Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 273

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Alternative (Denmark) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Helper201 (talk · contribs)
• FellowMellow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

What should be in the infobox.

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

Talk:The Alternative (Denmark)#Infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Identify what should and should not be in the infobox and whether the citations used are appropriate for what is disputed.

• Volunteer Note - This case was filed one week ago and the other editor was notified, but has not responded. Unless there is a response, I will close this case as declined by the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Direct Democracy Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Helper201 (talk · contribs)
• FellowMellow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over what should or should not be in the ideology section of the infobox.

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

Talk:Direct Democracy Cyprus#Uncited ideologies in the infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Identify what should and should not be in the infobox and if the sources being used are appropriate for the claims being made.

• Volunteer Note The other editor appears to have conceded the dispute before this request was filed Amatmilen (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - This case was filed one week ago and the other editor was notified, but has not responded. Unless there is a response, I will close this case as declined by the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jimmy Savile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Macxcxz (talk · contribs)
• Srshouse (talk · contribs)
• Ianmacm (talk · contribs)
• Microxstephn (talk · contribs)
• Pigeondisco (talk · contribs)
• Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs)
• Martinevans123 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-16916-71 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-34116-24 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is whether or not to describe Jimmy Savile as a sex offender in some way in the opening sentence of the article. As of now, the first two sentences of the article do not mention his offending.

The arguments made for it are in the spirit of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, arguing that Savile is now known just as much if not more for his sex offending than his general celebrity status, and as such should be reflected in the opening sentence of the article as a highly notable part of his biography.

Arguments against this refer to how Savile's crimes were not known until after his death, and so the opening sentence is intended to reflect the chronology of his life. It is contended that the sexual assault allegations being mentioned in the third sentence is acceptable. Other arguments made include that, since Savile was not convicted of sexual offences, presumably on the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, it would be inappropriate to call him a sex offender in the opening sentence.

Counter-arguments to this are that it is simply not necessary for the opening sentence(s) to reflect the chronology of his life/death/legacy, and it should just be based on what Savile is known for. In terms of Savile not being convicted, I argued that there are plenty of instances on Wikipedia of people not convicted of crimes, but whom were concluded to be criminals by police/inquiries, who are called as such, including numerous posthumously identified serial killers. Other parts of the article rather definitively call Savile a sex offender anyway, with good sourcing to back them up.

I have attempted to mitigate the issue by suggesting that the opening sentence could explicitly state that his offending was revealed posthumously, to better fit the "chronology" argument, but did not get much reception on this matter.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile#%22Known_for%22

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like for volunteers to weigh in on the arguments presented and help to mediate differences in views between editors.

It's a no from me. As various users have pointed out ad nauseam, Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted for any sexual offence during his lifetime. His reputation collapsed within 18 months of his death after numerous people came forward with stories about his behaviour. The problem with saying that Savile was a sex offender is that it takes the allegations out of context. Savile was wrongly regarded as a national treasure and living saint during his lifetime, but it all collapsed after his death. A person with an attention span longer than the proverbial goldfish can read this in the opening paragraph and the entire lead section. And there is an separate article devoted to the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

He is currently refered to in sources as both - a DJ and sex offender, and in better sources as both together, so that is how we should describe him, as the current lead does, even if over three sentences. Whatever weight we give to either of the two, it makes more sence to start with the DJ, not just for chronological reasons. He would not have become as infamous as a sex offender if he had not been a DJ. I think the lead is fine just as it is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

As per Roger 8 Roger above. I think the lead section is fine as it is. I have already given fuller reasoning at the Talk page. I wholeheartedly agree with Macxcxz that it's a biography not a Daily Mail article. And don't forget we also have a whole other article called Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This article content dispute will not be a subject of moderated discussion, for at least two reasons. First, three of the six other registered editors who were notified by the filing editor have responded by declining to take part in discussion. Second, there are a total of nine editors in this dispute, the filing editor, six registered editors (three of whom have declined to take part in discussion), and two temporary accounts. Moderated discussion with a large number of editors is seldom effective at reaching rough consensus. The usual way of resolving a content dispute with a large number of editors is a Request for Comments, at least if the content dispute is well-defined, and in this case, the content dispute appears to be well-defined. So I have a question for the filing editor, which is whether they want to prepare and submit a Request for Comments. The editors who have responded want to leave the article as it is. So, does the filing editor want to prepare and submit a Request for Comments?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I will look into an RfC. Thank you for your time. Macxcxz (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to prepare a neutrally worded RFC if any of the editors ask for assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The filing editor has not edited in the ten days. I will close this case unless any of the other editors have a content issue.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Location of dispute

• Communist Party of Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Southeastviewer (talk · contribs)
• C.J. Griffin (talk · contribs)
• Dan Carkner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I wanted to change the 'army-led coup' into just 'coup attempt'. I relied on the three sources (2 by scholars, 1 by a Pulitzer-winning journalist) to support my revision, but two editors disagreed and wanted to keep the 'army-led' coup, which I believe have been debunked by three sources. I believe my sources have met Wikipedia's standard. (Another editor agreed with me, but it's still a standstill.)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_Party_of_Indonesia#%22Army-led%22_is_a_weasel_word_and_counterfactual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_Party_of_Indonesia#The_Communist_Party_page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_Party_of_Indonesia#Please_do_not_remove_the_scholarly_sources_you_disagree_with.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe my sources have met the Wikipedia's standard (one article from The Conversation, one book by a historian from University of British Columbia, and a book by a Pulitzer-winning journalist) and they should be accepted. The page should be revised accordingly to remove 'army-led coup' into 'coup'.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bitch (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zirthes (talk · contribs)
• Pillowdelight (talk · contribs)
• SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am in a dispute with another editor, Pillowdelight, who is arguing that the record label "Nice Life Recording Company" should be worded this way in the lead section of the article in question, however I believe that it is acceptable to refer to the label as just "Nice Life" (without the 'Recording Company' part) instead. I used this wording for the record label when I originally created the article. They are making the argument that the label has been referred to as "Nice Life Recording Company" extensively by secondary sources, however from my own research, it is apparent that it has also been referred to as "Nice Life" just as many times if not more. This would support the consensus that there is not one common way that the label is referred to by secondary sources. Primary sources including the company's own website clearly refer to the label as just "Nice Life". There is no guideline on Wikipedia which states that the company has to be referred to as "Nice Life Recording Company" outside of its own article if there is not a singular common usage of the name by secondary sources. The label is commonly referred to as "Nice Life" within the lead of other articles such as Special and Cuz I Love You , as well as in the infobox of most album and song articles on Wikipedia where the work in question has been released under the Nice Life label.

