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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as failed. Unfortunately, the editors do not appear to be trying to reach a compromise. The most nearly satisfactory way to resolve this dispute at this point will be a Request for Comments, which should be neutrally worded. I am willing to assist any editors in providing a neutral RFC if requested. Do not edit-war, and do not claim that the "consensus" version should be restored, because there is no consensus. Discussion (with or without an RFC) should resume on the article talk page. Disruptive editing may be reported to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, but editors are encouraged to resolve this dispute without going to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I removed the "mathematics" section on the grounds of it violating WP:NOR (and not being compliant with WP:CALC), which Unscintillating and Lynton1 disagree with me on. After explaining repeatedly how the section is not compliant, discussion has pretty much reached a standstill. Codename Lisa opposes the inclusion for other reasons, namely it being non-encyclopedic and poorly written. I don't like my arguments being dismissed as just "pointing to a policy" when I have explained quite clearly how those policies apply here.
Perhaps most importantly, this seems to be going nowhere without further opinions.
Consensus is something that occurs among multiple editors. I would like much broader input on this dispute, particularly those with experience with game theory.
Summary of dispute by Codename Lisa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute here is that Jasper Deng insists on his version of the page, and denies that a consensus version of the page exists suitable for further discussion. We already see editors confused on the talk page because we haven't been able to return to a stable version of the page and move forward, and they are discussing problems which I have reason to believe would already be resolved. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As part of my initial response regarding the contested section (not to be confused with the current dispute regarding what defines consensus), I wrote, "If I thought Jaspar [sic] would object to a reasonable next edit restoring most of the section, I'd go back to the consensus version of the article first." So from the first I have been expecting that Jasper Deng would either understand the definition of consensus based on his experience, or if he was a newbie he would cooperate in reasonable edits that respected his viewpoint. We now know that didn't happen. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."@Robert McClenon:, What I would like to get from this discussion is for Jasper Deng to show that he supports WP:EDITCONSENSUS, including that he understands the concept of using and discussing from a consensus version of the article, to enable a path to a new consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Lynton1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The section has developed slowly and deliberately over two years. I think it is an integral part of the subject matter and adds meaningfully to it. There is nothing controversial in the section. I occasionally visit to see if there are new additions. Quite recently (approximately two weeks ago) I visited and made what I thought were minor editorial changes - basically just trying to improve readability and add a .png file. If I had realised my "good faith" actions would result in removal of the entire section I would never have attempted to edit in the first place. I would be satisfied if the section remained as it was before I attempted to improve it. I disagree with removal of the entire section. I think the reasoning for removal is pedantic. I agree completely with the views expressed by Unscintillating.
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. Moderated discussion here is voluntary.
Do the editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like it. @Unscintillating: does not seem to understand what I think is a very clear policy-based argument for excluding the content.--Jasper Deng(talk) 03:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator
I will be acting as moderator at least to get statements as to what the issues are. Please read Mediation Rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I will be neutral, but neutrality does not mean ignoring or bypassing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are about what should and should not be included in the article? (Do not discuss other editors. Discuss the article.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors
The section in question is patently original research whose verification is not sufficiently "routine" to fall under WP:CALC, and per WP:DUE we should not be giving that much coverage to original research. The section as-is also was very poorly written and would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Ideally we should have a reliable source for the discussion, as it is something a reader might like to see, but none has been supplied; the burden to provide one is on those who want the content included.--Jasper Deng(talk) 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator
It appears that there is a substantive issue and a procedural issue. The substantive issue has to do with a section that some editors want to remove and some editors want to keep or restore. The procedural issue appears to be that a consensus developed over time for having the section. My own opinion is that the substantive issue trumps the procedural issue (although there is no trump suit in Hearts), and that if two editors think that the section should be removed, there is no longer a consensus, and the issue should be why to keep or remove the section, not the history. Will each editor please state whether they agree or disagree with these statements and why they agree or disagree with the section? Will each editor please state any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2.1 by moderator
Also, if some editors want the section retained and some want it kept, a Request for Comments is always an option. The fact that the section has been there in the past should be considered, but is not conclusive because consensus can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2.2 by moderator
