This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 21 December 2019 (→Holmes and Watson (disambiguation): Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:38, 21 December 2019 by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) (→Holmes and Watson (disambiguation): Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "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, 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 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
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	In Progress	Abo Yemen (t)	23 days, 1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Manuductive (t)	1 days, 12 hours
Urartu	In Progress	Bogazicili (t)	8 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days,	Skeptical1800 (t)	23 hours
Wesean Student Federation	On hold	EmeraldRange (t)	6 days, 6 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	6 days, 6 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	6 days, 6 hours
Jehovah's Witnesses	In Progress	Clovermoss (t)	5 days, 2 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	4 days, 9 hours	Jeffro77 (t)	3 days, 20 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.

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, 253, 254

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

Current disputes

List of Steven Universe episodes

– New discussion. Filed by Ajd on 08:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

List of Steven Universe episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Ajd (talk · contribs)
Alex 21 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should the limited series Steven Universe Future be listed under the heading "Specials"? One editor argues that, as it is a series with multiple episodes and a regular weekly airtime, it is by definition not a special; another editor cites articles describing it as "a special limited series" or characterizing the debut episodes as a "special event".

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

Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#Listing Steven Universe Future

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a third-party perspective on whether it makes sense to describe Steven Universe Future as a "special" and/or to list its episodes under the heading "specials"; it went back and forth between two disputants with no progress for days.

Summary of dispute by Alex 21

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

List of Steven Universe episodes discussion

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

Volunteer Note - A Third Opinion would be a simple way to resolve this matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens

– Discussion in progress. Filed by 124.248.190.148 on 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Twofortnights (talk · contribs)
Deos71 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Mongolians do not require a visa to visit China. There is one editor who refuses this correction.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Visa_requirements_for_Mongolian_citizens

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By letting the blocking editor know that Mongolians do not require a visa to China.

Summary of dispute by Twofortnights

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

It surely can be frustrating not to see Misplaced Pages reflect your personal experience, however you need to remember that this is only because there is no verifiable source to back it up. Rules of Misplaced Pages, namely WP:V and WP:NOR, say that the content of Misplaced Pages is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors and that we can't include material for which no reliable, published sources exist. The only official sources on this topic by Mongolia and China say the following:

Mongolia: "Countries that granted visa-free entry for Mongolian nationals - 13 - China - Up to 30 days /diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only/ - 1989.03.30" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia)
China: "List of Agreements on Mutual Visa Exemption Between the People’s Republic of China and Foreign Countries - 88 - Mongolia - Diplomatic,service passports and passports for public affairs - 1989.04.30" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China)

I hope you understand why we can't alter this even if you would scan your passport for us as you kindly offered. I do encourage you to look up a reliable source that would confirm that Mongolia does not issue ordinary passports. This could be relevant to change the article.

At the same time I must warn you that if the reliable source explicitly says what it says (visa exemption applies to diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only) and you try to insert the opposite information to the article based on personal experience it is considered disruptive editing as you are fully aware of what the reference says in this regard and it's not ambigous as there is a word only in there.

Finally, I suggest reading the page Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth as it lays out the policy in this regard and hopefully reduces your frustration on why your kind offer that says "I am happy to submit my passport photos showing no China visa and a dozen China entry/exit stamps in the last few years." cannot be accepted and why on the other hand we accept the Chinese and Mongolian Ministries as reliable sources.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Deos71

1. I am a Mongolian citizen with an ordinary passport and like any other Mongolian, do not require a visa to visit China for 30 days. 2. English sources are sparse, but here are 2: A) https://www.passportindex.org/comparebyPassport.php?p1=mn&fl=&s=yes B) http://www.mfa.gov.mn/?page_id=18131&lang=en 3. in B), China is listed under "Countries that granted visa-free entry for Mongolian nationals" category. 4. Remark says "up to 30 days for diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only". 5. Currently there are only 3 passport types issued by MNG: D (Diplomatic), A (Alban - Official), and E(Engiin - Normal). From the Mongolian embassy in Beijing page: "Е серийн буюу үндэсний энгийн гадаад паспорт шинээр олгож болно." - It explicitly states that E series passports are ordinary/normal passports. 6. There are numerous entries on the Talk page pointing out this fact. 7. Twofortnights does not allow edits and keeps reverting the page as if it was his own. 8. We would like to ask the community to allow this change to reflect the facts as this article is a common reference for Mongolians planning to travel abroad and wrong information causes real life problems.

Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens discussion

Good Day, I am Nightenbelle, and I am going to volunteer to take on this dispute. I've read the discussions here and on the talk page up to this point and I understand both of your concerns I think. It sounds like Twofortnights is attempting to ensure the most accurate information is on the page for passports. And it sounds like Deos71 is saying that some of the details included are uneccessary to locals due to only 3 kinds of passports existing. Might I suggest leaving Twofortnight's description but adding a sentence that says something to the effect of "These are currently the only passports available in Mongolia, making China effectively Visa free for all Mongolians." Would that solve the problem to both of your satisfactions? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your input. I don't mind any addition as far as it can be backed up by a strong reliable reference. So far there hasn't been an unambiguous source for that.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Everett Stern