Pillowdelight has also argued that including "Recording Company" gives context to the reader, however the sentence it is being used in starts with the introductory phrase "It was released through" which establishes context before the label is even mentioned. The full sentence in the lead is "It was released through Nice Life and Atlantic Records on June 5, 2026". I feel that there is no issue referring to the label as Nice Life and I have tried to reason with the other editor involved on the article's talk page but we have not been able to reach a resolution.

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

Talk:Bitch (album)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like an external opinion to be given on this which will definitively decide whether to use "Nice Life Recording Company" or "Nice Life" in the lead of the article in question.

As stated above I believe it should be stated as its full name as it is its literal name, in most cases from my time of editing music related articles you state the full name for the first time in the lead and or body and shortened anytime after. Many sources use both terms. Multiple other editors have joined the discussion and also agreed it should be written in full name and have tried explaining that wording it as simply "Nice Life" could be confusing to readers as we are supposed to be as descriptive as possible especially for the lead.

I haven't engaged in this as much as other editors, but what Zirthes shows no concern whatsoever for is how only using "Nice Life" gives a false impression it's all the label ever is called. We shouldn't mislead viewers unfamiliar with the label how "Recording Company" is part of the title into thinking it just goes by two words. Something that I recommended was giving a full mention when first introducing it in lead and body, which at least gives people a better sense of what they are when "Nice Life" on its own is a vague description in comparison. If anywhere, a tangential and fallacious debate the user and Pillowdelight went into on what sources more often refer to this as seems more appropriate for the label's own article, as common name affects article titles more than what they get linked as within other pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I am ready to work this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Then my first question is whether there are any content issues other than whether to spell out the name of the record label or to use the short form. If there are any other issues also, then please state what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If the name of the label is the only dispute, then I don't think that moderated discussion will be useful, but I will offer two ways to try to resolve the dispute. The first is that I am willing to offer a binding Fourth Opinion. (I won't offer a non-binding Fourth Opinion, because if I did, and one of the editors disagreed, we would then need to find another volunteer moderator.) The second is that I am willing to prepare a Request for Comments. So, if all of the disputing editors agree to a binding Fourth Opinion, I am willing to offer my opinion. Otherwise I will prepare an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

(削除) Volunteer Note: Please make sure to comment in the correct section. — 🦅White-tailed eagle ^{Talk to the eagle} Stalking eagle 22:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC) (削除ここまで)

WP:BOLDly moved the comments to the correct section. — 🦅White-tailed eagle ^{Talk to the eagle} Stalking eagle 15:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to anything, but ideally would prefer to have someone who's heavily more experienced in music/album related articles. Everyone who's participated on the albums talk page has stated it should be stated in long form. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer a RFC as I believe this is a wider issue that would require the opinion of multiple editors. It is not as black and white as the other editors involved in this are making it out to be in my opinion. I don't believe it matters if they are experienced in editing music-related articles, that would just potentially introduce some bias. Zirthes (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, RFCs aren't ideal when those tend to be time-sinks that drag things out for longer than necessary. They should be avoided as much as possible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We would like to avoid an RFC. So here are some alternatives:

• 1. If the editors in this discussion agree to a binding Fourth Opinion, I will provide a binding Fourth Opinion.
• 2. If the editors want a binding Fourth Opinion from an editor with experience with music and album articles, I will place this dispute on hold and will request that an editor at a WikiProject provide a binding Fourth Opinion.
• 3. If the editors want to try discussion, I will provide a section in this DRN for back-and-forth discussion for about four days.
• 4. Any editor may suggest another method of resolving this dispute.

I will prepare an RFC if I don't hear an alternative suggestion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to any of those suggestions. I just think this is being dragged on at this point. Every editor who had participated in the discussion on the albums talk page has stated it should be stated long form with only one editor disagreeing. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel strongly about an RFC because of the complexity of the dispute which I feel is beyond just this one article, as the "Nice Life Recording Company" has been worded in different ways in multiple song and album articles. I don't think that one additional opinion will be sufficient to resolve the dispute, and I don't believe that an editor with experience in album and song articles will be looking at this from a neutral point of view. This dispute would require the opinion from at least a few editors who don't have any potential bias to the wording of record labels. Zirthes (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Zirthes writes: I feel strongly about an RFC because of the complexity of the dispute which I feel is beyond just this one article, as the "Nice Life Recording Company" has been worded in different ways in multiple song and album articles. Do you mean that you want an RFC, or that you do not want an RFC? In either case, please explain what the complexities are.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel strongly about wanting an RFC. The complexities are that it has yet to be proven that "Nice Life Recording Company" is the most common spelling for the record label by secondary sources. Primary sources such as the label's website refer to the label as just "Nice Life". There are multiple other articles of works by the same artist which just refer to the label as "Nice Life" in the lead, such as Special , Cuz I Love You , My Face Hurts from Smiling and this usage in those articles has been long-standing. All these sources by major publications [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] simply refer to the label as "Nice Life" in the first mention. User:Pillowdelight has argued that the label is worded in full (as 'Nice Life Recording Company') on the Spotify page for album which is the focus of the article in question, but so has Atlantic Records which is worded as Atlantic Recording Corporation. Atlantic Recording Corporation is commonly referred to as just "Atlantic Records", as it is in the lead of Bitch (album), with no issue. This is why I don't believe this is a black and white issue and I would like ideally more than one additional opinion on this. Zirthes (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The draft RFC is available for review at Talk:Bitch (album)/RFC on Label. Please do not comment or vote in the draft RFC, which is not a live RFC. Please comment on the draft RFC here, in this DRN. I will launch the RFC after Zirthes answers my question about complexities, and so explains why the RFC is necessary.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never once used Spotify as the only source that refers to it as "Nice Life Recording Company". I provided MANY reliable sources on the albums talk page. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - I even provided a Billboard article from when it was very first announced when it was being launched where it is referred to as its full name. [17]. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There has been inconsistent wording of Nice Life Recording Company in multiple album/song articles on Wikipedia, as it has been referred to as Nice Life, Nice Life Recording Company, Nice Life Recordings, and Nice Life Records in various articles. This is another reason I wanted an RFC to determine which of these would be preferable to use in the future to prevent further issues like this. Zirthes (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The draft RFC is available for review at Talk:Bitch (album)/RFC on Label. Please do not comment or vote in the draft RFC, which is not a live RFC. Please comment on the draft RFC here, in this DRN. I will launch the RFC within 24 hours if there are no other comments.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

