Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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 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 enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. 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
Adam Milstein	New	81567518W (t)	12 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Metallurgist (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Template:Vermont	Closed	Logoshimpo (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 3 hours
George V	New	Pennine rambler (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Pennine rambler (t)	3 hours
Culpeper	New	CSGinger14 (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours

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.

Current disputes

Adam Milstein

– New discussion.

Filed by 81567518W on 14:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Adam Milstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 81567518W (talk · contribs)
• Metallurgist (talk · contribs)
• Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This BLP currently identifies the subject as "Israeli-American", which is an ethnicity. Per MOS:ETHNICITY, nationality should generally be favored over ethnicity. The subject of the BLP is a dual-citizen, therefore changes have been made from "Israeli-American" to "Israeli and American" which have been reverted. Some editors suggest that the way the subject is identified in RS should supersede the MoS.

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

Talk:Adam_Milstein/Archive_3 Talk:Adam_Milstein

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It appears there's a misunderstanding of the MoS, its contents, or applicability here that if clarified would resolve this issue.

Summary of dispute by Metallurgist

As stated on the talk page, MOS:BIO does not strictly specify any construction, or even that hyphenation only refers to ethnicity, which in some cases would be absurd. Taiwanese-American is not an ethnicity, but it can be used on an article. Additionally, as I recall, all or almost all RS used hyphenation. And finally, the vast majority of article use hyphenation for Israeli-American, Canadian-American (not an ethnicity), Palestinian-American, etc. Further support for my position is on the cited talk page. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kentuckyfriedtucker

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

Verbatim as stated before on Talk: Majority of editors who weighed in on this matter agreed upon "Israeli-American" in a previous discussion. The Israeli Americans page defines the label as "Americans who are of full or partial Israeli descent." Therefore, I believe "Israeli-American" would apply to Milstein by this definition.

Was under impression a consensus was reached. Not sure why it keeps going to bat. --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Adam Milstein discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be an issue about the lede sentence in the biography of a living person. The volunteers at the biographies of living persons noticeboard may be better able to address this question, and I will advise that this question be taken there. I am not closing this case, and am willing to open it if the editors would rather have it discussed here, but would suggest BLPN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless there is objection from other editors I am happy to move this issue to BPLN. 81567518W (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think this just needs a definitive statement on whether one or the other is correct, or that it doesnt matter. My view is that it doesnt really matter and the weight of sources and similar examples backs hyphenation. I am not sure how BLPN would resolve this, altho I am not necessarily opposed. Really this whole thing is silly and a waste of time. Most (all?) editors, including the filer on one instance, back hyphenation. This is bordering on prolonged civil edit warring with no clear constructive purpose. Also, the dispute is over the interpretation of MOS:ETHNICITY, not the lede per se, as by the filers argument, it would apply everywhere. If anything, MOS:BIO talkpage makes more sense. But, this discussion had been had there several times over the years with no consensus every time, because it doesnt matter in the end. The MOS is a recommendation and guideline, not always a requirement. And actually, reading it again, and is used for when someones career is notable under both nationalities. Adam Milstein was not notable while solely an Israeli. While he has strong connections to Israel, his career is entirely American, judging by the article content.← Metallurgist (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Adam Milstein)

I am willing to lead moderated discussion if at least two editors request moderated discussion. Participation in DRN is voluntary. If you want to take part in discussion, please read DRN Rule D, the ArbCom case on biographies of living persons, and the statement that biographies of living persons are a contentious topic. Please first state whether you want to participate in moderated discussion. Then state whether there are any content issues other than how to refer to the ethnicity or nationality of Milstein.

I am willing to offer my opinion, but if I do that, I will no longer be neutral, and may not be able to lead further discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Adam Milstein)

• I'm still unclear as to whether the other editors want to drop this altogether per Metallurgist's "it doesn't matter" comments. I'm personally happy to continue with this DRN or move to BLPN as suggested depending on what the other editors involved communicate they prefer. Thank you. 81567518W (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• By saying it doesnt matter, I mean that there is no requirement in MOS:BIO to have it one way or the other. Its a mix of local preference and reliable sources. If the filer continues to insist on non-hyphenation, I will continue to insist on following reliable sources and local editorial preference. I see this as largely timewasting over a minor issue that could simply be agreed upon. Its not clear what the constructive purpose of non-hyphenation is. All in all, my arguments have been stated here and the above-linked discussion (here for convenience). ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Vermont

