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.
'Ma- fia' is Italian slang for 'My Daughter', the origin of the vigilante secret self protection organization, formed to protect young girls from nobility, with assistance from the Catholic church.
This article ignores this fact, yet promotes another ethnic slur by relating the term to Italian thugs.
But every Italian is not a thug.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
You might include the fact that every ethnic group has it's criminals.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please use accurate information, and make it easier to comment like this.
Summary of dispute by None
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia: American Mafia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aaliyah
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
For many years R. Kelly was listed as a spouse in the infobox on the Aaliyah article. It was removed a few months ago. I added it back recently, but the edit was revised and the summary stated that there was a consensus to remove it because their marriage was annulled so it didn't exist. However, every other celebrity that I've checked who has had an annulment still have their former spouse mentioned in the infobox. For example Renée Zellweger, Britney Spears, Janet Jackson and Pamela Anderson. Lastly, R. Kelly's infobox mentions Aaliyah as a spouse so shouldn't hers also mention his?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I'm looking to start a discussion and get the opinions of editors. I wanted to to an RfC but it was removed because their isn't a sufficient enough of a discussion.
Aaliyah discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
George Kambosos Jr.
Latest comment: 2 years ago22 comments3 people in 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.
We are disputing whether George Kambosos Jr. should be identified as Greek-Australian or Australian.
The conversation page is rather large. However the argument is as per CONTEXTBIO ethnicity should not be added unless it is relevant to the subject notability.
Squared.Circle.Boxing claims that because Kambosos was not born in Greece nor his parents, nor has he spent much of his career there or represented them officially, supposedly that makes his ethnicity irrelevant to his notability.
However, I have argued that because his grandparents on both sides of his family were born in Greece, He is still technically a Greek-Australian by definition. I have added multiple other reasons to the talk page, but they don't all fit here. In summary:
1. Greek-Australians are 1.5% of the Australian population, which meant, percentage wise, the odds were against him.
2. He references his Greek and sometimes more specifically his Spartan heritage as his motivation in interviews frequently.
3. His body is covered in tattoos of Greek iconography and phrases
4. His boxing trunks had Greek phrases on them
5. He used 300 as his pre walkout music for his fight against Teofimo Lopez
6. He has a Greek last name, which announced every time he boxes
7. He carries both a Greek and Australian flag every time he enters and exits a ring.
8. He himself identifies as Greek-Australian.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I dont believe asking for assistance on the page itself from other editors will provide a neutral point of view. I hope you are guy are able to settle this dispute fairly.
Summary of dispute by Squared.Circle.Boxing
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Pretty much what they said. OT believes ethnicity should be added per MOS:CONTEXTBIO whereas I (and two other editors who also reverted OT's addition) believe it should be exluded, per CONTEXTBIO. All the evidence they've provided simply proves that Kambosos is proud of his Greek heritage, not that it is in any way relevant to his notability–which begins and ends with boxing.
George Kambosos Jr. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'd just like to note that comments such as I dont believe asking for assistance on the page itself from other editors will provide a neutral point of view. I hope you are guy are able to settle this dispute fairly do not leave me with much optimism; as mentioned above, two other editors had also reverted OT's addition with the same rationale as mine. I'm presuming the neutral point of view comment is aimed at said editors. Said editors had yet to join the discussion (they weren't even pinged), a discussion which lasted a whole two days with a whopping five comments (12,411 bytes by OT, 3,153 bytes by me. Just saying). – 2.O.Boxing11:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
"not that it is in any way relevant to his notability–which begins and ends with boxing." First of all, Kambosos became notable when he became a champion for the first time, not just because he's a boxer. Not all boxers have Wiki pages. "All the evidence they've provided simply proves that Kambosos is proud of his Greek heritage," No, that would be the case if he displayed a flag on his car or on his house - something not related to the moment he became notable. What makes it relevant in this case is that these displays of his ethnicity are directly related to the moment he became notable. His tattoos, His flags, His trunks, his flags, all on display both during an after the fight where he became notable. His interviews, all referencing his notable fight. OceanTakeaway (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Kambosos became notable when he became a champion for the first time...related to the moment he became notable...the fight where he became notable...referencing his notable fight...which fight are you referring to? – 2.O.Boxing09:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Literally the only fight which has made him a world champion. The Teofimo Lopez fight. Should you be writing his bio if you did not know this? OceanTakeaway (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Kambosos has been presumed notable since at least 2014 after winning the Australian title–said notability was solidified the following year after winning the WBA-PABA title (now WBA Oceania)–and has had his own article since 2018 (notability was no longer presumed, it had been established), making your previous rebuttal irrelevant. It does, however, demonstrate the actual issue with this dispute; OT's lack of understanding for how Wikipedia works.