B - its official name is its long form name. As mentioned previously by user Snuggums it can be confusing and misleading to readers if not in long form. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have launched the live RFC, which will decide this dispute. Please vote in the RFC. If you have any comments, you may make them in the Discussion section of the RFC. The RFC will run for thirty days and will then be closed with a statement by the closer as to what the consensus is. I will close this DRN thread shortly unless there is an unexpected question.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Stranger Than Heaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The boss 1904 (talk · contribs)
• TrainTrash (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On June 17, 2026, user TrainTrash made an edit to the Stranger Than Heaven article, in order to "clarify" that two actors involved in the game, Bunta Sugawara and Tupac Shakur, are not actively performing in the game, due to them being deceased and their involvement only being in the form of digital likenesses. Originally, the Premise section of the article listed characters and their actors, in the format of "Character name (Actor name)". For the characters employing the deceased actors' likenesses, the format was "Character name (Likeness actor name/Voice actor name)", followed by a footnote to clarify the roles of each actor. TrainTrash's original edit added a separate sentence at the end of the paragraph to specifically note that the game uses the likenesses of said actors. Following further discussion, they agreed to a third user's proposed edit that the characters in question should be listed as "Character name (voiced by Voice actor, likeness by Likeness actor)".

As a regular editor of the article in question, I found that both edits were unnecessary, as there are already footnotes to explain that the actors are indeed not "acting" in any capacity, that only their likenesses were used; plus, there is also a dedicated paragraph in the Development section to explain how their appearances are handled. The edit, therefore, was redundant, and did not meaningfully improve the article in any way. Furthermore, the section was about the premise of the game, and the listing of actors is just for easy identification of the performers; the topic of likenesses itself is not the primary focus, and the proposed edit could potentially derail from the section's primary purpose, which is about the game's characters and settings.

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

Discussion has taken place on the article's talk page:

Talk:Stranger Than Heaven#Re: Sugawara/Tupac credit

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As the dispute is about stylistic change to the article's content, I believe that one or several third parties can provide more insight into this matter, so that we can quickly resolve the issue without going into an endless debate.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Notice on the user talk page is required in connection with all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I have mentioned to said user in the article's talk page that I intend to file a dispute, which I thought should have been sufficient. With that said, the user has not engaged in any further arguments regarding this matter, so I believe this case can be closed. The boss 1904 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Greek military ranks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The core issue is that Cdjp1 is blindly copying erroneous data from a 1988 commercial booklet, forcing objective factual errors onto Wikipedia. The commercial booklet mistranslates the Greek word "Lochias" (which means Sergeant) as "Corporal". Because the user is blindly following this text shift, his current chart forces an Air Force Sergeant ("Efedros sminias") into a Corporal column, and a Corporal into OR-3, causing the table to linguistically contradict itself inside the exact same cells. This blind copy-pasting directly violates official NATO STANAG 2116 military codification, which strictly places Lochias/Sminias under OR-5 and Dekaneas/Yposminias under OR-4.

Furthermore, this blind copying creates a major visual absurdity regarding the chevrons, where a Conscript Corporal is assigned two chevrons inside the OR-4 cell even though the user's own uploaded image for a Permanent Corporal correctly displays only one chevron.

I am simply asking to realign the columns and reinstate the images as per my last edit, based on Hellenic Army practice (see modern ranks, for example), official NATO treaty standards and correct dictionary definitions, rather than blindly publishing 40-year-old printing errors.

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

[[18]].Extensive discussion has taken place. I have provided linguistic, structural, and even official NATO STANAG 2116 evidence, but the user refuses to resolve the semantic contradictions. Furthermore, the user is weaponizing policy by calling me out out for a lack of verifiable sources, demanding citations even for basic, objective linguistic corrections.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An independent review from a Military History editor + a Greek speaking one is needed. The chart must be corrected so that all Sergeant ranks (Lochias/Sminias) sit under the same code and so on. This will resolve the self-contradicting cells, fix the visual chevron progression, and ensure the article reflects factual codification instead of typographical print errors.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notice on the user talk page is required for all noticeboard filings in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Head tie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deetailz (talk · contribs), Sohvyan (talk · contribs), Dolpina (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Both Sohvyan and Dolpina have constantly removed multiple peer-reviewed sources on the head tie and head scarf pages. Dolpina gave reasons that these sources were fictional, self published, or could have been lifted off of TikTok. I engaged them on the Head tie talk page that those assertions were wrong. They went ahead to invite some independent editors, among them was Kowal2701 who confirmed that "the sources appear to support the content and be reliable for it." Despite this confirmation, the warring has not stopped. Sohvyan went ahead to remove not just these sources alleging that these claims were not made in the published articles but that Ichafu isi (Igbo head tie), and Falalla (Hausa Head tie) are not nationally equivalent to gele (the yoruba head tie). To clarify, this is not a gele page, this is a head tie page covering all head tie practices across the world. Sohvyan also noted that Premium Times was a blog and thus cannot be used as source, and proceeded to cite an article published in IDOSR. I looked up IDOSR.org and they claimed open access, indexed in scopus and this article with an ISSN of 2579-0765. This journal was not on DOAJ, nor scopus, even the ISSN does not exist. This article was used while discredit Ozah (Cambridge University Press, JSTOR 41201378), Nwigwe & Morgan (IKENGA, 2013), Ndu-Udeji (2021) CMS Dictionary of Ibo Language (1923), Adichie (2023, Hodder & Stoughton), Aduba (2024, Hodder & Stoughton) and Premium Times (2025). It is important to note that this edit warring became intense after Admin Turelio also commented on the talk page that Ichafu isi is listed as an indigenous Nigerian variation of the head tie. Removing Igbo and Hausa, while retaining only Yoruba violates WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. Using unregistered journal (IDOSR, not found in DOAJ, Scopus or the ISSN portal and removing Cambridge University Press violates WP:RS

Please, instead of edit warring and unsubstantiated sock accusations, let all us reach a consensus here.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Head_tie#h-Deetailz_and_self_published_sources,_unscholar_"_sources_"_and_inaccessible_sour-20260611170600

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

That all sourced content representing all Nigerian ethnic groups are equally restored and well represented per WP:NPOV.

• Volunteer note - (削除) The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notice on the user talk pages is required for all noticeboard filings. The filing editor is requested to notify the other editors. (削除ここまで) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I did exactly that immediately I filed this dispute. You can check here and here. Deetailz (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dolpina: Could you try to collaborate with @Deetailz? You both seem to have a shared interest. Go on the talk page, and work together. You can do it! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 15:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Igbo regalia and headdresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dreune (talk · contribs) Dolpina (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been advised to request dispute resolution because discussion on the article’s talk page has not resolved several content disputes.

