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

• Svitlana Biedarieva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• User18762 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have provided sufficient number of references that comply with notability criteria, in particularly respond to WP:NARTIST, however, the reviwer keeps discarding them.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:User18762

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to request more reviewers' opinions on the matter.

Summary of dispute by

Svitlana Biedarieva discussion

User18762 If you just want to solicit other opinions, that is done at the AFC help desk where you already posted; this forum is for resolving a specific dispute. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

thank you! User18762 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2023 (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.

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

• Javier Milei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pedantic Aristotle (talk · contribs)
• Davide King (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement on which sources can be used for what, and how the framing of the article should be written. As a BLP I'm arguing we need to be very careful about sources and wording, and statements of fact. Trying to be concise, the debate is around the following:

• Are news websites considered reliable sources for statements of facts?

Yes, they can be, there is no disagreement here, but its not a blank check to use any media article as fact.

---

• Ok, but what if many news sites say the same thing? Then its WP:Verifiability, and can be used as fact, right?

Here the counter argument is no, it depends. Many sources used in the article do not contain a reference to the primary source in question, so its only showing one side of the story, and its not possible to verify or provide counter arguments, as its not clear where this is coming from.

---

• Ok, but at least we can provide a summary in the lead, removing all context, to criticize the person, because there are many news papers that does that? And we also don't need a source here, because of MOS:LEAD.

Here the counter argument is again, no, even though many news articles are criticizing, its not a blank check to do the same in the Wikipedia article. We should give fair representation, also to people we dislike or disagree with, not omitting important contextual information that makes it appear more controversial than it is. While news papers have done this, it does not give a blank check for us to do the same.

---

Finally, massive reverts were done without justification, and without correcting the problems mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1172407220

Please help provide some clarity on these issues.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Javier_Milei#Disputed:_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Javier_Milei#POV:_Political_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Economist_Intelligence_Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Javier_Milei

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need clarity in how to interpret the Wikipedia rules for this article.

Summary of dispute by Davide King

I do think that, as a new user, Pedantic Aristotle have good intentions and I agree with them on some points but disagree on their conclusions, including that there are significant issues to warrant the NPOV tag.

I dispute the claim that we are stating things as fact. In some cases, we make this even more clear by adding the "described" or "characterized" caveats (with the hidden by being the reliable sources themselves). In other cases, such as the final paragraph of the "Lead", the claim that "Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion" is supported by a myriad of reliable sources that, in their profiles about Milei, cited his controversial, radical, or fringe positions that we go on to list, with inline citations that verify he indeed said that (he opposes abortion including in rape cases, he supports organ trade, he said climate change is "a socialist lie", etc.), and The Economist and other sources confirming those as controversial. His 2023 primaries win was seen as a major upset precisely because of his controversial positions and that is the main reason why he achieved international attention. One just has to look at "Political views" and see that everything is more or less supportive of the lead.

"Here the counter argument is no, it depends. Many sources used in the article do not contain a reference to the primary source in question, so its only showing one side of the story, and its not possible to verify or provide counter arguments, as its not clear where this is coming from." Of course I may be wrong but what I understand them to say is: secondary sources describe Milei as a supporter or admirer of Trump and Bolsonaro, but Pedantic Aristotle claim this is a misinterpretation (it is not) of what primary sources (e.g. Milei himself) have said about this. If I am right, this is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, which say: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This is what we do.

WP:NPOV does not mean we must avoid mentioning controversies just because the subject may come out negatively. If the subject is known for his controversial positions, NPOV requires us to take note of this. It does not mean there must be an equal number of positive and negative views and citations. They must be in proportion to what WP:RELIABLESOURCES (for now mainly WP:NEWSORGS) have said and how the subject has been covered. I think that our article simply reflects how those reliable sources have covered the subject in the adeguate proportion. Davide King (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I will try to be brief, and await comments. I'll use Davide King's example, as just one of dozens of problems. This is written in the Javier Milei article as of now, and is a factual statement:

• Milei supports former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and former United States president Donald Trump, especially their anti-communism and criticism of socialism

The two inline sources used contains no such sentences, not even similar ones, and therefore is the interpretation of Davide King;

https://www.perfil.com/noticias/opinion/javier-milei-y-la-internacional-de-derecha.phtml

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/javier-milei-tuvo-una-videollamada-con-jair-bolsonaro-y-coincidieron-en-unir-fuerzas-para-luchar-nid15022023/

The dispute is however related to interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines in a much broader sense. News articles are being used to defend writing anything that appears in them, see dispute overview. The article is actively enforced according to what Davide King deems appropriate, and large amounts of edits that highlight problems are simply reverted without being addressed. What is worse, is that this violates Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons guidelines;

• any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed

and

• unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

and

• The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, I do not want to be yet another back-and-forth argument. It is up to the moderator, or another user not involved in the dispute, to weight it and help.

