Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 156

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 83.54.140.34 on 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Phys.org#Edits today (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• 83.54.140.34 (talk · contribs) who has created the account Naesco (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This discussion involves edits of 3 articles: ScienceDaily, Phys.org and Eurekalert. Jytdog has placed several references to churnalism, and removed all other content, that he claimed to be SPS. Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement makes these articles biased and non-neutral. He cites only blogs sites that discuss churnalism, making the whole articles opinion-based, rather than fact based. Not to mention that these are the blogs where science journalists from rivalry websites discuss influence of churnalism on science journalism (COI?)

He rejects any edits with links to WP:ABOUTSELF even if they make sense, or even with links to externals sites with whois data, traffic stats etc.

I have requested a 3O, that agreed that these articles should be written in more neutral style. Jytdog has rejected that as well. Somehow ScienceDaily has not been reverted (may be yet) - and I believe it is now written in a neutral way.

Jytdog has said and I quote here: "phys.org, sciencedaily,etc ...that useless and pernicious".Redacted by volunteer.I suggest that an independent editor reviews these articles.

Redacted by volunteer

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third opinion was requested, but ignored by jytdog

How do you think we can help?

Re-write ScienceDaily and Phys.org in neutral non-biased style. Churnalism should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be the only information. Remove churnalism claim from Eureaklert section; it is false and it is not even supported by the references.

Summary of dispute by 83.54.140.34

• I've added myself to the Users involved. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note to moderator: This dispute is between jytdog and myself. The above mentioned users haven't contributed anything valuable to the discussion. Alexbrn have only reverted the page (without contributing anything to its content) for a plain "I don't agree" reason. The Quixotic Potato did the same for a made-up reason (I explained that on the Talk page). I suspect that both have simply acted on behalf of Jytdog, so that he could not be blamed for Edit Warring. PaleoNeonate have only once commented on my Wikipediocracy reference that blamed Jytdog and Alexbrn working in tandem. Mark Marathon provided a requested 3O who backed up my point, but was ignored. This was my reasoning for not including any of these editors into the dispute. If you believe I should still include them, please let me know. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary: First of all, I apologize for the attack on the editors. These are my comments on the content. There are 3 almost identical edits (rev,rev,rev) of 3 articles referring to the same sources. If I'm obliged to tackle a lone article of phys.org in this dispute, so be it. However, in the context of the discussion, it is absolutely necessary to describe the other pages to address the "similarity" statement. My initial suggestion: make lead sentences according to WP:NPOV -- describe things the way independent reliable sources describe them, namely:

1. Eurekalert: nowhere in the secondary sources it is accused of churnalism or described as '... generating churnalism, similar to...'. Shipman describes it as press release distribution site and bulletin board for PRs, Angler as news service ... that organize news into categories. This is also supported by .
2. Science_Daily: Shipman doen't talk about churnalism on ScienceDaily. Angler describes it as press releases news service (page 44). There are sources that describe ScienceDaily as 'science news website' and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism.
3. Phys.org - Shipman describes it as large news aggregator (page 24) and science news website ... that practice churnalism .... where much of content is directly from press releases (page 42). 'Much of content' is not all of the content, which requires further clarification. This ref describes it as summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles, and staff written stories are reported by Livescience, Sciencemag, space.com, CNN, IEEE Spectrum (1,2),The Guardian etc (3, 4, 5, 6). Again, there are sources that describe it as 'science news website' and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism..

My IP has changes, from now on I'll comment under new user name. Naesco (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Question to moderator: is the dispute in progress already, so we can discuss the quality of each individual ref? I didn't do it in the summary of the dispute as I needed to keep it short. Otherwise, I can add it to the summary now. I just want to avoid cherry picking when some blogs are WP:RS and some are not. And shall I open separate disputes for other 2 articles or can we discuss it within this one, because the refs are the same?  Naesco (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary on refs: Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for  Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. Not to mention that it is the most up-to-date ref (2017). So please no card stacking. I may agree that [8] might have a COI because they are a PR service. The same is valid for [5] and [9] -- according to WP:RS both refs have COI on 2 points out of 3 -- authors are paid by competitor websites, articles are published on the same websites (imagine a blog on Apple.com would criticize Microsoft). Ref [3] is clearly a WP:RS/SPS.

All in all, however, I am not suggesting to exclude any of these references, but instead strictly adhere to WP:NPOV guideline: ensure all majority and significant minority views ... are covered.

I want to make one thing clear: I do not want to revert back to my earlier edit, I agree that it was not properly sourced and SPS (WP:BITE). This is my suggestion for the lead sentence (in full accordance to WP:NPOV - describe things the way WP:RS describe them). It is practically a word by word quote from our most reliable and independent source [1]:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news website, that practices churnalism, where much of content is directly from press releases . It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines .

Can we agree on that? Naesco (talk)

• Question to the moderator: What are the exact criteria from WP:RS that ref. [7] does not meet? It is not clear from your comment, so I would like to clarify. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Summary #3: I want to address several key points of this discussion, that we can't agree on.

1. Content: press releases or something else? Obvious choice and commons sense suggests using WP:ABOUTSELF. If I simply browse through the latest headlines (yes, I'm aware of WP:NOR, I'll address it shortly), there are indeed plenty of articles adopted from press releases. But at the same time, there are stories credited to Associated Press, AFP. On top of that, there are reports, that are indeed short summaries of articles from peer-review journals. Since WP:OR is not accepted, these are references from WP:RS: Treehugger, Usatoday, The Register. They report on a stories from "AFP/AP via Phys.org". It's not difficult to find plenty of such links online. As for the staff-written reports, I've already shown in my first summary refs from CNN, livescience, sciencemag etc that quote reports from Phys.org. In addition, this one is from BBC (!) quoting a "report from science news website Phys.org". Those reports are original staff-written summaries, these are not press releases [so many respected news outlets cannot not be mistaken]. My point here is that both statements: Phys.org publishes only press releases" and "Phys.org publishes only staff written content" are incorrect. Based on all the refs here, can we agree that this statement about the content is true "Phys.org publishes press releases, news articles from various media agencies, and self-written summaries on science articles"?

2. News website or PR services? BBC and others clearly describe it as a "news website". Shipman describes it as a "science news website". I don't see any WP:RS that state the opposite. This again rises a question about WP:NPOV. It does not matter what one thinks about this subject, what WP:RS say matters. I personally think that a 'news aggregator' [1] is the most appropriate description. I understand the churnalism criticism -- it's totally relevant -- but it mostly relates to the nature of the origin of the content. However, the content itself is news. The same way The Onion is described as a "news satire organization" and The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) as "a tabloid newspaper". News journalism has many genres (blogging, analytics, opinion, citizen, etc.), and churnalism is one of the forms of journalism. So we should not mix two different concepts. Can we agree on the point that, based on all WP:RS, Phys.org's content is news and its genre is, in big part, churnalism?

3. If we are to summarize all WP:RS from above we should describe it as something like this:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news aggregator, that publishes press releases from research organizations, stories from news agencies, such as AP, AFP, and summaries on peer-reviewed science articles. Phys.org practices churnalism as much of its content is directly from press releases.

Alternatively, we may quote the WP:RS as is, as I proposed earlier. Anything else will not be WP:NPOV. Naesco (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:: I understand your point. Thank you for proposing a new lead, I do believe it now starts to sound more NPOV, and we're moving forward in this dispute. To fully reflect on all RS collected, I suggest slightly modifying the 2nd part of the proposed description -- I'm not sure whether any RS quotes  '... sometimes slightly edited' or describes the degree of editing:

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website. It mostly republishes press releases and stories from news agencies, such as Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, etc. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.

