Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	31 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	27 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 20 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	9 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Wolfdog (t)	1 days, 10 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	8 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 20 hours	PromQueenCarrie (t)	21 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	2 days, 13 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	New	DinoGrado (t)	1 days, 18 hours	None	n/a	DinoGrado (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	New	Titan2456 (t)	11 hours	None	n/a	SheriffIsInTown (t)	11 hours
Ryan T._Anderson	New	Marspe1 (t)	4 hours	None	n/a	Marspe1 (t)	4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 23:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Hallam FM

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Butdavid on 13:08, 10 November 2017 (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:Hallam FM (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Butdavid (talk · contribs) Davey2010 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An ongoing dispute in regards to what is deemed to be considered as a 'Notable Presenter'. A Dispute Resolution Notice request was filed by myself, dated 5 June, 2014, in regards to 'Notable Presenters'. User: 'Doniago' mediated at that time. I have included a number of past presenters in the 'Notable Presenters' section of the Hallam FM article, that sadly do not have their own Wiki article to link to, but were undeniably regarded as 'notable presenters', in the sense that they played a huge part in the early years of the station. I cited these names with what I considered as reliable sources. ie Sheffield Newspaper article; YouTube Yorkshire TV video; a website set up by a former presenter of the station, which included recordings and genuine photo's; a forum showing original photos of presenters and a correct LinkedIn source. I am also from the city where the radio station was born and can verify that everything is accurate in relation to the presenters added to the 'Notable Presenter's' section. User:Davey2010 is still arguing that the presenters are only 'Notable' if they have their own Wiki article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Dispute Resolution Request, June 2014; and previous to that discussion via the Talk page. How do you think we can help? Mediate in the matter. Assist us in determining what is to be deemed as a 'Notable Presenter' - Is it one with a Wiki article linked to it only? Summary of dispute by Davey2010 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In short there was a discussion in 2014 which rather annoyingly I closed as "Not Done - Having a huge long list of notable presenters is fine, Having a huge list of non notables is not" - I will say here and now the discussion should never have been closed by me but in my defense I was more or less a newbie at the time, Anyway a Few weeks to a month ago I removed the presenters from the article (completely forgetting there was ever a discussion on this) which Butdavid objected too - Although the list was sourced the sources were "YouTube, LinkedIn, BlogSpot, hallammemories, family-announcements.co.uk and sheffieldhistory.co.uk (forum)" which are obviously not reliable sources and I stated this on the talkpage, Butdavid disagreed and so here we are, It seems to be a common thing on all radio stations - If they're not wikilinked then they're not included however if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Hi ProgrammingGeek, I did mention 30, DRN and RFC to the editor however I'm more than happy to go with 30 or RFC :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Talk:Hallam FM discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: This seems a fairly minor dispute. Davey2010 and Butdavid, if you want mediation at DRN, that will happen. Have you considered a WP:3O? I feel that is a possibility. If that's already been requested, then I'm sure someone will open your case. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC) ProgrammingGeek Thank you for your kind intervention. With respect, I would prefer mediation at DRN as it has not previously been resolved through talk page discussion. The dispute may seem 'minor', but in my view it is not. What I would consider as very notable presenters from the early days when Hallam FM was known as Radio Hallam, who were around well before the internet could document them are not receiving the recognition they deserve. The sources cited for a number of well liked and very popular influential presenters are in fact extremely reliable. These sources are not necessarily relying on the odd mention of a particular dj, but numerous verifications and some coming with official photo's etc. Official videos and recordings uploaded also reliably show without doubt certain presenters who were major personalities at the station back in the 1970's and 80's. Davey2010 states that "It seems to be a common thing on all radio stations -If they're not wikilinked then they're not included..." My response to this is that one of the reasons why Wiki radio stations have only wikilinked presenters is very likely down to the likes of Davey2010 deciding this by trawling through all the stations and editing out all presenters who are not wikilinked. There are no rules on this by Wikipedia as far as I am aware, that names have to be wikilinked; so editors are just taking it upon themselves to lay the rules down like Davey2010. I started a thread on this subject on Sheffield Forum earlier on this year, which I feel that Davey 2010 should at least have a read of. I am not as familiar with Wikipedia as Davey2010 is and he says he has done about 80,000 edits. If he was a "newbie" back in 2014, then since then he has roughly edited 50 plus times every day since then until now. I feel that is a lot of editing by one person. With respect to Davey2010, I am far more knowledgeable on 'Radio Hallam' than he will ever be. I lived and breathed it, so I know who the presenters were and who were well known or even iconic ie Roger Moffat. Ask people over 45/50 years of age in Sheffield who Roger was and they would tell you. He was an iconic figure in Sheffield. The sources I have cited are as reliable as you will ever get. I have not included in the 'Notable Presenters' section all the great names from the early days, but the names that graced the airwaves the most and who were the most popular with the listener. Wikipedia's purpose is to "benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." I think that Davey2010 really is all about being 'neat and tidy' on Wikipedia, but Wiki is not about being neat and tidy, but informative. Butdavid (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC) References That is long, but please limit your comments to article content and not to comments about other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC) I'm not all about neat and tidy at all - My entire objective or goal on this site is to help our readers and to make them read informative and encyclopedic information - A long pointless list of nobodies is not informative nor encyclopedic information, I absolutely agree I will never know Hallam like you will and that's obvious but that doesn't mean pointless lists should exists purely because you know them, The edit count part is off-topic however if you have issues with this you're more than welcome to ask on my talkpage but for the time being we should keep this about presenters etc and not about me (Yes I did in some sense make it about me on the talkpage however I was trying to justify my bad actions in 2014), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Davey2010 With respect, we need to once and for all determine what 'Notable' means. What is Wikipedia's stance on what 'notable' means? To me, 'notable' means something or someone who was well known, significant, unforgettable, memorable. That does not mean they need to be Wikilinked to be any of these. The presenters I added were indeed these terms and should be recognised. Nobody surely can deny as accurate an official video, a radio recording that actually went out on air or official radio photo's of presenters with their names and radio station logo attached? I had added or included a small number of presenters from the station when it was known as 'Radio Hallam.' There were many more, but I limited it to the most significant. What we have got is just one presenter from the original line-up of presenters back then, in the 'Notable Presenter' section of the Hallam FM article, who is Wikilinked. This is not a true reflection of who was 'notable' back then in the 1970's and needs to be addressed, corrected and improved on. It may not look neat having names in black rather than blue, but so long as these presenters come with unarguable information about them, such as what I have mentioned, then they should not be disputed as being reliable and the information that goes with them not to be trusted. I trust we can come to some kind of agreement here, Davey 2010, and make the 'Notable Presenter' section more of a true reflection of who were in fact the most well known, significant, unforgettable and memorable presenters or disc jockey's, at the station over its lifetime. Butdavid (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer note: I would request both parties to kindly keep discussion here to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case. You both have already presented your views. Please wait for a willing volunteer to open the case and help you reach a resolution. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Yashovardhan Many thanks. Butdavid (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Yashovardhan Just to inform that I feel it would be best for me, if I continue to discuss on the talk page in regards to 'Presenters', to further lay out my case there. Hopefully, myself and Davey2010, can come to some kind of agreement and certain names can then be included in the 'Notable Presenter' section of the article. Many thanks for your assistance. Butdavid (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Hi Butdavid, I think it's probably best we wait this out and failing that we start an RFC on the talkpage - Even I didn't realise this would take this long however being realistic we won't come to an agreement by ourselves - WP:30 is kinda pointless as it's just one editor offering their opinion whereas with RFC you get a whole bunch of random editors, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Hello Davey2010... In the 'summary of dispute', you clearly state the following: "...however if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added." The dispute was previously resolved successfully in 2014, with the reasoning suggesting that: "List should be narrowed down to significant presenters based on reliable sources, with option to link to full list." It did not reason that presenter's had to be Wikilinked to be added or included. I therefore propose acceptance of book/annual citations with a credited author, against any presenters I wish to add to the 'Notable Presenter' section of the article. Also citations for newspaper article/s, which also will have gone through editorial processes to be also accepted. W:IRS definition of a reliable source states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." I trust this will resolve the dispute and we can close. Yashovardhan Please note that I have attempted to keep this to a minimum. Thank you. Butdavid (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator It appears that we may have resolution, but I don't know. I am willing to moderate. Will the editors please read the rules and follow them? Be civil and concise. (Previous discussion at this noticeboard has not been concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they make the editors feel better.) It appears that the issue has to do with who are the Notable Presenters. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think are the issues involving article content? (If you have issues about other editors, don't bother with them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors I've already stated above but screw it, Restored, Not going to repeat myself again and again. –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC) The issues involving article content are: that presenters, not having their own Wiki article to link to, who undeniably played an essential part in the early years of the station, are being removed from the 'Notable Presenter' section. The purpose of the discussion is to allow inclusion of 'significant' notable presenters, who don't have their own Wiki article to link to, thus improving the article. Butdavid (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) References Second statement by moderator The filing party has stated their position, but they haven't stated it concisely. If you either can't or don't want to state your opinion concisely, then it is difficult to resolve the content dispute. A Request for Comments also requires concise statements of the question or the two or more choices. Bad-mouthing DRN in an edit summary doesn't help the content dispute, even if it makes you feel better. Please do not refer to Wikipedia as Wiki. There are many wikis. Referring to Wikipedia as Wiki is sloppy. One editor thinks that significant presenters who do not have their own articles should be listed, as well as those who do (and so will be blue-linked). Does the other editor mean that the list of notable presenters should not have black or red links? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors I am finding it very difficult to state my case or opinion more concisely. I believe the most significant presenters from the early years of the station, who do not have their own articles should be listed based on reliable sources. It appears the other editor feels that a presenter is only 'notable' if they have their own article, although the editor has clearly stated earlier in the 'summary of dispute' that: "if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added." I find the other editors comments in the 'Hallam FM: Revision history', where he has 'reverted to revision', disrespectful to the process of Wikipedia dispute resolution, and also his use of language here. Butdavid (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Third statement by moderator Is the real issue whether to list presenters who do not have their own articles? If so, it is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to have a few names listed in red, which in effect requests that their articles be written. Is there any other issue than whether to list presenters who do not have articles? If so, please state the issue concisely, about content and not about other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors Robert McClenon You asked the following questions: Is the real issue whether to list presenters who do not have their own articles? Yes Is there any other issue than whether to list presenters who do not have articles? No Butdavid (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator Are the "notable presenters" who do not have articles ones who have independent third-party coverage by reliable sources, or are they only covered by sources on Hallam? In the first case, can they be listed in red? In the second case, is there agreement that that is not notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Robert McClenon I am unsure what you mean. What do you mean by "independent third-party coverage by reliable sources" and "sources of Hallam"? The 'most significant' presenters, who do not have their own article, but come with sources cited, are in black not red. They are are only in red if no citations are added. I would like again to propose that presenter names who do not have articles, be accepted or allowed, as long as they come with reliable sources such as the source has gone through an editorial process like a newspaper article or book. I have come across an Independent Radio Annual Local Station Edition, titled 'Radio Hallam', published by Stanford Publishing. I therefore wish to use this book and a newspaper article already used, as my reliable sources for the notable presenters without articles I feel should be included. Butdavid (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator This is an asymmetric situation. I have been trying to mediate between one editor and myself for more than a week. If the other editor doesn't respond within 24 hours, I will close this thread. In that case, the discussion or non-discussion can go back to the article talk page, and bold editing can resume, with discussion when there is disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC) In any sort of list, a name is listed in black if it is simply included in text. It is listed in blue if it is enclosed in brackets and there is an article. It is listed in red if it is enclosed in brackets but there is no article. This serves as a note that an article would be a good addition to Wikipedia. If any significant presenters are listed and do not have articles, they should be red-linked to indicate that articles are requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors Robert McClenon Many thanks for your assistance in this. Would you be able to add a note to the articles talk page in regards to what you have added here? This should help towards future editors removing names who do not have their own articles. I am not an experienced editor, and thank you for clarifying the differences between names in black and those in red. It has also explained that names in red show that they do not have articles encouraging an article to be written. I am planning on writing two articles for two of the most significant presenters - Roger Moffat and Johnny Moran, who both were big named presenters working for the likes of Radio One and Two. It is hard to believe neither have articles. These two keep being removed as well as other significant named presenters. Unfortunately, the other editor has not helped in this dispute by refusing to continue, making your intervention difficult. I think it would now be best to close unless the other editor makes comment, and ask if you would be in a position to add a note to the articles talk page outlining your thoughts. Many thanks for your time. Butdavid (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (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:Somaliland#Clans sub-section