Kambosos became notable when he became a champion for the first time, not just because he's a boxer. Ignoring the fact that this comment is patently untrue, as established above; became a champion for the first time...in what? In boxing, where his notability begins and ends. Ethnicity, race, heritage, the length of one's pinky finger...have nothing to do with any boxer's notability. – 2.O.Boxing16:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
First statement on Kambosos by moderator
I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules that are in effect; I expect the editors to follow the rules, and to ask questions if not sure. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are common in Wikipedia disputes, but are not useful; they may make the poster feel better, but they often do not persuade or clarify. Comment on content, not contributors. Are there any issues other than how to list the ethnicity and nationality of the subject boxer? Will each editor please state in one paragraph what they want to change or leave the same in the article, and what their reasons are in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
First statements on Kambosos by editors
I propose his identity in the opening paragraph be changed from Australian to Greek-Australian. It covers both his ethnicity and his nationality. It retains the existing information on the article, whilst adding more to make the article more accurate. It also fall within the rules of CONTEXTBIO where his ethnicity can be added if it is relevant to his notability - winning his first world titles by beating Teofimo Lopez for the WBA, IBF and WBO championships. I have listed why they are relevant to his win as per the following: 1. He is of 100% Greek decent, as his grandparents on both side of his family were born in Greece. 2. Greek-Australians are 1.5% of the Australian population, which meant, percentage wise, the odds were against him. 3. He references his Greek and his Spartan heritage as his motivation in interviews leading up to the Lopez fight. 4. His body is covered in tattoos of Greek iconography and phrases which were clearly seen durign the Lopez fight. 5. His boxing trunks for the Lopez fight had Greek phrases on them. 6. He used 300 as his pre walkout music for his fight against Lopez 7. He has a Greek last name, which announced every time he boxes 8. He carried both a Greek and Australian flag into the ring for the Lopez fight. 9. He himself identifies as Greek-Australian. [1][2][3][4]OceanTakeaway (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Greek-Australian is in direct contradiction to CONTEXTBIO. Kambosos has been notable for at least 7 years. The only thing he is notable for is boxing. Showing pride in his heritage has no relevance to his notability as a boxer–in that his grandparents being from Greece has not, in any way, contributed to his notability. This is also not a case of dual nationality where he has been notable under both nationalities, separately, or where he identifies with one particular nationality. Australian professional boxer fully complies with–and is recommended by–the relevant guidelines, with none in contradiction. – 2.O.Boxing09:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Second statement on Kambosos by moderator
On the one hand, it is clear that Kambosos identifies as Greek-Australian. On the other hand, after researching the applicable guideline, which is the biographical context guideline, the guideline seems clear, which is that his nationality should be listed in the lede sentence, and his ethnicity should not be listed. Is there another guideline that leads to a different result, or that warrants overriding the guideline? His ethnicity clearly should be mentioned in the article, but the question appear to be about the lede. Unless there is another guideline, we can list him as Australian, or we can submit a Request for Comments, but it will probably support the existing guideline.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I can invetibably agree that Kambosos self identifies as Greek-Australian (it would be an absolute lie to say otherwise), however, I don't know of any other guideline or policy that explicitly states that Kambosos should be listed as "Greek-Australian" (I could be wrong, I'll happily concede if so). The only compromise for it being mentioned in the lead that I can see (from the perspective of a notable boxer and per MOS:BOXING (I know its not an official guideline)) is if Kambosos' official-in-ring (as announced by the MC) nickname was in reference to his Greek heritage. For example, something along the lines of: "George 'Leonidas' Kambosos", it would obviously refer to his Greek heritage and would also comply with (the local) consensus at MOS:BOXING. – 2.O.Boxing02:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Second statements on Kambosos by editors
Just to clarify, the CONTEXTBIO does say "should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". In your opinion @Robert McClenon:, do you believe his ethnicity is relevant enough to his notability to list him as "Greek-Australian"? Otherwise, if not, would his ethnicity at least be relevant enough to have a "of Greek decent" placed after "Australian boxer"? OceanTakeaway (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Third statement on Kambosos by moderator
In looking at the article, it appears that he became notable by defeating Lopez. His Greek descent of encyclopedic significance and should be mentioned in the article. It is true that the Wikipedia guideline does not provide for his self-identification to be listed in the lede sentence, because he identifies as Greek-Australian. The guideline provides that his nationality is included in the lede, because this does not appear to be one of the cases where his ethnicity is relevant to his notability, only to his identification.