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Everettstern on 17:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Closed. This dispute is also pending at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2019 (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 Everett Stern (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Everettstern (talk · contribs) Marchjuly (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk · contribs) Primefac (talk · contribs) Sportsplex03 (talk · contribs) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page has undergone a massive transformation in the last 5 days. The content in its current form is not only inaccurate but also conjecture, not a single citation supports the current intro section where 10 used to. Sides have formed on the talk page and politics, literally Republicans and Liberals, have been brought into the talk page. Major primary sources, including the Readers Digest have been stripped from the page (citations used to be at 54 now down to 40). It seems as if the sides are just out to Win vs get the content to the most accurate point possible. The diffs for reference are: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930434324 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930248600 How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Everet_Stern#Founding_date_and_other_concerns How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe the major version differences should be examined by NPOV to decide on a compromised version of the article that best serves the public, the subject, and Misplaced Pages. Summary of dispute by EverettStern Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MarchJuly Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Drmies Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Primefac Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sportsplex03 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NorthbySouthbaranof Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Everett Stern discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - This appears to be a one-against-many dispute involving the subject of this article, who has not notified the other editors of this filing. (The spellings of user names have been corrected. It helps to spell user names correctly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon, they're also on some other noticeboard; I just got pinged. Worse, I have no idea what the supposed dispute is, or what I have to do with it. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (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 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

Everett Stern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The page has undergone a massive transformation in the last 5 days. The content in its current form is not only inaccurate but also conjecture, not a single citation supports the current intro section where 10 used to. Sides have formed on the talk page and politics, literally Republicans and Liberals, have been brought into the talk page. Major primary sources, including the Readers Digest have been stripped from the page (citations used to be at 54 now down to 40). It seems as if the sides are just out to Win vs get the content to the most accurate point possible. The diffs for reference are: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930434324 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930248600

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

Talk:Everet_Stern#Founding_date_and_other_concerns

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the major version differences should be examined by NPOV to decide on a compromised version of the article that best serves the public, the subject, and Misplaced Pages.

Summary of dispute by EverettStern

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

Summary of dispute by MarchJuly

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

Summary of dispute by Drmies

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

Summary of dispute by Primefac

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

Summary of dispute by Sportsplex03

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

Summary of dispute by NorthbySouthbaranof

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

Everett Stern discussion

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

Volunteer Note - This appears to be a one-against-many dispute involving the subject of this article, who has not notified the other editors of this filing. (The spellings of user names have been corrected. It helps to spell user names correctly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, they're also on some other noticeboard; I just got pinged. Worse, I have no idea what the supposed dispute is, or what I have to do with it. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (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.

Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)

– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Ubcule on 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

Closed due to inability to discuss on the article talk page. This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult, so I will explain. There has been discussion on a user talk page. The filing editor has tried to copy it to the article talk page, and been reverted. There must be discussion on the article talk page before there can be a discussion here. The filing editor should attempt a new discussion at the talk page. If that resolves the dispute, good. If that discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be opened here. If that discussion is reversed, erased, or reverted, that should be reported to WP:ANI as a violation of talk page guidelines. User:Ubcule should resume new discussion at the article talk page. User:ThaddeusSholto should take part in the new discussion. If that doesn't work, the next stop is WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2019 (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 Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Ubcule (talk · contribs) ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over which similar terms should or shouldn't be combined together into a single disambiguation page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Conversation took place, originally at User talk:ThaddeusSholto, then was transferred to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). (Please note that page may be blank as ThaddeusSholto disagrees with my right to transfer the existing discussion there and deleted it (see talk page history). I don't agree that they have the right to do this, and have posted further replies there). How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would appreciate some input from those with a reasonable level of familiarity with disambiguation pages and hatnotes into the initial arguments about which terms should and shouldn't be combined into a single page. (The latter half of the discussion veers more into interpersonal/conduct dispute, but I am not seeking help to resolve that aspect here). Summary of dispute by Ubcule Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. To cut a long story short, this is essentially about whether "Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)" and "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation)" should be separate pages (combining the two as variations of the same name) or not. This is one version and this is the other. Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment from ThaddeusSholto I am just now being notified about this so I will say this and be done: I already notified Ubcole that my view was that disambiguation pages are to sort article with similar titles not to be a directory for everything that is thematically similar. Since they kept arguing and wanted to edit war I simply divided it into two disambiguation pages which to me seemed to remedy the issue. At that point, Ubcole decided to drag this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking fo others to chime in and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly. Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) and when I reverted it and asked him to start a new conversation instead of pasting my words to yet another venue, he did it again. I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment and then started this to continue doing exactly that. Harassing me. Nobody should have to have the exact same discussion in four different venues just because one person won't stop harassing them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Ubcule (talk · contribs)
ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over which similar terms should or shouldn't be combined together into a single disambiguation page.

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

Conversation took place, originally at User talk:ThaddeusSholto, then was transferred to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation).

(Please note that page may be blank as ThaddeusSholto disagrees with my right to transfer the existing discussion there and deleted it (see talk page history). I don't agree that they have the right to do this, and have posted further replies there).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate some input from those with a reasonable level of familiarity with disambiguation pages and hatnotes into the initial arguments about which terms should and shouldn't be combined into a single page.

(The latter half of the discussion veers more into interpersonal/conduct dispute, but I am not seeking help to resolve that aspect here).

Summary of dispute by Ubcule

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

To cut a long story short, this is essentially about whether "Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)" and "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation)" should be separate pages (combining the two as variations of the same name) or not.

This is one version and this is the other.

Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) discussion

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

Comment from ThaddeusSholto

I am just now being notified about this so I will say this and be done: I already notified Ubcole that my view was that disambiguation pages are to sort article with similar titles not to be a directory for everything that is thematically similar. Since they kept arguing and wanted to edit war I simply divided it into two disambiguation pages which to me seemed to remedy the issue.

At that point, Ubcole decided to drag this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking fo others to chime in and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly.

Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) and when I reverted it and asked him to start a new conversation instead of pasting my words to yet another venue, he did it again. I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment and then started this to continue doing exactly that. Harassing me.

Nobody should have to have the exact same discussion in four different venues just because one person won't stop harassing them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories: