You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Special Delivery (Milly y los Vecinos album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend you declare who you are
I recommend that you soon declare the identities of your other accounts. No new user makes their first edit outside of their userspace as a blank RfA article, nor do they immediately jump to commenting on AfDs. As such, this is clearly your second, or more, account, and without an indication of who it is, combined with your questionable behavior so far, people are apt to assume that you're not here to contribute in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Senor Taichi. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"Science"
Hi. Because no one has ever said anything about the fact that "She Blinded Me with Science" and "He Blasted Me with Science" have any sort of similarity before, it is against the bylaws of Wikipedia (namely WP:OR and WP:RS) to feature this information in any form. End of discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting on the article. Your edits to the page have inserted various factual inaccuracies, added information about episodes that have not aired, and remove formatting found on all other pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old AFD pages are not moved. If a second nomination occurs, then the page will automatically be made at "2nd nomination". Your moves are breaking everything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock reviewed|I never imagined this arguement would escalate into a disruptive block. Can we discuss the dispute here?|decline=Procedural; not a request to unblock. You can absolutely discuss the dispute here, if you like, but do not use the {{unblock}} template unless and until you're actually requesting to be unblocked. You can post on this page (and this page only) without using the template. Thanks. UltraExactZZUltraexactZZ~ Did15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Informal venue for resolving content disputes
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
Closed as no response. Three days after the filing editor notified the other editors on their talk pages, none of them have responded. Some of them have not edited in the past three days. The filing editor has raised an issue that is worth discussing. Resume discussion on the article talk page about the use of Berber for names in the article. If it is difficult to get a response on the article talk page, consider discussing at a Wikiproject talk page, in particular, WikiProject Algeria. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here later. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The country in question, like Morocco for example, has Berber as its national language, a language that I think should be inserted to identify names of corps or the state as in this case.
I have seen that other people have also raised this problem as you can evaluate from the discussion page. I have also talked about it on other pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_People%27s_National_Army but I have noticed that the edits are always cancelled by the same people moreover. I therefore ask for help for this situation because I do not think it is possible that you cannot write the names in Berber of a country that has this same language as its national language.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By adding the name in Amazigh(Neo-Tifinagh) to Algerian istitutions
Summary of dispute by يوسف قناوة
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Monsieur Patillo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 105.235.131.146
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Potymkin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Skitash
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by M.Bitton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mathglot
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Involved, but not pinged (I listed myself here.) I may respond if the OP clarifies their concern. There have been issues with what to call the language (Berber, Amazigh, Tamazight) in the body; there have been issues with both what to call it, and how and where to include it in the Infobox and how to label it. I get the impression that this is something else, perhaps whether to name every governmental organ in multiple languages wherever it appears in the body, but I really don't know what is being proposed here so cannot comment on the merits. Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize; this is my first time handling this, so I may not have reached out to everyone involved in the discussions. The main issue concerns the pages of Algeria and other government agencies, which have not displayed the Amazigh name on their respective pages. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and no need to apologize, there are a ton of rules here, it's all good. However, that is still too vague for me to comment if this DR is accepted by others and the moderator. Can you either be more specific about exactly what and where you want to change something? You could give an A–B example in at least one of the articles; for example: "Article XYZ currently says, 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves.' in section #ABC, but it should say, '<Your replacement text here>'". There are other ways to do it, that is just one way. (If you want to go that route, you might find template {{difftext}} helpful.) Bottom line: I am unable to summarize this dispute, because there have been multiple disputes at those articles, and I do not know what the OP has in mind. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience and advices. As i said i would like to request that the name of the subject of some pages, to be added to the infoboxes on the basis of the page in Tifinagh, and optionally, using other writing systems as suggested by some in other discussions, such as Latinized Berber. Previously, I was referring to the following pages: Algerian Land Forces, Algerian National Navy, Algerian Air Force, Territorial Air Defence Forces, and Republican Guard.
However, I would apply this concept to all pages related to Algerian and Moroccan institutions.
Volunteer note: None of the notified editors have responded by summarizing their views in the appropriate "Summary of dispute by" section, so I'm wondering: who would be interested in participating in a discussion here? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There are a few problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not notified any of the other editors. Second, the filing editor has misspelled the names of three of the editors. Third, the question may be an issue about the reliability of a source. If so, the issue can be better answered at the reliable source noticeboard. Fourth, there is an RFC in progress. It is not clear whether the topic of this DRN request is related to the topic of the RFC. If this is a question about the reliability of a source, file a request at the reliable source noticeboard. Otherwise, resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is about whether newssources should be used when there are better ones available, in line with HISTRS. One side believes that all WP:RS are equal and inline citations should be added to the lead for WEIGHT or for reader interest. Specifically, an article on CNN Travel is contentious, because some editors believe it contains errors. These errors are points where it contradicts Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica author is the same expert that is cited in all the news sources. All sources refer to Yasuke as a samurai, and therefore are in agreement with a RfC that took place before the dispute started. The various editors have different views on how weight is calculated, but neither would challenge the RfC in this editor’s opinion. The news articles have been cited inline for different claims during the dispute, but the CNN article has mostly been used to support the claim that "Yasuke received a house, a sword and a stipend". The CNN attributes this to a Jesuit source, which is probably a typo. The Britannica article links it to Ōta Gyūichi. Other secondary sources confirm this, as it is rather easy to list all sources that mention Yasuke. Tinynanorobots considers the claim uncontroversial, but some editors have disputed it (mainly based on the CNN article). There is a slight disagreement between the sources, that could cause a slight change to the text of the Wikipedia article, but it is not necessitated. Thus, it would be possible to handle both issues separately, and also stay compliant with the RfC.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have tried to discuss the issue with those who disagreed. For most of the time, it was just Regalia Symphony, who disagreed, so I thought there was a consensus at multiple points. I didn’t have much success. At first, I thought that Regalia had too high a trust in media, but then I realized that he believed that truth didn’t matter, so I tried to discuss policy with him, and tried to show the faults of the CNN article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#The_lead
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
If you could help us find a consensus, even if it involves a compromise, that would be great. I suspect that the two editors that disagree have concerns that they only directly hint at. If they could be assured that using better sources not only allowed, but will strengthen the case that Yasuke is a samurai, then I think we could all be in agreement.
Summary of dispute by Yvan Part
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Symphony Regalia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Green Caffeine
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Eiríkr Útlendi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Rotary Engine
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gitz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Brocade River Poems
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Yasuke discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I declared a very very loose COI in good faith, and this has led to an issue with the articles' original writer who is disqualifying all my comments and accusing me of WP:CANVASSING when I have not, and opening formal move proposals in my name when I have not. If someone would be willing to just chime in and watch, I think there's perfectly reasonable discussion to be had here. But any further attempts by me to encourage WP:NEUTRAL tone are not going to be helpful on their own.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Extensive civil discussion with the user, on the Talk page itself. The tone of the civil discussion isn't nasty by any means, but there is a clear impasse.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The user @Desertarun opened a formal Requested Move in my name when I did not propose a specific requested move. Please close this, as I have not requested this move. All I requested was conversation with external viewpoints included, such that when I might* propose a requested move, it already had some consensus as to how best to title articles per WP:CRITERIAORDER.
Summary of dispute by Desertarun
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispte is over a requested move. That discussion is taking place here;[[3]]. Having the dispute in two different places is non-sensical, so I won't be engaging with the process on this page any further. Desertarun (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop adding different episode names without a citation to back it up, as well as changing the protection template added by an admin, and removal of an episode summary. Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is in regards now to you continually changing episode 6's title without a source validating your change. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.