Naesco (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1. 'Science journalists writing about science journalism' - am I the only one who sees the potential COI here (the same as it was for [8])? Anyway, regarding ref [7] : it clearly says : Phys.Org is primarily a news site, but they’ve dedicated plenty of articles to debunking popular rumors.... And jytdog just proved that point: there are articles about debunking - some are from press releases, some are not. Actually his second link is republished from The Conversion - it is not a press release. These are 'debunking' stories from AP, AFP, Universe Today, Physorg own reports, etc, etc, etc. Again, that just proves my point -- there are press releases, stories from news agencies and staff written content. The ref [7] describes the site exactly as it is  -- ' primarily a news site'. And I don't think that any ref that says something positive is by definition 'promotional'. (And every ref that criticizes should be taken as a golden example. All authors describe their own opinion. Some references are clearly incorrect about describing the site. For example, they say that Phys.org only distributes press releases. But there are enough references that prove there are other content sources. So we should not blindly rely on them). Moreover, debunking or not - it has nothing to do with the proposed lead. It only distracts us from a constructive building of a good Wikipedia article about the site. Should we focus on writing a good lead?
2. Word 'British' is based on WP:ABOUTSELF: the company is registered in the Isle of Man. Last statement is from ref [10]. I don't think that talking to the authors behind the scenes and interpreting answers should be taken as an argument, it's more a psychological warfare. If it 'has zero value here' why bother and present it here? And cross examination would be beyond the scope of this dispute.

PS. OK, we all clearly understand that jytdog doesn't like the website, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. A lot of emotions about the website design are counterproductive. A person with this attitude shouldn't write a WP article in the first place. Again, let's focus on writing an NPOV article here. Naesco (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, I think the latest Jytdog's proposal is pretty good. However, I suggest to cite as closely as possible to the sources, as proposed by the moderator. For example, words 'occasionally publishes' are not from ref [7]. On the opposite, the website seems to publish several per day. I would like to propose the following summary. It is very close to what Jytdog has proposed today, but applies almost direct wording from the references:

Phys.org is a British [ref] science, research and technology news agregator [1 page 24], [7], where much of content is directly from press releases and news agencies, a practice known as churnalism [1 page 42], [3],[4],[5]. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [10], [ref],[ref]. In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health [ref].

I don't fully agree with the 2nd part about similarity with ScienceDaily and Eurekalert, but I'm not addressing it here. I've already pointed that out in my first summary. This needs to be discussed separately once we're done with the 1st paragraph. Otherwise, the discussion may get side-tracked. Naesco (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Have you seen my version (it looks like our posts have crossed)? Please review it. I don't think your latest version is in agreement with your earlier statement to cite 'as closely as possible' to the sources, especially the 2nd sentence. It also looks like there is some opposition from Jytdog to use words 'science news website', so I propose 'news agregator' as stated by Shipman in his book [1], page 24. "Much of content is directly..." and "summaries on peer-reviewed articles..." are also direct quotes from the sources. In general we are all on the same page about the 1st sentence, but I prefer the Jytdog's wording. Naesco (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to go sentence by sentence:

1. It looks we all agree on the 1st one. Shall we consider it as settled?
2. Although I agree in essence with the second sentence, I can't agree with the wording. This statement is fundamentally correct, but the wording "practices limited science journalism" does not explain anything to WP readers. This is generalization / interpretation of the fact that the site publishes "summaries on selected science papers". Ref. [10] description is factually correct, supported by what we've seen with all the examples by BBC, CNN, Science magazine, IEEE, etc (see above). Why are we excluding source 10? It is WP:RS and describes the things as they really are. This is one more ref that supports this statement: "...strive to publish peer reviewed science...". Moreover, words "occasionally/limited" are not supported by any source, and are vague and subjective (What's the exact percentage for something to be described as "limited"? How should "occasionally" be interpreted - once a year, once a month, once a day?) The word 'daily' would be more appropriate if we use ref WP:ABOUTSELF. So for the second sentence I propose something like: It also (daily ref?) publishes summaries (reports?) on selected science (peer-reviewed?) articles [7], [10], [ref] (, which is known as science journalism?). Naesco (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
3. update: Eurekalert is a paid press release distribution site (no editorial control, etc) similar to AlphaGalileo. It is like PRWeb or Business Wire for research organisations. It is not a news website, and it is clearly described by the sources as a PR distribution service, so comparison with it is incorrect. Comparison with ScienceDaly is in general correct, but only in terms of churnalism for republishing PRs. It is well supported by the references. But it doesn't look like that it runs its own science journalism. I'm not sure how we should handle this for the 2nd paragraph, but I believe it is not correct to simply say that both sites are similar. Maybe something like this: "ScienceDaily is similarly criticized for churnalism ..." Naesco (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with 'post-doc wanna-be-science blogger'. Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. I've already commented on that. Ref [7], [10] supports my second statement. The link is the most recent (2017) and factually confirms all the report examples from CNN, BBC, IEEE, Science mag, many others. @Winged Blades of Godric: I agree with your last proposed modification. Naesco (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I found two more secondary sources to support the ref [10]: this one (page 27) describes Phys.org  as publishing  '.. accessible articles on recent developments..' and the second book (page 250) as '... science news and information site...' . Again, I think ref 10 describes the site journalistic part in the most accurate way, and it is also supported by other sources. I'm Ok with the proposed lead sentence, but it needs to be complemented by the other part that describes the science journalism as suggested by other sources. Otherwise it's not balanced and fully factual. Naesco (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Request @Winged Blades of Godric:: I will be travelling for the next few days, and will not be able to respond at least till Monday. I kindly request to put the dispute on hold until then. Naesco (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:: I'm waiting for your comment on ref [10] supported by two new sources from text books( one (page 27), two (page 250)) Naesco (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: The book is available via Google Books (you may scroll down up to page 45) (scan of page 27) Naesco (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we agree on the latest sentence supported by the new ref and refs [7] and [10]: It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [ref], [7],[10] ? @Winged Blades of Godric: / @Godric on Leave: - Thanks a lot for your valuable time and efforts. I noticed that you had taken a wiki-break. Would it be better in this situation to delegate moderation of this dispute to other moderators? Naesco (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave: In general, I agree that "summaries on peer-review journals" is only sourced by ref [10]. This may be expressed in another, more general, way, which is supported by the ref [7] ("debunking stories") and the new ref ("accessible articles on several science disciplines"). But I disagree with the wording "limited/occasional". I've already showed tens of sources that cite phys.org stories, which seems to be widespread rather than limited. ABOUTSELF shows it's actually "daily". How do you suggest to source "limited", or should we completely omit the subjective opinion about the quantity that is not referenced anywhere? Naesco (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot fully agree with the latest proposal, but since we reached the point when we need to stop the dispute, I propose that the last version is posted to the page, as it's better than the current one there. So I am OK with it. What's the procedure now for updating the page? Naesco (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog phys.org

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

The content is dispute is simple. The IP prefers the old version of the page (diff for Science Daily, diff at Phys.org), each of which was promotional and dominated by content sourced from these websites themselves and had unsourced content, and misrepresented what they actually do. Both lightly edit press releases and republish them and do not state clearly that what they publish are press releases. Our articles now state this clearly. As I have said before, if the IP wants to propose an independently sourced alternative I am more than open to hearing that. Such a proposal has not been forthcoming, since their first comment on this matter here: User_talk:Jytdog#Churnalism (I trust that the DR volunteers will remove comments that are not about the content itself in the OP) Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out at the article talk page, ref #8 is on the website of a company that sells PR services to biotech companies. Of course it thinks phys.org is great. Not independent by miles and miles. With regard to ref #10, Esther Ngumbi 's blog posting in Scientific American, this person is not a science journalist, but rather is a post-doc at Auburn, and the piece is naive with regard to phys.org as well as other aspects of science communication. The sources I originally brought are by well established scientist journalists. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not OK with the second sentence of the proposed content. The source is weak. Fwiw I reached out to the author and asked her to read the refs in our article, and she said she regretted what she wrote but cannot change it. I realize that has zero value here. But I do not change my opposition to using a low quality ref to support a promotional claim.

With regard to the 1st sentence, I struggle, mightlily, with referrring to phys.org as a "news site". It is not legitimate science journalism -- it is just part of the science PR machine and is not transparent about what it is doing.

Folks have said that they feel that "churnalism" is jargony. I would accept something like "phys.org is a website that republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited". Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric my apologies for not replying.

About ref #7, if "best by miles" means "most amenable to being used promotionally" then one can only agree.

