continue at the MOS talk page for images.

I am willing to facilitate discussion here if the parties want moderated discussion, at least to see how to proceed further. Will the editors please indicate below whether they want to discuss here or somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a post there or even an RfC would help. I would consent to it if Surtsicna thinks it the best course. The point of the inquiry is that we have been unable to consent to a course of action by ourselves, which therefore necessitates outside intervention. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Robert McClenon. That is not what the dispute is about, however. Non-contemporary depictions are not problematic. The problem are obscure fictionalized portrayals, particularly if misleading. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that images must be significant, not primarily decorative, and have encyclopedic nature. While the portrait of Columbus (painted a decade after his death) appears on the cover of nearly every biography of him ever published (thus being significant and encyclopedic), the anonymous drawings of popes produced ten centuries after their deaths are not found in any scholarly work about the popes (thus being neither significant nor encyclopedic). The question here is whether any image is better than no image, and the answer is at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My question then is, why do we not remove all images of Jesus? It wasn't until centuries after the crucifixion that religious artwork depicting Him began to appear. Primary sources leave us with no description of what He actually looked like,, so presumably all images of Him should be removed according to what you have said. My position remains the same. Based on long-standing Wikipedia practice, artistic depictions purporting to portray a particular person and which depict them with clothing and facial features something like what they actually had, even if we don't know how exact they are, should continue to be used in articles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in my preceding comment and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. "Purporting to portray" is not good enough. Anyone can purport to portray anything. It is not our job to judge art. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see two issues to be addressed. The first issue (or class of issues) is any specific drawings. Any question about any specific drawing should be discussed at the talk page for that article. If discussion is unsuccessful, I am willing to provide a Third Opinion, or other dispute resolution options can be used. The second issue is that my reading of the image relevance guideline is that it does not specifically discuss the case of non-contemporary drawings or representations of historical figures for whom there is no contemporary image. My own thinking is that the guideline should be clarified to provide that the images are considered encyclopedic if they have been significantly used by secondary and tertiary sources, or if they are notable as works of art. The images of Columbus and of Jesus are works that are considered notable.

Please read the ground rules. Please respond to whether you want to discuss clarifying the guidelines on image relevance, and to what specific articles on popes or other historical figures are the subjects of dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon. I think that the issue is too consequential to be addressed with a third opinion but that there might need to be a broader consensus-seaking measure taken to decide whether non-contemporary images may be used. Surtsicna, I found an image here of Pope Urban II that was used in the 1911 book "Lives and Times of the Popes." It actually used to be the lead image in the article before being replaced with the image that you removed. If you agree that non-contemporary images can be used in articles provided that they appear in authoritative academic works, I suppose you would not object to me adding this as the lead image for the article. Display name 99 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-contemporary images may be used. They are used in many cases. As I have said several times already, that itself is not the issue. The image you found, and the book, dates from 1842. The book was reprinted in 1911. Such illustrations were common in the 19th century. They are never used in modern reference works. They do not even appear in early 20th-century publications such as Mann's 1902 book. For the reasons already stated, I am opposed to the usage of depictions which do not appear in modern, academic biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems like real hair-splitting. Also, while you had argued that the images of Urban II were fanciful because they depicted him with a beard, when he actually would have been clean-shaven, I have found a source confirming that Urban II was bearded. Steven Runciman, in Volume 1 of his mid-20th century three-volume history of the Crusades, identifies Urban as a bearded man. See page 101 [47]. At least for Urban II, I think that there is very good reason to readding the image that I proposed. It has been used in academic works, if not modern ones, and while you originally argued that it could not have looked like Urban because it depicted him with a beard, we have a source within the last century that confirms that this is an accurate depiction. I can't really see how you could reasonably be against this. Display name 99 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The image that you removed from the article for Pope Eugene III is included in a 1921 work [48]. Display name 99 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Display name 99, User:Surtsicna - Did you read the ground rules? Read them again. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment in the space for your comments, not in the space for my comments. I will give you a separate space for back-and-forth discussion, but you should reply to my questions. I was proposing that a Third Opinion be used for whether each image can be used. Are you willing to have a third opinion for that purpose? If not, the decision on each image for each person must wait until the general principles are clarified. Please each of you state, in one paragraph, what you think should be the guidelines for when non-contemporary images may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "until the general principles are clarified?" How will this decision come about? I have briefly stated my position below. Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, a third editor has weighed in on Surtsicna's talk page to support the removal of the images. A third opinion might have been the best way of resolving this, but that is no longer an option, so I suppose that the dispute is now over. Surtsicna, congratulations, you've managed to debase these articles. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-contemporary images should be used when they are common in modern, academic literature specializing in the subject of the article - per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and WP:PROPORTION. Wikipedia articles should be modeled after modern scholarly works, not after superseded, antique texts. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-contemporary images should be used when they are shown to be an accurate representation of what someone might have looked like and especially when they are included in academic texts. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Prostitution in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• John B123 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Other user(John B123) are intentionally deleting source from New Zealand's government agencies.

[[49]]

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

[[50]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

New Zealand government source is reliable. but User John B123 continues to delete the source, saying it is substandard. He forces his ideas to others in other article too. He is confusing the sample with the whole number.