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Xargaga on 21:10, 18 November 2017 (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:Somaliland#Clans sub-section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Xargaga (talk · contribs) Kzl55 (talk · contribs) Koodbuur (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute is between User:Kzl55 and User:Koodbuur on one-side and User:Xargaga on the other. The first mentioned side is stating that it is not appropriate to write "Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante" in the Somaliland article (In the clans sub-section). They are more specifically the against the term "almost exclusively". However I have cited three reliable source which all use the term 'almost exclusively' when referring to the Dhulbahante settling in the sool region. Both User:Kzl55 and User:Koodbuur agree that the sources are credible and reliable (as they have themselves cited them in other articles). The editors have not themselves brought forward any significant sources which clarify why the term 'almost exclusively' can not be used. Therefore, I have maintained that in order to give a neutral point of view for the readers, these source which we all agree are reliable should be used, because you can not simply pick and choose text from a document and disregard the parts you do not favour. I reminded them Wikipedia is about neutrality and tendentious editing is not allowed. In order to reach a comprise i proposed that the word exclusively could be changed to predominantly, however, I suggested since they believe that some of the information contained within the source is wrong, the entire document should be disregard and removed from other articles which it has been used on. The editors, refused this comprised and have not suggested any other progress steps to conclude the dispute. Therefore, have reached an impasse. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Apart from suggesting compromise, no other steps have been taken to resolve the dispute. How do you think we can help? This dispute can be resolved if administrator who is more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, adjudicates and considers the arguments and sources brought forward by sides, judges whether the term 'almost exclusively' is appropriate to be used. Summary of dispute by Kzl55 The dispute is over a contentious edit by editor Xargaga to the Somaliland page. They have changed the stable and neutral wording within a section from "Eastern Sool region's residents mainly hail from the Dhulbahante.... to "Sool region's residents almost exclusively hail from the Dhulbahante....". I have explained in the talk page why this change is neither neutral nor helpful to Wikipedia readership, and suggested keeping the original wording. Editor Xargaga's addition is problematic for many reasons, one being that it is misleading to readers of the article, implying Dhulbahante are the "almost exclusive" inhabitants of this region when reliable sources clearly state that other groups (Isaaq) inhabit three out of four districts of that region [1], and that one of these districts is predominantly inhabited not by Dhulbahante but by Isaaq. This alone is enough not to use "almost exclusively" as a description because of the presence of significant other groups. Their use of sources is also problematic, for instance, their first source is reliant on an non-expert informant, who bases her statement of the region being "almost exclusively" occupied by Dhulbahante on an erroneous figure (99,9% of inhabitants belonging to Dhulbahante, editor Xargaga is in agreement her figure is inaccurate [2]) yet somehow they still accept her use of 'almost exclusive'. There is also the ambiguity of such use of 'exclusive' in relation to a diverse region where multiple groups reside, especially as pertaining to how the demographic divide (between Isaaqs in the west of the region and Dhulbahante in the east) expressing itself historically in a political divide (see Khatumo, Somaliland/Somalia dispute..etc). Lastly there is the support of reputable, reliable sources all using the distinction of east/west Sool in reference to demographics/political situation in Sool region. These include University of York/UNICEF [3], reputable international media such as the BBC [4], as well as published scholarly work [5] to name a few. I have suggested a compromise using the word "predominantly" as suggest by editor Xargaga, but in the context of eastern Sool, so it becomes "Eastern Sool is predominantly inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan", or keep the current wording in the interest of neutrality and nuance and for the benefit WP readership. This suggestion has been endorsed by editor Kodbuur.--Kzl55 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Koodbuur Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As mentioned on the Somaliland talk page [6][7][8][9] and as well on my talk page [10][11] I have mentioned to User:Xargaga that the phrase "Dhulbahante almost exclusively inhabit Sool region" can have multiple interpretations, and that using the interpretation that it suggests that Dhulbahante are the almost absolute majority, while at the same time acknowledging the presence of other clans in 3 of the 4 districts in the province is not neutral and misleading to readers. I suggested keeping the current wording that breaks down Sool into Eastern and Western Sool, because this is something that is used in reputable media such as the BBC [12] and scholarly work [13] in order to describe the divide in political views in the province that are directly based on demographics. In short, Xargaga's suggestion to describe Sool as an almost majority Dhulbahante based on an ambiguous statement is not neutral and is misleading. As mentioned previously, I support User:Kzl55's suggestion [14] of using the almost exclusively phrase to describe East Sool. Koodbuur (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Talk:Somaliland#Clans sub-section discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Do the editors want moderated discussion? This might be a special case where a moderator here might provide an opinion rather than act as a mediator, since there are more than two editors but the request appears to want an opinion rather than mediation, but only if all of the editors agree to an opinion rather than to mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC) I accept the opinion proposal Robert, the discussion is going in circles and it is already overextended, and arguably not a productive use of time given the context and the fact that it is over a word. Many thanks for taking this on --Kzl55 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC) I support the opinion proposal as well. Koodbuur (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC) I accept the offer of an opinion Robert. As User:Kzl55 has rightly put it, the discussion has rather been going in circles. Thank You. Xargaga (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC) First statement by mediator My comment at this point, without going into the dispute in detail, is that the phrase "almost exclusively" should really be avoided unless it is a quote, because different English-writers may have different ideas of what it means (85%, 95%, 99.9%), and also because, as used, it was ambiguous. If there is more that I am being asked to rule on, I will ask the editors to state their positions and what they want briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors Thanks for your comment Robert. The phrase is used in three sources which both User:Koodbuur and User:Kzl55 agree are reliable [15][16][17] at P.7, P.10, P.405 respectively. Nonetheless, as you suggest the phrase could be included as a direct quote from the three sources. So, for example a sentence can be structured to say - 'According to Markus Hoehne the Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante' or alternatively the word 'predominantly' could be used instead. As it is used here [18] by the academic Markus Hoehne (a noted scholar who has authored many publications on the region). Xargaga (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC) In complete agreement with editor Robert McClenon there. The use of "almost exclusively" adds ambiguity and does not help WP readership nor improve the article. It detracts from the diverse nature of the region and goes to create a contradiction within the same paragraph which describes other groups having significant presence in three (out of four) districts within the region (a fact editor Xargaga accepts), that alone makes the use of "almost exclusive" very problematic. Its addition lacks nuance, this is especially important when dealing with a demographic divide (between Isaaqs in west Sool and Dhulbahante in east) which has historically manifested itself in political divides (see Khatumo for instance, or the Somaliland-Somalia dispute). Due to this in addition to problematic sourcing by Xargaga (as outlined in the summary of dispute above), the original wording of east/west Sool is more appropriate, descriptive, and geo-politically accurate, as used by the reputable sources as outlined in the summary above and in the talk page. I suggest we keep the original wording " Eastern Sool's residents mainly hail from the Dhulbahante" or a compromise inclusion of "predominantly" as suggested by Xargaga, but in the context of eastern Sool, so it becomes "Eastern Sool is predominantly inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan", it is a fair, clear and neutral description. Many thanks again Robert. Kzl55 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Are the editors willing to accept my suggestion to use the wording either "mainly" or "predominantly"? If so, can we close this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors I am happy to accept the use of "mainly" or "predominantly" but in the context of east/west Sool. This is actually the current wording and has been stable for quite some time. Reference to east/west Sool is seen in many reliable sources such as University of York/UNICEF [19], academic scholarship [20], as well as in research by the London School of Economics [21]. In fact you will find this usage even within the source cited by Xargaga in their first statement: "Puntland State of Somalia was established at the Garowe Community Constitutional Conference in mid-1998 as a voluntary union of the communities inhabiting the regions of North Mudug, Nugal, Bari, Eastern Sanag, and Eastern Sool" [22] (Puntland only claims eastern Sool, and not western Sool, due to tribal affiliation with Dhulbahante). Thus it is important to maintain that clarity of east/west Sool due to how it affects the politics of the region, in addition to being more neutral in tone. Kzl55 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC) I am willing to accept your suggestion Robert. I agree using the word predominantly OR even mainly (in the context of the whole region) instead of the phrase 'almost exclusively' is sufficient and would provide readers with a neutral and informative understanding - I've suggested this to User:Koodbuur and User:Kzl55 before, who both do not disagree that the overwhelming majority of the population hails from the Dhulbahante group, despite there being other minority clans present in the region as well. Xargaga (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Please refrain from attributing positions to editors when they have not done so personally. Nowhere did I say the overwhelming majority of the population hails from any group, if that were the case we would not be having this discussion. In the absence of any population data, the closest thing we have to a census is the recent (2016) voter registration numbers [23], and whilst these cant be used to infer exact