I may have misunderstood the latest comment by User:Unscintillating and may need it clarified. It appears that they are saying that they would like to withdraw from participation here, and participation here is voluntary, and instead report this controversy to the edit-warring noticeboard. That is their privilege, and a report to a conduct forum will cause this discussion to be closed. However, it seems that two different experienced editors (Unscintillating and myself) have very different interpretations of policy on editing and consensus, and either I have misunderstood what they are trying to say, or they misunderstand what the options are at a conduct forum, or I misunderstand the options for dispute resolution. Are they requesting that the previous version of the article be restored and locked down because it is the stable or consensus or historical version of the article? If so, this is contrary to my understanding of how edit consensus is applied, but I may be mistaken. If not, I have misunderstood. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors
I agree with this assessment, and disagree with the section for the aforementioned reasons. Also, since I opened the DRN thread, it's now 4 editors in favor of removal (2 commented after I opened it).--Jasper Deng(talk) 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for there being a "section" in dispute, no, there are seven paragraphs and an 18-line table.The moderator states, "I will be neutral, but neutrality does not mean ignoring or bypassing Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Yet the sentence I quoted from WP:EDITCONSENSUS is policy. If Jasper Deng's version of the article is used as the discussion version, restoring the consensus version of the article requires arguing that we need to restore a "citation needed" paragraph, when the real question should be that of changing the consensus to remove the citation needed paragraph. What I really think is that the first order of business should be to see if this dispute is better for the encyclopedia by taking Jasper Deng to the edit warring noticeboard. Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderator
It appears that there is a content dispute about a section that has been removed, and that several editors think that it should remain out, and at least one editor wants to restore it. There doesn't appear to be a consensus. As noted above, consensus can change, and history doesn't justify retaining a section if editors disagree. Will User:Unscintillating please explain what their substantive reason is for wanting to keep the section (not history only)? Does any editor have a compromise proposal? Otherwise we may resort to a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors
With five editors favoring removal versus two against, a naive vote would clearly be in the favor of removal of that content. Whatever consensus there was before, any consensus there is right now would be for removal of the content, so it should not be restored. Interpreting the results as more than a naive vote, it seems clear that there are a number of well-founded policy-based reasons (WP:NOR, WP:DUE, among others) for removing the section, and the two editors in favor of the content have yet to supply a convincing rebuttal.--Jasper Deng(talk) 06:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two editors who want to treat the content issue on the basis of the entire section. For other editors, there are multiple content issues for the seven paragraphs and a 28-line table. I mentioned the win-rate paragraph in my first post on September 17. Most other editors have discussed the win rate paragraph, and two editors have only mentioned this one paragraph. Editors who have mentioned this paragraph include Jasper Deng in a diff from the article page, which shows, "2017-09-17T06:18:46 Jasper Deng...WP:CALC is not applicable here, especially with regards to win rate..." The win-rate paragraph was tagged with a CN tag, and it was this tagging that started the entire current discussion. Much of the complaint regarding "WP:OR" is directed at this paragraph, so resolving this one paragraph should clarify much of the WP:OR issue. I would like to know if Lynton1 agrees that consensus is against keeping this paragraph. Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing this question to Jasper Deng: In this diff I removed material I thought likely to gain consensus, and the edit comment was, "(remove some personal opinion, there is consensus to remove the win rate as uncited, and the definition of a "perfect" game is not cited)". Your next edit reverted me and marked the revert as a minor edit, which is not agreeing. Do you now agree with my edit? Unscintillating (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by moderator
I don't see any plausible argument based on consensus for restoring the entire original Mathematics paragraph, since there is now agreement that consensus can change. The issue now would seem to be whether to restore a revised version of that paragraph, or to leave it out. Will each editor who wants to restore a revised version of the Mathematics paragraph please either insert it below or put in on their user page with a good link to it, and explain why they think it is the best version? Will each editor who wants to leave it deleted please make a statement to that effect? What we will do is to see if we can arrive at a compromise as to content. If compromise is not possible, we will use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I held off on replying to Unscintillating's question above until the moderator spoke again. This kinda answers both the moderator and Unscintillating so I'll do it here: I believe the whole section, not just the win rate paragraph, is not compliant with WP:NOR (nor WP:DUE, for that matter) and hence should not be included. @Codename Lisa, Blackguard, Dream Focus, and Johnuniq: you appear to have been summoned by the moderator above.--Jasper Deng(talk) 23:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are references above to a "stable and consensus version", but there isn't a consensus. I haven't yet seen a policy or guideline that establishes historical protection against changes to consensus. There isn't a consensus. We are trying to establish a new consensus as to the article. Clearly some editors want to restore the historical version (it can be called that, but to call it the stable and consensus version is to invoke policies that I haven't been shown), and some want to leave the section out altogether. Does any editor propose a compromise? If not, we will just have a Request for Comments between no section and the historical section. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth statements by editors
