Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rye St Antony School house colours

On the Rye St. Antony School page, I keep trying to include the house colours. I think that this would be useful for past students if they can't remember the name (only the colour) of the house they were in. Each time I change the page to include the colours, however, someone changes it back. I would be grateful if someone could help me resolve this problem. Everying Shall Fall (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• You'd probably have better chance persuading me that the edit is legit if you were not vandalizing articles like here. And do these colors have any official standing? And do you have any reliable sources? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mozart

Me and my brother were contributors to Bosnian wikipedia, but not anymore. I have tried to make good article about Mozart, but all my contribution was erased by administrator "palapabosnia." The explanation was that he "sincerely do not want to search for a book, but rather I should use material from the internet." Later I saw that same"administrator" wrote that chaotic article about Mozart. What an arrogance and poor treatment of contributors to wikipedia. I really found good material about this great composer, but it was uselles, because it's from the book. It was sooooooo hard to search for a book written in New York City. Sorry, but I am disgusted. Nerko65 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing a wikipedia article

To Wikipedia Editor Assistant

Hi. My name is Jace I was trying edit this Wikipedia article about ancient Egyptain God Anubis but it won't let me because this page is protected to prevent Vandalism. I am very angry I can't edit this page to make it right.. it said Anubis is the god of cemetery and embalming when in fact as I was trying edit this to said he was also the god of mummification, embalming, dead and cemetery. Protector of the dead mmm.... 😡😡

From your truely Jace (Jacet512) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacet512 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Jacet512 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a dispute. You are not in dispute with anybody. I have no idea why you are "very angry" about an article being protected. That is a perfectly normal thing. I suggest that you calm down. Being angry won't do any good.

Also, this is a talk page for discussing the Dispute Resolution Notice board, not the Noticeboard itself, not that that would be the right place anyway as you don't have a dispute.

If you want to propose a change to a protected article then you should make a request on the Talk page of the article itself saying exactly what change you want made and giving the references to support it. If the change is accepted then somebody will make it for you. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

I can't get my cash mobs dispute resolution request posted. I've tried repeatedly but I keep getting an error message. Can someone assist me with posting it? I have all of the information below. Thanks!

Have you discussed on talk page?: YES

Location of dispute: Cash Mobs

Users involved: Kelllehbee, Silver Seren, OrangeMike

Dispute Overview: I think the information on the Scentsy cash mob should be included on the cash mob page, and would like the input from other Wikipedia members so a consensus can be reached. All input, thoughts, and suggestions are welcome. I truly believe this should be included on the page as it so clearly demonstrates what a cash mob is in every way. I appreciate your help. Thank you so much! The page is Cash Mobs, and I added information about a large-scale cash mob put on by party-planning company, Scentsy, Inc., in 2009. The event pre-dates the coinage of the term "cash mob" (2011), however is clearly an example as it follows the exact guidelines. Here are two articles from 2009/2010 describing the event for your reference:

http://directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/big_help_for_small_business#.UG24JE3BH_N

The addition was removed by Silver Seren, who says it needs to be referred to as a Cash Mob. However, after doing some research, I found that not every wiki inclusion on a page needs to be referred to as the exact term. For example, the "Trashion" page references use of "trashion" that pre-dates the actual term but is clearly an example of the fad.

I feel the Scentsy cash mob should be included on the page as it is a clear example of a cash mob, and a large scale one at that, with 1,000 people pumping $100,000 into the local economy on one day.

Provide consensus on how this information can best be included on the Cash Mobs page or provide valid reasons why it shouldn’t be included.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?: Yes

How do you think we can help?: Provide consensus on whether this entry can/should be included on the Cash Mob wiki and how best it can be included. I believe it's a valid, prime example of a cash mob and should be allowed.

Kelllehbee (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: - see User talk:Kelllehbee. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Premakeerthi de Alwis assassination

Premakeerthi de Alwis assassination is a controversial issue in sri lanka. i want improve this article. but User:Ramya20 is removing valuable issues on this article. ramya20 is representing murder side argument. sinhala language PDF file (Sinhala PDF "Murder Conviction-Court Case") which user added is not excepted according to Wikipedia policy. at the moment (when 2014 there are new issues exposed in officially about this assassination ) there are multiple issues about this assassination. ramya20 is trying to avoid to expose those valuable issues. Please include all importance information and improve this article. I have added some footage on talk page please refer those. I invite to administrator involve this matter. (Academiava (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)).

Death

AAlwis, who was 42, was dragged from his house and murdered on the night of July 31, 1989. The murder has been blamed on the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna,but nirmala de Alwis is complaining it was handled by Hudson Samarasinghe.