• Volunteer Note - There have been other editors involved in this dispute who should be listed. The filing editor has not notified the other editor(s). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hard science fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tim@ (talk · contribs)
• Trovatore (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The lines between fantasy, soft science fiction, and hard science fiction are magic, impossible technology, and possible technology. Other users repeatedly try to add soft science fiction (impossible technology like FTL) to Representative works, which should at least not contain controversial let alone blatant breaking of known laws of phisics. This is the maybe the 3rd user this edit war has happened with.

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

Talk:Hard_science_fiction#Interstellar? Talk:Hard_science_fiction#What_hard_SF_is

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The intro to the page indicates no FTL but people keep ignoring it, if we can have a mod or dispute resolution to direct people to, anytime this happens again we can just point the users to the page that states "yes we like your favorite work to but it belongs in a different category. And yes we know some publications contradict the consensus but not everything is true"

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Traditional Chinese Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ScienceLogic40 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am a new Wikipedia user and am not familiar with every technical aspect yet. I do however have a Masters degree in Health Sciences. I have been making additions to this page based on current scientific reporting standards. I have cited reputable articles and journals and noted their grade of evidence with reference to other Wikipedia pages. Somebody regularly removes my additions. Whoever is doing this is making medical claims based on inferior evidence, ie removing articles from the Journal of the American Medical Association and rather citing personal opinion in editorials. The TCM page makes regular mention of scientific processes and evidence but then when I try to input current and broader search based high quality evidence my additions are deleted. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceLogic40

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Please reinstate all my additions and freeze the page from further editing for a period of time. 2. In the interest of Wikipedia's quality and relevance as a resource I would like to see any page that relates to medicine having qualified adjudicators. These editors could judge the standard of any alternations and decide on the level of evidence provided and eligibility for inclusion.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1987 Icelandic parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Humongous125 (talk · contribs)
• Number 57 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am updating the results table for the Icelandic elections to include the following:

• Images of the seats
• Links to other previous/subsequent elections where there is no infobox for easy navigation by readers (the navigation bar at the bottom of the page doesn’t appear on mobiles so navigation can be difficult and infoboxes are not always appropriate for small articles).
• Retained (or added where none existed before) a column of the leaders and a column to show the percentage changes of the results compared to the last election.

User:Number 57 removed the last two points from the tables I edited (they were previously templates). The issue was discussed extensively between us on my talk page.

The user agreed the percentage change column could be added as it can be useful info. He did not want the leader column added. I tried to concede that if the leaders were mentioned elsewhere in the article, the column could be excluded from the table.

However there was no resolution so I ended the discussion there and referred it to the WikiProject Iceland talk page, where another user agreed with my proposed format of table for all Icelandic elections.

The issue was also referred to the WikiProject Election and Referendums talk page where a user thought the leaders column was sometimes useful and another thought it shouldn’t be an issue unless the leaders column in the 2019 UK election results table was also removed.

I therefore proceeded to modify the remaining election pages however the user is reverting both the leaders & percentage change column and the links to other election pages.

I think the user is abusing wiki’s BRD and is not referring to the discussions in the other talk pages.

Please advise on how to proceed.

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

[51] [52] [53]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am looking on how to proceed with these sort of issues?

If a proposed edit has got agreement from other users, please clarify how users should respond to that, so edit wars etc can be avoided and any proposed changes implemented?

Please advise how this issue can be resolved so I can improve Icelandic Election pages without edits being reverted.

I doubt this is DRN-worthy, but FWIW this is effectively a dispute over whether results tables should look like this (which is probably the most common format over Wikipedia) or this (a style just created by Humungous).

I've repeatedly offered a compromise position where the colours, diagram and seat swing are included but the leader column is not.[54][55][56] I've also tried pointing out that a leaders column is not standard practice for results tables and is used only in a tiny minority of cases.

If the compromise was accepted, we'd end with something like this. However, Humongous125 insists on getting every column they want included in the table. As someone who has several thousand election articles on their watchlist and is attempting to maintain some basic form of consistency between most of them, this sort of thing doesn't really help.

Given the lack of responses so far at WT:E&R, I don't think there is yet any conclusive outcome (and the single response at WT:ICELAND isn't really relevant as the columns issue was not being discussed there). Cheers, Number 57 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This will be my last response before a volunteer opens this thread. Firstly, the table contains the same information, including leaders column, that the previous templates have contained for the past 8 years. Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2003. I am not making up a new format it is similar to other election pages, [57] [58] [59].

My proposed format in WT:ICELAND is relevent as it does mention the leaders column within my explanation of the table. Humongous125 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has not been any discussion on the article talk page, at Talk:1987 Icelandic parliamentary election. The discussion prior to filing here was via edit summaries, which are not talk pages, and on WikiProject talk pages. While WikiProjects are a useful way to draw attention to discussion on article talk pages, they supplement article talk page rather than replacing them. I am not closing this discussion at this time, since the editors are here and are being civil, but I would strongly suggest that they go to the article talk page and discuss before coming back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Happy to take it the article talk page. I will also invite a few editors who are regular results table makers to get wider input as it is likely that few editors watch the page and will notice a discussion starting. Cheers, Number 57 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The discussions took place in this link [60], User talk:Humongous. I appreciate that its not an article talk page and will discuss further there in the next few hours to try and find a resolution. Humongous125 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2020 (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.