That is an interesting source. The ones that I have brought are by science journalists writing about science journalism. This is from someone who characterizes himself like this: "Alan Henry is a technology enthusiast. He’s a full-time geek, a technology and lifestyle writer in one life here and now, and a technical project manager in another, a long time ago. He writes, he herds cats, he games, he writes some more. He tweets, he plurks, he spends a little time liking things on Facebook, but that’s about it. He’s severely opinionated, which explains why he writes so much. He’s also a coffee snob, a little bit of a gourmet but not too good to not visit a food truck. He likes workspace mods, desk accessories, anime, music, gadgets and gear, and bunnies.", writing on "lifehacker" in a sassy, trying-to-draw eyeballs kind of way. So that is the context.

Rather than writing from perspective of people who write about science, Henry writes from the perspective of the consumer of information, faced with a bewildering internet. In that context, I guess a press-release laden website is better than NaturalNews or Mercola. But really. This is not about science journalism, it is just another blog trying to catch eyeballs. (and yes he is good at that, which is surely why the NYT hired him for their digital strategy)

It is really hard to find good refs that actually talk about phys.org in the context of actual science journalism and reporting. I probably spent about 4 hours to find the ones I did. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but "majorly" is not good English. What is the source for them being a) British, and b) publishing summaries of articles?

Following the Lifehacker ref, I went to their site to look for "debunking" which is one thing that source says they do. (I just searched their site for "debunking".) In this first page I found two.

• Video: Should you pee on a jellyfish sting?. So what is that? A video from Youtube, with text apparently from the American Chemical Society. (one of things that is most irritating about phys.org, is that they put a link at the name where they credit the content they steal republish from, but if you click on that, you don't actually leave their website. You end up at a brief description of the organization (lifted from Wikipedia, with a link to their Wikipedia article) and a list of other content from that organization that they republished. There you get a link to the organization, but not to the actual source they were republishing. They trap you. Great webdesign for making money - really terrible for helping anyone follow the story.) You have to kick out and google it, and if you do on that one, you find the original from ACS. There is no added value, content-wise, to what phys.org did there - and they didn't actually produce that.
• Why urban legends are more powerful than ever, not really debunking, but OK maybe. Anyway, that is republished from the original. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have said nothing about site design. Don't know where that is coming from. I find the "COI" thing kind of bizarre - the IP/Neesco has been upset that phys.org is not given some kind of credit for being legitimate science news. Science journalists are the people who generate science news. Science journalists look at phys.org and say "that is not what we do". And now that is a COI? Good lord.

Anyway, this is not a matter of "liking" anything. Phys.org is what it is is - is republishes stuff it gets from elsewhere, without making that clear. It is just science PR, not science news. This is what the best sources say about it. However we say this, is fine with me. I am not married to "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric - OK how about

Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism. It occasionally publishes its own science journalism. In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.

ScienceDaily is similar to it; EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it only aggregates press releases and clearly labels them as such.

References

• I reject "british". I have no idea why neesco is leaning on that so hard, but none of the independent refs mention that and there is nothing particularly british about the site. They use american spelling, there is no ".uk" in the URLs, and the "contact" offers no physical office at all (similar to other dubious organizations). So no "british".

I have compromised as far as i am willing and spent about as much time as i am willing.

btw I have come to accept the distinction with EurekaDaily, which is honest that it republishes press releases - it is a press release aggregator. The thing that makes phys.org so toxic is that it that it hides that the fact these pieces are press releases. Even ScienceDaily has more integrity in that it generally says "press release" right at the top, when it passes them on.

So i am actually going to push back from what i offered above and add Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases ,not labelled as such,and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism."

And no we are not linking to phys.org's "feature" search section - this is spamming. And the BBC ref is just a passing mention to a "report" on phys.org.

Again I have compromised with this PR effort as much as I am willing. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The "not labelled as such" is central to the definition of "churnalism" which i have compromised on, by moving to the end. One of the good sources, Ars, says "The coverage at Science Daily and PhysOrg is eerily similar, with many instances of identical phrasing, starting with the title itself. That's because both are using mildly edited versions of a press release made by the publisher, Cell Press, which was available via Eurekalert, an aggregator of science press releases. If others are presenting science press releases as news, why shouldn't the universities cut out the middleman?". (ref) And the ScientiicAmerican piece says "We also have press-release farms such as PhysOrg and ScienceDaily that seem to me to do little else but repackage press releases one can find on science press releases sites such as EurekAlert.." (ref) "not labelling them as such" = "presented as news" and "repackaging" from the sources. This is not "jamming down the throat of the reader", it is simply more clearly defining "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• with apologies i am not catching the "work around" with regard to ref 10 (which is the post-doc wanna-be-science blogger passing mention, that we already dismissed right?) as for mediabiasfactchecker - nothing at RSN. Looks like they just took the marketing blurb from phys.org and stick a "pro-science" label on the site. no value there; just a directory. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• with regard to ref 10, it is what it is. hopefully the person you talk with will see it for the naive wanna-be error that this passing mention to phys.org was. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• I can live with that last version. Thanks for your work on this! Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

IP seems to want to downplay the well-sourced churnalistic nature of these sites and big up on self-sourced and/or unreliably-sourced content. Our articles should be based on decent secondary sources, so I disagree with those ambitions. I too wonder if there is a COI aspect to this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today discussion

General comments

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Note to volunteer: there are many more than two editors involved in this, at least: me, The Quixotic Potato, PaleoNeonate and Mark Marathon. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is generally a good idea to comment on content, not the contributor. Maybe even more so for IPs who end up at WP:DRN because other people disagree with them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the invitation to comment. I agree that my role in this dispute was only to remind the IP address editor 83.54.140.34 of WP:TINC. I have rarely read Wikipediocracy threads but I remember that the few I read did not portray a rational view of the particular scenarios involved and appeared to be rants by people who have issues with Wikipedia. I don't think it can be used to justify aspersions. It may even be best for Wikipedians to not care about it, it's preferable to discuss Wikipedia matters using on-Wiki public talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikipedia processes like this one for scrutiny. I had no initial intention to debate the content here, but I could perhaps participate by commenting on the various sources presented, if I'm invited to do it. My experience with source evaluation in this field is however limited. —PaleoNeonate - 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with Jytdog et al. I am too lazy to explain how Wikipedia should work to Yet Another IP With A COI (YAIWACOI). I would like to point out that I am not a fan of publishing statistics about the amount of visitors of websites on Wikipedia articles because they are often incorrect and misleading. Anyone who uses Google Analytics knows that a statement like "Website X received Y visitors in year Z" isn't useful information; you'll need a lot of other numbers to provide context (e.g. how long did they stay?). Interpreting those numbers isn't as easy as it may seem. The constant stream of ad hominems gets boring fast. Jytdog has tried to explain the situation in detail on the talkpage. On the internet republishing content made by others is a profitable business model (go ask Ray William Johnson if you do not believe me). Has the IP declared a COI? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer/moderator comments

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This noticeboard isn't for a dispute between an editor and one other editor only; it is for disputes about the content of an article. If the filing party isn't interested in article content, only in the conduct of User:Jytdog, they are in the wrong place. Also, it isn't constructive to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and say that they are acting on behalf of another editor or that they have made-up reasons. Is this really one unregistered editor against the world? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -
  • Aspersions/attacks on editors have been redacted.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @IP editor:-- Can you please summarise the points of content dispute sans any reference to any editor?(In the form of:-- 1)Whether source XXX constitutes a rel. source. 2)Whether the word YYY(supported by a, b, c) can be mentioned in lead....)Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the summary (under new username). Naesco (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• • We are tackling a lone article here.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn and Mark Marathon: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Quixotic Potato and PaleoNeonate: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades ^Godric 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--Thanks to everybody for your valuable comments!Will be shortly commenting!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--I don't think LifeHacker,Howtogeek.com, blogs etc. to be constituting WP:RS and don't attach much value with other rel. sources referring to Phys.org as an evidence of it's non-churnalistic nature.Pinging Jytdog for his takes on Ref-8 and Ref-10.But the quality of the sources describing the site as churnalistic are superb!Am not commenting on websites rel. to other articles.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Yeah,you may post concise summary about the three sources I specifically opposed to, the two sources whose credibility were effectively questioned by Jytdog and about my second concern.No, first let's confine ourselves to this article only.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

responded with the second summary Naesco (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note--@Jytdog:--Thanks for your opinion!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Thanks!
• Volunteer note--
  • WP:RS states:--Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications..So, I don't wholly concur on the treatment of [3].
  • References [6] and [7] are discounted as they fail the stringency required to be a WP:RS in this regard.
  • Reference [8] is discounted for having COI links.
  • Jytdog is asked to counter(if he chooses to) the point raised by Naesco in defence of [10] and Naesco's description of [3].
  • Reference [9] is a WP:RS by miles--written by credible journalists.
  • Jytdog is asked to look at whether the compromisatory solution seems viable.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Naesco:--Basically the source is some type of collective blog and I have strong doubts about credibility of the journalist.I will be double-vetting the reliability soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The site itself is a part of Gizmodo Media Group, owned by Univision Communications, a global media company. Alan Henry is a professional writer and editor. Last years he served as an editor-in-chief of Lifehacker. He is now a senior digital strategist at The New York Times. He wrote for Ziff Davis (Extreme Tech, Geek.com, PC Mag) and Purch ( Tom’s Guide) websites. He is by miles the most reputable expert of any others represented here. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Naesco:--Geesh! I replied that w.r.t to [6].Err....Winged Blades ^Godric 17:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, ref [6] is not really applicable per rules set in this dispute, as it only discusses ScienceDaily and not Phys.org. I'm not sure how this dispute is supposed to proceed: am I allowed to comment on the latest Jytdog's arguments or should I wait for the moderator?  Naesco (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No need!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment---Heartfelt regrets for the long delay.Got stuck IRL.Will be commenting soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog and Naesco:--How about something like:--

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic science, research and technology website, that mostly republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited.

Sources to be used acc.(after each phrase or so).Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog:--Your opinion/rebuttal (if any) is sought on Naesco's assertions about Ref-7(spec. to the point-- that it's the best source by miles).Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---Well, how's about

Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website, that mostly republishes press releases. sometimes lightly edited It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.

Sources to be used acc.

• Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--Leads are hardly so complex in structure and syntax.NPOV does not warrant inclusion of minor and major viewpoints with equal weight--in the lead.
  • To reply you comment-wise:--
    • 1)I agree to an extent.But in my opinion there can exist a much better way to include the point (that they publish summaries et al) with due credence to weight.
    • 2)On some research, yeah churnalism is a form of journalism.Maybe utterly despicable but it is!
    • 3)Disagree.See afore-proposed lead.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:-Any comments?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---Lead slightly edited.I personally have objections to mentioning press-agency names etc. in lead.(Keep it short!)Winged Blades ^Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Now redundant
Volunteer comment ---Barring Jytdog commenting on the advances within next 48 hours, I will be closing this as failed due to lack of intervention by a party.Winged Blades Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

*Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer/moderator comments (continued..)

• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--My views tend to share a similarity with the opinion exppresed by Neasco throughout (except the presumed COI in case of science journalists) and esp. in the second point of his last post.I am asking Neasco to propose a new lead borrowing words as closely as posible from the sources, strictly adhering to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.--in lines of my last-proposed lead.Ref-a0 shall be omitted and Ref-7 may be used(I scanned the RSN about life-hacker and there seems to be a consensus that they are gen. reliable).I don't find major problems with the word British.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: short question - what do you mean by Ref-a0? is it ref 8? Thank you. Naesco (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Naesco:--Ref 10.Sorry for the delay!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Let's wait for Naesco to propose his/her preferred one.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Another moderator-proposed lead

Preferred lead--My preferred version (bordered on Jyt's version) goes as:-- Phys.org is a website that mostly practises churnalism, republishing press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology.[1][2][3][4][5]It also practises occasional/limitedWhich is preferable? science journalism.[6]In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.[7] ScienceDaily is similar to it[2][3] and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.[1][4] For corresponding references see the accompanying references in Jytdog's proposed lead.Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Without going into the 2nd paragraph, Naesco's proposed lead (esp. the 1st part) looks good.But I have doubts as to the sourcing of the second line.(I prefer the self-reference and the BBC piece be removed and the Lifehacker piece added.)Also, the second line shall preferably adheres to Jyt's version.(Despite me asking Naesco to adhere to the sources as closely as possible!)You may build on the version adding more references and fine-tuning the language.Any comments?Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--V.good proposal!Ref 10 shall be excluded!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Next Lead:--I would prefer something like:--

Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.It also practices limited science journalism.^{Life-hacker piece and another source} In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health. ScienceDaily is similar to it and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.

All other lines could be comfortably and un-controversially sourced!So, no mention of sources.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The another source shall be a WP:RS which mention(s) phys.org non-trivially!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ---Jytdog's arguments about removal of British are accepted.We are quite good to remove any mention of the nationality from the lead when the website-owner-organization are themselves not quite openly stating it and we have to resort to some synthesis.Further, the latest suggestion is particularly non-needful.We ain't waging a battle against Phys.org despite their dubious journalism and don't need to push something down the reader's throat.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---I would also strongly suggest Naesco to bring another source(which was afore-seeked) within 36 hours, pending which we can make some slight changes(about the 2nd line) and ask the parties about their acceptance of the lead and proceed to close this accordingly.And Naesco the next post shall be only about such sources that you may have discovered and a concise one/two-paragraph statement about your proposed line(w.r.t to Science Daily and EurekaAlert) and reasons for opposing the current version .Winged Blades ^Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---To make my points clear to both the sides:--
  • 0)We are all good about the 1st sentence.

• • 1)Regarding the BBC piece and the self-reference, I've already given my views that they are un-acceptable.Self-referencing in controversial cases are dis-allowed.BBC piece covers the site too non-trivially to be used to buckle the lead.

• • 2) That leaves us with the LifeHacker source which is reliable.But, I am not comfortable with inserting a certain information in the lead on basis of only one RS that counters diametrically opposite info backed up by several other sources.Thus the need for at least another RS covering Phys.org non-trivially.

• • 3)Ref-10 is interesting.I will be adding my points soon.I'm thinking of asking out some editor who regularly frequents these areas and have a know-how about the credibility of these sources?Winged Blades ^Godric 09:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• • 4)I am quite uncomfortable with Jytdog's recently proposed phrase-addition for reasons described in my last comment.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Any comments about my proposed work-around about Ref-10(It will be similar to as it happened in the revolving door case.)?And any comments about whether this passes WP:RS.I am skeptical.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment---@Jytdog:-Sorry for not making myself clear.I am at cross-roads about Ref-10.Thus, my way-out was that (just like I asked Kudpung in the prev. IACA dispute as a 3O) I will ask someone who has long wiki-experience in these areas to comment on suitability of 10 as a reference.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---Echo Jytdog about mediabiasfactcheck.com.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---As an alternative, I'm comfortable with --It shares many similarities with ScienceDaily and EurekAlert! in the sense that all of them practice heavy churnalism.<footnote>(EurekaAlert! though self-describes itself as a churnalistic site.)</footnote> Also, it may be duly noted that we are not linking the trio up, the science-journalists are!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---Naesco, do you agree with my last proposed modification.(The footnote portion will appear at the end of the article.)Anyway, I will be soon asking about Ref-10.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---@Naesco:--The problem with Prospects in Nanotechnology is it's trivial covg. about the subject in disc.Connecting across discliplines looks good to be sourced to but I can't access the book to make a definitive comment.(And none of the libraries I subscribe to, does have a copy:))Now, coming to source 10, I tried to contact two persons on-wiki (both of whom had reservations about commenting on an ongoing DRN) while amongst the two I contacted off-wiki, there was a tie as to the quality of the source w.r.t to the statement it will be issuing.(A RSN after the DRN concludes will be the best approach!)Thus, out of the trio, the one which may be be used is probably the second one.But it will be helpful, if you could get a scanned copy of Pg. 27 for display.Godric on Leave (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---@Naesco:--Thanks! The scan helped!(In my region, GBooks omits Pg-27 & 28 from the preview.)But, nothing in the source supports the phrase summaries on peer-reviewed articles.I am willing to go with Ref-10 iff another RS clearly and nearly used the same language.So, I'm not seeing any way-out!(Except adding the phrase limited science journalism.It may be a bit abstract but I'm hard-pressed to think of any other viable alternative in the given circumstances.)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---I fairly dislike such objectivity(to the word--limited), esp. given the circumstances at play here.The out-balance of sources which contrasts the journalistic style of Phys.org is aptly brought out in the word--limited in my eyes.As an example:--We often say--He has got limited skills in the aspect. To approach the speaker to specify the levels of the skill(s) ofthe subject quantitatively would be akin to madness.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Last proposed lead---

  Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.It also practices limited science journalism.^{Life-hacker piece and another source}It shares many similarities with ScienceDaily and EurekAlert! in the sense that all of them practice heavy churnalism.<footnote>(EurekaAlert! though self-describes itself as a churnalistic site.)</footnote>

  Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--In the event of either of you dis-agreeing with the last proposed lead, I feel that we are clearly past the point of continuing or rather lingering this discussion--without hampering optimisation of editor productivity.Please seek a RFC on the topic and approach for a community consensus.As a side-note, it would be best if you propose your version as one option and Jytdog's as another(which he shall post) and ask the participants to compare and input their preferences.Both of you may use this discussion to polish up your versions.Feel free to ping me if you need any help.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--Will be updating the article and closing the thread(soon).14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Restaurant to Another World

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DanielC46 on 23:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Restaurant to Another World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DanielC46 (talk · contribs) TheFarix (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User TheFarix keeps reverting the article Restaurant to Another World to a previously edited version, claiming that the information concerning the Japanese voice actors in that series I provided originate from "unreliable sources". However, while he keeps reverting my changes from September 5, 2017 almost instantly, he has not yet bothered to answer my replies made on the same date or even undertaken the improvements he demands from me on his own. Furthermore, there are some accepted, non-altered citations from the same resource he deemed "unreliable" in my case (Anime News Network) because of (to quote the article's edit history) "ANN's encyclopedi section is not a reliable source as it is based entirely on user generated content." Exactly what makes the other citations more reliable, especially since their sources are in Japanese and would require an official, certified English translation in such a case? Have you tried to resolve this previously? None so far, except - as noted above - trying to receive a personal answer and receiving none, despite his otherwise immediate involvement in the reversions in question. How do you think we can help? I would like to gather your opinion about if the site Anine News Network as a whole should be considered "reliable" or "unreliable", especially if no other resources cannot be found for the time being. If there is a "reliable" alternative, then I suggest TheFarix should employ it himself instead of executing reversions without justified cause and leaving it at that. Summary of dispute by TheFarix Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:DanielC46#September_2017 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.

William M. Branham

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Danpeanuts on 12:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:William M. Branham (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Danpeanuts (talk · contribs) Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs) Bonadea (talk · contribs) Dammitkevin (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are 2 historians who wrote info on Branham--one positive and one negative. There is mainly one man who insists on controlling the site and only allowing negative opinions. I am new to Wikipedia and have had to learn things, but have tried to add some of the positive information from Harrell's book, only to have it deleted. In fact another positive statement was just removed 2 days ago that was already there. If you look at the talk above this "Newspaper Reference" and "Use of the word Halo" discussion, you can see that this controversy has been going on since 2014 and this site has had a disputed tag on it for awhile. When I first saw this page 3 years ago it was accurate information and now over half the edits have been to remove facts and replace them with the Negative opinion. I am aware that most people don't believe in Divine intervention, but there are too many books and YouTube testimonies to just sweep it under the rug. In fact, this man was so unusual there is a 3-volume book written about him called "Supernatural". Is there anything that can be done to tell of the positive side here? Danpeanuts (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2017 Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have discussed all this with the other editors--even one on his personal page, but they are all adamant about the Negative opinion above all the other Historians. Weaver is a Baptist Theologian who doesn't believe in these things. How do you think we can help? I honestly don't know. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn the ropes. My only request is that both sides could be represented and not just the Negative opinion. This site continues to degrade with the latest edit 2 days ago and if I try to put the sentence back in, it will just be deleted again. Summary of dispute by Darlig Gitarist This is not so much a dispute between editors as much as it is a new user not understanding Wikipedia:Consensus. @Bonadea, Cullen328, and Dammitkevin:, as well as myself, are all in basic agreement as to the appropriate emphasis of the article. It is important to understand that the article is a biography of the deceased founder of a New religious movement. In a Wikipedia essay on writing articles on NRM's, it is acknowledged that NRM articles have frequently proved contentious. The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and counter-movement sources. There are 2 key secondary sources on William M. Branham - Harrel, whose treatment of Branham is quite short as he deals with multiple individuals in his book, and Weaver, whose book focuses on Branham. Both of these books are scholarly secondary sources published by university presses. Harrel wrote the preface to Weaver's book. Because Weaver's treatment of Branham is much more detailed, it contains commentary and analysis on issues that Harrel did not have the time to deal with. However, the article based on the consensus view (as can be observed from the talk page) is balanced and neutral, dealing with both sides of the various issues. I asked for input from others on this issue and when their views were all in agreement, a dispute notice was filed. I believe the view of the majority of editors who have weighed in on this issue, and desire the article to retain its neutral language, should be respected. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 15:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bonadea Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was not notified of this discussion and nor was anybody else. I have a few observations: I do not recognise the characterisation of "positive" versus "negative" opinions. The article does not provide a negative opinion of the subject, rather, it is neutrally phrased, and secondary sources are cited for all important information. The article has very recently gone through a Good Article review carried out by an uninvolved editor. Any unbalanced viewpoints, were remarked upon there and subsequently fixed. I agree with Darlig Gitarist's assessment that there is a consensus with only one dissenting opinion, and that all viewpoints are fairly represented. Again, I don't know what "negative opinions" refers to. The only concerns I have with this article are that it stays neutral and sourced, with reliable secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 19:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dammitkevin Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. William M. Branham discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this thread. Also, having looked at the discussion on the article talk page, I would suggest that further discussion should focus on what the editors want the article to say about Branham, reflecting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than what the editors think about Branham (whether he was a miracle worker or a mere traveling preacher, for instance). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - User:Danpeanuts - If you need to be told how to notify other editors of this thread, please request assistance. This thread is about to be closed for two reasons. The first is failure to provide the proper notice. The second is that the discussion on the article talk page doesn't seem to focus on what changes should be made to the article. The discussion seems to consist of one editor saying that the subject was a holy man or miracle worker, and other editors discussing the need for extraordinary proof of extraordinary claims. (Anyway, any statement in the voice of Wikipedia that the subject worked miracles would be contrary to Wikipedia policy.) Robert McClenon (talk) 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:Richard William_Howard_Vyse

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 5.81.204.152 on 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Doug Weller (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I wanted to update an article with a new source which provides new and relevant facts regarding the subject of the article, Col Richard Howard Vyse, under the section 'Controversy'. Vyse has long been suspected by some of perpetrating a fraud within the Great Pyramid in 1837 although this is disputed by Egyptologists. The new source is the ONLY BOOK that dedicates itself entirely to investigating this fraud allegation and presents much new hard evidence that questions the mainstream view of the painted marks Vyse claimed to have found in these chambers of the Great Pyramid. Doug Weller claims that, because the source 'Scott Creighton' is merely an 'engineer' and not an Egyptologist, his book presenting this new evidence is "inappropriate" as a source. I pointed out to Doug Weller that Wiki permits other published books on Egyptology written by non-credentialed Egyptologists to be cited as sources and he seems not to have a problem with those books. It appears to be double-standards being exhibited here by Doug Weller. Furthermore, Creighton's book is not actually about Egyptology per se - it is more about detective work which brings in scientific analysis of the painted marks, analysis of Vyse's hand-written journals, eye-witness accounts and so on. This is not something that requires the source to actually be an Egyptologist in the same way that a police detective investigating art forgery or theft does not himself have to be an art specialist. It seems that Doug Weller is clutching at anything to prevent this book being cited on Wiki and that is something I find objectionable because his actions in removing this citation from the article serves only to prevent Wiki readers gaining full knowledge of and access to the full facts and evidence that surround this controversial case. Just because Creighton is not himself an Egyptologist should not prohibit his evidence-based book from being cited in this article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None as yet. How do you think we can help? I am not asking you to decide on the content of my edit per se, merely whether the source I cite is "inappropriate" as Doug Weller claims since this is the basis he uses to remove my edit. I fail to see how merely citing a source that brings new evidence to the table concerning a controversial issue can possibly be deemed "inappropriate" and I hope that others will agree with my view. Surely we need ALL FACTS and views in order to come to an informed opinion? DW's action is preventing that. Summary of dispute by Doug Weller. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Although this page is on my watchlist I only noticed the issue after User:Khruner posted to my talk page at User talk:Doug Weller#Vyse's forgery?. I'm not sure why I'm the only person mentioned here. There's a discussion on the talk page and neither of us feel that the book belongs in the article or with its characterisation. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Looking at the talk page again, we seem to have an IP hopper now using the talk page as a forum. We also have a third editor, User:Joe Roe, disagreeing with the person editing as an IP. I don't think this belongs here. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Talk:Richard William_Howard_Vyse discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - I have a few preliminary comments about the discussion. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any real attempt to discuss article content, and a request here should be preceded by constructive but inconclusive discussion of article content. The unregistered editor is advised to comment on content, not contributors, and is also strongly advised to register an account if they want to engage in dispute resolution. The discussion (if it can be called that) on the article talk page is so disruptive that I am inclined to recommend temporary semi-protection of the talk page, an unusual but not unknown remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Khysion#edits_to_Swahili_coast_and_Swahili_people

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ninafundisha on 19:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Khysion#edits to Swahili coast and Swahili people (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ninafundisha (talk · contribs) Khysion (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am in a friendly dispute with Khysion about whether or not the Swahili Coast is in eastern Kenya or western Kenya. I am insisting that it is in eastern Kenya, along the Indian Ocean. Khysion has provided information about the ethnic identities of the region's earlier inhabitants, but this has no bearing on the fact that the Swahili Coast is, historically, considered the areas of Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, and Somalia along the Indian Ocean coast (i.e., the eastern coast, not the western coast which would be Lake Victoria in Kenya). Khysion's edits to Swahili Coast and Swahili people have been reverted several times, but the articles currently stand with incorrect information in the lead paragraphs. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We've had a civil discussion on Khysion's talk page, but that's it. Edit: I'm trying to keep things civil, but it's moving in the wrong direction. Ninafundisha (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC) How do you think we can help? I'm not sure how these kinds of disputes typically get resolved - I just want to see the incorrect information removed, and the correct information reinstated. Thanks so much. Summary of dispute by Khysion Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Khysion#edits_to_Swahili_coast_and_Swahili_people discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has not been any discussion on an article talk page. The proper place for discussion of article content is on article talk pages. Discussion on user talk pages, while useful, is not a substitute for discussion on article talk pages, because other editors may be watching the article talk page. Please discuss on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I have opened up discussion on both the Swahili Coast and the Swahili people talk pages. Ninafundisha (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Report sockpuppets at WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Khysion is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Habar Awal king. Exact same edits to Berbera: User:Khysion [1], User:Habar Awal king [2], sock User:Reer Libaax [3], blocked evading IPs 94.173.171.68 [4] (who also made the same ridiculous edits on Swahili coast and Swahili people, and 94.173.171.68 [5]. Why is it necessary to jump through so many hoops to deal with a disruptive sockpuppet editor? Fraenir (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures for Sad Children

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 195.99.230.155 on 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Pictures for Sad Children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dane (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Dane is insisting a consensus exists and continuing to misgender a trans person, regardless of Wikipedia's rules on the subject. Misgendering is serious and is generally considerd by the trans community as a form of violence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the page which user Dane ignored How do you think we can help? Prevent Dane from misgendering John Campbell Summary of dispute by Dane Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 195.99.230.155 did not comment at all on the talk page after reverting me or Nick Moyes. After reverting multiple times WITHOUT explanation, the IP finally insisted via an edit summary that I was making "transphobic" edits. I was following through with the consensus as made on January 1, 2017 when all parties involved agreed to using gender-neutral pronouns as there is much controversy regarding multiple parties claiming to be the author, John Campbell. The author previously ran a campaign on their website to get the article disrupted and removed from Wikipedia. Mugasofer implemented the final gender-neutral pronouns. -- Dane talk 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Thank you for the information and feedback! I opened a discussion at the relevant talk page. I'm curious about one part of your response, "There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Pictures for Sad Children, within the past six months. Editors should discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. A consensus that was reached more than six months ago may not be a consensus any more." Just curious if you can link me to the relevant policy with the six month figure, I couldn't find it and I'd like to ensure my knowledge of policy stays up to date. The closest I could find is the "consensus can change" part of the consensus policy. -- Dane talk 03:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Pictures for Sad Children 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 no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Pictures for Sad Children, within the past six months. Editors should discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. A consensus that was reached more than six months ago may not be a consensus any more, so please resume discussion rather than simply reverting, which can result in edit-warring. Registered editors are advised that they may request semi-protection of the article page temporarily if disruptive editing by unregistered editors continues. Unregistered editors are strongly advised to establish accounts if they wish to engage in dispute resolution. It really works better. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - I was not citing a specific policy in saying that there has been no discussion in the past six months. That is just a fact. In any case, any discussion that ended more than six months ago does not establish a current consensus. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war; if there is edit-warring, semi-protection can be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Laci Green

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tvaerskaegg on 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Laci Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tvaerskaegg (talk · contribs) Zero Serenity (talk · contribs) Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article as it stands presents a false impression of the issue in question by ignoring historical context. I provided a more accurate and objective revision with supporting link but this has been repeatedly reverted to the original version. My revision is concise and contains more relevant information and provides a better understanding of the issue in question. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted my reservations about the accuracy and neutrality of the article on the talk page but has not led to resolution of the issue or even to reasonable discussion. How do you think we can help? By helping rationality and objectivity to prevail. I do not regard the article in question as being objective and neutral. There has not been any meaningful discussion regarding this issue and it has not been satisfactorily discussed. Summary of dispute by Zero Serenity In my opinion: User attempted to whitewash the use of the word Tranny (slang) in a way that downplayed the incident that occurred involving Laci. I did not agree with this sentiment and reverted. Edit war ensued, but I walked away from the discussion due to some general fatigue of the situation. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Laci Green discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Not all of it has been civil. The editors are reminded to be civil and comment on content, not contributors. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors of this thread. This thread may be closed if the other editors are not notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - If the filing editor needs advice on how to notify the other editors, please request advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures for Sad_Children

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 195.99.230.155 on 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Pictures for Sad Children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Multiple (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Pictures of Sad Children page still continues to misgender John Campbell against her states wishes. Given the subjects's proclivity to privacy, it is difficult to produce multiple sources regarding her gender, but nonetheless her gender has been assumed to be "nonbinary" regardless of common knowledge regarding her expressed wishes. Continuing to misgender her could cause psychological distress and harm to the subject, which is not only unethical but demonstrates an extremely poor attitude towards trans people in general. It has been repeatedly asserted by several parties that the issue has been settled upon. But it has not. The language has been left extremely conspicuously neutral on the page, despite the subject having *never* expressed a desire for gender neutral pronouns. Concerns have been repeatedly ignored. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Edited the page directly, discussions on the talk page, drawing attention to the manual of style on the issue. How do you think we can help? Include trans people and trans people in this discussion, as they would likely have more of an understanding of this issue than cis editors. Stop insisting that trans should *create an account* on a site that repeatedly demonstrates itself to be unwelcoming to them. Consider why using stated pronouns is such a problem for trans people when for cis people no specific source would be needed. Stop accusing editors of bad faith for trying to correctly gender public figures. Summary of dispute by Multiple Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Pictures for Sad_Children discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - It is not clear to this volunteer what the issue is. The filing editor insists that other editors are misgendering the subject. However, there is consensus among the other editors to use gender-neutral pronouns. If the filing party is adamant that gendered pronouns should be used for a person whose gender is the subject of considerable question, they may file a Request for Comments to that effect. Otherwise they may explain clearly what remedy they want. There doesn't appear to be an issue that is within the scope of this noticeboard. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies might be a better forum, although there doesn't seem to be a clearly stated issue with a proposed remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Honda J_engine