I'd like to point out how ridiculous this all is. You can win every single hand. There is no possible reason why the randomly dealt out cards would somehow make it impossible for you to win every single time. Why do two players get 13 and two get 0 time and again and switch places back and forth on the scoring? It seems to be total nonsense. It also doesn't add to the article in any way. I still say remove the entire section, as have others. DreamFocus 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: I see that among other points your post is discussing the win rate paragraph. This is an issue on which we can move forward right now if you agree to support these changes in addition to whatever other changes you support. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to ignore what I just posted. We need to get rid of the section entirely, as everyone keeps telling you. You haven't convinced anyone yet it should be there, or provided a valid justification for it. DreamFocus 20:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but my proposal conflicted with nothing that you've said. I was focusing on the fact that you started objecting to the win-rate paragraph again, just as you did on your first post on the talk page. Your complaints about the win-rate paragraph could now be resolved, but you seem to prefer to leave the issue on the table. Your objections that you don't have information about my position don't seem to also be requests for information. Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sixth statement by moderator
Did you both read the mediation rules carefully? Maybe I need to restate one of them. I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the Wikipedia community, and the moderator represents the community. We already know that back-and-forth discussion has not worked.
Are there any portions of the original section which its proponents are willing to delete if it is restored? Are there any portions of the original section which its opponents are willing to have restored? If there is no compromise, we will have to rely on a Request for Comments. We probably will have to have one anyway, but a compromise, offering three choices to the !voters, is likely to be what is approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sixth statements by editors
For what it's worth, WP:EDITCONSENSUS here takes a backseat to the fact that any consensus there is is leaning strongly towards keeping out the whole section. By the way, I meant to ping @Blackguard SF:, not Blackguard. I still stand by a complete removal as we should not be making such OR statements at all - not just the win rate, and therefore do not support Unscintillating's (above) proposal.--Jasper Deng(talk) 00:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Dream Focus and Blackguard got invites from the moderator, but neither Blackguard SF nor Johnuniq got invites. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:CONACHIEVE, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." The meaning for "consensus" that you are using is called vote counting. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OR doesn't explain your refusal to agree with something you say you want. And you continue to reject allowing the discussion to advance past the win-rate paragraph, which has not changed since September 19. Dream Focus and Johnuniq also oppose discussion. Codename Lisa and Lynton1 have dropped out. I've been unable to build consensus. There is no basis for an RfC, as discussion has not advanced past the win-rate paragraph. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Participation at DRN is not compulsory and no one can be said to have dropped out. Applying WP:Consensus to the discussion at Talk:Microsoft Hearts is easy. Lynton1 has made no edits other than to create the section in question and propose that it be included using reasoning such as "I also have a screenshot to support my original claim". It is understandable that a new editor would not be familiar with WP:OR, but such views are not based on policy and do not contribute towards consensus. That leaves one editor supporting inclusion, and five opposed. The include vote seems to be based on WP:CALC while the opposes mention "not sufficiently trivial to fall under WP:CALC", WP:Patent nonsense (justified with explanations), "is incorrect" (with justification), WP:UNDUE (with explanation), and WP:OR (with explanation). Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you are now a participant here, you should first state your own viewpoint, which cited different polices between your statement on the hearts talk page and on the talk page here. Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As per the rules here, "Every participant is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours." So are you just making up rules for participation here, or are your claims verifiable? Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your goal here seems to be to demand that the RfC proceed based on your vote count. Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
After discussing on talk page, I added a reference and video to clarify an aspect of the multiverse. After a few days, Jytdog made 3 objections all of which were invalid. Although only in Wiki briefly, a positive comment was made:"The removal of the James R Johnson paper citation seems a little premature. ISPCJournals does not seem to be on Beall's List. The paper didn't look half bad and even contained a reference to another paper I hadn't known of before. Is it right that the citation was so quickly removed? It is not obviously pseudoscience. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)"
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have communicated directly via email about motives and my expertise.
How do you think we can help?
Need another opinion on value reference adds to Wiki Multiverse Section.
Summary of dispute by jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
On September 9, the OP was added a citation to the paper to the Multiverse article in this diff. On the same day, the OP added an EL to the paper in Philosophy of physics in this diff, and a video talking about the paper (which is here) was added to Laws of science as an EL in this diff. So this is WP:REFSPAM. I get it that it is important to the OP to cite their paper (and the accompanying video) but while people can use Wikipedia to promote their own publications, that is not what Wikipedia is for.
On the level of content and adding value, I don't see that this paper summarizes accepted knowledge; it instead presents a novel synthesis. The paper says "This article defines a conceptual model separating the laws of nature from the universe’s energy source and its expansion" and the short text describing the video says "When creating a universe, is there a choice for the laws of nature? This talk addresses this question by proposing a conceptual model with three parts: space, energy, and expansion. The laws are classified as either universal rules, laws of physics or symmetry. Traditional fine-tuning is not the whole story." However, we use reviews, textbooks, and book chapters that communicate accepted knowledge as sources, not novel syntheses.
The OP believes that this paper is a secondary source, that summarizes accepted knowledge. In my view it is not but is rather a novel synthesis, and describes itself as such. This is the core of the content dispute.Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have explained that this is COI-driven refspam. I also explained that because it is a primary source, it is not the sort of reference that we generally use. As the OP is appears to be an expert in the field it would be great if they would bring references that are true reviews and add content based on them, not just a citation. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
multiverse discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - The basic issue appears to be that an editor is trying to insert a reference to their own paper. There has been discussion on the article talk page. Wikipedia should not be the means to publicize your own work. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator
Volunteer note - I will be moderating this discussion in attempt to help the parties reach a resolution. Please remember to be civil and comment only on content, not contributors. My responses will be guided towards a resolution acceptable to both parties and in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The principal issue appears to be whether or not the paper (where WP:SELFCITE is relevant) adds value to the article. Will each editor please state why they believe the reference is or isn't citation spam? Is either editor opposed to a request for comment which may gather some outside input from other editors on the issue regarding the value of the content? -- Danetalk 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer note - Reminder to participate in the case sent to both parties. -- Danetalk 05:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by editors
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The following is how I previously responded to self-promotional criticism: "Jytdog, I am not promoting anything but ideas and research that expand or clarify the Wiki information! I have done extensive research in each of the topics based on reliable sources. The benefit to Wiki is the analysis and organization of the material which would aid anyone else thinking about the same issues."
Also, another reference from the Canadian Journal of Physics was deleted. My previous response: "How does inserting the Scott article promote me? It is relevant and should remain." Jim Johnson 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Second point from previous talk: Jytdog, this is not a theory but a model based on fact. When discussing the multiverse, the laws of nature are assumed. By acknowledging and defining them, a complete picture is obtained. This this article, quoting 14 noted physicist, adds direct value. The comments above, by one user on Sept 10, confirm this. Since it was deleted after a day, how much more support would it receive? Please provide specific justification for deletion.
Third point: "The Kuku book, which I have, does not address dimensionless constants so I replaced it with the results of my research. I strongly feel it is a mistake to delete relevant articles if content adds value to existing Wiki content. The whole idea is to improve the information."
