Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	27 days, 5 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	23 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Andrevan (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	18 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Nagging Prawn (t)	1 days,
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	14 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	1 days, 11 hours
NDIS	Closed	ItsPugle (t)	10 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours
Genocide	New	Bogazicili (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 20 hours	Bogazicili (t)	1 days, 4 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	New	Titan2456 (t)	39 minutes	None	n/a	Titan2456 (t)	39 minutes

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict

– New discussion.

Filed by Pahlevun on 15:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pahlevun (talk · contribs)
• Greyshark09 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In Iran–PJAK conflict#Foreign involvement, I have added verifiable content from and attributed to reliable sources. User:Greyshark09 started a pseudo-editwar, making constant groundless claimes that my edit violates various guidlines and policies without further explaination.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Step one, I have tried to discuss with User:Greyshark09, however he seems reluctant to discuss and evades answering me. Step two, I requested for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was not answered.

How do you think we can help?

I think this is a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing case, and hard to be dealt. Maybe an experienced user can help.

Summary of dispute by Greyshark09

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

Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note it appears that thought there was quite a few reverts, none of them have broken the WP:3RR, and it has stopped as of october 31st. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This thread will be closed if the filing editor does not notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:%22Panzer ace%22_in_popular_culture#Kershaw

– New discussion.

Filed by Deathlibrarian on 10:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:"Panzer ace"_in_popular_culture#Kershaw 

Users involved

• Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs)
• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)
• Assayer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Robert Kershaw's book "Tank Men: The Human Story of Tanks at War" Hodder 2009 is currently being challenged as to whether it is a Wikipedia Reliable Source or not, in reference to the article "Panzer ace" in popular culture Currently, there are efforts to remove it from the article. Could you please advise if it is a reliable source under wikipedia RS guidelines?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for the other editors to explain how the book doesn't meet Wk:RS. So far some explanations have been given, but the reasons are nothing to do with Wikipedia RS guidelines. An admin also advised that the book *does* meet Wikipedia RS guidelines.

How do you think we can help?

Please have a look at the reference and advise if it meets RS guidelines, and if it can be used in the articles. Thanks very much

Summary of dispute by K.e.coffman

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

Summary of dispute by Assayer

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

Talk:%22Panzer ace%22_in_popular_culture#Kershaw discussion

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

Volunteer Comment: I would suggest that the reliable sources noticeboard would be a more appropriate venue for this discussion. If it has already been discussed there, can we get a link to the discussion? DonIago (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will move it there, sorry I wasn't aware of the reliable sources noticeboard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment while I cannot see that anyone has broken 3RR, there has been some pretty serious revert wars, althouth there has been no reverts for roughly 3 hours as of posting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. As mentioned by a previous volunteer, the reliable source noticeboard would be an alternative dispute resolution forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elihu Yale

– New discussion.

Filed by 99.4.120.135 on 22:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• 72.162.48.250 (talk · contribs)
• 73.184.108.44 (talk · contribs)
• 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Elihu Yale (who contributed to Yale University) was born in the colonies. But by all common understanding of the period he was an "Englishman": "America" had not yet been established (not until 1776) nor had "Britain" (not until 1805) - so he can't have been "American" nor could he be "British". His family was from England and moved back to England when has was about 2 years old. He grew up in England, he worked extensively in India and he retired in England and Wales.

Wikipedia lists someone from the opposite perspective - born in the UK but clearly from an American family as "American": Wentworth Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Miller

So it doesn't make sense and is inconsistent to list Elihu Yale as "American" (or "British") - he never grew up in America, he never lived there by his own choice (he never returned to America), he never worked there and he didn't die there... and as far as we know he didn't speak as an American.

Various users (IDs: Cydebot, 72.162.48.250, 73.184.108.44 and 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63) keep changing the designation away from "English" to between "American" or "British" - neither are correct.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In April 2016 I posted an open discussion in the Talk section. It had no response.

How do you think we can help?

Let's be consistent, reasonable and accurate and set it to "English".

Thank you. -Kim

Summary of dispute by 72.162.48.250

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

Summary of dispute by 73.184.108.44

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

Summary of dispute by 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63

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

Talk:Elihu Yale discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Universidad Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources

– New discussion.

Filed by Taesulkim on 18:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica#Website .2F.2F Reliable sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Taesulkim (talk · contribs)
• Vanjagenije (talk · contribs)
• Shivayves (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some editors are engaged in blacklisting an institution, fully national recognized. Furthermore, they resist to let the website of the University to be listed, no matter what reliable sources has been provided

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contacting ech editors trough they talk page, asking to reconsider the sources provided

How do you think we can help?

Take a fresh look into this, since many students got harm by the bad publicity its seems to be publish as reliable, and do not follow the so called enciclopedic format

Summary of dispute by Vanjagenije

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

Summary of dispute by Shivayves

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

Talk:Universidad Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources discussion

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