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Logoshimpo on 01:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template:Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Logoshimpo (talk · contribs) Skynxnex (talk · contribs) Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview i've cited WP:NAVBOX and WP:NPOV with regards to the content of the template but threats of being blocked are used in response. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Template talk:Vermont#municipalities How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? stop user:Zackmann08 from making wikilegal threats. Summary of dispute by Skynxnex Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Randy Kryn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Would hope that everyone can move on, Logoshimpo can learn from this, and editors can get to the real issue: how municipalities are listed on U.S. state navboxes. I'd reverted Logoshimpo at {{Illinois}} but they reversed once with an explanation I found legitimate, and thanked them (Logoshimpo seems to be to be genuinely interested in improving these navboxes). Then a bit of a dust-up at the Vermont navbox where Zackmann08 educated Logoshimpo on their mistakes eventually brought this here. I'd suggest everyone back up a bit, and see if the issue at {{Illinois}} and elsewhere can come to a decision which would improve it and other locality navboxes in defining criteria and presentation of the municipalities sections. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Unfortunately, I don't think adequate learning is happening. (edit shows removal of a factual word, with an edit summary claiming fixing of both puffery and NPOV). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC) That's why it's named "learning curve", it takes awhile. I'm just hoping that they get a bit more about how Wikipedia works before being indeffed, a delicate balance sometimes. In any case, the concern Logoshimpo brought up is being addressed in a discussion of how to handle listing multiple U.S. state municipalities in the state navbox, so this isn't all for naught. They just have to be a bit more respectful of fellow Wikipedians. Not that difficult, except when it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Zackmann08 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is so beyond ridiculous. Let's summarize the events here... Logoshimpo massively blanks nearly a dozen templates without explanation other than "arbitrary cutoff" (Special:Diff/1336866573, Special:Diff/1336866902, Special:Diff/1336856316 to name just a few, consult this link for the full list). The user is reverted and then proceeds to violate WP:BRD by redoing the same edits on multiple templates They are taken to WP:ANI (by me) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brand_new_editor_failing_to_follow_BRD and are warned by Johnuniq & Aesurias not to continue this behavior They are now upset that they are not getting their way so they are pursuing dispute resolution rather then making any actual attempt to obtain WP:CONSENSUS about the edits they are trying to force through. (Consult this list for the numerous templates they are trying to force the same edits through) Additionally they are now accusing me above of making wikilegal threats, a completely baseless Now I know that edit counts are NOT everything, but it is particularly interesting to me that a user with fewer then 3,400 edits is so eager to accuse editors with over a half million edits of things. I also find it very suspicious that an editor with so few edits is somehow so familiar with processes such as WP:DR but yet doesn't understand the ver basics of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS... At this point I request Johnuniq reconsider the closure of the WP:ANI as Logoshimpo clearly did not get the message from the ANI (unless I dramatically misunderstood your response). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Template:Vermont discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Logoshimpo edited the template to make it mathematically inaccurate, and then posted a series of incorrect assumptions and suppositions on the template's talk page. Other editors corrected Logoshimpo's incorrect edits and incorrect statements. I don't see a content-based or guideline-based dispute here. I see mostly a reading comprehension issue, and perhaps an honest misunderstanding of what the ">" (greater than) character means. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Suggestion: Don't say anything more unless really needed. If new arguments are produced, respond to them. Otherwise, move on. Dispute resolution is not intended for cases where a clear consensus exists. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC) I think there is a speedy-close for disputes at ANI (see here)? Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Jonesey95, as i replied to your comment on Template talk:Vermont, you are speaking about the "greater than" and "less than" signs which was a previous edit and not being discussed. these votes are clearly not about about consensus. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Vermont Template) I am ready to lead moderated discussion if two or more editors agree to moderated discussion, and if at least two editors have different opinions about article content or template content. Please read DRN Rule X. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion, which is voluntary. If you agree to moderated discussion, please answer the question of what changes you want to make, or what changes you disagree with. I normally ask what changes editors want to make to an article, but this question appears to be about navbox templates. Please state what changes you want to make, either to one template, or to the fifty state templates, or to any articles. Be civil and concise. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC) This is wholly unnecessary... Dispute resolution is not needed here. Plain old WP:CONSENSUS will do and I will absolutely abide by that. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Vermont Template) First statement by volunteer (Vermont Template) At least two editors appear to be saying that moderated discussion is unnecessary because the filing editor is editing against consensus. There have been two reports at WP:ANI that have both been closed as a content dispute. One editor wrote: This is wholly unnecessary... Dispute resolution is not needed here. Plain old WP:CONSENSUS will do and I will absolutely abide by that. So what we need to do is to establish what the consensus is, or what is against consensus. I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It appears that the issue is that the filing editor wants to prune the navboxen, and other editors want to leave them alone. So do the other editors want to close this discussion with a rough consensus that the navboxen do not need pruning? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC) It looks like this issue has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Pruning_navboxes to attempt to gain a broader consensus in a more appropriate venue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC) First statements by editors (Vermont Template) 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.

George V

– New discussion.

Filed by Pennine rambler on 22:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• George V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pennine rambler (talk · contribs)
• DrKay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

George V was given a lethal injection which killed him in 1936, his Doctor decided to end the Kings life. He had kept that a secret, the murder was made public by an Observer headline in 1986, as follows, "Doctor 'Murdered' Britain's George V" https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364 and that had been included in the article on George V, but then edited out, the citation has been present in the article for many years.

The newspaper articles headline makes clear it was a murder, the word 'murder' has been edited out of the text of the article. I believe the article needs to be reflect the fact that the King had been killed, not simply died.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_V

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bertrand_Dawson,_1st_Viscount_Dawson_of_Penn

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The statement of fact needs to go into George V article that he was murdered and likewise the article about his Doctor who killed him should also state that he involuntary euthanised / murdered George V. 1986 headline on Dawsons diary being made public does state "Doctor 'Murdered' Britain's George V" I believe the facts needs to show in the articles? https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364

A resolution was proposed but dismissed by DrKay.

Summary of dispute by DrKay

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

As shown at Talk:Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn#False claims, Pennine rambler has consistently misrepresented sources. They do say again above. Pennine rambler claims above that "the murder was made public by an Observer headline in 1986". It wasn't. As stated explicitly by the Observer-Reporter[1] it was revealed in History Today by Dawson's biographer, Francis Watson. Pennine rambler claims above that the Observer-Reporter "had been included in the article on George V, but then edited out". It wasn't edited out. The citation is still in the article (ref no 126). Pennine rambler claims above that "the newspaper articles [sic] headline makes clear it was a murder". It doesn't. The word 'murdered' is only used by the Observer-Reporter inside quotation marks. Euthanasia, however, is used multiple times (without quotation marks). Pennine rambler thinks that euthanasia is murder e.g."killing someone no matter how close to death they are is by law in the UK criminal and an act of murder", "bringing forward a death is legally murder, hence campaigns", "It is a matter of basic fact that the taking of anothers life murder, even when that person is close to death". They are trying to further their agenda that euthanasia is the same as murder by misusing sources and ignoring sources that contradict their opinion. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

George V discussion

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

My response to above is on article talk page at George V --Pennine rambler (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (George V)

Are the editors requesting moderated discussion? Please read DRN Rule X and state whether each of you are willing to take part in moderated discussion. Remember that Wikipedia should summarize what reliable sources say about the death of George V. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree to moderated discussion. Pennine rambler (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (George V)

• I agree that the article should summarize what reliable sources say about the death of George V, which is what the article does. Consensus at the article talk page is against expansion of the existing section, which is 8 paragraphs long with 3 of those paragraphs directly related to Dawson's actions. Project-wide consensus is against the inclusion of any unsourced content, original research by synthesis, or editorial bias that is not representative of reliable sources. I am willing to participate in a moderated discussion in good faith as long as the consensus of the community and wikipedia-wide policies are respected. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Culpeper

– New discussion.

Filed by CSGinger14 on 03:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• CSGinger14 (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)
• Waypoint47 (talk · contribs)
• ChompyTheGogoat (talk · contribs)
• Dgp4004 (talk · contribs)
• Traumnovelle (talk · contribs)
• Sbmeirow (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Joy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over the inclusion of several independent infobox components that are not directly addressed by written consensus at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and example structuring at WP:USCITIES. ' Disputes over inclusion relevant to this DR request are as follows: |

• Highway road signage (since removed from the page, but disagreement over that question persists nonetheless)

|

• The town's vice mayor (resolved on the page, but ultimately unaddressed by USCITIES guidelines)

|

• Transportation infrastructure (i.e airports, passenger rail connections (not addressed directly in discussion, but a.e.g. ports, bus services))

|

• More broadly directed, city area (land and water) and ZIP/FIPS/etc. codes.

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

Extensive discussion at the talk page for the article in question Unofficial RfC which drew in users from WP:USCITIES Unanswered request for input posted at Template:Infobox settlement

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether or not an RfC for guidelines at WP:USCITIES is necessary for outstanding disputes stemming from this discussion, given the fact that multiple disagreements over the correct path forward for content have now arisen from the original disagreement. Given that there is no clear consensus among editors, the two editors originally in dispute (Myself and Magnolia677) feel that such a discussion may be necessary. This will help to decide the ultimate fate of the page.

Summary of dispute by Magnolia677

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

Summary of dispute by Waypoint47

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

Summary of dispute by ChompyTheGogoat

IMHO the scale of disagreement over this is vastly out of proportion to the actual issue on the page in question, largely due to pre-existing history between editors, and several tangents spun off in the discussion. I support the development of infobox guidelines not only to resolve this particular case but so there's clear consensus that can be consulted for any similar disputes in the future. Infobox templates exist for the purpose of consistency on pages within a given topic, so consistency on what information they contain seems like a natural component of that, and something that projects utilizing infoboxes should take responsibility for.

Summary of dispute by Dgp4004

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

Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle

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

Summary of dispute by Sbmeirow

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

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by Moxy

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

Summary of dispute by Joy

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

Culpeper, Virginia discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Culpeper)

I am ready to moderate this dispute if this is an article content dispute rather than an issue about whether the infobox guidelines should be revised or clarified. Please read DRN Rule X, which will apply until I know whether there is an article content dispute. Please state whether you think that this is an article content dispute or a dispute about guidelines. Please state what you want to change in the article, Culpeper, that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Alternatively, please state what changes you want to make to any guidelines.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)