population figures, they clearly show an even demographic divide within the region between the predominantly Isaaq district (Caynaba) with 31,052 voters and the predominantly Dhulbahante district (Laascaanood) with 29,558 voters. Kzl55 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC) I do apologise for that, but the vast majority of the population belong to the Dhulbahante clan - I think that much is indisputably clear. However, you have attributed positions to myself such stating that i agree that the Isaaq inhabit three out of the four districts, although I have not suggested that anywhere. Nonetheless, for the sake of moving on and settling this trivial point, I would ask you to please agree to the compromise or at least suggest an alternative method that you could agree to. So far you have not put forward anything apart from re-stating what it says in the article already. Dividng the region into east and west is not sufficient because the Dhulbahante settle in all parts of the region. Additionally, as I said before you can't deduce information from sources and present your conclusions as facts its OR and not allowed in wikipedia.Xargaga (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC) I have raised the fact other groups (Isaaq) inhabiting three out of four districts in Sool several times in the course of this discussion, at one point directly asking if you disputed it, which you didnt (e.g [24], [25]). I do agree this entire thing is trivial, but I am not the one insisting on adding "almost exclusively" when everyone involved agrees this inclusion is not appropriate. I might also add that this section of the article has been stable for a very long time with the current wording. As a compromise I have suggested the use of "predominantly" (as you have suggested) but within the context of east/west Sool, it is a very neutral description and takes into account the demographic and political landscape of the region, as used by multitude of reliable sources as seen in statement above, but you continue to insist on the application of "almost exclusive" or "predominantly" to the entire region, which is very ambiguous and not helpful to readership, given that other groups inhabit three out of four districts and make up an equal number of registered voters in the region. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC) You and I both know that the Isaaq do not settle in the Las Anod district, they settle in one village in the Xudun district (Bohol) and most of the Caynaba district, however, overall the vast majority of the region is settled by the Dhulbahante. This is no different to Togdheer were it is stated in the paragraph that the majority of the region is settled by Isaaq clans - which is true. I would suggest following that, and structure a sentence to say, 'The majority of the Sool region is inhabited by the Dhulbahante clan, however, the Caynaba district and some parts of Xudun district is settled by Isaaq clans'. I think that would be an accurate and neutral information for readers. If you can't agree with this and don't wish to make a compromise, I think we shoud leave this to Robert so he can reach a final decision. Xargaga (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC) That is both inaccurate and inappropriate, Isaaq do settle Las Anod district, within the region of Sool they settle Caynabo, Xudun, and Las Anod districts, we have already gone over this both above in the summary of dispute and subsequent statements as well as the talk page, with reliable sources provided. For the sake of ending this discussion I have offered to adapt your suggestion of using "predominantly" within the geographically/politically/demographically accurate context of east/west Sool. The description of east/west Sool is more accurate and neutral due to the demographic and political expressions of this divide, some of which are discussed within the article itself as well as other WP articles (see Khatumo, border disputes). If we can not agree on this then I too am happy to await Robert's opinion. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Third statement by moderator Please read the rules. In particular, please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Maybe we do need mediation, since I thought that I was asked for an opinion, and it doesn't seem to resolve the matter. Will each party please state, one more time, what they think the passage in question should say? Do not argue. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors Thank you for your comments Robert. With regards to your first statement, I also agree that the use of "almost exclusively" is ambiguous and misleading to readers. With regards to your second statement, I disagree that the use of "mainly" or "predominately" would be suitable to describe the entirety of Sool province, given the diverse nature of the province. I agree with Kzl55's suggestion of using "mainly" or "predominately" in the context of Eastern/Western Sool, as they have shown that many scholarly work use this wording to describe the province. My final say on this discussion is that the passage in question should be kept as it is right now, or that we implement the usage of "mainly" or "predominately" in the context of Eastern/Western Sool. I would also urge Xargaga to refrain from speaking on my behalf, or on anyone's behalf. I have never stated that the overwhelming majority of Sool province is Dhulbahante. Koodbuur (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC) I appreciate your comment Robert, I was not aware of the rules. I want the passage in question to say "The Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante clan". This is explicitly stated in three reliable sources which you can find here [26][27][28] at P.7, P.10, P.405 respectively. However, I'm willing to compromise and instead use the word predominantly, so the passage would say "The sool region is predominantly