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Carmaker1 on 01:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Honda J engine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Carmaker1 (talk · contribs) Vortex833 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the Honda J engine article, this user keeps reinstating incorrect dates for models that used the "Honda J" V6 engine. The information placed in the article by Vortex833 is inaccurate. Globally, U.S. model years are not used in a format, where a 2000 model year vehicle could be introduced in January 1999 as opposed to after January 1, 2000. Wikipedia has no reason to base model lifecycle or production period timelines on this arbitrary format, without including the proper designation of MY2000 or 2000 model year, plus introductory dates like "January 1999". Just writing "2000" as representative of a U.S. market model year, can confuse/mislead readers from outside of the U.S. It is often contradictory, when an editor uses a model year to directly refer to specific dates in time, with a failure to specify their reference to model years, which have no real time basis with actual calendar years. Model years should not be used to refer timelines, without including "model year" or "MY" in the text. My provided sources in my edits contradict the dates/timelines that Vortex833 keeps restoring out of ignorance, when use of engines and/or model components should apply to when a model goes into production (i.e. August 2002) instead of the U.S. model year, which are not recognized globally, particularly in Japan the home of the manufacturer. This set of problems are similarly dealt with by User: Stepho-wrs and that of User: OSX, where U.S.-based users fail to understand that inputting model years in articles, without them being properly labeled as a designation (not being actual date of introduction), can give the wrong impression to readers that a model lifecycle is much shorter. Another example is that, Honda very well did not introduce their 9th generation Civic in 2012, but in April 2011 for the "2012 model year"(or "2012MY" or MY2012). This model generation already had been hastily facelifted by December 2012 for the "2013 model year". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I provided numerous links from Honda officially and reputable media sources, in dates for the specific models, that highlight availability and market presence in the years I had changed them to. For instance, Honda introduced the 7th generation Accord in 2002 and ceased production of it in 2007. It did not start in 2003. Same for the Acura CL coupe, introduced in early 1996 and redesigned in early 2000. Originally, I couldn't make sense of the 1996 being the introductory for the engine, as the first car to use it was given a contradictory timeline of "1997-1999". That was the original basis for editing this article. It is clear that Vortex833 refuses to honor the sources I provided. How do you think we can help? By reviewing the changes I've brought to the table and deciding if they are valid enough to be maintained and not constantly reverted. Vortex833 keeps reverting my submissions, despite the fact I have provided cited proof that contradicts prior diffs with erroneous years/dates for model timelines from start of production to "end of production". Summary of dispute by Vortex833 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Honda J_engine 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 no real discussion on the article talk page, just a few uncivil posts by the filing editor. There should be actual discussion on the article talk page. See WP:DISCFAIL for what to do if attempts to discuss an issue are unsuccessful. Do not simply revert the edits of other editors without discussing; that is edit-warring, and can be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard or Requests for Page Protection. Both editors are advised to engage in civil discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Carmaker1 demands changing all the years because he doesn't approve. A number of other editors added the years not me, I merely restored the article. Then he canvasses for support from the only other editor who is likely to agree.Vortex833 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Wingwraith on 00:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs) Davemck (talk · contribs) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The inclusion of a state reaction to the description of an operational activity that the ship undertook Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to strike a balance with this edit, discussed my version of the text extensively on the talk page, all of my responses to the criticisms that the other three participants have had of it has as of this point been unanswered How do you think we can help? By stopping the consensus that Kendall-K1 is currently trying to ram through and eventually bringing it to an end Summary of dispute by Kendall-K1 There are two competing versions of the statement about McCain sailing past Mischief Reef. Wingwraith favors one version, and has engaged in edit warring to preserve it. Everyone else prefers the other version. A compromise does not seem possible. I suggest an rfc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Davemck The dispute is over the statement, 'China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction"'. Wingwraith consistently removes any mention of China's reaction, with the edit summary "the article is about the ship and what it/was doing not the reaction of another government to it". The rest of us editors think mention of China's reaction is appropriate. Davemck (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Cinderella157 The filing editor has ignored a consensus that it is appropriate to briefly mention the consequences of the ship's actions. They refuse to "get the point". I have attempted to flag the conduct with the editor on their talk page but the only response was to delete the post. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC) USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) 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. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for replies from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator Since one editor has gone ahead and made a first statement, I will open this thread for moderated discussion. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and comply with the rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Will each other editor please provide a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the issue is? Refer to article content, not to the actions of other named editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors An RFC would be fine but what would be better is if Kendall-K1 FIRST responded to the comments that I made to that user. Cinderella157's position on the issue is inconsistent: the user supports the version of the text that's proposed by Kendall-K1 but opened up the immediately preceding section of the dispute with an observation ("I would observe that the revert in the case of the McCain has left the article in an unsatisfactory state since it has removed the context for the action having occurred such that the reason for including the mention of the event appears meaningless. In the case of the USS William P. Lawrence, the reverts have left the article in a better condition. If I have this right, the consequences of the actions in each case have been stated in a single sentence." [emphasis added]) that in effect supported my version of the text. Wingwraith (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I like Davemck's summary of the difference between the two versions. The majority version contains these two points: 1) sovereignty is disputed 2) U.S. considers its actions lawful & China disapproves The Wingwraith version omits those two points but includes this point: 3) the point about FONOPs I believe points 1 and 2 are important and should be included, as they are the main points of recent press involving McCain. The statement that "John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea" doesn't make much sense without these points. I don't care strongly about point 3, although I think it makes sense to include it as it gives a link to an article with more detail on the dispute. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I believe it is reasonable in reporting an event, to also report what led to the event (prelude) and the consequences of the event (aftermath). It is reasonable to report the response of a state to the action of the McCain, the instrument of another state. I believe there is a consensus in this respect. I would pretty much agree with Davemck's summary too. The proposed edit by Wingwraith chooses to ignore the aftermath. My only support for his edit is in a very backhanded kind of way and I have made this clear on the talk page - to say something is "not as bad" is not the same as saying it is good. My position is in no way inconsistent. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Please discuss article content only without talking about other editors. It doesn't help much to talk about "their versions"; the issue is what should be in the article. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue or issues are about the article? We can discuss Wikipedia policies and guidelines after we finish identifying content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors The disputed issue is whether it's appropriate to include in this article mention of a foreign government's (China's) reaction to the ship's action of sailing past Mischief Reef. I contend it is appropriate because warships exist to act as instruments of foreign policy. In addition to the most extreme case, actual warfare, this include many other activities: deterrence, public relations, disaster relief, and, in this case, establishing freedom of navigation by sailing close to Mischief Reef. If China made no protest, this act would not be notable and wouldn't need to be included in the article. It was China's expression of "strong dissatisfaction" that made the action significant. It's significance is supported by the AP article referred to as a source, from which the phrase "strong dissatisfaction" is taken. In order to allow the reader to understand the context and significance without following wikilinks to other articles, it's useful to include brief mention in this article of the following: 1) That sovereignty of the reef is disputed by 4 nations. 2) That the ship's action was part of a series of FONOPs. 3) That the U.S. considers the action to be permitted by international law. 4) That China expressed "strong dissatisfaction". Davemck (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Ditto per Davemck. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) As I stated in the dispute overview section, the issue is whether it is appropriate to include a state reaction to the description of an operational activity that the ship undertook (in this case the reaction by the foreign ministry of the People's Republic of China to the freedom of navigation operation that the USS John S. McCain conducted near the Mischief Reef), and I argue that it isn't for the following reasons: 1) The protest by the PRC was inconsequential - it was to be expected, nothing material came out of it and it merely reproduced that state's pattern of political reaction to the previous FONOPS of the same nature to the one that the ship undertook which the USN had undertaken. 2) The direct (particularly materiel) consequences to the ship from conducting the FONOP was inconsequential - nothing (of a commensurate order of spectacularity) that did not happen to any of the other ships which had conducted a FONOP as part of the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part happened to that ship while it was conducting that operation. 3) The reasoning underlying the general assertion that every consequence from a naval ship's actions must be documented in virtue of the fact that it is an instrument of foreign policy commits a genetic fallacy - it overlooks a need to distinguish the magnitude of the consequences to a ship's actions from the mere fact of its consequentiality. 4) It breaks for no good reason with the extant practice that neither any of the operational activities of the USS John S. McCain nor the operational activity of the other ships (USS Lassen, USS Wilbur Curtis and USS William P Lawrence) whose participation in the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part have been documented on their corresponding Wikipedia pages has been described in a way which amalgamates a (let alone the PRC's) state reaction. 