So my concern is that the article has actually moved away from its original scope. So this article is about Igbo regalia and headdresses, with each section describing a particular item of regalia pertaining to the igbo people. Instead of focusing on those cultural items, several edits by dolpina have introduced broader historical and comparative topics that I don’t believe belong in the article where they were added.

Like example, images that directly illustrated the sourced descriptions of the igbo regalia have been removed and replaced with more generic and less relevant images. With the editor who removed the images claiming that because its a recent picture it can't be added to the article while also adding a recent picture that was recently also added to the platform. Sourced descriptions explaining how these items look, how they are worn, and their cultural significance have also been removed, even though they are supported by reliable sources.

In the Ichafu section, the introduction has been changed to focus on the word’s etymology instead of introducing Ichafu as an item of regalia. Comparisons with Yoruba head ties and statements suggesting borrowing have also been added, but the source cited discusses the ovu ejo head tie of Afikpo women in a particular historical context, not Ichafu or Igbo headwear nor gele generally. I believe the article draws conclusions that is beyond what the source actually says.

Another concern is the addition of a content stating that Igbo people historically wore little or no clothing until colonial influence changed their dress. While that reflects one author’s account, other reliable sources describe the manufacture and use of Igbo textiles and clothing during the 18,19& 20th century, such as Olaudah Equiano (1789). Unrelated origins of towns was also introduced to the article.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm asking for the reinstatement of the removed images and removal of sourced descriptive information that support and illustrate the regalia discussed in the article. I am also asking that material on historical nudity, colonialism, broad comparisons with Yoruba head ties, and the origins of particular Igbo communities be removed or moved to articles where the topics are relevant.

In all, my goal is not to remove well sourced information, but to keep this article focused on what it is about

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Melania Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thedarkknightli (talk · contribs)
• AML KING (talk · contribs)
• Moritoriko (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Sorry for the pretty late DRN case! There's a dispute over how to format |birth_place= and a consensus to link "SR Slovenia" in the parameter. AML KING thinks we should write |birth_place=Novo Mesto, SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, with which I disagree, given MOS:GEOLINK. Moritoriko thinks that, given GEOLINK and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 87#RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question, we should write |birth_place=Novo Mesto, then part of SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, with which AML KING disagrees. I personally think we should write |birth_place=Novo Mesto, then in SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, given GEOLINK, the linked RfC, and MOS:IBP. However, I'm also fine with |birth_place=Novo Mesto, then part of SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia or |birth_place=Novo Mesto, SR Slovenia, Yugoslavia.

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

Talk:Melania Trump#Linking SR Solvenia in infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing an independent fourth opinion.

• Volunteer Question - Where has there been any discussion about how to format her birthplace? I don't see any discussion, and am about to close this dispute as premature. Have I missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it took place from April 3 to April 23. Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note - The discussion on the article talk page is not recent. Please resume discussion on the article talk page and see if this dispute can be resolved. I am leaving this case in a waiting state, and will open it if discussion remains lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, I believe we've reached a consensus on the article's talk page, so please feel free to close this case. Cheers, Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Flag carrier (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MirkoS18 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Since late June I am involved in content disagreement related to article Flag carrier. I believe there are two questions over which your contribution may be useful. The first one is if the article at all should include the List of flag-carrying airlines or that list should be a separate article (here I am neutral). The second is, if the list exist, should it also include historical flag carriers (clearly marked as such and properly sourced) within the list or as an additional list. In this conversation I have made mistake of using Grammarly to polish some of my earlier comments which I then myself reported to AI noticeboard where I received some useful comments (I got better informed about currently standing policy). You will be able to follow all details on talk page. Right there other interested paries expressed willingness to continue conversation. I left a short 2-3 days cooling off time and I posted my new summary on June 30. As there was no further reaction, I informed one of the people stating willingness to continue conversation about my comment on July 2. There was no any kind of reply despite at least 39 edits (some major) made after I informed that person (and keep in mind I am not making complaint about person, but about content). It seems to me that since the individuals heavily involved in this topic realised that I will avoid edit conflict after my contribution was removed twice they decided to simply avoid completely dealing with the core argument. I believe it is highly inappropriate and I believe that argument on the content of that article should be addressed. I believe this gives you some introduction to the whole issue, and you will be able to follow all details on the article's talk page and in its edit history. I would really appreciate your contribution here if you can spare some time.

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

I tried multiple steps. You will be able to follow it all starting from the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_carrier&diff=prev&oldid=1361828330

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope someone here would be willing to go though it all and focus on the main argument on the content of the article. I am aware that I was making uninformed honest mistake which I reported myself. I believe on the other side we are dealing with topic chiefdom and unwillingness to engage with legitimate and properly argued/referenced comment on article's content.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Estelle Getty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elleng0523 (talk · contribs)
• Jauerback (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added extensive information about Ms. Getty's role in the play Torch Song Trilogy--the pre-Broadway, Broadway, and National Tour (Los Angeles) runs she participated in. This included adding columns to the Theater grid for theater name and listing the dates for the each location's performances, which each venue's listing referenced with reliable sources. The added data included 2 more lines for a total of 3 theaters covering 3 years in 2 cities. Ms. Getty's initial performance is listed with the first year, 1982, but not a range of dates or the theater names or run dates. The article says that after the Broadway run Ms. Getty went on to reprise the role in Broadway and off-Broadway productions for 4 years. This is not accurate, she only performed for 3 years total before leaving to be on Golden Girls and she did not perform in off Broadway productions following the Broadway run, only before the Broadway run. Instead she went on National Tour to Los Angeles in 1983, leaving the show in 1984. THis is the most updated version of the page with all the updates, the entire theater credit section was basically reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estelle_Getty&oldid=1361311522 I don't understand why. The person who did it says I don't have sufficient references basically but I don't understand how he came to that conclusion. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Here is the most updated version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estelle_Getty&oldid=1361647905 Here is the reverted version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estelle_Getty&oldid=1361545520

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

[[19]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please indicate whether the theater section is sufficiently sourced and formatted correctly. The other editor keeps indicating it is not without explaining clearly why or how it is not. I have updated it several times to list only the venues where Ms. Getty performed, not the entire national tour, with links and dates to prevent confusion. I believe the information is accurate, clearm and comprehensive. Please let me know if this is not the case. Thank you.