I'm fine with this being closed. Apologies for the brief back-and-forth and any formatting issues with my comments ('tis my first time visiting DRN). Thanks for your assistance. – 2.O.Boxing12:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not. @Robert McClenon: I would like to request a RFC from other users into whether or not they believe Kambosos' ethnicity is of relevance to his notability and why, if you dont mind please. It's not that I dont trust your judgement, but I do feel that the relevance in this case is subjective. OceanTakeaway (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Third statements on Kambosos by editors
@Robert McClenon: Ok, so if his ethnicity is not relevant enough to his notability, and as such should not be changed from "Australian" to "Greek-Australian" but should still be mentioned, would it be acceptable to change "is an Australian professional boxer who has held the WBA (Super), IBF, WBO and The Ring lightweight titles" to "is an Australian professional boxer of Greek decent who has held the WBA (Super), IBF, WBO and The Ring lightweight titles"? OceanTakeaway (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2021 (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.
Closed. The filing editor has been blocked for one week. Other editors should continue discussing at the article talk page, and the filing party can join them when they come off the block. The filing party is invited to register an account when they come off block. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I was requesting an edit quoting a recent court observation to update the chronology of the page, and it is being blocked as a violation of wp:blp, even though the page has history of accepting similar edits in the past and makes serious allegations that are not proven in a court of law.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There is no precedent on this page to wait for court judgements to accept edits. Most of the content in the page is sourced for various news sources and almost all the content is sub-judice without any concrete judgements in a court of law. Editors are suddenly quoting this as a requirement to reject edit suggestions. Please ask the editors to play fairly and not violate wp:npov
Summary of dispute by SlaterSteven;331dot
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
NOt sure I wholly agree, as it is going round in circles, and fresh eyes might be useful. But (in essence) is that (I think, the user claims on my talk page this is not what they want to do, well maybe) they want to add that some Muslims deliberately started the riot to scareHindoos Hindus (At least that was my understanding of that they said on the article talk page). Based upon charges, not convictions. Thus violating wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
2020 Delhi Riots discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Given a long history of blocked edit requests based on technicalities and policies, instead of the merit of the edit suggestion, i request you to keep this open as The Talk page is heading nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be conceding that we are following policies, which is what we have been telling you. This would mean there is no dispute here other than you disagreeing with policies; you are free to work to change them. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This kind of tone and replies from fellow editors who seem to be active on this particular page is the reason why I had to request DR. I never conceded that the editors are following policies and I am not even close to suggesting that wp:npov is the being followed. But cherry picked edit request are sent down the wp:blp tunnel even if there are no names or personal opinion of the edit requestor involved. What is the problem with including news verbatim when the page already has an Aftermath section that is capturing the chronology of the events that occurred after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering how you can judge my tone through text communication, through which it is difficult to convey emotion. I have no tone, and am simply engaged in a civil converstation. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I Strongly object to the racist term used by SlaterSteven with an intentional misspelling of the word- "Hindus". It is racist and equivalent of calling a person of African American a disgusting word. I request the Admins to take severe action against the usage of such Racist terminology. 49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - It isn't clear either from the posting here or from the article talk page what the dispute is about, other than that the poster is unhappy. More discussion on the article talk page might be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Robert Mclenon- My contention is i am not sure why certain content of the page is readily published verbatim based on the reporting of certain media links, while others are not because the editors want a court ruling to mention it. It is a violation wp:NPOV as the editors are being inconsistent in choosing what goes on the page and what does'nt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2021 (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.
