Contents 1 Current disputes 1.1 Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Neutrality II 1.1.1 Summary of dispute by Rgvis 1.1.2 Summary of dispute by Seraphim System 1.1.3 Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Neutrality II discussion 1.1.3.1 First statement by moderator 1.1.3.2 First statements by editors 1.1.3.3 Second statement by moderator 1.1.3.4 Second statements by editors 1.1.3.5 Third statement by moderator 1.1.3.6 Third statements by editors 1.1.3.7 Fourth statement by moderator 1.1.3.8 Fourth statements by editors 1.2 Talk:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality 1.2.1 Summary of dispute by Wisi eu 1.2.2 Summary of dispute by Kailash29792 1.2.3 Summary of dispute by Numerounovedant 1.2.4 Talk:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality discussion 1.3 "Polish death camp" controversy 1.3.1 Summary of dispute by Nihil novi 1.3.2 Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem 1.3.3 "Polish death camps" discussion 1.4 Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement 1.4.1 Summary of dispute by Dilpa kaur 1.4.2 Summary of dispute by Mar4d 1.4.3 Summary of dispute by NadirAli 1.4.4 Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement discussion 1.5 Talk:Malayalam 1.5.1 Summary of dispute by Hyper9 1.5.2 Talk:Malayalam discussion 1.6 Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences 1.6.1 Summary of dispute by Citobun 1.6.2 Summary of dispute by 223.89.144.195 1.6.3 Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences discussion 1.7 Talk:Banderites 1.7.1 Summary of dispute by Poeticbent 1.7.2 Talk:Banderites discussion Current disputes[edit]


Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Neutrality II[edit] – Discussion in progress. Filed by Borsoka on 15:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Transylvanian peasant revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Borsoka (talk · contribs) Rgvis (talk · contribs) Seraphim System (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Rgvis says that the article Transylvanian peasant revolt is unbalanced and disputes its neutrality. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I sought assistance from Wikiproject:Romania and from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I also changed the text, taking into account suggestions from members of the latter noticeboard, but Rqvis still maintains his/her view. All my attempts to persuade him to explain his/her concerns have failed, because he/she accusses me of misconduct and refers to "other editors" who allegedly share his/her concerns. I involved Seraphim System because Rgvis accuses me of changing his/her edits. How do you think we can help? I do not know. I hope you will know. Thank you for your assistance. Summary of dispute by Rgvis[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC) The article does not keep a balanced content regarding the historical facts presented; it is heavily based on the positions of authors affiliated to the Hungarian historiography, ignoring almost completely opinions of those affiliated to the Romanian historiography. When I tried to contribute with legitimate referenced content, I was brutally reverted (against all Wikipedia rules) by the user:Borsoka, who basically acts like a private owner of this article. This problem has been notified by other editors, too (this can be verified by reviewing the editing history of all pages regarding this topic: article, talk, and disputes' pages). Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)) Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Comment: (1) The last of a series of my "brutal reverts" was the following (in November): ([1]), with a clear reference, in the edit summary, to your obious copyright violations. Could you link my other "brutal reverts"? (2) Please also remember that you pretended that Setton-Wattson's book was published in 2015, although it had been first published in the 1930s ([2]). Please read other editors' comment on the use of this old source in the article: ([3]) (3) Could you please ping all "other editors" who agree with you? In contrast with you, Anonimu does not states that the whole article is unbalanced, he says that its last section could possibly be described as such, because this section does not present the "the classical Romanian POV about the events, nationalistic as it may be" ([4]). As I have several times mentioned during the last two months, I would be grateful if anyone could expand the article: that's why I sought assistance from the Romanian editors' noticeboard ([5]). Do you really think that an editor who acts like the owner of an article try to persuade other editors to edit it? (4) I would be grateful if you tried to refer to relevant reliable sources instead of making personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Seraphim System[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It does look like a response was inserted in the middle of my comment, but this could have been a good faith error. It did not alter my comment. Beyond that, I don't remember much about this dispute and I was only briefly involved so I am not sure how much help I will be, but I am willing to participate if it would be helpful. Seraphim System (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the above clarification. I would be grateful if you could participate in the resolution process. Borsoka (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt#Neutrality II discussion[edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The posting at the neutral point of view noticeboard has been closed without resolution, so that the filing here is the only current effort to resolve this dispute. The filing party has notified the other parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Are the editors willing to have moderated discussion in which they focus on article content and not on each other? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, of course. Thank you for your moderation. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC) What part of "Are the editors willing to have moderated discussion in which they focus on article content and not on each other?" do I need to restate or rework? If there is a behavioral problem, this is not the place to discuss it. However, the discussion of content is sometimes more useful than back-and-forth discussions of conduct. Are the editors willing to comment on content and not on contributors, or does this need to go to a conduct forum, where it is likely to be closed inconclusively? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. After 3 months of discussions, I personally think that the main issue in this case is not the content, but rather a behavioral problem. When I made contributions on this article (in accordance with all Wikipedia rules), I was reverted by Borsoka without any explanation (references included). Then, when I asked for explanations, Borsoka came up with all sorts of pretexts (which turned out to be ungrounded): first, "Copyright violations", when it was obviously that the contributions were based on the "Fair use" principle (which stays at the base of the so many Wikipedia articles' content); then, the content added was labeled as "fringe theory" and the authors of the works cited (reputed Romanian, Britain, American, etc. historians) as not reliable (or even "too old" - very funny assumption, in this context). In the opinion of Borsoka, only the authors accepted by the Hungarian POV are credible, and should be mentioned and cited. Well, here is a problem, because Wikipedia project is governed (or, at least, it should be) by different fundamental principles (NPOV included). Yes, no doubt that the content of this article could and should (soon or later) be improved, in order to reflect all historical POV. But, the question is: Is this article open for contributions from other editors, or not? (Rgvis (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)) I do not want to disprove each statement made by Rgvis, because I would like to settle the issue (Those who are interested in the issue can read the whole story on the article's talk page.) @Rgvis:. (1) Yes, I still think that Sedlar's POV is a marginal (rather fringe) theory, but it was included in the article based on the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. What is your problem with it? (2) Yes, I think that Setton-Wattson's book, which was published in 1934, should not be cited, especially because you have not referred to a single modern reliable source which verifies that his claims are still valid. Please remember that other editors - Only in death and Loesorion - were also sceptical as to whether such an old source could be used ([6]). Could you mention other editors who think that Setton-Wattson's book should be cited in the article? (3) Could you link my statements about other "reputed Romanian, Britain and American historians" proving that I denied to refer to them? Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (1) Good for you, but WP:NOT. (2) Yes, an example would be: page 23/33. On the other hand, regardless of the intimate opinion of editors, Wikipedia is not the place to judge or contest the activity of historians, not to say, the well-known ones [7] + [8], whose works are still published: [9], and still appreciated nowadays by the scientific communities: [10] (3) Review all your past actions of deleting references. (Rgvis (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)) Volunteer note - Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion of content only, without commenting on conduct or each other? Sometimes resolving the content issue, whether by mediation or otherwise, will end the conduct issues or at least permit the conduct issues to subside, but this noticeboard is only for the discussion of article content. If the editors will discuss content, a volunteer moderator will mediate. (If the editors want to talk about conduct, this is the wrong place and/or the wrong time.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Yes. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Comment I would be willing to participate in the discussion as well, but it would be helpful for me also if editors agree to just focus on content and sources here. The volunteers here can not resolve conduct issues - but I think it is a good idea to at least try this discussion first and ANI may not be necessary - sometimes it is better to try to AGF and start over to work through a content dispute.Seraphim System (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer inquiry - User:Rgvis - Are you willing to take part in discussion here that is limited to article content (and perhaps civil discussion of article content can avoid the need to focus on conduct)? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Sure, no problem (although it wouldn't be the first time, in this case), we can try again (patiently, due to time constraints). (Rgvis (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)) First statement by moderator[edit] Okay. I will try to mediate this dispute. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Comment on content only, and not on contributors. Be civil and concise. Take note of the rule that you are expected to reply to my requests for inputs every 48 hours. (I see a mention of time constraints. If you cannot respond within 48 hours, it may be necessary to close this case, and formal mediation, which can take months, may work better.) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are with regard to what should be in the article? (Talk only about the article, not about the process or the editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I do not know. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Let's start with the revision of the name of Vlachs to that of Romanians, in general context. (Rgvis (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)) First statements by editors[edit] Thank you for your suggestion. Why do you think, the replacement of the Vlach ethnonym is necessary? Please note that two "neutral" historians cited in the article (Joseph Held and Jean W. Sedlar) insist on the use of the Vlach ethnonym in the context. Borsoka (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderator[edit] Comment in the section for statements by editors. Reply only to the moderator and not to each other. It appears that the only real issue is whether to use the ethnonym 'Vlach' or 'Romanians'. Is that correct? If so, please justify your position on the ethnonym. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) As the moderator, I am neutral, but I need to be persuaded that it is necessary to change the ethnonym. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editors[edit] This is only the first issue. Why "Romanian" instead "Vlach": standard recommendation, as per WP:NCET the historian's explanation: [11], [12] to avoid any confusion with the contemporary meaning of "Vlach": [13] As for Jean W. Sedlar, she does not insist on the use of any term ("Romanian" or "Vlach", "Hungarian" or "Magyar", etc): [14]. (Rgvis (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)) Third statement by moderator[edit] An editor states above, "This is only the first issue", about changing a denonym. I had asked the editors to identify the issues, not to identify one issue at a time. Will each editor please identify all of the issues that they think need to be addressed? If it is necessary to provide a long list of issues, provide a long list of issues, but, if so, I may find it necessary to refer this dispute to formal mediation, a lengthy and careful process. Please state what the issues as to article content are. Be civil, and as concise as possible. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editors[edit] the introductory section is ambiguous in terms of some important aspects of the presented event (such as the ethnic component of peasants, or the location of the uprising), but, on the other hand, it abounds in some rather too detailed (and marginal) information for this part of the article; the "Background" section superficially treats the history of the Transylvanian Romanians (of all social classes) and almost ignores the religious aspects of the presented context; the "Peasant war" section does not mention essential aspects of the uprising, like the calling for the establishment and recognition of the Universitas Hungarorum et Valachorum - Estate of Hungarians and Romanians; it also selectively uses information from some referenced sources; the "Aftermath" section does not sufficiently emphasize on the historical consequences of the presented events in terms of social and political life of Transylvania for the next centuries; PS: it would still be useful for the moderator to express his point of view on the first mentioned issue. (Rgvis (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)) Regarding use of "Vlach" my main objection to the term is that it is not widely known, and no arguments have been given for why the distinction is necessary. If it doesn't add anything, then I think the most widely recognizable term should be used for the benefit of readers who are not expected to be familiar with specialized terminology. Seraphim System (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator[edit] We have a list of four or five issues that one of the editors think should be addressed. This noticeboard is normally for relatively simple content disputes that take one week to two weeks to resolve, not for ones that have multiple aspects that go on for weeks or months. I have several options. The first and least intrusive would be to put this case on hold and see if the editors can work collaboratively on the article talk page to improve the article. The second would be for the editors to make a list of issues that they think should be addressed, and then have a multi-part Request for Comments that will run for 30 days (after this case is closed as taken to the RFC). The third will be for the editors to agree to formal mediation. I would like to ask the editors to give three-part Yes-No answers, to whether they are willing to use each of the three options. By the way, if you say No to any of the three options, please indicate concisely why. I don't like it isn't adequate. To restate one of the original rules, you are expected to reply within 48 hours, and it would be helpful to reply in 24 to 36 hours. Which of the methods of proceeding are agreeable? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors[edit] (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (I would prefer option 1, because the opening of new procedures could be time-consuming.) Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC) .


Talk:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mark the train on 14:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC). Closed. There has been no further comment here after a reminder about the no original research policy. Discussion is continuing on the article talk page. Please continue those discussions. If there continues to be disagreement, a Request for Comments can be used between alternatives that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2018 (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 Talk:Kalki Koechlin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mark the train (talk · contribs) Wisi eu (talk · contribs) Kailash29792 (talk · contribs) Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The nationality of an actor, Kalki Koechlin, has been the subject of edits and reverts from time to time. She has been mentioned as holding a French passport in a French magazine, Ouest. Indian sources 'India Today' and 'The Hindu' mention her Indian citizenship as quoted by the actress herself. All these three sources are from around 2015-16 and finding more reliable sources to support either stance has been an issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A notice at WikiProject India didn't attract any comments, while another discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Numerounovedant#Nationality_of_Kalki_Koechlin in January was inconclusive. How do you think we can help? Getting more editors involved to reach a consensus can help resolve the issue (perhaps someone who has a much detailed understanding of citizenship laws). On consensus, an editnotice can be placed so that the nationality in several parts of the article isn't meddled with henceforth. Summary of dispute by Wisi eu[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Kalki Koechlin, an actress, has stated in an interview that she has a *French passport only* for travel purposes, stating that the country she lives and works in did not allow her to take dual nationality. Hence the corrections on her EN wiki page. User: Wisi_eu 13 Feb. 2018 - 16:03 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Kailash29792[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Numerounovedant[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality discussion[edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion and notice. However, I'm neither "taking" this nor opening it for discussion. Indeed, I won't be taking it (or participating as a party to the dispute). I have given an "Nth Opinion" at the article talk page noting that much or all the current discussion is attempting to reach a conclusion which could be in violation of the no original research policy if included in the article. If the volunteer who takes the case agrees with that assessment, then my suggestion would be to close this request with a recommendation that discussion pick back up at the article talk page taking the no original research policy into consideration. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Now that the editors have had time to review the reminder of TransporterMan about original research, which includes all speculation as to Koechlin's reasons for what passport she uses and what else she does, do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion about verifiable content? If there is no response (or negative response), it will be concluded that this thread can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2018 (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.