I think the user's additions speak for themselves. Jauerback ^dude? /_dude. 12:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. I think I know the answer to my next question, but I will ask it anyway. Will each editor please state what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. I think that the filing editor has made some edits and the other editor has reverted them, but I am asking the usual question to start off. It is not necessary to explain your reasons at this time. I will ask for explanations shortly.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Among other issues, a major source for this article is the Lifetime Intimate Protrait of Estelle Getty, which is available free online through both youtube and google. I wanted to source a link to the video rather than just the IMDB listing, but apparently both google and youtube are not acceptable sources. So I switched it to the IMDB listing, which is just information, not the vodeo/program itself. Otherwise I believe the references accurately reflect the information presented. I think we may have a difference of opinion as to what is considred reliable sources I would like to know in its current incarnation if the article appears to have sufficient reliable sources. When all my edits were reverted I didn't want to recreate everytihng because i put a lot of work into tracking the specific theaters and runs for Getty's Torch Song Trilogy performances. Thank you for your help. Elleng0523 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. Whatever edits they are adding in have to be correctly sourced by reliable sources. Jauerback ^dude? /_dude.

Yes, the main reason for my removal is lack of reliable sources. And, their abilty to cite them. However, the other editor also has a lot to learn about working collaboratively, building a consensus, and not to edit war. However, that's beyond the scope of this. Jauerback ^dude? /_dude. 12:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this dispute primarily a dispute about the reliability of sources? Is the filing editor trying to add information that the other editor is removing as unreliable, and is the other editor primarily objecting to the use of what they see as unreliable sources?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel that the other editor reverted my edits without confirming whether or not they were reliable. He specifically mentioned the google search link to the Intimate portrait video, even though it linked specifically to that video and not just some google search results. But the subsequent edits about Ms. Getty's theatre credits were universally accepted sources with verfiable information. The other editor also mentioned the census reference ,which I did not enter in the first place so I don't know what the original editor was referring to. There was an error message indicating the formatting was wrong soI tried to fix the formatting but census references have a unique format so I left it alone. The other editor indicated it is incomplete which may be true, but I don't feel I am in a position to either delete it or update it because I don't have sufficient information and i don't know what the original editor was referring to. I feel the other editor was also not being collaborative. I wasn't trying to have an edit war, I made the requested changes and he reverted them. Or else we had a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a google search. Apparently by definition if the url has google search in it then it is a google search link, even if goes ot a specific video or something. Can you confirm this? And if the google link is unacceptable would a youtube link be OK? Thank you. I feel that any reader using the imdb link will eventually end up with either google or you tube because they will search for it online and that is what will come up. ~2026-37828-10 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Please be sure that you are logged in before posting to DRN. I will not associate real user accounts with temporary accounts.

Google hit lists and other Google results are usually considered unreliable. YouTube links are usually considered unreliable. If you have questions about whether any particular link to a usually unreliable source is reliable, you may ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. If you have questions about whether any source is considered reliable, you may ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

Are there any issues about article content that do not have to do with source reliability?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There was already a reference to the intimate Portait Estelle Gettyepiode with no link at all, just a link to the intimate portrait wikipedia article. If possible I would like to include a link to the actual episode or at least a reference to it, which as far as I can tell is only available through either google or youtube. Many videos exist exclusively on youtube, especially older material. IMDB is also not reliable, at least that would list the episode as a credit under Ms. Getty's film work. The Intimate Portrait wikipedia page is incomplete and doesn't list the most recent episodes. The google link is not a google hit list, it is a link to the specific Lifetime Intimate Protrait episode. As mentioned, all of the Torch Song Trilogy theater credits should be fine, but they were reverted also because they were part of the version with the google/youtube reference. Isn't there a difference between a google hit list and a google link to a specific url? Worst case scenario I can just list it with a link to the wikipedia page but that seems incomplete. Thank you. Elleng0523 (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Curry–Howard correspondence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ~2026-38099-55 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-33679-83 (talk · contribs)
• Smogwolf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User ~2026-33679-83 added information that was generated by a LLM. They claim that they extensively edited the contribution and fact-checked it. Issue: LLM text that was edited by a human is still generated by LLM.

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

[20]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Do we keep user's contribution on the article or delete it?

My original insertion was generated with help from an LLM; about half was text I hadn't re-written or even edited, and it violated WP:LLM, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV in various ways (and was in the wrong section.) The new insertion was written entirely by me, is balanced, and entirely and directly supported by sources for all of its main assertions, such as [21] and [22]. ~2026-33679-83 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed the user's original contribution as Pangram marked it as 100% AI generated. With this precedent in mind, I believe that the argument of the new contribution "having been written entirely by" the user is not relevant as it is still a contribution that contains LLM output in its provenance. The fact that we cannot prove how much of a semantic contribution the LLM had in a text that was rewritten by a human who admitted to using LLMs in some degree should be enough to make this contribution not acceptable.

I've also opened a topic in Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models explaining my reasoning behind this.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Reissgo (talk · contribs)
• avatar317 (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the opening paragraph in the lede, particularly the first sentence. My claim is that the first sentence is factually incorrect. Other editors claim it is true and it should stay as is. Related issues have occurred on this page repeatedly over 15 years(!) so I wrote a short essay outlining the background to this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reissgo/The_fractional_reserve_banking_dispute

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

The section "Explanation of new first paragraph in lede" in the talk page + the comments in the edits and undo's themselves.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

avatar317 and mrollie are both requesting "consensus", so I am hoping that if some others comment then perhaps a consensus will be seen to have come about.

@MrOllie has a point about the DRN not really being a place to gain consensus, and thinking about it further, perhaps that should not be my aim. IMHO, if the sources are strong enough (and I suggest they most definitely are) then that should be enough. There is a dispute for sure and it needs some kind of resolution. I am very open to advice from an experienced editor.

Reissgo states/admits in their essay that textbooks support the current version of the lead. But Reissgo does some WP:SYNTH to claim that the textbooks are wrong. The "sources" Reissgo found aren't about Fractional Reserve Banking, but rather Money Creation, which is one element of FRB, but some of Reissgo's sources aren't even talking about FRB systems, like the UK sources.

Per WP:TRUTH vs. WP:V, Wikipedia FOLLOWS the mainstream consensus in a field; we don't LEAD the change to a new academic consensus.

Two of Reissgo's points at the end of Reissgo's essay are correct: many reserve requirements are now 0%, and the rules of banking are always in flux, but even *IF* FRB is an outgoing concept/model, that doesn't mean that an article in Wikipedia describing it should begin the explanation with the (confusing) bleeding edge banking model/rules/regulations.

The requesting editor writes above I am hoping that if some others comment then perhaps a consensus will be seen to have come about. - but that is not how DRN functions. I don't see how it could be helpful in this case so I decline to participate. I'll continue to comment on the article's associated talk page - where discussion continues with these and with other editors - as needed. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator. Please read DRN Rule A. One editor has declined to participate in discussion, so we will continue with moderated discussion if there is a content dispute between participating editors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. I should say that it is possible that MrOllie may reconsider his decision because it was based on the my original hope which was consensus, but I conceded his point and changed tack that perhaps it needs mediation instead. He may not have got that memo.

What I want to change is the opening paragraph, particularly the opening sentence. I had already put forward my suggested paragraph which got undone. I am not insisting that my exact words are used but I would insist that the opening does not state that banks lend out money that was given to them by depositors. This idea has been thoroughly debunked by the highest grade sources imaginable. I think Avatar317 wants this concept to remain.

I don't know of any other questions right now. Reissgo (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If the filing editor wants to change the opening paragraph of the article, I am asking them to provide the exact revised wording that they want to replace it with. I have read the general explanation of what the filing editor thinks is incorrect about the current opening paragraph. While I can see that their explanation of what is wrong with the opening paragraph is consistent with their mathematical definition of the money supply, the opening paragraph, even if mathematically incorrect, at least explains what a fractional reserve system is. So if it is to be rewritten, it needs to be rewritten in a way that has the explanatory power of the current opening paragraph.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

My suggested opening paragraph was as follows:

Fractional-reserve banking is the system of banking in which commercial banks make loans by accepting borrowers’ promises to repay and creating corresponding bank deposits. These deposits are liabilities (IOUs) of the bank and function as money. When loans are repaid, the corresponding deposits are extinguished. Under fractional-reserve banking, banks hold only a fraction of their deposit liabilities as reserves, in the form of cash or balances at the central bank. Fractional-reserve banking differs from full-reserve banking, under which banks would be required to hold reserves against all demand deposits, limiting their ability to create money through lending.

I am not insisting on the exact wording. The key issue is all about the question: where does the bank get the money that they lend to borrowers. The true answer is they create it out of nothing. The idea that they get it from other customers is simply false. Some people may imagine that perhaps the difference between the two concepts is only subtle and having the wrong idea won't lead to significant errors but this is not the case. Just as one example, there are countless politicians that have stated variations of "saving must be encouraged so that banks will have more money available to lend to businesses" which is simply nonsense.

With regard "it needs to be rewritten in a way that has the explanatory power of the current opening paragraph"... I would dearly love any new paragraph to be as clear and understandable as the existing one - but bear in mind that the correct concept of what is going on is indeed fundamentally more complex and less intuitive than the current not-actually-true story so this will be a challenge. Reissgo (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The filing editor wants to rewrite the lede section to reflect a different economic model of how banking works than is described by the current lede. My question for the other editors is whether they are willing to work with the filing editor to rewrite the lede section, or whether they disagree.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Hello, I had contacted Amaury on his talk page to let him know I have created dispute resolution request but he deleted the message. I’ll be re-contacting him as I presume you require the message to be on the talk page to verify I have contacted him. He responded to me on the Jessie talk page in a way that indicated he is unwilling to try to resolve this in a civil manner with the help of mediators. I apologise for not attempting to solve this in the talk page sooner. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's okay. Per WP:UP and WP:UPNOT, users are free to remove messages from their talk pages, and they are presumed to have read the message whenever they do remove them.

You don't need to have the message being live on some editor's talk page to indicate / prove that you've noticed them; a mere diff is enough. (I provided the notice diff for your convenience here). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this, I won’t re-add the message to the talk page then. Apologies for not reading about that in advance. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jessie (2011 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StrawberriesShiShi (talk · contribs)
• Amaury (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In Jessie (2011), Josie Torah is credited as J.J. Torah, as she had not transitioned at the time of filming the show. Noticing the article was one of the few to still use Torah's deadname, I edited it to be Josie Torah, with a note on her being credited as J.J. Torah. This was done to follow both MOS:GID and MOS:TVCAST, as it would give Torah's credited name to follow MOS:TVCAST while still following MOS:GID. Around this point, user Purplewowies would make a talk page in regards to it, but neither me nor Amaury would notice, a mistake on both our parts.

User Amaury would revert this edit. I decided initially to simply revert it once more, making a note about MOS:GID. Amaury would revert this and state it was to follow MOS:TVCAST. I once more decided to revert this and ask Amaury to check the talk page, which I admit I should've gone to the talk page first before editing again. After my edit, I would make my points on the talk page, explaining my thoughts.

After this, Amaury would reply to my message and simply stated the edit I had made would not follow MOS:TVCAST, which I did not feel addressed many of my points. He would also state users engaging in further disruptive edits would be warned, as he is a rollbacker. Despite making my edits before he sent this message, I was warned. While I admit I should have taken it to the talk page much sooner, I feel it was rather disrespectful for Amaury to give me this warning while we were engaged in a dispute. As such, I felt I did not have any power no longer in the talk page to discuss the issue on equal footing and told Amaury I would be bringing this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Third parties have also been involved on the talk page, though Amaury did little to acknowledge their points either in my opinion.

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

[[25]]

Discussions had with other editors, who have also discussed their own opinions.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe you can help us by allowing us an equal footing of editors to discuss our opinions. I feel as though Amaury has more power than me in this discussion, as he is a dedicated editor with rollbacker permissions, while I only occasionally edit articles. I also feel rather intimidated due to Amaury warning me while being in this dispute and hence am looking for a mediator to help me discuss this issue peacefully.

• Volunteer Note: I am able to serve as a neutral party to help resolve this dispute. Resolution through this page will require the willing participation of both parties. If User:Amaury could provide a summary of their perspective in the "Summary of dispute" section, that would be appreciated and we can proceed. Both parties should be aware that WP:CT/GENSEX applies here. I see that User:Amaury expressed dissatisfaction on their talk page about this matter being posted here. If both parties are not willing to work together to resolve this, then I will close the thread and recommend the filer take it up with WP:ANI. Wichey ^{(Let's Chat!😊)} 04:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, after checking Amaury’s user logs and finding the diff for the removal, it seems he is currently unwilling to work with me. In regards to the language barrier comment, English is my first and primary language barrier. I simply occassionally word things oddly. I’m neurodivergent if that helps explain my odd wording to Amaury.