References

References

I'm afraid that this is not the place to make dispute resolution requests. Please go back to the main request page and follow the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

GM/Streetcar Page

General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy disputes. I suspect that the page has gotten to the point some sort of action is required here; would anyone be willing to take a look and suggest which approach, here or elsewhere, is more appropriate? As you will see, the article is split between two different takes on who is writing from an extreme 04:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)03:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Higan (emulator)

This article regards an emulator for various Nintendo consoles. The article is lacking content and references. I would like to improve this article, but User:Smuckola will not allow additions to the page and User:Sergecross73 is enforcing Smuckola's assertion of ownership of the page.

Smuckola reverted my additions to the page and additionally removed unrelated content that had already been there. Having put some effort into adding quality content to a needy article, I was shocked to find my changes immediately reverted without warning. A brief edit war ensued, which stopped when Sergecross73 locked the page and then reverted it to Smuckola's version--not the original version.

After reading over Sergecross73's talk page I noticed a pattern wherein Smuckola accuses another editor of vandalism or sub-par edits, deletes the content, then acquires enforcement from Sergecross73 for Smuckola to make his own changes to the article.

I am willing to fix the issues Smuckola and Sergecross73 claim to have with the content I uploaded, but I do not believe that they are willing to accept edits on the article from any author other than Smuckola.Quequotion (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Apparently Smuckola did leave a comment, after having Sergecross73 protect the page for him, which I seem to have inadvertently deleted (probably pasted over it by mistake). The comment can be read in the talk page history; where in Smuckola accuses me of violating every principle of.... everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quequotion (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! This isn't the right place to make dispute resolution requests. Please go to the main request page and follow the instructions you find there. Our dispute resolution system works pretty well, once you get the the right place. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh? I ended up here because there's nothing on the request page but a link back to the page that tells you how to make a request. Am I doing something wrong?Quequotion (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if you were doing it right, this isn't appropriate for Dispute Resolution. You kept reverting all sorts inappropriate content to an article, so I protected the page to start up more discussion. Discussion on the talk page has barely begun, because you erased someone else comments. This is nowhere near the level of DRN. You just need to do some basic discussion on a talk page, and probably learn more about Wikipedia and how to write an article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I am seeking the resolution of a dispute involving 3 Wikipedia users: Attilaurm, ScrapIronIV and Lankiveil with reference to WP Article "List of Hungarians in Australia" which was called "Hungarians in Australia" before 7 August 2015. On 20 July 2015, I (user Attilaurm) made an entry (+85 bytes) into the additional information reference source support portal "See Also" which appears at the end of the Article proper. This entry was removed by user ScrapIronIV on 22 July 2015 as he unjustly saw self-promotion interest in my entry which he/she additionally labeled as of no merit. I referred this matter for adjudication to user Lankiveil who's own "User talk" page became the platform for the ensuing cross-correspondence between the 3 parties namely myself, ScrapIronIV and Lankiveil. According to Lankiveil, the article on Hungarian Immigration that I had authored and was subsequently vetted, scrutinized and published by Australian Dictionary of Biography has high merit. However, the intended cross-referencing entry should have been done by another WP user not myself. In line with Wikipedia's aim and charter I thought that my entry contribution would be welcome, more so after verifiable clarifications I had made, yet the entry has not been restored by ScrapIronIV. Could a thorough analysis, arbitration and a final resolution be made to solve this issue, please? Thank you. Attilaurm (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Attilaurm: You need to file your request for dispute resolution directly at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard using the "Request dispute resolution" button. Requests left here probably won't be seen by the noticeboard volunteers. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• To WP User Mr. Stradivarius : many thanks for your suggestion. I had duly completed in detail, the WP's form required for dispute resolution request even before your suggestion. Unfortunately however no response has been received whilst I check daily the noticeboard to no avail. My frustration for not getting any response to my formal request lead me to write my above note here, under "Talk". Can anyone explain or help help? Thank you. Attilaurm (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for help in solving a problem with entry on History of the Jews in Russia

A few weeks ago (I'm sorry, I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor and I'm not sure of the exact date) I edited one section (on the Soviet Union before World War II) of the Wikipedia entry on the History of the Jews in Russia, adding a few paragraphs based on recently published research on Soviet policy towards Jews, particularly in Belarus, in the 1920s. On August 30 I noticed that eight days earlier another editor, Al Khazar, had reverted, thus deleted all my edits. I wrote to Al Khazar on their talk page, saying that my edits had been carefully sourced and I believed were accurate and useful, and asking for an explanation of the revert. So far Al Khazar has not responded. I see from Al Khazar's talk page that they have a history of suspensions for disruptive editing and warring. I have no experience with a situation like this; I've only edited a few entries over the past six years, and in general my edits have been accepted and are still reflected in the entries. Can someone please help resolve this problem with a minimum of fuss?

Thanks in advance, Pdruknl

Pdruknl (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

HP inc. approval

Your bot said I copied something from a website but I did not FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of a descriptive term, in main article?

Hello,

My names Andrew, I'm a girly new, eh sort of new editor, but learning how to do so. My primary knowledge Id say base, is with regard to sociology and important to me as an activist and law student is particularly acts of genocide. As I'm majoring in international law.