I'll just say that "Argentine peso plunges after rightist who admires Trump comes first in primary vote" by the Associated Press literally says: "The Argentine peso plunged Monday after an anti-establishment candidate who admires former President Donald Trump came first in primary elections that will help determine the country's next president. ... In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro was president from 2019 to 2022, and had a similar anti-left and anti-social justice orientation." There are plenty of other sources that support the same claim that the subject admires or supports Trump and Bolsonaro.

Then we have this BBC El Mundo article that literally says: "Milei, a staunch defender of the free market who many compare to former US President Donald Trump and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, has connected especially with the youngest, with a promise to end the traditional political system, which he calls derogatorily 'the caste'." We have another BBC article describing him as a Trump admirer, saying: "Far-right economist Javier Milei, who admires US ex-president Donald Trump, has received the highest share of votes in Argentina's primary election." This is in the text, so they cannot complain about this being a headline as they did for the far-right label, which we also do not state as fact but attribute.

"Far-right outsider takes shock lead in Argentina primary election" by The Guardian said: "After the result on Sunday, Milei received the endorsement of fellow far-right figures from neighbouring Brazil and Chile. 'We have a lot of things in common,' said Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro in a video message. 'We both defend family, private property, a free market ... We want to make our countries great, in accordance with [the size of] our territory and population.'"

Of course, Milei did not disown Bolsonaro's endorsement. In fact, one of the sources they linked and complained about contains this quote by Milei about Bolsonaro: "Not by chance, last February, Milei released a statement on social networks stating his agreement 'with Jair Bolsonaro to join forces against socialism in the Americas. We agree that it is fundamental to fight on the basis of the values ​​of God, country, family and freedom'." In fact, this source, alongside the other, is used to support the "especially their anti-communism and criticism of socialism" claim (indeed, the same user had said that Milei's aligment with Trump and Bolsonaro was due to their anti-socialism/communism, and now that we say this, they still complain... I do not understand them). Therefore, I made no personal interpretation, I simply paraphrased what reliable sources said. We may discuss about the more accurate wording but I think I got the general point correctly.

El País English said: "The economist who embodies South American Trumpism has advanced in the polls by railing against the political class." Since those sources are clear, Pedantic Aristotle focused on the sources themselves, claiming they were unreliable or misused (see this), and that they basically did not correctly represent or reflect Milei's views or what he said. But that is irrelevant due to WP:NOOR and WP:SYNTH. Only reliable sources are allowed to do this, not us. I simply paraphrased what they said. Davide King (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei discussion

Zeroth Statement by Possible Moderator (Milei)

The filing party did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has responded, so that notice is not necessary. Please read DRN Rule A. Please specify whether you are willing to take part in moderated discussion with these rules. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. Back-and-forth discussion has already been tried. It often works, but it hasn't worked in this case. Address your statements to the community, and the moderator (me), who represents the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, apologies if I did any mistakes in this process, I have not filed a dispute before. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There have been several long discussions on the article talk page. Is the content dispute that the filing editor is concerned about only between these two editors? If so, please specify what in the article you want changed, or what another editor wants changed that you want left the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is primarily on how to interpret the rules.

-----

Unfortunately there is quite a lot of improvements that should be made, and it would take me weeks to review and list it all. Since the dispute is so fundamental on what is considered appropriate and not, I'm trying to get a statement on what is the correct interpretation of the rules are, its difficult to make specific proposals when even the rules are disputed. I can list some things;

-----

I spent some hours reviewing sources and making edits like these, which were simply reverted immediately without discussion. My edits to the left, reverted by Davide King on the right. Some things were readded, some not.

-----

One example;

• Milei supports former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and former United States president Donald Trump, especially their anti-communism and criticism of socialism

The two inline sources used contains no such sentences, not even similar ones. I added a "Failed verification" tag, which was simply reverted.

-----

There seems to be misunderstanding WP:Verifiability means. Its not a blank check to write anything from any website, as long as there is a source. There are always at least two sides to any story, and we should strive to present both, especially when the topic is controversial. A lot of liberty is taken to just add factual claims and narratives, which are obviously disputed such as;

• Many of the people drawn in by Milei are right-wingers who are attracted to his anti-leftist and opposition to government policies, including legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs.

The argument to include it cant be WP:Verifiability. You need to present all the relevant aspects on each topic from different sources, and not include "random" sentences, phrases or words from newspapers to create controversy.

-----

All statements/viewpoints/opinions should have attribution, and there needs to be some criteria if they are even relevant to be included. Does it add anything new to the article? Does it highlight a new aspect that was not already written? I understand that many people dislike Javier Milei, but we cant make the article into a political battleground. The facts and sources will speak for themselves, we just need to collect and present them. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep this short. I have already addressed the Trump and Bolsonaro alleged failed verification here.

As for the "Many of the people drawn in by Milei are right-wingers who are attracted to his anti-leftist and opposition to government policies, including legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs." This does not look to be controversial (as a right-winger, why it should be a surprise that many right-wingers support Milei?).

This is sourced to The Economist, which is considered a reliable source. I did not attribute it because that does not appear to be the mere opinion of the writer, it does not appear to be controversial (right-wingers supporting right-wingers), and the other claims about abortion and trans rights are further corroborated by other sources, e.g. Milei really opposes abortion (El País, The Guardian, and Reuters literally described him as "anti-abortion"), etc. No one else had issues about this wording other than them, and it is placed within the context of his anti-leftism.

Now that we have presented our side of the story, please do not respond to this message, let us wait the moderator to weight in the arguments. Davide King (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth Statements by Editors (Milei)

I said what I had to say. Now I would like that we stop from back-and-forthing and allow the moderator to weight in.

I believe to have provided enough evidence in support but I will let the moderator and others to check them. Davide King (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started reviewing the article in more detail, in the first 1/4 excluding the lead, i found 10-15 larger problems, where sources are misused/misquoted/misinterpreted, important aspects are not included, or only showing one side of the story.

It's impossible to start fixing this article, when even highlighting these mistakes is being reverted.

Rules that needs to be applied to this article;

• WP:INLINECITE everywhere, its impossible to verify anything otherwise, when we have 270 sources in the article
• Everything in the article must come from a primary source somewhere, facts don't appear out of thin air. A news article simply stating something as fact without any reference to a source, is not sufficient WP:Verifiability to state it as fact on Wikipedia.
• If above is not possible to find, remove or include with WP:Attribution -> WP:INTEXT
• Many newspapers copying each other, does not automatically qualify WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements, use sources that actually describe the topic, not just a short sentence or bullet list. We have 270 sources, many of them are with little substance.
• WP:BIASED can not remain undisputed. Bring in both/all sides to the story, not just one. If not both are included, it should be removed. WP:BALANCE
• Headline news should not be included, this is not a relevant source to include "variously described as Ultra-conservative", use sources that actually describe this in the body content, not just headlines.
• "Chinese whispers" is well known problem when distance from original source increases. We need to apply common sense, and use WP:BESTSOURCES wherever we can, i.e. secondary sources as close to the original source as possible.

-----

I can list more, but this is a good start, and if we apply these there is a chance to make a useful article. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

First Statement by Possible Moderator (Milei)

When I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, I mean not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. I didn't mean to make one last statement before giving control to the moderator. Read DRN Rule A again. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues (even if they make the poster feel better). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So I have two questions for the editors who are taking part in this discussion. First, what does each editor want changed in the article, or what do you want left the same that another editor wants changed? Second, is there an issue between the two editors who are discussing here, so that we can continue this discussion while other editors are discussing at the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors (Milei)

The issue seems to be that Pedantic Aristotle think the article violates NPOV, and made claims about alleged failed verifications. I think any of those issues are overblown, do not warrant a tag, and can be easily fixed with wording, as has already been done recently. The problem is that they do not seem to accept the fact that the article is largely based on independent, secondary reliable sources (which they dismissed as "Chinese whispers") rather than primary sources, and claim that those secondary sources misrepesent Milei and his position. I say that the article simply reflects them; they may well be wrong and Pedantic Aristotle be right about sources but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and the article is simply reflecting what secondary reliable sources said. Davide King (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Q1: what does each editor want changed in the article, or what do you want left the same that another editor wants changed?

A1: As I want to be concise, I can't add everything I want to change, but I will list a sample. Let me know if you need everything, it will be many pages. Examples of things that should be done to improve the article;

• Add tags on all content in the article that is missing WP:INLINECITE, to allow editors to correct the source.
• Change all opinion and disputed factual claims to WP:INTEXT format. Based on answers in RS Noticeboard this appears to me like the correct interpretation of the rules.
• Add opposing statements from secondary sources, where they are missing. Most paragraphs only contain one side of the story.
• Removal of unsourced content, or if editorial liberty is allowed, some places could use improved language and contextual information.

--------

Examples;

• A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change

-> This text is not found in any source, but adds contextual information the editor thinks the reader wants to be informed about. I don't know if this is appropriate or not. If its not ok, then it should be removed.

• Many of the people drawn in by Milei are right-wingers who are attracted to his anti-leftist and opposition to government policies, including legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs.

-> Remove, this does not add anything, and the topics are discussed in detail already in their appropriate sections

• In July 2023, Milei faced an investigation into alleged selling of candidacies within La Libertad Avanza.

-> This is the start of a paragraph with over 200 words, going into great detail on this. However, everyone with some familiarity on this topic knows that the court found no evidence and the case was rejected, but there is ofcourse no mention of that in the paragraph. Source.

• Argentine mainstream economists also criticized Milei's economic work and his presentention, describing his concepts as confusing, and arguing that the formulas he uses are not correct; in particular, they criticized his Central Bank of Argentina abolition and dollarization proposals.

-> Many economists also support Milei, but these are conveniently not mentioned. Sources, sources. Using the word "mainstream" is also a bit odd, this is not sourced.

• skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines

-> A blank factual statement in the lead, without any opposition or context, or ability to fact check. It seems dubious, since Milei got vaccinated quite early during the pandemic in Argentina. The inline source actually states "expressed scepticism about the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines", and its not exactly a secret that the vaccines they used in Argentina were notoriously bad (e.g. Russian Sputnik), but since the source does not provide any reference its impossible to know where this statement comes from or which context. What to do?

--------

I can continue with another 50 points at least. At the moment i have two very conflicting interpretations of the rules to deal with which prevents me from making any serious edits, and we need a third party to let us know what is the correct approach. I see little compatibility between the two ways the rules are interpreted, they have significant consequences on how the article should be written.

--------

Q2: is there an issue between the two editors who are discussing here, so that we can continue this discussion while other editors are discussing at the talk page?

A2: The issue is between the two editors, Pedantic Aristotle and Davide King, as the latter acts as moderator of the article, appearing to approve all edits. I also got a warning on my Talk page from Davide King that my edits were not according to policy without further specification. There were other IP editors of the article as well, but they have not engaged in further discussions, so i don't know their positions on all these topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Second Statement by Possible Moderator (Milei)

Neither of the editors has provided a satisfactory answer to my question about what should be changed in the article. DK states that PA thinks that the article violates neutral point of view. PA says that they want to change more than 50 points in the article. That means that PA wants to rewrite the article. Since other editors are also working the article who are not taking part in this discussion, either the other editors should be invited to join the discussion here, or PA should discuss their proposed edits on the article talk page with the other editors.

However, PA does ask one question that I will try to answer after it is clarified. PA writes:

At the moment i have two very conflicting interpretations of the rules to deal with which prevents me from making any serious edits, and we need a third party to let us know what is the correct approach. I see little compatibility between the two ways the rules are interpreted, they have significant consequences on how the article should be written.

What rule, policy, or guideline are you asking about? What are the two possible interpretations? I will try to answer if you can state clearly what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (Milei)

There has been repeated edit waring on these statements already, so it's unclear how it should be resolved. What should I do instead of filing a dispute here, when Talk page did not resolve the issue? DK has authorship attribution of 78% of the article, and has made nearly 700 edits in the last 2 weeks, so this is why i have not included other editors.

Example edit proposal, current:

• .. skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines ...

new:

• According to The Economist, Milei has expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. However, Milei himself has been vaccinated for COVID-19 and clarified, "I am not anti-vaccination, I am pro-vaccination." [source]

There you present two sides of the story and everything comes directly from sources. The argument to use the current version is that The Economist wrote that, and Wikipedia is based on sources. I disagree, we can't just cherry pick sources, the idea is to present information in a neutral way, and all the relevant aspects.

As i don't want to waste the moderators time, the question is, in addition to the above example, will the following edits be within policy? And what to do when an edit war starts?

• Add tags on all content in the article that is missing WP:INLINECITE, to allow editors to correct the source.
• Change all opinion and disputed factual claims to WP:INTEXT format. Based on answers in RS Noticeboard this appears to me like the correct interpretation of the rules.
• Add opposing statements from secondary sources, where they are missing. Most paragraphs only contain one side of the story.

Pedantic Aristotle (talk • contribs) 13:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote to them in greater detail here, I agree that this should be solved with the talk page. The issue with the NPOV tag or other claims is that there is no other user that see all the problems Pedantic Aristotle is claiming, particularly issues of verification. In fact, the first time they added a bunch of verification tags and I reverted them (diff when they were an IP), I was "thanked" by 7szz, another user who contributed to the article and whose edits I did not revert because they were an improvement or we reached a compromise without edit warring or any issue as in this case.

So if they are going to add specious tags when there are no violations of what they claim, I am going to revert them, not because I "own" the article (I let many other edits stands and added myself suggestions from talk page, es.wiki, and sources they themselves provided, so that is not a really good indicator, since many of the edits I made were not actually "mine" but were simply following suggestions from other users who, for whatever reasons, did not do it themselves) but because their claims are either not true or not supported by other users or reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Third Statement by Possible Moderator (Milei)

When I say to be concise, I mean to be concise. These overly long statements do not clarify what the issues are. I can see that PA is dissatisfied. I can't mediate vague dissatisfaction.

After reading the statements here at least twice, and after reading the article talk page, and the statements at RSN, I am not yet sure what PA is asking, except that they want the article rewritten. It appears that there isn't a consensus to rewrite the article. PA said that there were two conflicting interpretations of the rules, and seemed to be asking for guidance. However, the only straightforward question that I see is whether they should tag-bomb the article. That can be answered with no. Maybe the question is what they should do if they think that the article needs to be rewritten, and other editors disagree. The answer in that case is that they are in the minority, and should accept that they are in the minority. Also, I see that they came to DRN after a discussion at RSN. Why did you change noticeboards? Are you forum shopping? Are you asking the other parent? Please either concisely identify at least one part of the article that you think should be changed, or ask a concise straightforward question about policies and guidelines, or I will have to close this case, both as pending in another forum, and is never clearly stated.

If User:Pedantic Aristotle thinks that User:Davide King is gatekeeping, they can first read the boomerang article and then file a report at WP:ANI. I don't recommend that if the real problem is that they are in a minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors (Milei)

Thank you for your guidance. I apologize for any confusion; as a new user, I'm learning the right channels for disputes. E.g. I was asking about what you call a "tag-bomb" because I was not aware that was not appropriate. The intention was to highlight sourcing problems to allow other editors to resolve them.

Channel Selection: I initially tried RSN upon suggestion from Davide, but found it was not the correct place, leading me to DRN. If WP:ANI is more appropriate, I'll follow that path.

Majority Editor: The article mainly has one editor, so there isn't really an established majority opinion, but i do see it is claimed to be a majority by this editor.

Issues: I find the article lacks neutrality (NPOV) and suggested specific adjustments, such as better citing and context for Milei's views on COVID-19 vaccines in the lead. The current article is only stating "skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines", which seems to fail requirements for attribution, and WP:BALANCE. Davide claims I'm incorrect. Can you comment or confirm if my interpretation is correct? (Keep in mind, the article keeps being edited by DK during the dispute)

I await your suggestions on how to proceed.

Pedantic Aristotle (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 September 2023 (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.

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

• Creponne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Moha.Shamji (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have added referenced content to the article that is always reverted by another user. We discussed in the talk section but the other user don't accept my changes.

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

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Read the talk section and look at my references, it seems that my editions are the consensus. Tell me if it is normal to revert them.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

Creponne discussion

---

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.