"Polish death camp" controversy[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by R9tgokunks on 01:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC). Closed as withdrawn by filing party. The filing party is still strongly cautioned not to use the label vandalism to characterize edits in a content dispute, and is reminded that the inaccurate claim of vandalism is a personal attack. All of the editors are urged to continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, a new request can be made for moderated discussion here, knowing that discussion is limited to article content. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but discussion of content disputes is always better than trying to deal with conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2018 (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 "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved R9tgokunks (talk · contribs) Nihil novi (talk · contribs) Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Two users have reverted all edits to article attempting to improve it. Some edits were vandalistic, some edits seem like they breach WP:COI, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, or WP:OWNERSHIP. All content was either well-sourced, or was an attempt to clarify or make the article NPOV. (see:[15]). Update: the sourced content proclaiming many Israeli politicans view the legislation as Holocaust denial is still not there. I feel the content should be re-added. but other users have since left some of the content that was reverted, and another user changed the NPOV word slightly, along with myself adding quotations, but i still feel it isn't enough. "It criminalizes any incorrect public statements that ascribe to the Polish nation collective responsibility in Holocaust-related or other war crimes" It should definetely be changed to "It criminalizes any public statements seen as incorrect" or something similar. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to start and Administrator's notice board post, tried dicussing on both that and the talk page. How do you think we can help? Getting a third and fourth party to help improving the article. Summary of dispute by Nihil novi[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "Polish death camps" discussion[edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. It is not useful to yell "Vandalism!" in order to "win" a content dispute. This is not the place to report real vandalism, which should be reported to the vandalism noticeboard, and it is not the place to report unreal vandalism, which should be reported to dev/null. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I would like to close this. The other editors have stopped reverting and the edits i intended have been implemented. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (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.


Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement[edit] – New discussion. Filed by Kautilya3 on 11:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Kashmir conflict (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) Mar4d (talk · contribs) NadirAli (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On 9 February, I made an edit to the Kashmir conflict page with the edit summary copy edit and add sources. In the process, I have expanded a sentence based on the information from a source, which can be seen more clearly in this redo of the edit. Dilpa kaur complained on the talk page that it fails NPOV. Then Mar4d and NadirAli reverted it, also claiming that it fails NPOV. However, nobody has explained how it fails NPOV. The additional source provided by Dilpa kaur says pretty much the same thing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion at Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement. How do you think we can help? Interrogate and resolve the claim of NPOV failure. Summary of dispute by Dilpa kaur[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mar4d[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NadirAli[edit] Kautilya3's claim that there is no contradiction between the sources is WP:MISREPRESENTATION. Here's the Ganguly source<ref name="Ganguly2002">Sumit Ganguly (5 January 2002). Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947. Columbia University Press. pp. 24–. ISBN 978-0-231-50740-0.  They also reached an informal agreement that the initial UN appointed plebiscite administrator, Adm. Chester W. Nimitz of the United States, would have to be replaced. India had taken the lead in pushing for Nimitz's removal because it had perceived a pro-Pakistani bias on the part of the United States in the Security Council debates. However, when word of this informal agreement became public, an outcry ensued against the Indian position throughout influential sections of the Pakistani press. Nehru and Bogra, to their mutual credit, nonetheless managed to limit the damage and placed the negotiations back on track. A few things to note here. Nimitz was a UN appointee and it was India which took the lead in demanding the removal of a UN appointed plebiscite administrator. So clearly the whole problem here is India's fault as it bad to pick issues with the U.N. Yet Kautilya3's edits seek to place the blame solely on Pakistan as the reason for the stall in negotiations for a plebiscite. This is why his edit fails WP:NPOV as it misses India's role in stirring up the matter. Now here is the contradiction. Rizvi is saying that after agreeing to India's demand Mr Bogra (Pakistani PM) backtracked from the agreement to remove Nimitz. This contradicts Ganguly who says that after the agreement to remove Nimitz was done there was an outcry in the Pakistani press but still Bogra ("to his credit") resisted it and managed to keep the negotiations with India on track. Ganguly then says the real problem started with the US announcement to send military aid to Pakistan.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement discussion[edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Malayalam[edit] – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Nagadeepa on 11:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC). Closed as now also pending in another forum, Arbitration Enforcement. DRN does not handle a case that is also pending in another content forum or in a conduct forum. Arbitration Enforcement and WP:ANI are content fora. I am not commenting at this time on the merits of the complaint by User:Nagadeepa against User:Hyper9, other than that I will note that both parties have been uncivil, and both parties are cautioned to avoid personal attacks, and that uncivil behavior in a conduct forum may be undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (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 Talk:Malayalam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nagadeepa (talk · contribs) Hyper9 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Debate on origins of Malayalam There has been heated arguments on the Malayalam page. One editor Hyper9 is consistently deleting referenced arguments and distorting an accurate scientific source (S.V Shanmugam) to promote his fringe views (That Malayalam has an independent origin from Tamil). 3rd party assistance is needed to maintain an accurate history of the language. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted reasoned discussion on talk page to no avail. Attempted to hold a dispute resolution a few days ago which was unilaterally abrogated by Hyper9. Hyper9 has now agreed to take part in the process, provided that the discussion is solely focused on the arguments and not his personal character or behaviour. How do you think we can help? An independent mediator to ensure that scientific sources are not distorted and wilfully misinterpreted. Summary of dispute by Hyper9[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Malayalam discussion[edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Discussion at this noticeboard is always about article content. It is never about editor behavior, let alone editor character. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - I do not intend to act as a moderator or mediator for this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Noted the above. Mediation is the wrong word. There is a dispute that needs to be resolved in order to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate and not parroting fringe theories. Especially false theories which have been jettisoned by more serious scholars in the literature. Unfortunately, Hyper9 has been repeatedly deleting all my referenced edits which reflect the mainstream view and true history. This is unacceptable. This can only be sorted out with 3rd party input. Nagadeepa (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC) User:Nagadeepa - If mediation is the wrong word for what you want, then you may be at the wrong noticeboard. Mediation is what this noticeboard does. The purpose of this noticeboard is to facilitate moderated discussion with the objective of achieving compromise on article content. If you want to discuss article content in order to work out satisfactory compromise, this is a reasonable place. If you have some other objective, you may need to go somewhere else. If you and Hyper9 both want mediation, I would suggest formal mediation, a long careful process. If you think that Hyper9 is being tendentious or otherwise disruptive, or is trying to advance fringe theories, you may report them at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. The latter is likely to be more effective, and may be swift and draconian. Those are probably your choices, formal mediation, or arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I will probably be closing this thread in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. I would like to point out once again to the language used, now calling me a 'mad man' (in the response below), by the other editor after they have committed to not resorting to personal attacks. I am surprised that this user is not being censured here nor on the original Talk page by responsible Admins. And I fail to see again why this DRN should now proceed without an apology from the other editor. I thought that the other editor might have rectified his bad behaviour, but clearly I was wrong. In any case, these DRNs are being opened even before any discussion on the Talk page. I would say that it probably constitutes an abuse of such fail-safes. Hyper9 (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors, at least at this noticeboard. I personally feel that Hyper9 is being disruptive and tendentious. He has completely distorted one of the reliable sources, and plays dumb when evidence is put right in front of him. He consistently evades discussing the facts that disprove his fringe theory. He never answers the critical questions directly and dances around them. In short, it is like arguing with a mad man. However, I note that last time he was in a dispute resolution discussion, a consensus was reached with your help (albeit an incorrect one due to his distortion of the sources). I was hoping that this process would allow another more accurate consensus to be reached that would prevent him from distorting the page. Nagadeepa (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I am afraid talking to you does feel like I'm talking to a mad man. You clearly have good command of the English language yet you act like you cannot read. I suspect you are cunningly playing dumb. I am afraid I will have to report you as Robert has suggested. You have consistently distorted the accurate source by Shanmugam. Shanmugam clearly indicates that Govindakutty's fringe theory is untenable when he quotes Ayyar's work. This is absolutely clear to anyone with basic English who reads that section. Anyway I have given up trying to get through to you (like the many before me) and will have to report you. I am not happy that it had to come to this. Nagadeepa (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Uninvolved comment – @Robert McClenon: please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hyper9 filed by Nagadeepa, seems this has gone to another noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (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.


Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences[edit] – New discussion. Filed by 223.89.144.195 on 06:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Citobun (talk · contribs) 223.89.144.195 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is quite simple which is to whether to remove the the "Mainland Chinese government" section in the article 2018_Hong_Kong_bus_accident (see one of the disputed edits). The other user "Citobun" insists that the content of this section is "inconsequential" and "propagandistic" and should thus be removed. Whilst I believe that that section should be kept. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss this isuue with the other user in the talkpage. Unfortunately we two simply cannot reach a consensus and still adhere to our own views. How do you think we can help? Give us a third-party and neutral opinion so that we can resolve it. Summary of dispute by Citobun[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This Beijing IP (as well as 223.104.19.131, using a dynamic IP I guess) is an WP:SPA going about pushing the viewpoint of the Chinese government here and there. When I originally wrote the "reactions" section I purposely left out inconsequential reactions, like token politician condolences, because many officials and governments expressed such sentiments, and I don't think it's useful to fill up the article with this sort of cruft, especially from parties who are not involved with the incident. Upon removing the section I was promptly accused of being "anti-China". It is apparent from IP's editing behavior and attitude that the purpose of adding this section is simply to assert Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong. Secondly, by "propagandistic" I refer to the melodramatic tone of the original content. It wasn't a quotation either. The version I revised (before deleting it entirely) is better but still odd and still ultimately kind of pointless to include. I am pretty sure the above two IPs are related to 171.10.177.144?? I suspect sock puppetry, or collusion among Chinese political agenda editors, through some outside means of communications, who are edit warring on the same few articles. I also want to add that we already got a third opinion at the talk page. And lastly, it makes no sense to call me "anti-China" for this considering I was the one who originally added the responses from Carrie Lam (the most prominent pro-China figure in Hong Kong) as well as the pro-Beijing Federation of Trade Unions. The difference is that Lam and the FTU's comments had actual implications, whereas the comments from the mainland government were just inconsequential token formalities. Citobun (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 223.89.144.195[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences discussion[edit] Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Just one thing I would like to point out, the original content of this section was not added by me, but by NYKTNE (talk · contribs) through this edit.--223.89.144.195 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing editor is advised that if they want to engage in dispute resolution, they will be better off to register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - If the only issue is whether to keep or remove a section, a Request for Comments may be appropriate. The purpose of discussion here would be to decide whether to compromise, such as by abridging the section. Do the editors want assistance in compromise, or do they want a yes/no answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC) To me, any assistance in compromise is better. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Banderites[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Yulia Romero on 18:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC). Closed as premature. The discussion at the article talk page has been minimal. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, another thread can be filed here later, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2018 (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 Talk:Banderites (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Yulia Romero (talk · contribs) Poeticbent (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I tried to prevent what I see as Wikipedia:Content forking at the Wikipedia article Banderites but this attempt quickly became an edit war.... Have you tried to resolve this previously? Poeticbent did not respond to me when I contacted him on his talkpage and does not explain why his edits are not content forking How do you think we can help? I basically want to know if the current (Saturday 17 February 2018) "History section at Banderites is content forking or not. Summary of dispute by Poeticbent[edit] Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Banderites discussion[edit] 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. Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=826191825" Categories: Dispute resolution noticeboardHidden categories: Noindexed pagesWikipedia move-protected project pagesNon-talk pages that are automatically signedPages that should not be manually archived


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages Ελληνικά Edit links This page was last edited on 17 February 2018, at 19:24. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.412","walltime":"0.579","ppvisitednodes":{"value":3290,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":218901,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":26578,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":12,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":19,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 349.249 1 -total"," 42.68% 149.062 1 Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Header"," 23.04% 80.462 2 Template:Align"," 14.03% 49.009 1 Template:DRN_case_status"," 12.58% 43.927 21 Template:User"," 10.89% 38.031 7 Template:DRN_case_status/row"," 8.97% 31.326 1 Template:Cite_book"," 8.39% 29.314 1 Template:Archive_box"," 7.94% 27.722 21 Template:DRNAgo"," 7.74% 27.048 1 Template:Archives"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.120","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":4352812,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1246","timestamp":"20180217193259","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":679,"wgHostname":"mw1246"});});


Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard More Links

Wikipedia:DNRTemplate:Noticeboard LinksTemplate Talk:Noticeboard LinksWikipedia:NoticeboardsWikipedia:Request DirectoryWikipedia:DashboardWikipedia:Administrators' NoticeboardWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/IncidentsWikipedia:Bots/NoticeboardWikipedia:Bureaucrats' NoticeboardWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Requests For ClosureWikipedia:Education NoticeboardWikipedia:Main Page/ErrorsWikipedia:WikiProject On Open ProxiesWikipedia:OTRS NoticeboardWikipedia:Requests For OversightWikipedia:Requests For PermissionsWikipedia:Biographies Of Living Persons/NoticeboardWikipedia:Media Copyright QuestionsWikipedia:Copyright ProblemsWikipedia:External Links/NoticeboardWikipedia:Fringe Theories/NoticeboardWikipedia:Neutral Point Of View/NoticeboardWikipedia:No Original Research/NoticeboardWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource RequestWikipedia Talk:WikiProject SpamMediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklistMediaWiki Talk:Spam-whitelistWikipedia:SVG HelpMediaWiki Talk:TitleblacklistWikipedia:Pages Needing Translation Into EnglishWikipedia:Requests For History MergeWikipedia:Proposed MergersWikipedia:Requested MovesWikipedia:Requests For Page ProtectionWikipedia:Requests For Page ImportationWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Articles For DeletionWikipedia:Redirects For DiscussionWikipedia:Categories For DiscussionWikipedia:Templates For DiscussionWikipedia:Files For DiscussionWikipedia:Miscellany For DeletionWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionWikipedia:Long-term AbuseWikipedia:Conflict Of Interest/NoticeboardWikipedia:Contributor Copyright InvestigationsWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit WarringWikipedia:SanctionsWikipedia:Editing RestrictionsWikipedia:General SanctionsWikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor HelpWikipedia:Sockpuppet InvestigationsWikipedia:Usernames For Administrator AttentionWikipedia:Administrator Intervention Against VandalismWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/NoticeboardWikipedia:Arbitration/RequestsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Edit Filter NoticeboardWikipedia:Edit Filter/RequestedWikipedia:Requests For MediationWikipedia:Editor Assistance/RequestsWikipedia:Help DeskWikipedia:TeahouseWikipedia:Reference DeskWikipedia:WikiProject Articles For Creation/Help DeskWikipedia:Requests For Comment/AllWikipedia:Village Pump (idea Lab)Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy)Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)Wikipedia:Village Pump (miscellaneous)Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/ProposalsCategory:Wikipedia NoticeboardsWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:Requests For CommentWikipedia:MediationWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/FAQWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:BLPGROUPWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/CoordinatorUser:NihlusWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/requestWikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:Too Long; Didn't ReadWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:Requests For CommentWikipedia:Articles For DeletionWikipedia:Requested MovesWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesTemplate:DRN-noticeWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/VolunteersWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/FAQWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/VolunteerWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/VolunteeringWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/VolunteersWikipedia:Please Do Not Bite The NewcomersWikipedia:MediationWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:Mark The TrainUser Talk:Mark The TrainUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:R9tgokunksUser Talk:R9tgokunksUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:Kautilya3User Talk:Kautilya3User:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:NadirAliUser Talk:NadirAliWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser Talk:NagadeepaUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser Talk:223.89.144.195User:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser Talk:223.89.144.195Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:Yulia RomeroUser Talk:Yulia RomeroUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonTemplate:DRN Case StatusUser:DRN Clerk BotUser Talk:DRN Clerk BotWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 1Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 2Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 3Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 4Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 5Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 6Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 7Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 8Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 9Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 10Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 11Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 12Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 13Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 14Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 15Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 16Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 17Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 18Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 19Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 20Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 21Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 22Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 23Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 24Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 25Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 26Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 27Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 28Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 29Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 30Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 31Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 32Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 33Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 34Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 35Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 36Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 37Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 38Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 39Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 40Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 41Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 42Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 43Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 44Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 45Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 46Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 47Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 48Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 49Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 50Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 51Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 52Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 53Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 54Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 55Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 56Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 57Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 58Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 59Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 60Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 61Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 62Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 63Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 64Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 65Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 66Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 67Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 68Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 69Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 70Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 71Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 72Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 73Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 74Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 75Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 76Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 77Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 78Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 79Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 80Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 81Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 82Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 83Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 84Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 85Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 86Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 87Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 88Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 89Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 90Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 91Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 92Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 93Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 94Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 95Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 96Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 97Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 98Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 99Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 100Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 101Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 102Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 103Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 104Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 105Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 106Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 107Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 108Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 109Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 110Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 111Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 112Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 113Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 114Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 115Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 116Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 117Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 118Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 119Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 120Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 121Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 122Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 123Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 124Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 125Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 126Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 127Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 128Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 129Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 130Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 131Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 132Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 133Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 134Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 135Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 136Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 137Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 138Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 139Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 140Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 141Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 142Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 143Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 144Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 145Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 146Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 147Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 148Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 149Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 150Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 151Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 152Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 153Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 154Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 155Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 156Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 157Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 158Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 159Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/Archive 160User:Lowercase Sigmabot IIIUser:BorsokaTransylvanian Peasant RevoltTalk:Transylvanian Peasant RevoltSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Transylvanian Peasant RevoltUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaSpecial:Contributions/BorsokaUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisSpecial:Contributions/RgvisUser:Seraphim SystemUser Talk:Seraphim SystemSpecial:Contributions/Seraphim SystemTransylvanian Peasant RevoltUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:AnonimuUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:Seraphim SystemUser Talk:Seraphim SystemUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaWikipedia:NPOVNUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaWikipedia:NPOVUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisUser:RgvisUser:Only In DeathUser:LoesorionUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaWikipedia:NOTUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:Seraphim SystemUser Talk:Seraphim SystemUser:RgvisUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisUser:Robert McClenon/Mediation RulesWikipedia:RFMUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaVlachsRomaniansUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia:NCETUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisWikipedia:RFMUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:RgvisUser Talk:RgvisUser:Seraphim SystemUser Talk:Seraphim SystemWikipedia:RFCWikipedia:RFMWikipedia:IDONTLIKEITUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:BorsokaUser Talk:BorsokaUser:Mark The TrainWikipedia:NORWikipedia:RFCUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardTalk:Kalki KoechlinKalki KoechlinUser:Mark The TrainUser Talk:Mark The TrainSpecial:Contributions/Mark The TrainUser:Wisi EuUser Talk:Wisi EuSpecial:Contributions/Wisi EuUser:Kailash29792User Talk:Kailash29792Special:Contributions/Kailash29792User:NumerounovedantUser Talk:NumerounovedantSpecial:Contributions/NumerounovedantUser:Wisi EuWikipedia:SignaturesWikipedia:NORUser:TransporterManUser Talk:TransporterManWikipedia:ORUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:R9tgokunksWikipedia:VANDWikipedia:NPAWikipedia:ANIUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard"Polish Death Camp" ControversyTalk:"Polish Death Camp" ControversySpecial:WhatLinksHere/"Polish Death Camp" ControversyUser:R9tgokunksUser Talk:R9tgokunksSpecial:Contributions/R9tgokunksUser:Nihil NoviUser Talk:Nihil NoviSpecial:Contributions/Nihil NoviUser:Staszek LemUser Talk:Staszek LemSpecial:Contributions/Staszek LemWikipedia:COIWikipedia:IJUSTDONTLIKEITWikipedia:OWNERSHIPWikipedia:VANDWikipedia:NOTVANDWikipedia:AIVDev/nullUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:R9tgokunksUser Talk:R9tgokunksWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:Kautilya3Talk:Kashmir ConflictKashmir ConflictUser:Kautilya3User Talk:Kautilya3Special:Contributions/Kautilya3User:Dilpa KaurUser Talk:Dilpa KaurSpecial:Contributions/Dilpa KaurUser:Mar4dUser Talk:Mar4dSpecial:Contributions/Mar4dUser:NadirAliUser Talk:NadirAliSpecial:Contributions/NadirAliKashmir ConflictUser:Dilpa KaurUser:Mar4dUser:NadirAliTalk:Kashmir ConflictInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/978-0-231-50740-0Wikipedia:NPOVUser:NadirAliUser Talk:NadirAliUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Nagadeepa (page Does Not Exist)Wikipedia:AEWikipedia:ANIUser:Hyper9Wikipedia:CIVILWikipedia:NPAWikipedia:BOOMERANGUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardTalk:MalayalamMalayalamUser Talk:NagadeepaSpecial:Contributions/NagadeepaUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9Special:Contributions/Hyper9User:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser Talk:NagadeepaWikipedia:RFMWikipedia:TEWikipedia:ANIWikipedia:AEUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9User Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser:Robert McClenonWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardUser:223.89.144.195 (page Does Not Exist)Talk:2018 Hong Kong Bus Accident2018 Hong Kong Bus AccidentUser:CitobunUser Talk:CitobunSpecial:Contributions/CitobunUser Talk:223.89.144.195Special:Contributions/223.89.144.1952018 Hong Kong Bus AccidentSpecial:Contributions/223.104.19.131Wikipedia:SPASpecial:Contributions/171.10.177.144User:CitobunUser Talk:CitobunUser:NYKTNEUser Talk:NYKTNESpecial:Contributions/NYKTNESpecial:Contributions/223.89.144.195User Talk:223.89.144.195User:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia:RFCUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonSpecial:Contributions/223.89.144.195User Talk:223.89.144.195User:Yulia RomeroWikipedia:RFCUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardTalk:BanderitesBanderitesUser:Yulia RomeroUser Talk:Yulia RomeroSpecial:Contributions/Yulia RomeroUser:PoeticbentUser Talk:PoeticbentSpecial:Contributions/PoeticbentWikipedia:Content ForkingBanderitesBanderitesWikipedia Talk:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardHelp:CategoryCategory:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardCategory:Noindexed PagesCategory:Wikipedia Move-protected Project PagesCategory:Non-talk Pages That Are Automatically SignedCategory:Pages That Should Not Be Manually ArchivedDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link