This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DannyS712 bot (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 16 December 2024 (Task 69: Remove do not archive tags from closed cases). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:30, 16 December 2024 by DannyS712 bot (talk | contribs) (Task 69: Remove do not archive tags from closed cases)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?	Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.	Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status\|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top\|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	Resolved	Sariel Xilo (t)	23 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	8 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	WhatamIdoing (t)	4 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	New	Kautilyapundit (t)	7 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Kautilyapundit (t)	6 hours
Old Government House, Parramatta	Closed	Itchycoocoo (t)	5 days, 5 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 23 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 23 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	7 hours
2025 Bangladesh Premier League	Closed	UwU.Raihanur (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Dragon Age: The Veilguard

– New discussion. Filed by Sariel Xilo on 20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Dragon Age: The Veilguard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

1) Disagreement on if WP:SYNTH is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows MOS:INTRO/Misplaced Pages:Summary style & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows WP:VG/REC advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included. 2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus. 3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.

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

Current discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Prose
Previous discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Review bomb context

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a full lock until the dispute is resolved.

Summary of dispute by BMWF

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

Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94

The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:

1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to WP:SYNTH, and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.

2. Including the Steam player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much Dragon Age: Veilguard has sold.

3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".

4. The invoking of WP:SAID while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".

5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion

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

To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both @Wikibenboy94 and I agree that there are no WP:SYNTH issues in the topline summary sentences removed by @BMWF in this edit and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.

In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age)

I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that User:Sariel Xilo is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of no harm, no foul applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age)

I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined above, I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed in the lead in this edit & in the reception in this edit), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to DRN Rule A and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to DRN Rule A. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Dragon Age)

List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by HundenvonPenang on 08:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC).

Closed for now. It is difficult to conduct moderated discussion between a registered user and one human whose IP address is shifting. The filing editor should resume discussion on the article talk page, being aware that there is one human behind the IP addresses. The statements that are supposedly by two IP addresses were made from one IP address. Did you really think we wouldn't look at the history? The one human should register an account. Then the two editors can discuss, or can request a Third Opinion. The issue appears to be a matter of the criterion for a list of buildings, but that seems to be irrelevant, since any building that is more than 200 m high will also be in a list of buildings that are more than 150 m high. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved HundenvonPenang (talk · contribs) 155.69.190.63 (talk · contribs) 155.69.184.1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview IP address 155.69.190.63 claimed that Johor Bahru is the second-highest city in Malaysia for skyscrapers over 200 metres, while most skyscraper-related articles define a skyscraper as 150 meters. Talk page discussions on the arbritrary nature of the 200-metre benchmark are deadlocked. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:LivinAWestLife How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The discussion being deadlocked, it is hoped that a consensus can be built from more participation by editors, especially from WikiProject Skyscrapers, and others with knowledge on skyscraper definitions. Summary of dispute by 155.69.190.63 <I think I have written enough about the main argument in the main talk page, but seems like the complainer (which has been scolded by various admins in ANI threads) still do not understand what is the main point of argument for this issue. The title for the thread is already wrong in the first place, it is not about which city has taller skyline/higher city (which is very subjective from person to person). Instead, what I have argued is the number of 200m+ buildings ONLY, not about which city has taller/more beautiful skyline. And 200m is not even a benchmark, that's your own opinion or prejudice, not mine. Don't force other editors to accept what appears to be your own thoughts. None of the skyscraper pages have explicitly mentioned 150m is the ONE AND ONLY standard, even Dubai uses 180m. I believe the complainer still do not know what is going on there. No one is interested to talk about which city has taller skyline. Side note to the complainer, I realise that you have arbitrarily put in an extra sentence in Penang's page saying Penang is the so-called second tallest city in Malaysia, even though this discussion has not been resolved. And another editor familiar with skyscrapers have already mentioned that this sentence is actually nebulous. I am going to lodge a new talk page and complaint very soon so that we can discuss about that particular sentence in Penang's page, a very subjective claim and without any substantiated evidences, what does it even mean to be second tallest city in the first place? I am going to create new thread. Please wait for me. Summary of dispute by 155.69.184.1 For everyone's attention, the page is List of tallest buildings in George Town, Penang. None of the any city's Wiki skyscraper page has even mentioned about they being the tallest/second tallest city in their nation. Penang is the only page to do so (The complainer has quietly added that extra sentence after this dispute which I am going to create new talk page soon). What does it mean to be the tallest city? As a reader, it really confused me the meaning behind this term. If you look at the page for Tokyo, Shanghai, Taipei, Osaka, Kaohsiung, Jakarta, Surabaya, Melbourne, none of these cities even mentioned about they being the tallest/second/third tallest city in their nation as this is very subjective and nebulous, every person has different views about a tall city or which city has better skyline. Those pages only mentioned the numbers of 150m/200m buildings and the editors leave it to the readers to formtheir opinions on which city has taller/better skyline. It is really weird. And where does the source even come from? A city with 30 blocks of 150m buildings is claimed to be a taller city than another city with 28 blocks of 250m buildings? This is what exactly happening in Penang's page, none of other similar Wiki pages did the same thing and this made the Penang's page content look like an advertisement or promotion. Isn't it very subjective according to different person so who has the right to define which city has taller/better skyline? And especially you added this sentence before dispute resolved? List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru 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.*

Closed discussion

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

IP address 155.69.190.63 claimed that Johor Bahru is the second-highest city in Malaysia for skyscrapers over 200 metres, while most skyscraper-related articles define a skyscraper as 150 meters. Talk page discussions on the arbritrary nature of the 200-metre benchmark are deadlocked.

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

User talk:LivinAWestLife

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The discussion being deadlocked, it is hoped that a consensus can be built from more participation by editors, especially from WikiProject Skyscrapers, and others with knowledge on skyscraper definitions.

Summary of dispute by 155.69.190.63

<I think I have written enough about the main argument in the main talk page, but seems like the complainer (which has been scolded by various admins in ANI threads) still do not understand what is the main point of argument for this issue. The title for the thread is already wrong in the first place, it is not about which city has taller skyline/higher city (which is very subjective from person to person). Instead, what I have argued is the number of 200m+ buildings ONLY, not about which city has taller/more beautiful skyline. And 200m is not even a benchmark, that's your own opinion or prejudice, not mine. Don't force other editors to accept what appears to be your own thoughts. None of the skyscraper pages have explicitly mentioned 150m is the ONE AND ONLY standard, even Dubai uses 180m. I believe the complainer still do not know what is going on there. No one is interested to talk about which city has taller skyline.

Side note to the complainer, I realise that you have arbitrarily put in an extra sentence in Penang's page saying Penang is the so-called second tallest city in Malaysia, even though this discussion has not been resolved. And another editor familiar with skyscrapers have already mentioned that this sentence is actually nebulous. I am going to lodge a new talk page and complaint very soon so that we can discuss about that particular sentence in Penang's page, a very subjective claim and without any substantiated evidences, what does it even mean to be second tallest city in the first place? I am going to create new thread. Please wait for me.

Summary of dispute by 155.69.184.1

For everyone's attention, the page is List of tallest buildings in George Town, Penang. None of the any city's Wiki skyscraper page has even mentioned about they being the tallest/second tallest city in their nation. Penang is the only page to do so (The complainer has quietly added that extra sentence after this dispute which I am going to create new talk page soon). What does it mean to be the tallest city? As a reader, it really confused me the meaning behind this term. If you look at the page for Tokyo, Shanghai, Taipei, Osaka, Kaohsiung, Jakarta, Surabaya, Melbourne, none of these cities even mentioned about they being the tallest/second/third tallest city in their nation as this is very subjective and nebulous, every person has different views about a tall city or which city has better skyline. Those pages only mentioned the numbers of 150m/200m buildings and the editors leave it to the readers to formtheir opinions on which city has taller/better skyline. It is really weird. And where does the source even come from? A city with 30 blocks of 150m buildings is claimed to be a taller city than another city with 28 blocks of 250m buildings? This is what exactly happening in Penang's page, none of other similar Wiki pages did the same thing and this made the Penang's page content look like an advertisement or promotion. Isn't it very subjective according to different person so who has the right to define which city has taller/better skyline? And especially you added this sentence before dispute resolved?

List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru 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.

Ustad Ahmad_Lahori

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Goshua55 on 13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC).

Closed as either abandoned, withdrawn, or filed in error. Three days after asking whether any editor wishes to make a change to the article, there has been no reply, so there probably is not a content issue. If there is a content issue,discuss at the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ustad Ahmad Lahori (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Goshua55 (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk · contribs) Dispute overview people keep attributing Ahmad Lahori as the chief architect of the taj mahal and of many other projects when no such records exist for him beyond things written in a hagiography, no official records or records by others match (that name others)beyond him having worked at the foundation of the red fort, yet there's an entire mythology written up about him (much was removed, but more still needs to be edited out) even the potrait isnt him, i did some research and put in some effort to write a refutation of his at the talk page using the best possible sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori titled "Myths about ustad ahmad lahori's role as the chief architect of shahjahan" How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? clear out the amateur sources and repeating myths, alert the reader when its quoting hagiography by his son to let them know the source of the rumors, let the reader know of mughal tradition and why despite it records dont match the hagiography and let them know who according to tradition was attributed as the supreme architect (see the talk page as i talk about it). Ustad Ahmad_Lahori discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I think the editor is asking for someone to help support their POV on the article; I'm not sure there is a dispute here. The editor is new. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Ditto. I have pointed them towards Teahouse for further discussions. No disputes here, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ustad Ahmad Lahori) I don't know if there is a content dispute, but the way to find out whether there is a content dispute is to ask my usual opening question. First, the editors are asked to read DRN Rule D, and to read the ArbCom ruling that India and Pakistan are a contentious topic. Then please answer the usual opening question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. If there is a content dispute, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Please also agree that you accept the ground rules, and that you acknowledge that Ustad Ahmad Lahori and the Taj Mahal are a contentious topic because they are about the history of India. If there is a content dispute, we can continue with moderated discussion. If the originator was merely stating a general objective, then normal discussion can continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Ustad Ahmad Lahori) 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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Ustad Ahmad Lahori (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Goshua55 (talk · contribs)
Drmies (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

people keep attributing Ahmad Lahori as the chief architect of the taj mahal and of many other projects when no such records exist for him beyond things written in a hagiography, no official records or records by others match (that name others)beyond him having worked at the foundation of the red fort, yet there's an entire mythology written up about him (much was removed, but more still needs to be edited out) even the potrait isnt him,

i did some research and put in some effort to write a refutation of his at the talk page using the best possible sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori titled "Myths about ustad ahmad lahori's role as the chief architect of shahjahan"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

clear out the amateur sources and repeating myths, alert the reader when its quoting hagiography by his son to let them know the source of the rumors, let the reader know of mughal tradition and why despite it records dont match the hagiography and let them know who according to tradition was attributed as the supreme architect (see the talk page as i talk about it).

Ustad Ahmad_Lahori discussion

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

I think the editor is asking for someone to help support their POV on the article; I'm not sure there is a dispute here. The editor is new. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. I have pointed them towards Teahouse for further discussions. No disputes here, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ustad Ahmad Lahori)

I don't know if there is a content dispute, but the way to find out whether there is a content dispute is to ask my usual opening question. First, the editors are asked to read DRN Rule D, and to read the ArbCom ruling that India and Pakistan are a contentious topic. Then please answer the usual opening question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. If there is a content dispute, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Please also agree that you accept the ground rules, and that you acknowledge that Ustad Ahmad Lahori and the Taj Mahal are a contentious topic because they are about the history of India. If there is a content dispute, we can continue with moderated discussion. If the originator was merely stating a general objective, then normal discussion can continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Ustad Ahmad Lahori)

Elizabeth Mynatt

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jesspater on 15:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

Closed due to lack of response, and apparently declined by other editor. The other editor has not responded three days after being notified of this filing. Discussion at DRN is voluntary, and it has apparently been declined. If there is a continued content disagreement, discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Elizabeth Mynatt. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Elizabeth Mynatt (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Jesspater (talk · contribs) No Oath (talk · contribs) LizLKC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This refers to an academic's personal page - dean of the college of computing at Northeastern. There is on editor who is adding content to that is unsubstantiated and not objective. I've asked this editor to discuss a compromise on the talk page, but they keep trying to talk about it in other spaces which I find inappropriate. This person has found me on another platform and try to start a conversation about it there. Several other editors have also reversed the aspects that are unsubstantiated, so I thought it best to submit through this channel as the compromise I presented was completely ignored. In the latest communication from user No Oath, i was called a biased hack and accused of not "discussing" the issue. However, I feel that I am as I am using the Talk page as we are supposed to. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elizabeth_Mynatt How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think it would be helpful to have an objective third party review. In the talk page, i have asked the editor if there is a common ground that can be reached and offered a potential solution to which I have been told that they will continue to revert back any changes until they (No Oath) are banned. If I am being unreasonable, I am happy to accept that but feel that based on the communication from this editor, there is a personal issue at play that shouldn't play out on this platform. Summary of dispute by No Oath Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by LizLKC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Elizabeth Mynatt 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Elizabeth Mynatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

This refers to an academic's personal page - dean of the college of computing at Northeastern. There is on editor who is adding content to that is unsubstantiated and not objective. I've asked this editor to discuss a compromise on the talk page, but they keep trying to talk about it in other spaces which I find inappropriate. This person has found me on another platform and try to start a conversation about it there. Several other editors have also reversed the aspects that are unsubstantiated, so I thought it best to submit through this channel as the compromise I presented was completely ignored. In the latest communication from user No Oath, i was called a biased hack and accused of not "discussing" the issue. However, I feel that I am as I am using the Talk page as we are supposed to.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elizabeth_Mynatt

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think it would be helpful to have an objective third party review. In the talk page, i have asked the editor if there is a common ground that can be reached and offered a potential solution to which I have been told that they will continue to revert back any changes until they (No Oath) are banned. If I am being unreasonable, I am happy to accept that but feel that based on the communication from this editor, there is a personal issue at play that shouldn't play out on this platform.

Summary of dispute by No Oath

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

Summary of dispute by LizLKC

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

Elizabeth Mynatt discussion

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

Categories: