Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 26

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 26

R2-45 case

Maps Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 26

Notice of abandonment of DRN Registrars bot account

I am retired from wikipedia. Stress, the nature of the person echoing, the admin's refusal to follow the basic concepts they agreed upon, and other issues have made me decide to retire.

The following actions need to be taken over:

1. DRN Operation bot and maintenance

I am willing to show you how to run it (or let others run/manage it) but I am done with wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

I have emailed Hasteur with a procedural question. @Mr. Stradivarius: You are the only person I know for sure may have the skills to take over this at the moment. Can you accept it until we find a regular replacement? All other candidates please apply here. Sincerely, TransporterMan ( TALK ) 21:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not have much experience with bots on Wikipedia. Does Hasteur keep it or just keep it? KSF T ^C 21:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"electronic harassment" needs help.

There has been a longstanding debate over whether electronic harassment is real or delusional. The source quoted definitively on this issue seems to be the "Mind Games" by the Washington Post: Mind Games that portray both sides of the controversy and leave it as an open question. That's how Wikipedia articles too, of course? However, there are always editors in abundance who want to eliminate controversy and define EH as a fantasy proof. This has been a recent focus for me in an effort to improve this one-sided editing. My edits are quickly returned and I'm outnumbered but sure they're wrong. We have been discussing this issue on the Talk page for months now and still no one gives way. Editing in question: [opinion considered fact] Jed Stuart (talk) 05:01, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would like to request a moderate discussion on the dispute announcement board about the content of the article? If so, you can file a request on the project page. There is already enough discussion on the article talk page. At the same time, dispute resolution is voluntary, so other editors or editors need to approve the discussion. You can file a request and notify the other party. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

I did as directed, initiated the dispute resolution process, and notified the other major parties in the dispute on the articles on the Talk page. I have returned to the dispute after 3 days and found out that a moderator has volunteered, there has been a brief discussion just along the lines from the other side of the disputes and closed disputes, and it is difficult for me to read it even. This is a very controversial article and every disagreement needs to be done slowly and carefully, I suggest. To me that means that both parties initially approve the moderator. I do not agree with that very quickly appear. Is there a list of moderators available. It seems like a difficult thing to achieve, an agreement with a moderator. But without that is their point? Jed Stuart (talk) 06:03, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Jed, I have quoted you and replied to this on your conversation page, because my answer does not answer the question you asked here. However, I would advise you to read it, first. MjolnirPants Tell me everything. 12:47, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of Procedures

Should this be removed quickly? The concerned editors not only add themselves incorrectly, but the information they add appears dubious and at the time I wrote this they have edited less than 10 times, and most of them are editing to the Volunteer page. I do not think they are ready to volunteer here anytime soon. DonIago (talk) 13:55, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

Done Looks like this is handled by another editor. Since I agree with the change, I think there is nothing to see here. DonIago (talk) 15:45, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Comprehensive Joint Action Plan (second genocide threat)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- COATRACK? What nonsense. @Robert McClenon: surely you realize that "policy opinion" is not constructive if they are completely unfounded?

The relationship between agreement and failure to include provisions on genocide has been declared by a reliable source. Just ignoring this can cause COATRACK arguments to be completely wrong. Yagasi (talk) 06:03, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Southern Levant

Robert McClenon closed the discussion on Wikipedia: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard # Southern_Levant, because "also waited at WP: ANI", referring to Wikipedia: Administrator'_noticeboard/Incident # Username_in_section_heading.2FPersonal_Attacks, it seems. Problems in WP: ANI is about behavioral issues, and opened at least a day after this discussion. I do not think there is a compelling reason to close the dispute resolution efforts here because of it. I call on Robert McClenon to review the closure. Debresser (talk) 00:01, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the problem in WP: ANI is behavior; only behavioral issues should be submitted in WP: ANI. No matter which thread is submitted first. We are not trying to resolve content issues and do problems in parallel, and filing behavioral disputes causes content disputes here to be closed. (This is not a new rule We are not trying to resolve content issues when behavioral issues are in progress.) Content resolution requests can be replenished as long as there is no current behavior dispute if both parties agree to the settlement here (Because dispute resolution here is voluntary). Since there is currently no thread in ANI about the Southern Levant, new requests can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Instead, you can leave the discussion open. Now you want a new request to file, even if nothing has changed. So much bureaucracy... Debresser (talk) 12:08, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Something has changed. There is a substantive reason for closing the first thread here, so that the substantive action to reopen the thread has been completed and has been completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Deliver the seventh statement. It is my understanding that the provided paragraph is for the Academic Use section I have folded into Lead and other editors want to be restored. The paragraph I am providing is intended as a version of the Academic Use section, which I agree to be reinstated. I believe Oncenawhile is writing his version of the same thing. I love to write the main article version for the RFC, but do not take it as a problem. Drsmoo (talk) 23:28, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the problem is the words of the lede paragraph. However, if you want to open another issue, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

It's okay that it's the main paragraph. I believe what Oncenawhile and I submit as the draft is for the Academic Use section. If we talk about prospects then I will rewrite for RFC. Drsmoo (talk) 06:50, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon I am also writing for the main body (Terminology section). Since all sources will be in the main body, but may not be in the lede, if we just focus on the lede completion we will lose the key resolution on how to properly summarize the sources. Are you open to us submitting our proposal to the main body and our proposal for relevant sentences? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Bot

The bot appears to have stopped working, because it does not mark cases that are closed as premature or incorrectly filed as closed. Has somebody taken over the bot management? User: TransporterMan, User: Hasteur - What is bot status? Has somebody taken over? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

It seems to work now, unless you see something I am not. Hasteur seems completely lost, though I have hope that he might change his mind after some time has passed. Sincerely, TransporterMan ( TALK ) 18:55, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

Hope I can help, but I do not know anything. ^{Atsme ??} 19:26, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it works now. However, we need someone who can at least restart when stopped, including quitting when the case is very confusing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

I have almost no experience with bots on Wikipedia, but I can try to do that. What interface is used to maintain bots? KSF T ^C 23:59, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

src: image.slidesharecdn.com

Biryani

Does anyone want to moderate, or does this case have to be closed due to not having a moderator? It's marginal as far as the criteria for acceptance because of the readable commentary as a religious polemic. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Can I know why this case is closed? Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:59, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

I did not close the case. However, sometimes the statements made in the closing case are clear enough. No moderator volunteered to take the case after ten days. I would add that one of the reasons why no moderator who voluntarily took the case might be that some volunteer moderators do not want to take a case that is not about religion but where religion has been raised as a problem, making neutrality even more difficult than it should be. As the coordinator noted in the closing, Request for Comment is the next reasonable step. (I would suggest that editors avoid complicated issues with religious allusions, but other editors are free to ignore the comment.) Sometimes closing statements are clear enough; no moderator has volunteered to take the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

Everyone who works in DRN, like all Wikipedia, volunteers and no one has to do more than they do. After the case has been registered for a few days and no one chooses to take it, it is very unlikely that anyone will do it and that is especially true after the lack of volunteers has been raised on this talk page and has been given several days. It is best to close it so that participants can proceed to other forms of dispute resolution if they care to do so. Sincerely, TransporterMan ( TALK ) 07:05, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

If it's not too late, I'll be willing to take the case. KSF T ^C 14:30, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

Please do it, because this is an injustice. Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:16, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

User: Hammad.511234 You are not helping by using words like "injustice". User: KSFT - Mark cases as open before being archived if you want to moderate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the administrators are not helpful, and just ignore the case, that's why I came here.Hammad.511234 (talk) 02:08, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

What administrators? Maybe you mean moderator? Please look again at the project page and you will see that the case has been opened. Also, try to keep the tone of your discourse collaboration. This is primarily the work of moderators to keep the tone collaborative, but you find at least one experienced moderator has a very demanding tone. (Perhaps what looks polite in Indian English is harsh in American English.Remember that not all participants have the same language background as you.) But check and see that the case has been opened. Follow the basic rules set by the moderator, which will almost certainly include to be civil and concise and comment on the content, not the contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

No, administrator, on another page. A demanding tone...? Well, I'm sorry if it came out like that. And I'm actually Canadian, lol. I know the case has reopened, and I'm glad there's something done. Thank you, anyway. Hammad.511234 (talk) 23:18, June 19, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Notice to participants on this page about administration

Many of the participants here are great at handling conflict, need to decide whether the content complies with BLP policies, and more. Well, these are just a few considerations on Wikipedia: Requests for administration.

So please consider looking and viewing this page:

• Wikipedia: Request for administration/RfA candidate vote option

You can be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and may even find out if you will be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Two tier

The current process seems to include a "Dispute review" by the reporting editor, then from another editor, "Summary of dispute", followed by "Editor's first statement" by all. In many cases, the first statement may be the same as a summary of the dispute or summary of the dispute. Therefore I propose to make the first option statement step. I think that asking for the "first" statement, which is not the first is bureaucratic and even somewhat confusing. The process will benefit from simplifying it. I certainly do not think that "The first statement" should be a prerequisite for continuing the mediation process. Debresser (talk) 13:33, July 12, 2016 (UTC)

"The first statement by the editor" is not a fixed part of the protocol. Some moderators request the first statement by the editor. Some moderators are more free. I did ask for the first statement by each editor. User: The debtor gave it, which is consistent with its summary, and that's okay. So far no one has said anything. I then requested a second statement by the editor, and I assumed that Debresser would not say anything else, and it was not necessary to do so. This is really a matter of how moderators construct discussions, and not from protocols. Do other moderators or volunteers want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, July 12, 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case I understand that the "Review of the dispute" is short and neutral (for the best of my ability). Therefore I am happy to receive the opportunity to give a statement where I can explain my opinion on this issue. Nableezy seems to have done that in "Dispute summary", so for him this step might not be necessary. I think that instructions can be improved by skipping the summary phases for other editors, and directly from an overview by the reporting editor to the first statement for all editors. 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Debresser (talk)

There is space for a summary by all editors to give all editors a chance to say something before the moderator opens the case. Different moderators have different styles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, July 12, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Unable to post

See Wikipedia: Announcement board/dispute resolution request # Can not make request. Post cross here because the talk page may not be watched. Felsic2 (talk) 19:23, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

The script used to create a new request is new. Who's taking care of him? I get the same problem (wheel cycle for a long time) as a reporter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

I will try to make the entry manually, but there is a warning about not doing anything until a volunteer posts the original request. Felsic2 (talk) 19:53, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Who's keeping the script? Creating manual entries sometimes causes bad things to happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Improvements have been published; everything should work now. EnterpriseyÃ, (talk!) Ã, _{(formerly APerson)} 02:31, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- --------------

I just sent a test case and it was posted correctly. Thank you for Enterprisey for fixing it. Felsic2 should try resending the request. - TransporterMan ( TALK ) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Current Coordinator of DRN)

Succeeded. Thank you to all of you. Felsic2 (talk) 14:59, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It worked. Now waiting for a response from another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Well, that did not work as I expected. But thank you for your time and effort. Felsic2 (talk) 19:24, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Altogether. As a regular volunteer here, I almost always prefer to see cases resolved on this bulletin board, and I'm disappointed when the editor does not want to discuss here, but the discussion here, like most forms of content resolution, is voluntary. The next step may be formal mediation, but it is not much more likely to work than informal mediation here, or Request for Comments, or arbitration enforcement. (If you do not know what an arbitration enforcement is, it might be good, because you probably do not really want to know.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

I entered the archive in WP: AE, where I mentioned the case and your name. Once done, I think I will ask for a formal mediation. Felsic2 (talk) 20:00, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Need Moderator

Two threads require a moderator. Volunteers are asked to open two threads waiting for the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

I just opened one of them. Nice to be back after a short break. I get a bit burnt out but now I'm fresh and eager to help them resolve the dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

src: 3.bp.blogspot.com

Is direct discussion archiving a bastion editing form?

Commenting on Content, No Contributors

Guy Macon writes, on the project page: 'DRN is not a place to continue doing the same thing that does not work on the article talk page. Specifically, we only discuss article content, never do users. Often, resolving content disputes also solves user behavior issues. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should submit the case to another dispute resolution volunteer. 'I mostly agree, but disagree only in the idea that any volunteer dispute resolution should even consider accepting a case in which one of the editors wants to discuss another editor. I want to emphasize that, in my opinion, no editor should focus on the behavior of other editors. Guy is right. If there is a content dispute and the editor is willing to discuss the content, talking about the content may create any behavioral issues, such as stubbornness, going. If there is indeed a disagreement about behavior, this is not the right place, and not even the wrong place. The most wrong place to discuss editor behavior is WP: ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that this is something that most of the volunteers here will agree with more or less, Robert McClenon. I know that this is one of the reasons why I like to watch cases that are not revealed here, and to rarely pick up cases when needed or in an interesting area (even though I drop off the radar). Hopefully more editors who bring their case here read that before trying to use DRN and then diverted, though that can help too. Cheerful, Doctor Mad in Room 102 from Mental Hospital 14:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We say the same thing. Some volunteers say it is stronger than others. My only problem with what User: Guy Macon says is the implied that if an editor wants to talk about another editor, maybe there are volunteers who will allow it. There may be, but we should not encourage volunteers to allow discussion of the behavior of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Really good comment. I think I will take "If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should submit the case to another" volunteer dispute resolution "language from my standard opening Maybe I should add" If anyone has a problem with me as a mediator, let me know and we can discuss whether I should submit the case to another dispute resolution volunteer "in the end? --Guy Macon 18:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute is not handled correctly?

Michael Greger DRN case

Moved by volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you considering reviewing your closeness? This case does not really involve a large number of parties to the dispute, it just looks like that because User: Alexbrn asked me to enter more. The main disputing parties are myself, him, and User: Jytdog recently. Almost everything else either comes from WP: FTN to offer short comments, or SPA/socks might try to omit Hall content. The problem is simple and straightforward, so I think WP: DRN is right. I do not want to do RfC because the editor of FTN (which mostly does a good job, and I'm not blasphemous) will vote in the block, skewing the result. I also generally never find the RfC process to be good for anything. Everyone has been informed about this discussion and offers an initial comment. I hope you will consider only through the process. If not, I will include it in WP: M. - Sammy1339 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Also, the problem is very simple, as to whether two lines of text are covered by BLPSPS. The process will be light and fast. - User: Sammy1339

On the one hand, the requested request is closed and I will close it. On the other hand, it's closed without prejudice and can be refilled in DRN with a short list of editors. I will ask: Is the problem simple and straightforward where is the compromise possible? As stated, it does not seem to be a problem that allows compromise, in which case it is not clear to me how DRN will help (or, in this case, how formal mediation will help). The main purpose of DRN is to facilitate compromise. As stated, there appears to be yes/no questions, and that is not possible to be resolved in DRN. Some file editors in DRN because they expect that moderators will act as arbitrators, but that is not the exact role of DRN moderators. This case can be updated, without a long list of editors, but I will ask the User: Sammy1339 if this is really a question of where a compromise is being searched. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no. Can you recommend any alternative from RfC? It takes more than a month and produces endless confusion, and often no results. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If the issue is not a matter of where a compromise is sought, then both DRN and mediation are the right place for you. In the specific case, which relates to the source, you can try a reliable source announcement board. I'm pretty sure that it's not binding, like a peripheral board announcement board. RFCs, when generating consensus, are meant to bind. It is true that sometimes there is no consensus, in which case you are where you start. It is true that sometimes editors do not receive consensus and edit consensus, which is a troublesome editing form that is difficult to handle. If you want a quick answer, Wikipedia does not have it. I welcome comments from other volunteers, but that is my comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

See Q15 in FAQ. DRN is not for requests for yes/no decisions, but, as stated by the FAQ, for mediation, facilitates discussion. If there is no room for compromise, some approaches apart from mediation may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

English Anglo-Saxon Settlement

Are there volunteers willing to handle this persistent case with many editors? It seems to me as if it might be more appropriate for formal mediation given the number of editors involved and how many times have been raised here or on other bulletin boards. However, does anyone want to take it? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans

Can someone please help me with this request, which I am closing today? I do not really know what the archiver said, most recently on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=739185168&oldid=739166377 It appears that they have a dispute with one other editor, when there are several editors involved. It also seems to me that they state their problem as a behavioral dispute, even though I have trouble understanding their statements. If some volunteers understand what the problem is, and want to moderate, they can encourage the filing party to refile. I think there may be language barriers that prevent effective moderation. If someone is able to overcome the barrier, I thank them. Can someone look again and see if I should open the case or should it reopen? I can not open it myself because I already have a case and because I can not understand what the archiver said. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings

User: Hchc2009 has made some interesting conditions on their acceptance of my mediation, including the right of the parties to mediation to set the research to the mediator. I have never worked mediation in that way, since it has been my view that the parties should present their views on facts, should be able to express their views clearly to each other and to the moderator, and that the moderators do not arbitrate on facts such as historical facts disputed (the main problem here). We can do one of three things. First, other moderators can take over, either who will comply with the provisions of Hchc2009 or among them Hchc2009 have confidence. In this case, the mediation may proceed. Second, HCHC2009 can withdraw from mediation and mediation can be continued with fewer than all editors. Third, I can fail in mediation. If I fail to mediate, it can be taken to a formal mediation, where moderators usually have tighter controls, or Request for Comments can be used. I am willing (either during mediation or after failed mediation) to assist in writing neutral RFCs. What did the other volunteers say? What do the parties say? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the discussion of the original talk page in the related article takes only a few hours; most of the world will sleep through it. The guide is clear that this kind of process should not start until there is substantive dialogue on the pages. The fourth alternative is to return the debate to the article page and let the normal debate happen, without demanding an editor like me to "check this page for 48 hours" etc. - which is not a very productive way to start from a mediation discussion. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

I will also comment that User: Hchc2009, which I manually added to the editor list, has deleted itself from the editor list. I am a bit confused as to how someone who has removed himself from the editor list wants to set a provision on how the case is mediated, but that is what it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're ready not to bother me again, Robert, then let's stop there. I'm not asking you to add me to your list in the first place, or to demand that I check out these pages every 48 hours, etc., etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will show that I also feel that too little discussion takes place on the talk page. And I also feel that "Every editor should check the status of the case at least every 48 hours and answer all questions at least every 48 hours." for what should be a voluntary process (or at least I assume so) is really very demanding. The way it is expressed is enough to bore me in the whole process, honestly. I feel like my attempt to follow this process (trying to show my goodwill in another editor) is being sued and that I am being discussed. If this should be voluntary... it certainly does not feel that way after that statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Forward

I always state the 48 hour rule for moderate discussions, and need to be consistent with the principle that most cases are resolved within one to two weeks. The discussion here can not be an off-and-on process. We can not wait long for editors to take the wikibreak while letting the case be suspended. We have to keep the case here moving. Formal mediation often takes months. All that happens if the editor does not respond within 48 hours is that they do not contribute to the discussion round, and the thread moves in, and they can jump later, but should pay attention to whatever has been said. If no editor commented within 48 hours, a case will be closed without prejudice, which means it can be refiled.

We can handle this at least in five ways. First, other moderators can take over. Secondly, Hchc2009 may remain withdrawn from mediation, and mediation may proceed. Third, I can close the mediation and send it back to the article talk page. I see that two editors seem to ask for it. I think at least Parson Cars ask for mediation, but if other editors choose not to mediate, there is no mediation, and discussions can return to the talk page. Fourth, formal mediation can be requested. (This is informal mediation.) Fifth, Request for Comments can be used. I would like to hear comments from other volunteers. If nobody says anything in 24 hours, I will close the case without prejudice and send it back to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Election Commission

The arbcom election commission needs at least one more volunteer, and comments about existing volunteers will also be accepted. See Wikipedia: Request for comments/Election of the Arbitration Committee December 2016/Election Commission for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, October 8, 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator of resignation

I have been running as a coordinator for several months since my last real term. The real world stuff now prevents me from continuing and I completely resign from that position. I can put my name on that list again in the future and sometimes help administration here without the coordinator cap, but I'm done now. I have removed my name from the header (by modifying the Wikipedia: Dispute/Coordinate/Dispute resolution announcement board), although it may take some time to actually walk to the main page. Sincerely, TransporterMan ( TALK ) 18:21, October 22, 2016 (UTC)

Talk: List of country leaders in the 10th century

Source of the article : Wikipedia