I’m more than willing to work with him if he changes his mind. I do admit I should’ve attempted to discuss with him more before taking it here upon reflection. However, if Amaury continues to not be willing to work with me, I will likely take it up with WP:ANI as he has made various comments that in my opinion are disrespectful and go against WP:CIV. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Have contacted Amaury again on his talk page (see here) to request him to provide his perspective on the DRN, as well as letting him know of the possibility of going to WP:ANI. Will keep an eye out for his response. StrawberriesShiShi (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Heraldry22276 (talk · contribs)
• Adakiko (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Belbury (talk · contribs)
• Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I had recently made an edit to the government of Francia by changing it to this:

Monarchy

Under a Military Dictatorship by the Mayors of the Palace (687-751)

My source is Ian Woods book 'The Merovingian Kingdoms (450-751)', a recognized and reliable source on Frankish history. Whilst these people constantly edit it back, first with no source, while yes I had no source at the beginning, I did gain the source I just mentioned which proved my claim, secondly they then say it is "unduly complex", if Wikipedia did have a rule on no complexities then the wiki page on the Empire of Japan wouldn't have all that shit about its government, thus their claim is complete bullshit. Next they say that the article doesn't support it, yet if you go to spart 7 of the Merovingian Period section it is about the reign of the Mayors of the palace from 687 to 751, thus the article supports my claim. Nextly they stated that it doesn't belong in the Info-box, as I said before if it doesn't belong then the info-box for the empire of japan wouldnt have all that shit about its government. Then one of them stated that it was potentially controversial, first of all, how the fuck would the political system of a nation that existed a thousand years ago be controversial today, and secondly, it isnt controversial it is an accepted fucking fact, it literally how the fucking carolingians became kings, they are ignorant of history. And finally Adakiko gave me a warning about "edit warring" whilst they were the ones who began the edit war, I am not warring I am simply trying to preserve accuracy, not opinion. And I believe that they are gatekeeping the wiki-page which is a clear violation of wikipedia's rules and for them trying to wipe history.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To bring back my edits, that is the only path I will accept as I will not accept the subverting of historical fact due to the bias of others, I value historical accuracy over the opinions and bias of others as history has already happened and if proven, like my argument, then it is NOT open to opinion.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notice on the user talk page is required in connection with all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• It does not look like much of a discussion was had on the talk page besides a disagreement with the editors reverting. Where in The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751 does it describe the period from 687–751 as a military dictatorship? Certainly this period is dominated by the Mayors of the Palace but does this make the government no longer a monarchy, so much so that we have to describe it in detail in the infobox? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ministry of Ayush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Draconacht (talk · contribs)
• RelaxedWriter69 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

edit-warring was incited and is being continually incited for this page on this X thread - https://x.com/theliverdoc/status/2073272428445474943 . i have no qualm with the factuality of the claims made here, but it is inconsistent with WP:SOAPBOX. this page is not appropriate to have discussions of alternative medicine on, and definitely not in the lead. The page is being edited and reverted by multiple users. since the original thread was posted (<48 hours ago), multiple users have edited the lead in a way that violates WP:NPOV.

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

[[26]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

clarify the WP policy position in this talk thread, and in general for the lead. there have been other editors making good faith edits involved in this process, so im not sure exactly what is to be done in this scenario. if i'm wrong about policy here i'm glad to back off of course. this is my first time filing a report so sorry if i got something wrong.

• Volunteer Note -(削除) The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Please note that the other editor has changed their user name (but was not notified under either name). Notification on the user talk page is required as a condition of all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC) (削除ここまで)

i had put a message here - User talk:RelaxedWriter69#July 2026 , is that inadequate? Draconacht (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Emirate of Nekor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lankdadank (talk · contribs)
• Carlstak (talk · contribs)
• Zabayrisxaaqi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute over what the lead of the article should say. This has been dragging on for over a month now and I would like outside input. The disagreement centers on whether the opening sentence should describe the polity as an "Arab emirate", as some reliable sources do, or remain neutral, given that scholars are divided on whether the ruling dynasty was of Arab or Berber descent. I argue that calling it an "Arab emirate" in the lead takes a side in that ancestry debate, while the other editor argues the polity label is separate from the dynasty's ancestry.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emirate_of_Nekor#Revert

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

DRN can help by providing a third-party non-partisan opinion on the dispute and work towards a consensus solution or compromise.

Although I wrote three quarters of the article, I am not presently part of this dispute. The complainant and I had reached a compromise when another editor got involved in editing the article and the talk page, and now there's some edit-warring going on, which I want no part of. I'm sick to death of the (削除) combative attitudes (削除ここまで) endless disputes various editors have brought to this article concerning the Arab or Berber nature of the emirate. Carlstak (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I just found out that I am currently involved with the same user using a different account on a different dispute: Morocco#Tamazight_translation_vs_official_state_name. I'm not sure if it's just a content dispute anymore, as the same pattern of arguing against Berber-related content and (what looks to me like) stonewalling is present in that dispute too. lankdadank (chat) 15:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note: I am able to serve as a neutral party in this matter, if one is needed. It appears that the initial editors involved have already reached a compromise on the talk page, which the article now reflects. If User:Zabayrisxaaqi still has an issue, I will leave this thread open for a little while longer so they can write a summary of their opinion in the "Summary of dispute" section. To me, it sounds like this is becoming less of a content dispute and more of a conduct dispute with User:Zabayrisxaaqi, which is more appropriate for WP:ANI. Wichey ^{(Let's Chat!😊)} 15:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be for one of the disputants to make an RfC so that (one hopes) a consensus among more editors can be reached and referred to in case of the inevitable return of this perennial issue. Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Interpolation (popular music) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aikclaes (talk · contribs)
• Popcornfud (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article had a stable, consensus-based lead section for over a decade. Recently, another editor replaced this with a total rewrite without prior discussion. The new version introduces unnecessary technical jargon that hinders accessibility, and the added citations do not accurately support the claims made. My attempts to discuss these issues and restore the consensus version have been dismissed, leading to a deadlock where the article’s quality is currently compromised."

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interpolation_(popular_music)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

​I request that a neutral party facilitate a discussion to determine if the new lead section meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Specifically, I ask for a review of whether the current citations actually support the technical claims made in the rewrite, and whether the text maintains the accessibility required for a general audience. I propose that we revert to the stable, consensus-based definition while these points are verified, ensuring the article remains accurate for our readers.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Léopold Favre (talk · contribs)— Blocked sockpuppet Blocked sockpuppet.
• Barjimoa (talk · contribs)
• Darth Stabro (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Largoplazo (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-30385-48 (talk · contribs)
• Inherli (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns whether the lead of the Spain article should include a brief mention of Spain's cultural influence and international cultural profile, summarizing material that is already covered and sourced in the body of the article, especially in the Culture section. My position, shared by others, is that such a mention is valuable and should be included in the lead in a brief and neutral statement. The lead is meant to summarize the most important aspects of the article, and Spain's cultural influence is a major and well-sourced aspect of the subject. A concise mention of this topic would help readers understand Spain's historical and contemporary significance beyond politics, geography, and economics. The proposed material refers to broad, factual, and sourced points such as the Spanish Golden Age, the international reach of the Spanish language, Spain's major role in global tourism, and its number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. This is also consistent with the leads of other country articles, where similar cultural, linguistic, tourism, and heritage summaries are commonly included when relevant, such as in the articles on France, Italy, Germany, Japan, China, and others.

Other editors have objected that any lead mention of Spain's cultural influence, heritage, tourism, or the Spanish Golden Age is puffery. I disagree with that assessment, as the proposed content does not imply that Spain is superior to other countries, nor does it rely on grandiose or exaggerated language; it simply summarizes significant, sourced material from the article body in a concise and neutral way. The matter has been discussed extensively on the article talk page, but no stable consensus has been reached. A semi-protected edit request adding a brief cultural mention was accepted and implemented, but the content was later removed and restored more than once. I am requesting dispute resolution to help determine how the lead can include a short, neutral, properly sourced summary of Spain's cultural influence.

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

[27], [28]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

DRN can help by providing an outside opinion on the content issue under discussion: whether the lead should include a brief, neutral summary of Spain's cultural influence, and what wording would best comply with the relevant lead, neutrality, due weight, and peacock-language guidelines.

The goal should be to reach a stable version on neutral wording that summarizes the article body without promotional language.

On this issue I have consistently argued that the proposed edit in question was fine to me (see me adding it here per a request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&diff=prev&oldid=1355370263). Barjimoa (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am involved in this because the only edits I have made to Spain are automated AWB cleanups. ~Darth Stabro ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had to notify everyone individually. Instead, I posted a notice in the Spain Talk discussion. I have now notified them individually on their talk pages. Thanks. Léopold Favre (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am ready to moderate an article content dispute if there is an article content dispute. There appear to have possibly been two related disputes, whether to include a paragraph on Spain's international cultural influence, and the wording of that paragraph. Are there any article content disputes, either about a cultural influence paragraph, or about its wording? Please read DRN Rule A, and then state:

• 1. Do you think that there should be a paragraph in the lede section about Spain's international cultural influence?
• 2. Are there any issues about the content of such a paragraph?
• 3. Are there any other article content issues where you want to change the content of the article and another editor disagrees, or where another editor wants to change the content and you disagree?

Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answer to the moderator on behalf of the community.

We will have moderated discussion if two or more editors disagree about article content, which is an article content dispute.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes. I think the lead should include a brief, neutral paragraph or sentence summarizing Spain's international cultural influence. Specifically, I support the version accepted by Barjimoa here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&diff=prev&oldid=1355370263

2. Yes. Inherli, in particular, appears to oppose any inclusion of Spain's cultural influence in the lead, and has reverted this content multiple times, sometimes citing Peacock, promotional content, and even block evasion.

3. As far as I know, there is no other article content issue.

Thank you. Léopold Favre (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the editors who are participating in this discussion agree to the paragraph proposed by Barjimoa and by Léopold Favre. The editor who is said to have objected has not edited in the past two weeks. I am asking one of the editors who favors the addition of the paragraph to add the paragraph to the article. I will keep this dispute open for a few days to see if there is any objection, either here, or on the talk page, or by reverting the addition. If the addition stays, I will close this case. If there is any objection, I will prepare a Request for Comments.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Colorado State_University–Global_Campus

Users involved

• Meurdrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elkevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dispute overview

This is a small University page. Large sections of content were deleted under the auspices that the content was "promotional" or "off-topic". No explanation beyond those judgments was provided. In the discussion page, multiple attempts were made to get a tangible standard for the content, and I provided multiple examples of other page content (including that of the editor's own university that clearly met his standard for "off-topic"). I'm merely trying to provide detail about the unique mission/purpose of the university within the CSU System, and two editors have continually engaged in deleting content and stonewalling to control a page. I am a graduate of this university, but I do not see how the content that I have provided has crossed the line to being promotional beyond the bounds that I have given examples of in the Talk page.

I have asked for standards, examples, and even assistance in re-writing the content, but am getting no assistance from these editors. To my eyes, they are trying to control this page using standards that do not apply to other pages. Please review the detail provided in the talk page and provide either some guidance on how this can be edited in a way that allows the content to be restored, or what I can do to reflect the unique mission and purpose of the university on Wikipedia.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorado_State_University%E2%80%93Global_Campus

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I have asked for standards, examples, and even assistance in re-writing the content, but am getting no assistance from these editors. If you agree with their judgment of the content that I have provided, then please provide me with some examples or standard that I can follow so that I can make suitable edits and expand the content on the page. Cutting 1886 characters of text based on a personal judgment reading of this page with a comment for a small edit is unsatisfactory - this was a major.

• Volunteer Note: I am able to serve as a neutral third party in this case if needed. The original filing editor needs to specify what other users are involved in this dispute in the "Users Involved" section (I believe they attempted to do so, but formatted it incorrectly). Additionally, the filing editor must provide all involved users with the required notification on their talk page using the Template:DRN-notice. This dispute cannot be mediated until both actions are completed. Wichey ^{(Let's Chat!😊)} 17:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hin Bredendieck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xenofaustus (talk · contribs)
• Smefs (talk · contribs)
• Gerda Arent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article previously included a sentence noting that Bredendieck, along with Nathan Lerner, helped remodel the interior of the South Side Community Art Center, sourced to the SSCAC's own "About Us" page, which names both individuals directly in that context ("designers Hin Bredendieck and Nathan Lerner... remodel the mansion's interior..."). This sentence was removed on four separate occasions (Oct 12 2024, Nov 28 2024, Apr 26 2025, May 24 2026), each time with an edit summary citing sockpuppet reversion rather than any objection to the content or source. This user seems to go offline for long periods of time, only coming back to update on a few things alongside this slow-burn edit war

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hin_Bredendieck#c-Xenofaustus-20260714104900-Removal_of_sourced_SSCAC_content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Input from another third-party editor on this issue, edit block for the user from this page as a result of the continuing pattern of behavior.

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.