It appears all my recommendations were deleted in mass without understanding the content.Jim Johnson 14:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
Volunteer note - The main issue here is whether or not the additions to the three impacted articles (Philosophy of physics, Laws of science, and multiverse) constitute WP:REFSPAM. Jimjohnson2222 believes their conduct adds value to the articles in question and has concerns about the rapid removal of another reference. jytdog has offered an explanation based on timing of revisions and the quality of content (including how the content presents itself). Upon reviewing the statements by the editors about why they believe the content is or is not in violation and referencing back to the applicable policies, this does appear to be a case that could be perceived as WP:REFSPAM. It is also a primary source without any secondary sources and should not be analyzed, evaluated, interpreted or synthesized without a secondary source presented. After reviewing the source, it appears special knowledge of the topic would be required to understand it, which also conflicts with WP:PRIMARY. In light of the guidance by policy, Jimjohnson2222, can you provide more information on why you feel this should be included despite our policy guidance? Do you have a compromise proposal that can address these concerns? -- Danetalk 20:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by editors
Dane/Jytdog, this is a complex dispute because it involves seven changes (numbered and listed below in bold along with previous comments) to three separate Wiki sections. The articles referenced reflect over two years of research on the issues (my hobby). I submitted the changes to Wiki because they add value to the topics. If someone has a specific interest in multiverse or constants of nature, they would not have to read all the references and repeat my analysis. Quoting Wiki:” Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.”
All of my material has internet free access so I am not sure what is being prompted. The timing of my changes, seven at once, was based on my availability to review Wiki material and submit changes. Obviously, this caused concern.
Compromise? Numbers one, five and seven are not associated with any disagreeing arguments so should not be in question. Two and three reference the multiverse article which I personally feel is important because it clarifies Einstein’s quote on possible choices for the laws of nature. When I discovered very little was published on this topic, I wrote the article which explicitly explains the issue. As one unsolicited reader said, it was a good reference. Number four, the video, is a summary of the laws of nature analysis. Not completely understanding the policy on External Links, this may or may not stay depending on other opinions on the multiverse article value. Number six, my article, defines dimensionless constants for the standard models of particle physics and cosmology. It clarifies this complicated issue. Although I my opinion it should be a reference, I placed in External Links so not to be considered equivalent with the other noted references by famous physicists.
Thus, any compromise should be based on content and the arguments presented. It is back in your hands. Please advise.
List of seven changes follow.
A. Philosophy of Physics, Reference 1. Deleted “not found” reference (clean-up) – remains as changed (one) 2. Added my article from Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology – deleted by jytdog (two) B. Multiverse, Reference 1. Added my article from Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology – deleted by jytdog (three) C. Multiverse, External Links 1. Added video describing Model deleted by Jytdog (four) . Dimensionless Physical Constants, Reference 1. Added Scott reference (five) 2. Added my article (Physics International) as external article. (six) 3. Delete from External Articles the Kaku book (seven)
Previous documentation and numbered changes
Non-moderator volunteer note - I am not the moderator here and am willing to have this comment either deleted by the moderator or my status changed to a participant. However, the above is extremely hard to follow. It appears (but I am not sure) that User:Jimjohnson2222 is copying large posts by User:Jytdog and replying to them in a way that does not clarify. The objective of discussion here isn't to engage in a battle, but to decide how to improve the article content. I don't see what case Jim Johnson is making, and he certainly doesn't seem to have addressed the moderator's request to show why adding links is appropriate rather than reference spam. Sometimes concise arguments are better than long unfocused ones. By the way, please do not refer to Wikipedia as Wiki. There are many wikis. The subject here is Wikipedia, and referring to it as Wiki is sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree my response was too long and confusing so see shorter version above. I did address the questions raised. The improvement is in the content which I thought was obvious. Thanks, Jim Johnson 23:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator
Volunteer note - I will note that I was a bit confused by the initial response from the filing editor but I believe I grasp it now. The proposed compromise by Jimjohnson2222 is to clean up and delete some references but fails to address the reference spam issue in a way that satisfies policy. In fact, a large part of the "compromise" proposed is to include the references implicated as REFSPAM. The response also fails to address the WP:PRIMARY nature of the source, specifically the part where special knowledge of the topic would be required to understand it and secondary sourcing is needed. Are there any peer reviewed references that can be used in the article that are not a conflict of interest or primary sources? Is there a way the information can be cascaded with different references? -- Danetalk 00:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by editors
OK, I finally seem the point on Refspam because one article is referenced in two topics. Thus, a compromise would be to drop the reference in Philosophy of Physics Section. What do you think?