inhabited by the Dhulbahnte clan". Xargaga (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC) I believe the use of "exclusively" or "almost exclusively" in this contest is very ambiguous and of little value to WP readership, the first source cited by Xargaga bases that usage on a bogus figure (99,9%) that even editor Xargaga accepts to be inaccurate. The use of "predominantly" is also problematic when applied to the entirety of the region due to the diverse nature of its demographics; we have previously established that other groups (Isaaq) live in three out of four of its districts [29] (p.74), and constitute around half of registered voters of the region [30]. Furthermore, generalising over the whole region is inappropriate due to the geopolitical context, and disputes which are discussed within the same article. Reliable sources are sensitive to the demographic divide in the region, and hence use east/west Sool to provide a more accurate and neutral commentary, examples of this usage include University of York/UNICEF: "[Isaaq clan is] situated in the central Somaliland districts, especially Maroodijeex, Sahil and Togdheer, but also in Eastern Awdal and Western Sool and Sanaag", references in academic scholarship: "a critical role in Puntland's founding conference, legitimating the Garowe administration's subsequent claims to parts of eastern Sanaag and Sool regions" [31], another example of usage in academic scholarship: "Puntland State of Somalia was established at the Garowe Community Constitutional Conference in mid-1998 as a voluntary union of the communities inhabiting the regions of North Mudug, Nugal, Bari, Eastern Sanag, and Eastern Sool" [32] (Puntland only claims eastern Sool, and not western Sool, due to tribal affiliation with Dhulbahante). Thus the most accurate and neutral description is that of east/west Sool, as seen in the article (which has been stable for quite some time), which is "Eastern Sool's residents mainly hail from the Dhulbahante, a subdivision of the Harti confederation of Darod sub-clans, and are concentrated at Las Anod", as a compromise I have suggested adding "predominantly" (as suggested by Xargaga) but in the context of east/west Sool, so the phrasing becomes "Eastern Sool is predominantly inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan, a subdivision of the Harti confederation of Darod sub-clans, and are concentrated at Las Anod", this provides an accurate, neutral description, does not compromise the paragraph and is helpful to readership should they be interested in disputes with Puntland/Somalia. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator Okay. It seems that we are starting this mediation over. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so let's start over. Please read the rules and follow the rules. Stop commenting on contributors, which is becoming tiresome. Stop arguing for a particular wording as the "stable" wording; after months of asking what policy gives special weight to "stable" versions, no one has showed it to me. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be said in the article and why? Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors I want the passage in question to say "The Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante clan". This is explicitly stated in three reliable sources which you can find here [33][34][35] at P.7, P.10, P.405 respectively. I think this is an accurate description and an appropriate one, since the other groups in the region are numerically insignificant and it would be trivial to mention them.Xargaga (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC) The wording should be "Eastern Sool is inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan". This is a very accurate and clear description for WP readership unlike "almost exclusive" which is ambiguous. The region of Sool is diverse with other groups (Isaaq) living in three out of four districts of the region, and inhabiting one specific district exclusively [36] (p.74), they also constitute half of the registered voters within the region [37], these facts alone render the use of "almost exclusively" or "predominantly" (when applied to the entirety of the region) moot. This diversity necessitates the use of east/west Sool due to the real life political manifestations of this demographic divide, these are important and are discussed within the article itself and elsewhere. The use of east and west Sool is inline with published scholarship on the subject e.g. The University of York/UNICEF [38] (p.112), London School of Economics [39] (p.197, 206) and many others [40], [41]. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC) The wording of the passage should be something along the lines of "The Dhulbahante subclan almost exclusively inhabit Eastern Sool". The usage of Eastern Sool as opposed to Sool province as a whole is more accurate, as scholarly sources that have been cited in this DRN, as well as in Talk:Somaliland, use Eastern and Western Sool to distinguish the political differences in the area that are rooted in demographics. Secondly, the use of "almost exclusively" to describe the entire province suggests to the reader that the region is homogenous and that non-Dhulbahante clans are negligible in number. This is inaccurate and not neutral, as scholarly sources indicate that the Isaaq clan inhabit three of the four districts of Sool [42], and that the Habar Jeclo subclan of the Isaaq are the predominate majority of the district capital of Caynabo [43]. When taking into consideration the presence of Isaaq in the area, it is inappropriate to describe the entirety of Sool province as "almost exclusively" Dhulbahante; and therefore the wording of the passage should indicate that "Dhulbahante almost exclusively inhabit Eastern Sool." Koodbuur (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2017 (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.

Useful idiot

– New discussion.

Filed by Darouet on 05:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Useful idiot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• DHeyward (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)
• Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
• My name is not dave (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The phrase "Useful Idiot" refers to a liberal who is a dupe of the communist cause. The phrase is commonly attributed to Lenin, but can't be found in his written work. Whether he used the word in speech, and where the term actually comes from, is contested. We need help resolving what to include in the body of our article describing the topic, and how to summarize this topic in the lede. One particular subject of contention is whether the lede should simply state that the phrase is attributed to Lenin, or whether the lede should also state that the attribution is contested. A part of this dispute stems from disagreement over the nature of reliable sources. Editors are divided as to whether investigations into the etymology of the phrase (e.g. by William Safire at the NYT, or in the Oxford U. Press book They Never Said It), are academically legitimate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have extensively discussed the topic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I think a mediated discussion would help establish 1) what are reliable sources for this topic, and 2) what is a neutral way of summarizing the topic in the lede.

Summary of dispute by DHeyward

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

Summary of dispute by SPECIFICO

This is not ripe for DRN and I note that the issue is misstated and is unrelated to communism. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by My very best wishes

I simply think that the page should comply with WP:NPOV, meaning that all well sourced conflicting views should be reflected on the page, including the historical and current usage of the term. I think that current version is problematic, as explained here, for example. In addition, the page does not include the current usage of the term in political discussions. I think it should be included. But as a practical matter, I would suggest that the filer of this request (who did not actually edit the page) should simply go ahead and implement all changes he wants to be done. Then perhaps everything will be resolved. There is no need in complex DRN procedures here, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with SPECIFICO that the reason for disagreements was misstated by the filer of this request. Everyone agree that NYT article by William Safire and book "They Never Said It" qualify as RS and should be used on the page. I think they are not scholarly sources, but this is hardly relevant because there is an agreement to use them. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jack Upland

I have watched the page since 2005, and there's always been a dispute between people like me who don't think Lenin said it and people who do. I don't think the article should editoralise, but just report the sources: it's is commonly attributed to Lenin, but it hasn't been found in his published works (which include speeches). Recently there's been an upsurge in the dispute, including claims that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a reliable source. I find it hard to have a reasonable discussion if other editors are making claims like that. A common argument that's made is that Lenin said it, but it wasn't written down. This is a synthesis: no source that I've seen says it. And it's not useful for the article. We need to write the article based on what the sources say, not based an imaginary source (the "secret Lenin diaries"). I think the current page is pretty good on the attribution to Lenin, and we should only change it if we have new, relevant sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There is also a second dispute, which I haven't been involved in till now, about including a 'modern usage' section. It's now clear to me, based on comments by Specifio (including the one above that this isn't about Communism) that the proposed section is intended to be about the Trump-Russia connection and is envisaged to be the most important part of the article. If that is what a 'modern usage' section means, then I am totally opposed to it. It would destroy the article, distorting the meaning of the phrase and rendering the rump of the article unintelligible. It is also a gross misuse of Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by My name is not dave

This article has the extraordinary situation where sources can't help but conflict continuously. If there isn't a thoughtful and thorough process and discussion about how to resolve this matter, and how to view all sources in due weight and properly (no misrepresentation of them), then we can come to some sort of conclusion. !dave 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Useful Idiot discussion

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 talk page. @Darouet: Please notify all of the users of this discussion by leaving a message on their talk pages. Thanks. Nihlus 09:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nihlus. I've notified each user. Since opening this request talk page discussion has improved, but those two events might be correlated. I'd like to keep this request open and ask people to move their comments here. If everything is resolved in the next few days I guess we won't need to have this. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think the page is heading back towards an edit war as soon as the block is lifted, given the tone of recent discussions. Perhaps an RfC might be useful...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Im Tirtzu#Changing_the_Intro

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PasterofMuppets on 10:29, 27 November 2017 (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:Im Tirtzu#Changing the Intro (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PasterofMuppets (talk · contribs) Nishidani (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute regarding the lead section. One side believes that the criticism should be a general criticism, while other side believes it should be a specific criticism taken from certain individuals. Also, dispute in the lead regarding relevance of sentence describing the organization's stated goals upon its establishment. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Although 4 editors appear in the discussion, in reality the dispute is between Nishidani and I. I requested a third opinion, but given the fact that other editors were involved it was declined. How do you think we can help? By objectively assessing the dispute as people who have no familiarity with the organization in question. Summary of dispute by Nishidani Apparently this innocuous edit upset PasterofMuppets. A long discussion took place, and I took in some of PasterofMuppets objections by adding new material, all academically sourced, clarifying the historical origins of the term to correct a false statement in the lead, i.e. Herzl did not coin the term ‘Im Tirtzu’. It was the Hebrew rendering in translation of a phrase he used, which can be however translated in various ways. PasterofMuppetrs objected, asking me for a source. So I added the sourcing he asked for. PoM's version let stand the false claim in the lead about the term, and was hostile to an independent source stating what the organization's declared foundational aim was, preferring to that the organisations own more recent self-redescription. Throughout these improvements, in good part responsive to PoM's complaints on the talk page, and thus satisfying PasterofMuppets, meeting her halfway, the plaintiff kept reverting to the lead version they had written, ignoring warnings by another editor on the page to listen to what was being said, and stop reverting to the version PoM preferred. I think the talk page indicates that PoM will not listen, is an inexperienced editor, with perhaps a WP:COI problem, giving the limited range of his edits, and in denial over what reputable sources state multiply about that organization, whose positions the editor seems to share. I see no point in mediation here. One cannot mediate between editors with an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach, and editors who, demonstrably, show themselves receptive to tweaking the text in order to address what seems a fair request from their interlocutor. As PoM kept reverting, insisting on stale prose of his personal preference, I added five academic sources to a rather poorly sourced article. Disputes are not just stylistic games: they are resolved by casting one's net wide to see what RS say, not nitpicking over how to restitch one minor hole in the net.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Talk:Im Tirtzu#Changing_the_Intro discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: Discussion has been more than adequate. The second party has been notified and provided a statement. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2017 (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:HyperLogLog

– New discussion.

Filed by KingSupernova on 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• KingSupernova (talk · contribs)
• Retimuko (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm having an edit war with Retimuko over some terminology on the page. The word "cardinality" is used incorrectly in one of the sources, and Retimuko appears to be unwilling to accept that and let me fix its usage in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the issue on the talk page, but do not appear to be reaching a resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I don't think Retimuko is acting maliciously, I think they're just misguided. A third party stepping in and confirming that the usage is in fact incorrect would probably resolve the issue.

Summary of dispute by Retimuko

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

Talk:HyperLogLog discussion

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 not notified the other editor. The comments by the filing editor make it appear that Third Opinion might be appropriate. If moderated discussion leading to compromise really is desired, the filing editor should notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)