Currently I added, well...didn't add. However I was reading wikipedia, for information regarding this and approached th the article, "1804 Haiti Massacre". After studying much of the Haitian Revolution, both admiring it but like the, "Reign of Terror" fo it horrifying. None-the-less, c I when I signed up to Wikipedia, added information regarding that particular event. I realized the first initial description of the event as genocidal, was deleted. I added this characterization based on Wikipedia's "common sense"portion of Wikipedia editing. The event, saw the extermination in 1803 of 3-5,000 in two months following the end of the war. The French Creole populace was physically destroyed entirely (not just in part) under the genocide convention, an act of b)killing members of a group, in whole or in part", with specific intent to physically or biologically destroy a ethnic, religios, national or racial group. I added the term "genocidal" to describe the events Well aI finally cited the evidence or interpretation of this event as an "act of genocide". I state "genocidal"as the title of the author of the book on the events, (to which there are dozens of peer reviewed, heavily cited relevant sources and reliable sources. These individuals are also writing dissertations and obtained theira doctorate on hitstoricql events. The title of the aauthors books regarding the event involve the specific terms, "Genocide in the Carribean", and Colonialism and Genocide and hold writings onN numerous events and acts of discrimination by ALL and various groups during colonial America. Based on the events, the result, (the extinction of that ethnic group from the entire country, in which the intent was to kill every person of that ethnic group as quickly as possible using "silent weapons". These to prevent individuals from escaping". The event was plotted by the President difficult to not use the term "genocide", or "genocidal" in the description of the massacre of the 3-5,000 French Creoles and was carried out. With that intent stated in public and private decrees. The genovide convention was wrote to describe these acts and. Utilized history of the 18th and 19th century to draw upon the modern concept of genocid. I have utilized 5 generic non-academic, webpage which individuals in forums, on webpages dedicated to the events, on student power points term the event as a "genocide." I cited two books that termed the events as such that were peer reviewed, recommended readership for Glasgow and Penn State Universities and under research specific websites the all stated even in their titles that the event was genocide. I have seen others in the talk page discuss people slowly removing elements of the page that have anything to do with the ter and that are essentially removing necessary information obtained through the necessary Wikipedia requirements. I insisted I would not state "genocide" occurred but had to add information in a neat and appropriate manner based on these academically reviewed books s that is what Wikipedia relies upon. I sourced even 5 seperate websites of different purposes, but toA prove that the characterization of the event as "genocide", is so extensive, considering the common sense facts for any individual obviously other individuals, on Wikipedia, and off share the characterization a long with historians and sociologist. They seem to insist I am citing, "original research"c and Iam ABSOLUTElLoY not. It's sources to draw an inference upon. Considering the authors discuss its relation to modern genocide, the founder of the genocide convention used nineteenth century events to write the conventionc. It is a VERY important characterization for modern readers to understand the events properly, as "slavery",Is necessary being a modern crime to describe the event that's modern readers understand, not "forcedworkes". This act paralleled the Srebrenica Genocide it's scale, and is more easily ruled such as the event in question sought to physically destroy the entire ethnic group and did such. It's really hard to discuss the issue without using that term. They seem to insist I am engaging in, "original", research. I honestly don't understand how adding pertinent and important information others have put in the article previously, is removed constantly when the primary source's it relies upon use the very characterization that is removed by someone in my opinion who has bias? I have had my explanations in the talk page about the citations I made and why I did so removed, and thus consensus essentially prevented. I would love to have further discussion and add to Wikipedia...however it seems to me, someone deliberately steering a different opinion is avoiding a simple yet important word to describe the events, using a common sense assesment and argument, a literary review of two pieces of peer reviewed paper others even relied upon, who's title and basis is regarding that interpretation of events, along with other authors who are experts characterizing the events as such, and at least 5 found websites of different natures also doing so. The person after I previously did it immediately removed the information and threatened to ban me for putting in, "original information." None of what I have put into the article is, "original", nor is it an interpretation. It is factually characterized as constituting a specific crime and specific intent and the peer reviewed books and dissertations consist of extensive discussion on this. It would be disingenuous and necessary to go out of your way to not address certain important elements of the article. I would gladly agree to article consensus but the individual removed my previous discussion in the talk room and others have complained of bias against using terms others don'tapprove of...even when the primary source drawn upon nearly requires that for an article. I don't see any original information and to threaten to ban me instead of head here to recieve a proper determination seemed excessively aggressive. Please review the literature on the page 1804 Haiti Massacre. The individual does not seem to understand the specific legal intent of this crime, case law with regard to it, what constitutes the legal actus reus of this crime and even referred to other events as genocide, yet they have NO relevance to even the concept of the crime of genocide in intent of acts. reviewed literature, seeing others complain, my own information removed and the person threaten to "ban" me makes me very reluctant to participate in Wikipedia, as what do you do when someone has a monopoly on the article? Yet refuses to allow critical elements be included, from multiple individuals who feel the same obviously about its importance? I would not come here, and hoped for consensus, but it seems impossible with the individual dictating what does and does not reach the page. Staying repeatedly I'm using "original research" when I've gone way out to provide many sources, peer reviewed and popularly viewed and in my objective opinion, I have made reasonable accurate concessions to describe the event as a "genocidal massacre", and not say "it's a genocide." Though the peer review says, "it was a genocide." Please assist me in this as I don't understand how one person dismisses the conclusions of others, and uses an "original research", when none of it is my own and I am not coming to this conclusion alone by any remote means.? Thank you kind Wikipedia contributors, I'd like consensus that it's an appropriate use given the sources drawn upon.

   Ac2204 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution advice

I am unsure how to proceed as I have not encountered such a problem before. I had made an addition to Movie entry. See link below. Another contributer deleted my entire entry. I look at what they expreseed as a concern and made a series of changes that I thought addresed there concerns. However, the item has been competely deleted a few times. The movie is quite a minor one and I doubt it matters if my addition of a plot and some of the actors names, and a crituqe matters much at all. But before leaving it, I wondered if there is any simple way to have a third party review. If it too complex I am happy for the other contributor to have their way as it isn't that important.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyena_Road Russell miles (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You have not discussed the content dispute on the on the article talk page, so that's always the recommended as a first step. I can also say that, with strong certainty, that if you were to seek out dispute resolution, you'd pretty quickly be told that Wikipedia is not the medium for your to be giving your movie critiques. You do not need dispute resolution for that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please help to resolve discussion

I've added definitely authoritative source that claimed that Safavid Dynasty of Iran spoke Azeri language with more argumentative comment than previous source that claimed that Safavids used Azeri no more after the transfer of capital to Isfahan. Nonetheless, user LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) cancelled my change with doubtful argumentation. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Arminius

There is currently some overheated content on the edits to Arminius. One editor added a lot of material with references, and this was deleted. It was re-entered and deleted again, with both sides calling each other vandals. Now the adding editor has (somehow) been banned. I could find no attempt from either side to discuss the issue, just heated words. Could some-one try to handle this?

I am writing this here because the introduction to the noticeboard is not helpful in telling me the simple way to ask for help in getting arbitration. (There SEEMED to be a step-by-step way, but it didn't work.) Kdammers (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Academy of Construction (USA)

In ten or so days, there has been no participation from other editors, including the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and no response to the substantive changes and additional secondary sources that respond to the reasons for nomination for deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Academy_of_Construction_(USA)#National_Academy_of_Construction_.28USA.29

I appreciate any help. I don't think the discussion process is working. More importantly, the changes to the article and further information provided demonstrate the reason for nomination for deletion has been overcome. Thanks!! MaeInJune (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I added these comments under a different heading. MaeInJune (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

HELP: No participation in discussion

In ten or so days, there has been no participation from other editors, including the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and no response to the substantive changes and additional secondary sources that respond to the reasons for nomination for deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Academy_of_Construction_(USA)#National_Academy_of_Construction_.28USA.29

I appreciate any help. I don't think the discussion process is working. More importantly, the changes to the article and further information provided demonstrate the reason for nomination for deletion has been overcome. Thanks!! MaeInJune (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC) MaeInJune (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Should I put RfC (request for comment) on the talk page? The closest category seems Econ. Please advise. MaeInJune (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Jack Gilardi

Jack Gilardi was Don Rickles agent. There originally was an article about him on Wikipedia but it was deleted. The account user "Jossi" was later blocked from Wikipedia for inappropriate use and abuse. I request that the Jack Gilardi article be reinstated as I believe it should never have been deleted in the first place considering the person who deleted it was abusing this site. I cannot provide a link to the article in question because the article was deleted. Also, you may want to review any other changes or deletions made by user "Jossi" as there may be more deletions of important articles or changes made to articles that are untrue. User "Jossi" made at least 10 changes or deletions every day before he was blocked so there may be quite alot of wrong information on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate it if you could inform me of what you decide on both issues.

Thank you.

UltraViolet2000 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreliability of sources at Madhesi people

Please check the reliability of sources at Madhesi people section:History, subsection:Some Theories. Since the source is unavailable to view and the claim seems like a secession theory, you need to intervene at the article and also at Raj Darbhanga where it contains same secession theory as part of history. These secessionist theory is backed up by Secessionist CK Raut which needs cleanup and supervised regularly as an impactful brainwashing activity is going on by few Madhesi people. Kind Regards Airkeeper (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Airkeeper (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong content for the Americas

Days ago I did changes in the topic about AMERICAS, even when my changes were done based on the references used by the author, the user BilCat reversed my changes two times, he offered to discuss and debate and come up with a common idea but seems like the user is not willing to talk, the discussion IS no longer active Rduartemd5 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Mike Kanellis

This is what he wrestles under currently in WWE. It is the name by which most if not all will search for him. I searched for him that way and found the article still had his given name as the title. I switched it, Hayman30 switched it back, I switched it again and clarified why, they switched it back, I gave them a source and the switched it again with said source and it still says Mike Bennet. Here is the source that keeps getting ignored. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/mike-kanellis

By the logic of Hayman30, Hulk Hogan should have Terry Bolea as the title of his article, Tom Cruise should have Tom Mapother, Michael Keaton should have Michael Douglas and so on. This is as open and shut as it gets. Evalas618 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Debate on origins of Malayalam

There has been heated arguments on the Malayalam page. One editor is consistently deleting referenced arguments and distorting/selectively quoting scientific sources to promote his fringe views. 3rd party assistance is needed to maintain an accurate history of the language. Nagadeepa (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nagadeepa: you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if you want to request dispute resolution. Batternut (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Fix needed

I've just spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to file a request. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request page is rendered as just an empty page in Chrome 34 under my current settings. I checked the source and finally decided to look at the page in Firefox where the page actually displays some content. It is a long way from acceptable for a Wikipedia page to fail to render in a very standard browser with very standard settings. It is broken and is badly in need of a fix. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. I wasn't logged in on Firefox and as soon as I logged in, the page content disappeared in Firefox as well. This leaves me with no way of requesting dispute resolution. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you are having this problem. I am not the technical type so I don't have an answer for you. I hope someone comes by soon. IF not try the Village Pump (technical) or WP:TEAHOUSE. Good Luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Please add "[[Category:Dispute resolution noticeboard]]" to the bottom of the page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: The "page" has no content: it's just an empty div tag with an ID attribute to attract some javascript <div id="myDRW"></div> --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Seems fair enough - this page is part of the DRN system, after all, even if its content is just a div tag. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixes needed

There are problems I see with this form:

1. There is no reminder that Dispute overview must be neutral, and the arguments of editor filing this dispute should not be stated in this field.
2. There is no field to be converted into Opening comment by filer; the script doesn't even create such section.
3. The cases are not referred to as "cases", which goes against the common naming.

These should probably be solved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In relation to No 2 above - From the wording: Users involved Who else is involved in the dispute? This implies users other than the filer of the dispute. That was my interpretation in a current dispute and for this reason I purposefully did not enter the dispute-resolution discussion. I know the dispute-filers user name is automatically placed in the box, however I believe the current ambiguity would be clarified if the wording read: Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Sam56mas (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can change that to "Who is involved in the dispute (including yourself)". Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Javascript

This page is unique in my experience of Wikipedia in that it fails without Javascript, without any indication that that is the problem, and without any indication as to what steps should be taken to request DR without it. Please, can something be done about this? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 May 2014 Suggestion Fixing style/layout errors

There is a consensus on the DRN talk page [1] for the existing text on the DRN filing form be modified to read:

Location of dispute--The dispute resolution noticeboard requires significant prior discussion on a talk page. Please provide a link(s) to the talk page thread(s) where discussion has occurred. Note: If a discussion link is not provided, or if the link is to an inappropriate discussion location such as WP:ANI, your DRN filing may be automatically closed. — Keithbob • Talk • 13:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Strong Approval. Question; would "a link(s) to the talk page sections(s)" be better than "a link(s) to the talk page thread(s)"? Not everyone knows what a thread is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob and Guy Macon: I can see a problem with this wording - it looks like the form only accepts one link in that input box, so "link(s)" and "thread(s)" may be confusing. I thought of changing it to this:

The dispute resolution noticeboard requires significant prior discussion on a talk page. Please provide a link to the talk page section where discussion has occurred. If there are multiple discussions, list the main one here and add links to the others in the dispute overview. Note: If a discussion link is not provided, or if the link is to an inappropriate discussion location such as WP:ANI, your DRN filing may be automatically closed.

However, that's quite long, and the longer we make the text, the more likely people are to skip over it. How about the following:

Please provide a link to the talk page section where discussion has occurred. Note: if a suitable discussion link is not provided, your DRN filing may be automatically closed.

Let me know how that sounds. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points Guy and Strad. I agree that Mr. Strads new version is best. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2015

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request is powered by the MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js script which is enabled by default for unregistered users and also for logged in users as "Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Often logged in users disable the gadget by accident which leads to scenarios like these. A reminder to enable the gadget incase the page is empty at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request might be helpful.

Replacing

<div id="myDRW"></div>

with

<div id="myDRW">Can't see anything? Please make sure the ''Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard'' gadget is enabled in your [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets|preferences]].</div>

will display the reminder in case the form does not load. 106.51.28.175 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unable to create request

I've filled out the request form, but when I press the "save" button the 'working' indicator just keeps spinning. Here is the dispute info:

Location of dispute

• Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use

Users involved

• Felsic2, Faceless Enemy, Miguel Escopeta, Herr Gruber, RunnyAmiga, DHeyward, Therubicon, Thomas.W

Dispute overview

• There is a dispute over whether to mention the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern US history, in the article about the main weapon used, the SIG MCX. The weapon's use has been discussed in many reliable, mainstream sources, has affected the sucess of the manufacturer, and has been a factor in the passage of gun control legislation. The MCX article was only created following the shooting, and the weapon is not especially notable for anything else. No one has suggested any compromise text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• There has been talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

• An agreement on how WP:DUE should be applied to article content would be helpful.

If it gets posted, then this section can be deleted or hatted. If not, could someone please post it for me? Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the "Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard" entry in my Preferences:Gadgets form is checked, and I'm able to see and fill the form. The problem comes when I save it. Felsic2 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, what browser are you currently using? Also, it would be super helpful if you could open your browser console, try to submit the request, and send me the results (maybe by pasting them here inside a collapse box). I'll investigate this myself too, of course. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 22:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's short:

• [15:35:12.532] ReferenceError: userArray is not defined @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:203

I'm using Firefox v24. user:Robert McClenon reports the same problem. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WP:DRN/request - can't post request and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard# Can't post Felsic2 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request filed. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request completed; should be working now. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2 and Robert McClenon: I just posted a test case and it posted correctly. Thanks to Enterprisey for the fix. — TransporterMan (TALK) 07:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN Coordinator)

It worked! Thanks to user:Robert McClenon, user:Enterprisey, user:TransporterMan, and anyone else who helped. Felsic2 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dumb question

I am asking this seemingly dumb question, as I wish to save myself the bother of looking around. How does this notice board fit into the other ways in which dispute resolution is handled such as AN/I, or the one for reliable sources...? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN is kinda a one-stop shop, we handle most minor content disputes. That's how I see it, anyways. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be a one-stop-shop, but at least two editors can't figure it out (I'm one of them, and another Nov. 2016 editor, see below, is the other).Kdammers (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Make that three: See "Fix Needed" (below). Kdammers (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested change to the DRN Request form

Could I suggest a minor rewording of the request form, at the bottom, just above the Yes/No buttons, from

Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page? (If you don't know what an article talk page is, answer "Not yet".)

to

Has this issue recently been discussed extensively on the article talk page? (If you don't know what an article talk page is, answer "Not yet".)

(I make this suggestion due to having just incorrectly raised a request, having given the issue a break to allow a Third opinion request to come to its inconclusive finish.) Batternut (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work when JavaScript is turn'd off

I often work with JavaScript turn'd off, and when I tried to use this to request a dispute resolution all I got was the message "Can't see anything? Please make sure the Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard gadget is enabled in your preferences." I suspected it was due to my turning off JavaScript, so I turn'd it back on and hit Ctrl-r to refresh. That didn't help. I found that I had to hit Ctrl-F5 which in my browser (Firefox) does a more thorough refresh (I don't really know what the difference is). Could you add a message telling people to try that (after making sure JavaScript is turned on)? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fake edits and changing of info with a source.

Little Mix's Summer Hits Tour support acts keeps getting fake edits. A user keeps adding a band called 'Broken Witt Rebels' into the info box when they're not actually supporting. Not only that but the info about the support acts that have a source are being incorrectly changed. I keep editing it back but obviously don't want to get banned for being in an edit war even though i'm just correcting.

Can the page be temporarily locked or something?

Thanks! MW2018 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@MW2018: you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if you want to request dispute resolution.

Dispute with a supervisoran

So I have a disput going on for a few days with a Bahasa Melayu supervisor. The name is Yosri. He claimed that my article is non-verifiable and not-noticeable. He even claimed that all of my sources are outdated articles but almost all articles are quite recent. Could you check Center this page? The dispute is going on in the Malay version.

I just want to know if the English version is verifiable and noticeable. I've tried to stick to only facts that I can found in my school's website and online news source. I've tried to be as neutral as possible.

P/S : Yes, I do have a conflict of interest in this article. I've tried to limit that as much as possible.

Another one, do you know like how to make articles about school according to Wikipedia policy? That would be immensly helpful. Slainthayer (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Better formatting needed

The formatting for this page displays very weirdly, and it'd be nice if someone with access to the needed permissions could fix it. - Sdkb (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rejection of changes by a family member

I want to know why the edits we have made to my father in laws page listing the date and location of his death keep getting removed. As he was a world renowned scientist, this is one of the only ways we have of letting the community know of his passing. Regarding: Eyvind H. Wichmann.

This is greatly aggravating our grieving process and, in addition, has so far forced me to create this account that I do not want.