Mount Ararat
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Premature. There has not been significant discussion on the talk page, nor has the other editor been notified. Once significant discussion has stalled out, or multiple parties cannot come to a consensus, a dispute can be filed here. Additionally, one may make an edit request to pages that are protected. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Mount Ararat is a mountain belonging to Turkey.However, as a result of the propaganda made by the Armenian state to their own nation, they adopted Mount Ararat as theirs.As a result of a simple research, you will see that Mount Ararat is a mountain belonging to the Turkish state.However, as you will see, when you enter the article, it is thought that Mount Ararat belongs to Armenia because of the visual and the text below it. Please stop this deliberate secret propaganda. Please don't let them misuse wikipedia in this way.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The filer has two edits on Wikipedia, one on Talk:Mount Ararat, and another one here. This must be speedily declined, and, if the filer continues, they should be blocked as per WP:NOTHERE. I am a bit hesitant to block now, with only two edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I cannot make changes to the article because it is protected. As you can see, Mount Ararat looks like an Armenian mountain. I want to fix it properly after the article is unprotected.This situation may seem very strange to you, but in many articles, the regions belonging to Turkey are tried to be shown as if they belong to Armenia. troll work.Enverpasatr (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2021 (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.
Muhammad Bassiri
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in 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.
Bassiri, as a activist campaigning for the decolonization of Spanish Sahara, was hailed by both Moroccans and Sahrawi nationalists. There are sources deemed scholarly and sources close to Sahrawi nationalists putting his place of birth as Tan-Tan. Whilst sources close to the Moroccan government claim he was born in the city of Bni Ayat, in French Morocco. Should we include both rumored places of birth or the one deemed the most independent? v/r
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
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.
SurvCART algorithm
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as the wrong forum. DRN considers disputes for which there is not another dispute resolution forum. We do not consider conduct disputes, deletion disputes, or certain other types of disagreements. We do not consider deletion disputes because they are considered at a specialized deletion noticeboard, in this case Articles for Deletion. The filing editor appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia deletion procedures, because the place to discuss whether to delete an article is in the Articles for Deletion page itself. They have entered a lengthy argument against deletion on the talk page of the AFD, which should be made more concise and copied to the project page itself. Discuss whether to delete the article in the deletion discussion. Questions about deletion discussions can be asked at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have presented the SurvCART algorithm which is a published method to construct survival tree. The work is recently published in a peer-reviewed journal https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11539.
I have also included other competing algorithm to construct survival tree.
However, the editor with name MrOllie put my page up for deletion. He questioned about reliability and independence of the material. I disagree with him and I have already explained the followings:
(1. The work is based on peer-reviewed work. So the work is reliable.
2. The work is not related to any advertising, press releases, and autobiographies. It's a plain science.)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
the editor with name MrOllie put my page up for deletion. He questioned about reliability and independence of the material. I disagree with him and don't want the page to get deleted. I would like your help to resolve this issue.
Further, I am open to modify/remove the problematic part of the article if there is any. If you find any problematic part, please let me know.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
SurvCART algorithm discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Survival tree
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed. The filing editor has not made an adequate effort to discuss the question of whether there should be a separate article for Survival tree. Discussion can either be at the talk page of the reverting editor, User talk:MrOllie, or the article talk page, which is now a redirect talk page, at Talk:Survival tree, or at Talk:Survival analysis. The last, Talk:Survival analysis, seems like the best place because it may have other observers. If you have questions, you can ask at the Help Desk, but that is not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In the Survival tree page, I mentioned in details about definition of survival tree, background, all the available algorithms and how to implement in R. I had plan to add examples.
The Survival tree page I created gives valuable information which is not available in any other page including in the redirect. Therefore, I want my Survival tree page reinstated.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I want my survival tree page re-instated. If there is any part of the content, please flag that part, and I will be happy to update.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Survival tree discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There's been no substantial discussion on this issue for weeks. When discussion stops and no changes are made, the implied consensus is that no changes should be made. Looking at it in a different way, "no consensus following discussion" is a perfectly acceptable answer at Wikipedia meaning that there is no consensus for change. It's for that reason that DRN requires recent exhaustive discussion before accepting a case. A month ago is not recent. Moreover, even if there was recent discussion, DRN does not generally accept cases over issues where there is a dispute resolution process designed just for those issues. In this case, that would be Requested Moves. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This is about the title, an issue which has been brought several times in the talk page throughout the years, both through requested moves and informal discussions, but no consensus was ever achieved. In the last discussion in particular, all four participating editors, myself included, more or less agreed that the current title, in particular the term 'persecution', is too specific and not quite supported by the sources. We also agreed that the subject of the article may be more accurately defined by something like Christian attitudes and actions toward paganism during the period when Christians were politically dominant in the Roman Empire. The actual disagreement is simple and straightforward: how to turn this into an adequate, concise title. I thought 'Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire' was best, two others preferred 'Paganism in the late Roman Empire', and another was undecided. Both sides cited policies which they thought was applicable, neither convinced the other, and it was no consensus yet again.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By helping decide which of the two titles is more compliant with policy and which better helps indicate the subject of the article, or, failing that, suggesting a third alternative as a compromise. I don't think the content aspect involves any significant difficulty that would discourage a moderator/third party from participating.