On the second issue, I am confused on the primary source policy. From what I read, the critical point is not to include primary research but to reference primary research as a secondary source which is what I have done. What am I missing?
Last, I assume the Scott reference is ok as well as replacing the Kaku External Article with mine is acceptable. Let me know. Jim Johnson 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I will just follow the pattern and put my reply here. The big set of edits proposed by Jim Johnson has nothing to do with this DRN, which is the use of his paper. (they are standard editing stuff). Again I understand his desire to see his work cited in WP but ... see my post above. "This is my paper" is not sufficient reason to move away from the general principle that WP articles should be built from secondary sources and cite this particular primary source. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by moderator
Volunteer note - The first proposal to drop the reference in Philosophy of Physics is a good start. In regards to the second issue, the primary research is the paper itself, while published by a third party in its entirety, it is not analyzed or referenced in any way that makes it less of a primary source (unless i'm missing a link somewhere). To put it in a different comparison, in the current link/way I found it, it's the equivalent of uploading a paper to a public file store (like a Google Drive account) and then referencing a link to it there. Is there another source who analyzes the James Johnson paper and wrote about it/referenced it in a reliable source?
If not, we are left with two options it would appear:
Remove the sources and add them back when/if they are properly referenced in third party, reliable sources
Hold a 30-day Request for Comment to determine whether the community believes the value of the paper is worthy of ignoring the rules for sourcing in this case
I do not have a copy of the Kaku source so I am unable to verify it. -- Danetalk 04:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by editors
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dane, I do not understand your first option since the source is my article. It has been removed by Jytdog as a reference. Please explain.
Also, the reliable source issue has me still confused. The reference cited, my article, is a Secondary Source as defined by,”Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.” The article expands on a multiverse topic (defining the laws of nature) which is discussed, but not emphasized, by physicists Greene and Tegmark. The web location for the article is the Journal’s web site.
And last, the sixth change, adding my Physics International article as an External Article needs resolution. The seventh, Kaku’s book does not address dimensionless constants so deleting it is just cleanup.Jim Johnson 23:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Non-moderator volunteer statement - In looking over what Jim Johnson has posted, I have a few comments and questions. First, it appears at two points that they tried to insert a reference to YouTube. YouTube is not a reliable source. (At best, a YouTube presentation by an expert may be a primary source, but is not peer-reviewed and is not a good-quality secondary source.) If I am mistaken, please explain that I am mistaken. Second, when the moderator is asking Jim Johnson for a reference, the question appears to be whether any other scientist has cited your paper. Third, there appears to be a reference to the Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology. Is that the Journal of Cosmology, or another journal? If it is another journal, please provide information about the journal. If it is the Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology, please address the fact that, while that journal is peer-reviewed, some scholars have questioned the quality of its peer review. Fourth, please try signing your posts with four tildes; it is the preferred method of signature. If you need instruction on how to do that, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the questions. The video in external links, supports the article published in The Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology. Thus, if the article content is valid, so is the Utube. The journal does not have a history on citing.
The intent of the changes that reference my two articles is to provide readers access to extensive analysis on the respective sections. To me this is what I look for in Wikipedia when referencing articles, external links, and external articles. If the editors do not agree that the content adds value, I have no case. However, remember one interested user, supported including the reference.
Three (1, 5,7) of the seven changes do not reference my work so I assume should not have been deleted in mass. Jim Johnson 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)
Fifth statement by moderator
Volunteer note - It would appear based on the response above from Jim Johnson that the video is being used to support the article. However, as established by Robert McClenon, YouTube is not a reliable source and at best is a primary source that is not peer reviewed. As stated when I opened the dispute for resolution, my responses will always be guided by current policy. While I understand a single IP editor expressed interest in inclusion, I do not believe it complies with the policies regarding reliable sources as the journal's quality of peer review is disputed and the video cannot be considered a reliable source. -- Danetalk 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer proposed resolution - I recommend that at this point the references in question remain out of the article as a way to resolve this dispute with no prejudice against adding them if better secondary sources complying with policy become available. If this resolution is not acceptable to both parties, I believe it will have to go to a request for comment for other editors to decide. Would each party please make a statement regarding whether or not they accept one of these two resolutions (and which one) or comment further with another proposal? -- Danetalk 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of Request for Comments because the two editors with background on the content think it adds value. After just rereading “User talk:96.237.136.210” comment, I noticed that he commented positively on both the multiverse and constants article (statistics on this article from Physics International show 591 downloads and 4,830 views with no citations). Thus, it is appropriate from my perspective to have other opinions. Also, remember we are considering changes: 2, 3, 4, 6.
Dane however this turns out, I appreciate your positive handling of the dispute.Jim Johnson 01:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Fifth statement by editors
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
Filed by Jackliu239 on 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This page, Longest reigning emperors in China, give a list of longest ruling emperors in Chinese history, this is very useful and informative article. But yet this person O1lI0 keep vandalizing the article, he keep deleting 90%+ of the content and only leaving one paragraph base on the excuse that there the longest Longest reigning "emperor" in China is this one person ONLY
However its clearly stated that the name of this page is Longest reigning "emperors" in China
"emperors" = more than 1 person.
Also if you search in wikipedia
But yet no matter how many time I edit it back, he keep deleting it.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Al-Khalid tank
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
DRN is non-binding, however both parties must agree to participate in the process. If an editor is unwilling to take part in the dispute resolution process, we are unable to assist. -- Danetalk 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have been trying to start a discussion in the talk page. I have been pushing to have the page un merged or split providing arguments, sources and images.
Than an editor came and established a biased and un-sourced narrative and has removed information (pakistan from the country origin box). This was all done without establishing a consensus in the talk page. I have tried to engage the editor in the talk page and reverse the page to what it was before, but my edits keep getting reversed.
I did not come along and split the article without establishing a consensus in the talk page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried going to his page but he refused to engage in the talk page and not justify his edits.
How do you think we can help?
We need a 3rd party to come in and resolve this dispute and disruptive editing. So we can get people engaging on the talk page.
Summary of dispute by Thomas.W
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not going to take part in this, for multiple reasons, the main one being that there's a long discussion on the talk page of the article between the IP-hopper and multiple other people, with a clear consensus against the OR and POV changes the IP-hopper in Oman wants to make, so naming me only as "opponent", as if it was a dispute between two people only, is outright silly. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Khalid tank discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a disagreement about whether Tracy Spiridakos had a recurring or guest role during Season 4 of Chicago P.D. (TV series). Reliable sources differentiate in the role because some call her guest, some recurring, and others do not specify. IJBall and BattleshipMan are wishing to take the conservative route and call her guest because they believe she did not appear in enough episodes to be considered recurring. I believe that she is recurring and that because sources cannot adequately distinguish it should be left up to consensus. Both sides of the dispute are based off of guidelines at WP:TVCAST.
Multiple discussions through sections on my talk page, edit summary's on Tracy Spiridakos which eventually led to an edit war, on Tracy Spiridakos before taking it to the Chicago P.D. (TV series) talk page.
How do you think we can help?
By assisting the involved editors in determining if she was a recurring or guest actor
Summary of dispute by IJBall
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AussieLegend
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WP:TVCAST says "'main' cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count)" and this is a principle that we carry on to other cast members. However, some editors are applying fixed episode counts when determining whether a character is recurring or "merely" a guest. This is the crux of this matter. The actress appeared in 3 episodes of season 4, in the same role and same story arc, so she was recurring in that season, but some editors do not believe this is enough screen time and an insufficient episode count and wish to credit her only as a guest. That is contrary to the principles established by WP:TVCAST. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by BattleshipMan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think that Tracy Spiridakos, who appeared in three episodes in season 4 of Chicago P.D., should be qualified as guest star before she got promoted to series regular in season 5 rather than recurring, which in my opinion should be around five episodes in one season in order to qualify as recurring. We already have so many actors who appeared in three episodes in one season in various shows and I think actors who had appeared in five episodes in one season should qualify them as recurring. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago P.D. (TV_series) 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 adequate discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer note - Do the other editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editor note One said they weren't participating and the other hasn't responded yet
I've been tied up with other issues but I will be participating. I'll try to add an opening statement later today. It's 5AM here and I'm going to bed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Note@Robert McClenon: So two of the other three are choosing to participate however User:IJBall has stated they are not interested in participating. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I will participate further. I'm just passing over the reasons of the dispute on how the number of episode appearances that qualifies recurring and guest stars should be. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Robert McClenon: What happens now that we have opening statements from the assumed to be participating parties? (Are we just waiting on a volunteer to take over / open the case?) TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some heated discussions over sources that were wrongfully deemed unreliable that were used in article Holly River State Park which led to the mass deletion of content prudent to the events section.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Third Opinion peaceful explanations
How do you think we can help?
restoration of events section and resolve the source issues through working with those involved in this dispute
Summary of dispute by bitmapped
The anonymous editor (they've used a variety of IP addresses) wishes to include Irish road bowling and potentially some other events in the article. I haven't seen any reliable third party sources referencing the events that suggest these events are notable. The sources the anonymous editor has proposed have all been connected to the agency operating the park, the organization hosting the road bowling, or the agency promoting tourism in Webster County. Since they're not from independent third parties, I don't believe they prove notability. The events themselves are fairly common. A number of other locations in West Virginia host Irish road bowling. Haunted hayrides, which were also previously in the article, are quite common. Without reliable third party sources to demonstrate notability, I don't believe these events should be included in the article. Wikipedia is not a calendar of events. Bitmapped (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Huon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have not seen any indication that independent sources have covered Irish road bowling at Holly River State Park. Thus the Wikipedia article on the park should not cover that activity. The IP editor disagrees and, according to the latest talk page comment, seems to think self-published sources such as the state's PR are sufficient. Huon (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holly River State Park discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - It is very hard to handle dispute resolution with an unregistered editor, especially with one whose IP address shifts, and it is in the nature of IP addresses from most ISPs that they are dynamic. The unregistered editor is strongly advised that they should register an account if they wish to engage in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Johannes Brahms#Photograph
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Smerus on 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Closed as not an article content issue, at least not as presented. User:Kintetsubuffalo is warned that referring to another editor as a "liar", even if their statements are inaccurate, is a personal attack. Resume civil discussion on the article talk page. Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A trivial misunderstanding on my part (which can be seen in the talk page section concerned) provoked responses from Kinetsubuffalo in which he has twice called me a liar, (once in emphases). I have invited Kinetsubuffalo on the talk page to delete these comments and offered similarly to withdraw my responses to his calling me a liar. S/he has not responded.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
See above.
How do you think we can help?
I would like to have the references to myself as a liar removed - call me clumsy or unobservant if you like, but 'liar' is way over the top and against WP principles. I can take criticism (I hope) but this is an article which I am actively involved in rewriting. (I have already completely rewritten the life section of Brahms, and am preparing to rewrite the music section and submit the article for GA status). To have myself described as a liar on the talk page is I believe unmerited.
Summary of dispute by Kintetsubuffalo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Johannes Brahms#Photograph discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Ayy%C4%81r
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Dispute resolution is not appropriate at this time. Nihlus 16:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Here is his answer: "Dear Hamza Shirazi, it's sad to see that your only sources are the way of official informations. It's the path of unique mind and version of the history. Informations are valid, you decide to censure them. I'll change the article each time necessary.".
What can I possibly do? I've asked for valid sources regarding a complete change of the article meaning, no answer except what appears to me to be the promotion of a specific individual.
I really feel akward about the comment "your only sources are the way of official informations", while this editor makes claims about a political official recognition for a political group I've never heard of, neither in France nor Iran. When or where did the said recognition happened? No answer, except for the fact I'd be a "censor".
I can't notify the other user, as he's not registered.
Thanks for any help you could give to me regarding this problem.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I guess none, but it's hard to discuss with someone who, from my point of view, suffer of bias (aka, trying to use wikipedia as an ad system for a specific individual).
How do you think we can help?
I'd take any suggestion.
Talk:Ayy%C4%81r discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.