Margaret Sumner-Wichmann Sumnerwichmann (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sumnerwichmann, I'm the one removing the information - I've left a much more detailed message on your talk page regarding this, and also on the talk page of the IP address who added the information second. Unfortunately, it's unsourced contentious information about a living or recently deceased person - so we really do need a published, reliable source for this such as an obituary. Unfortunately, it sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia to announce the death, but we're not an announcement site - we only report what has already been written by other people about a subject. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 09:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ubort River

In an article about the Ukrainian-Belarusian river User: Khajidha canceled my editing He returned an unreal name, an obsolete translation, of a Ukrainian settlement that is not used with modern maps. Modern maps use the Ukrainian official name written in Latin letters Andriyevychi / Andriiievychi I’m writing here because Khajidha does not return a modern translation I chatted on the user discussion page User: Khajidha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khajidha#Ubort_River also created a discussion on the Ubort River page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ubort_River. Bohdan Bondar (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 April 2019

Remove the link to ", Mediation" in the notice as this is now defunct. jps (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @ජපස: the page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request does not contain that phrase, is this on a different page? (If so, please change the target above and reactivate this request by setting answered= to no). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Um... I see the following:

" This process cannot:

Block other users from editing (either everywhere or specific pages)

Remove content that you don't like from articles

Force another editor to do something

Address disputes that are currently under discussion somewhere else (such as Requests for Comment, Mediation or Arbitration)

Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page? (If you don't know what an article talk page is, answer "Not yet".)"

Do you not see this?

jps (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and ජපස: The text you need to remove is actually located at MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js. * Pppery * _{has returned} 21:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done cleaned up. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the talk pages for the gadget and the /request page be merged. Thoughts? * Pppery * _{has returned} 21:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Jim jeffries page

Why is factual content about Jim Jeffries being removed /edited. Content about him smearing guests on his show by editing answers to different t questions and making anti-muslim jokes is being removed. There is a source for this. During Avi Yemeni's interview with Jim he hid a camera phone and this video is posted on Avi's YouTube channel right now. There is no arguing that this is factual. The video does not lie. So why is this factual information being removed?

being Reaman81 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Dispute, Draft:Cynthia Slater

Due to this draft being rejected multiple times since 2018, I would like to request an unbiased review of this material. The most recent rejection is a repetition of the very first rejection, which was summarily destroyed as a reason in the talk page and by way of direct example. I'm not one to ring the discrimination bell lightly, but I feel this falls under the Circumstances described in "Non-notable? Deletion, Devaluation, and Discrimination on Wikipedia" Francesca Tripodi — University of Virginia. Mr Kalm (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not available for draft articles. The advice being given by reviewers there is just that: advice. If you do not wish to follow that advice and believe the article is ready for publication, simply copy the draft into mainspace as a "live" article and see if it survives. Put this code at the top of the draft page so it will be deleted: {{Db-author}}. Do not copy the article into mainspace without immediately marking the draft for deletion (though I'd recommend keeping a copy in your personal sandbox just in case the mainspace article does not survive, so you can work on it further without having to recreate it from scratch). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged. I shall remember this sage advice in future! :) Mr Kalm (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Kalm, please note that all creations in mainspace are reviewed by accredited users of our New Page Review system before being released for Internet indexing. The NPR reviews are far stricter than the informal AfC process, and the decisions are generally final. Deletions are carried out by administrators based on the reviwers' comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Generation X

Collapse off topic. Dispute resolution requests are not accepted from this page. To make a request go to the DRN main page, read and comply with the instructions, and click the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to reason with the author on the Talk Page has led me here. Apologies - and no reflection on him/her. A quick look on the Gen X Talk page, especially under the 'Oxford-Cambridge' heading will make the issue clear. There is no global concensus on the start year for this cohort. Broadly, camps are split into 1960/61 and 1965. Both seem equally weighted. I want this mentioned in the lede. The most important scholarly work on the subject by Strauss and Howe (which cites 1960/61) is a primary source and should be given prominence. It hasn't. Furthermore, many of the sources citing 1965 are flimsy (Bloomberg) and outdated. One particular source cites the LA Times in support of 1965, but the article actually states 1961. There are many other inconsistencies. I have met a brick wall of proprietary stubbornness from the main man/woman. All other contributors on the talk page seem to share my view. Of courtesy, I have made no edit to the article yet. Intervention appreciated. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Plain Dealer edits

Collapse off topic. Dispute resolution requests are not accepted from this page. To make a request go to the DRN main page, read and comply with the instructions, and click the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made several contributions to The Plain Dealer wiki page in the last month. The page had not been updated in at least 5 years from what I could tell. A lot has happened since then - layoffs, changes in leadership, and major rebranding of its separate digital sister company, Cleveland.com, with which it shares a website (and a wikipedia page for some reason). Many past (pre-2012) high-profile criticism and controversies at The Plain Dealer have been chronicled on the page. All are factual and well sourced. I created a similar section chronicling similar controversies that have come to light in local and national media. Using the same fact-based approach as was used to create the PD criticism and controversies section, I went about documenting those involving Cleveland.com and its leadership. The contributions were properly sourced and presented various viewpoints for an even view of the matters. Yet, they were erased one day without explanation. After I attempted to re-add them to the page, an admin contended that my contibutions were not in line with the "spirit" of the encyclopedia and not done in a "neutral voice POV." That is false, I argued, explaining my position. I have received no further feedback. IMO, it is the admin who is not acting neutrally by censoring my factuql, well-sourced contributions. Why? I don't know. It could be fear of repercussions from Cleveland.com or some other reason that would contribute to his bias. At any rate, this situation undermines wiki's already questionable integrity and I believe it should be remedied at sooner rather than later. Newsman12 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Submission link not working: "Error: API returned error code "badtoken": Invalid CSRF token."

Please advise how to submit a request for dispute resolution on Martin Heidegger. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Kola nut

Collapse off topic. Dispute resolution requests are not accepted from this page. To make a request go to the DRN main page, read and comply with the instructions, and click the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to make two edits to the Kola nut page. One is to add slang of the kola nut, bissy nut, goora nut etc. The other was to elicidage what kolatin is throigh a link to a book that first described it as catechin-caffein mix. Kolatin is included as a colponent on most botanical websites without description of what it is. I searched and found out through a rare acienxe text. This was included on the page to prevent confusion as to what this component is. This is crucial to clarify the components of kola nut. The component kolatin is also included in a ncbi article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3842857/ If it is considered too wordy to describe the component as to not having proper description in most of the sources that include it as a component it should be included in the list of components as: kolatin- catechin-caffeine There are other ingredeints described in this book link that could be included as well. https://books.google.com/books?id=piNKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=kolatin+cola+nuts&source=bl&ots=Qm7N5rMtqk&sig=ACfU3U0YeuwW8eHvLUTXZT1UAjaA_fE4oQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju9diVysfmAhXvkOAKHedmDhkQ6AEwEHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=kolatin%20cola%20nuts&f=false BrendanKennedy (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

Collapse off topic. Dispute resolution requests are not accepted from this page. To make a request go to the DRN main page, read and comply with the instructions, and click the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page. (Also, the editor has received a response to this same inquiry on the article talk page.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I found I accurate information about a celebrity that may have been published without permission. How do I delete the page? Crissamg8 (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The button isn’t working

I’d like to request a dispute resolution but the button isn’t working. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

See my response here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Request not working.

I would like to request a dispute resolution but every time I try click save I get the error “Error: Unknown result for API” or something like that. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:FC60:4FA5:6689:CE55 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:3945:4588:A23B:1845 (talk)

I just posted and reverted a test case and the system is working fine. The problem is likely at your end. Try a different browser. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Danny Ramsay edits Materialscientist

I would like to state that I am in fact the actor in mention David Clencie and wish to make changes by way of editing to a more positive page. I find the existing which was last edited 12 years ago, dated and needs a revamp. Videoradiostar (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Adirondack Railroad

Have been trying to update grossly-deceptive and inaccurate content on the above page for 2 months. I am a prominent railroad preservationist who is NOT very computer-literate and cannot deal with the technical aspects of the Wiki website. Every time I correct the prior nonsense (politically-motivated), some anonymous troublemaker deletes my corrections! 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Responding by email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Alex Fergusson page dispute

I am completely technophopic and need help. I have known guitarist Alex Fergusson since we were teenagers and moved to London with him in the 70s. As he has gone off radar I added to his Wikipedia page that he moved to Germany years ago with his German partner and they have twin sons. This keeps being removed by different people, even after I added the information that I am already mentioned on his page as a colleague. I left a message on a talk page of the last person who removed my edit along with my email address hoping to resolve this but have heard nothing. Help? Sandy Robertson (username Sandy Crowley) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy crowley (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing my factual edits about my lifelong friend above? I've tried, technophobe that I am, to contact them and left my email address sandy.robertson666@gmail.com but have heard nothing. Sandy crowley (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Because they are not supported by a citation to a third-party published source which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by Wikipedia policy, which is particularly true for living persons. Personal, unpublished accounts or personal knowledge are not acceptable sources. Since Wikipedia does not have a team of paid, professional editors who can vouch for the accuracy of the material included in it, it instead uses something called verifiability which is the idea that someone using this encyclopedia can use the citations in here to go to a published source which has a practice of fact-checking and verify that what Wikipedia is saying is correct, not only now but fifty or a hundred years from now. If you still wish dispute resolution it cannot be requested on this page, since this page is just to discuss modification and improvement of an element of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. But the first step required before most dispute resolution processes can be used is to discuss the dispute on the article talk page where the dispute is under way, Talk:Alex Fergusson (musician) in this particular case. BTW, when posting a new message to a talk page it always goes at the bottom of the page unless you are replying in a thread that's already been started. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case, there's never going to be a reliable published source unless I write an article and get it published and then say "oh look - a reliable source". Sandy crowley (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)