Summary of dispute by Jenhawk777
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Richard Keatinge
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Laurel Lodged
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bitvavo (now deleted)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed as wrong forum. Not a content dispute, as the dispute centers on a move to draftspace and behavior associated with it. As far as I can see from reading the relevant contribution histories, there has been no attempt to discuss the matter prior to coming here, and I don't see anything wrong with MER-C's actions, as the article falls short of notability guidelines, includes promotional text, and had even already been tagged by another editor 2 days prior to MER-C moving it to draft. In principle, behavioral dispute issues can be taken to WP:ANI, but filing such a report is likely to end in a WP:BOOMERANG block, as there doesn't appear to be any wrongdoing. signed, Rosguilltalk17:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MER-C has reverted and deleted my edits, and has said that I should be blocked if I continues to work on the Bitvavo article , which has been deleted as unsourced. He reverted my edits here , he abused his rollback button instead of the undo version button. So let’s be clear, I understand the this Wikipedia policy about the cryptocurrency topic in general. And yes, I was not finished yet with the addition of new sources as wel. But threating me with blocks, when there no doubt that my contributions were constructive (and no vandalism or disruptive), is ridiculous. MrOakTree96 (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
To reduce threats against persons which contributions are constructive, and an insult of WP:AGF.
Summary of dispute by MER-C
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The article was never deleted. It was moved to Draft:Bitvavo.
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies is a topic rife with undisclosed paid advocacy, cryptocurrency pumping and pay-for-play media coverage in a landscape known for securities and bank fraud, rug pulls, Ponzi schemes and pump and dumps. Hence the need for the sanctions regime, strict sourcing requirements and the draftification. Articles in this topic area can be promotional by merely existing, no matter how neutrally they are written.
Yes, you will be banned without further warning if you promote any cryptocurrency related subject. That is the price for editing in such a spam-prone topic with serious ramifications for the public. MER-C17:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Bitvavo (now deleted) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I.S.S. (film)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
OP is advised to open an WP:RFC to get more opinions. This is not currently the correct board since the article is up for deletion AND the discussion on this topic is 2 months old and recent conversation is just "Well you haven't said anything for a while so I'm going to do what I want." That is not how cnsensus or discussion on WP works. There are 2 users with clear and appropriate reasons for including the mention, and 1 who does not like it. The consensus is- the mention stands. Any editing against that consensus may be considered disruptive and lead to warnings, or stronger enforcement of policy. IF you want to have more eyes on the conversation- please go to WP:RFC, but do not just decide that because the conversation ended with a consensus you don't like that you can wait 2 months and do what you want. After you try RFC, and have recent extended, good faith attempts to resolve the issue- you may return to the DRN and we will happily moderate finding a solution, however- be advised- we cannot force a consensus to reverse its decision or engage in a compromise. We can only mediate. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
More opinions on the inclusion or exclusion are needed about this detail of an upcoming film. Other requests for participation have failed through WikiProject talk page request.
Summary of dispute by TheSnowyMountains
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Doniago
To my understanding, the matter at hand revolves around whether a mention of the film being listed on The Black List (survey) is significant enough to be included in the article. Given that the survey is notable enough for its own article (and if it shouldn't have its own article, that's a separate issue), and that it was a third-party source that mentioned the film's inclusion in said survey, I'm not sure why there's a question as to whether it's appropriate to include this mention. It should be noted that I believe there's a consensus at WP:FILM, that with regards to films receiving awards and such, the criterion is usually that if the award in question has its own article then it is significant and should be included. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I.S.S. (film) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.