5) It represents a category error - since the controversy as it pertains to the PRC's FM's reaction to the FONOPS is neither about the ship's operational activities nor the background information about the sovereignty disputes but the overarching US foreign policy objectives in the SCS which govern their content, character and nature, there are other articles (Freedom of navigation, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, etc) where the inclusion of that kind of material would be more appropriate. Wingwraith (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I note that the discussion at USS John S. McCain has been made as a centalised discussion and notified at Milhist and at USS William P Lawrence, which has been subject to a similar dispute of content. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I'm the OP that first raised this issue on WP:MILHIST after running into Wingwraith's persistent reverts to disallow any mention of reactions to individual of FON operations on ship articles. There I, after discussion, suggested this wording. Perhaps if we can find consensus for something like this, we can have a starting point? 82.163.247.154 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC) "In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed within 6 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, as part of the United States' "Freedom of Navigation" program. China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction". A US Navy representative reported that a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters, to which the US replied that the warship was "conducting routine operations in international waters." I can't see why that shouldn't go in the FON article. Wingwraith (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC) References Third statement by moderator The above statements by the editors are civil but not concise. However, it appears that the issue is whether it is appropriate to mention that China protested against the McCain sailing close to Mischief Reef, which is claimed by China, and that some editors think that this (the Chinese objection) should be mentioned, and that one editor thinks that it should not. Is that correct? Please explain briefly why or why not. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors This is a reasonable summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC) For any "event", it is appropriate to mention both what led to the event and the consequences of the event. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Can a volunteer who hasn't previously been involved in this debate give an opinion on this? Robert McClenon is it possible that you can offer your opinion on the disputed content? Or can any one of the involved editors at the very least issue a point-by-point rebuttal to the reasons that I gave to exclude the material in the immediately preceding section? This was the same problem that I encountered on the talk page: my criticisms of the points that an editor made was met with a non-response from that editor, after which another editor basically regurgitated the same arguments that the first editor came up with. I can't see how it helps the consensus building process if it simply gets treated as a numbers game where objections to the preferred version of the text go unanswered and are eventually overridden.Wingwraith (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator Will the editors who support the inclusion of the content please explain, in one paragraph each, why they support its inclusion? Other editors, including volunteers other than myself (I am remaining neutral by plan), are asked to provide their opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors At the risk of sounding like a broken record, but in compliance with the moderator's request ... FONOPS are topical and intrinsically noteworthy. They are not routine but operational in nature. The event must be weighed in respect to the service of the ship and that service which is operational. They are a significant event. For any "significant event", it is therefore appropriate to mention both what led to the event and the consequences of the event as well as the event, itself. I believe that such an approach is generic to any event in any article. In this case, this can be dealt with in as little as three sentences and, as such, this is not (IMHO) undue weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC) A FONOP is indeed significant but as I pointed out the consequences were not and unless the user above can disprove my arguments that I made earlier (points #1, 2 and 3) I can't see why that assertion should stand. The other assertion about how this "approach is generic to any event in any article" is similarly incorrect: as I alluded to in point #4, none of the other ships (USS Lassen, USS Wilbur Curtis and USS William P Lawrence) whose participation in the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part have been documented on their corresponding Wikipedia pages has been described according to the aformentioned "generic approach." Wingwraith (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator Both participants and other editors are still invited to include their comments in the section for fourth statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) The objection to the mention of the Chinese reaction, in the form of a demand for a point-by-point case, unfortunately has a quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If one editor continues to object to the mention (and seems to be trying to get the moderator to rule against it), and other editors think that it should be mentioned, this dispute will have to be resolved with a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors I would observe that this discussion originated at Milhist talk and there have been notifications there and at USS William P Lawrence. While an RfC might be the correct formal process to follow, I doubt it would elicit significantly greater participation or any new arguements in support of either position. Wingwraith has chosen this course to resolve the content dispute and would expect the opposing editors to be bound by an outcome arrived at here. The same must also reasonably apply to Wingwraith. My observations, for what they are worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Robert McClenon can you clarify how it is that my objection has the quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I strongly object to that allegation because AFAIUI those kinds of arguments are "purely personal point-of-view" which my argument self-evidently is not (and which I must add for the record has not been adequately addressed by any of the other participants). I also dispute the idea that I came here with an expectation that the opposing editors would be bound by a non-binding outcome arrived at here (which in any case is moot because the "oucome" AFAIUI is indecisive): as somebody who has observed how the disputes on the noticeboard have been resolved, what I was expecting was simply that my arguments would be adequately addressed instead of just going ignored as had happened on the talk page. Wingwraith (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator Since it appears that editor User:Wingwraith is not satisfied with my moderation of this dispute, I am requesting that another volunteer take over as moderator, and I will recuse myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC) It appears that the discussion at WT:MILHIST was going in favor of the position that also appears to be the consensus here, which is that in describing FONOPS, foreign reactions may be noted. Maybe I don't understand the job of a moderator, and I am supposed to provide a detailed refutation of Wingwraith's disagreement, or maybe consensus simply is against one editor. If another moderator can't be found, then either Wingwraith can accept that consensus here is in favor of mentioning the Chinese complaint, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors This has become a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT followed by WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT on the part of Wingwraith, together with a dash of forum shopping after consensus established on the article talkpage and at MILHIST went against him. From his comments here he dismissed the view put forward by other editors as "not just non-reasons: they eventually became non-responses". and claims that his view must be addressed ("you need to at the very least address some of the criticisms that I've made of your preferred version of the text"), after dismissing all the debate against his view put forward here and on the other talkpages (WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT). Wingwraith has continually edit warred to try and maintain the article according to how he likes it [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], because It's just too obvious that I'm in the right here. When other editors declined to engage in an edit war, Wingwraith argued that this was de facto acknowledgement that his edits were justified - They're evidently good enough to you because you haven't reverted them. When alternative wordings were debated by other users, he tried to shut them down [11]. When that didn't work he forum shopped the dispute to a new venue (here) and tried to shut the initial talkpage debate down - I've taken this to the DRN; please do not proceed any further with this proposal. Consensus has been established, Wingwraith refuses to acknowledge it. The consensus should now be implemented, and sanctions be used in case of further edit warring or disruptive editing on the part of this editor. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC) While I have refrained from making such statements, I empathise with the frustration you are expressing. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I am notifying those concerned that this matter has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) as a request for oversight on how to proceed in resolving this matter, as I percieve that this process has broken-down. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I am copying the following from Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)#Comparable articles with explicit consent of the OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Comparable articles Destroyer Squadron 60, 1988 Black Sea bumping incident, 1986 Black Sea incident, and USS Caron are articles containing similar incidents to those being discussed here. These US/Soviet incidents also involved close encounters between US & Soviet forces, and consistently, diplomatic positions of both sides are reported. My tentative conclusion is that in line with previous precedent, reactions by both sides' diplomatic and/or military authorities are a fitting inclusion in the articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Also Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) and USS America (CV-66) contain actions and reactions by both sides during the FON actions of 1986. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Finally, WP:ARTICLE says "The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say." Reliable sources (our internet news reports) have almost invariably covered both the U.S. ships' FON actions and the Chinese reaction. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) @Buckshot06, if you didn't notice, this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I've read that section. I was not sure whether discussion at that page was continuing. Happy for you to copy over my statements to there should you wish. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I'll add that as well as Wingwraith's assertion that the absence of mentions on other articles is a justification for not having it here being a well-recognised fallacy (WP:OTHERCONTENT), it is also because Wingwraith has been edit-warring to remove it from those articles himself - for example [12], [13] and [14]. Similarly his assertion that the information can be put into other articles is another Wikipedia:Other stuff exists fallacy, that fails to make any legitimate case as to why it should not be in the ship articles. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) discussion IAW discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56), A request has been made for closure of this discussion by an uninvolved admin. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Kleuske#Wood_as_an_art_object

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Neuralia on 23:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Kleuske#Wood as an art object (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Neuralia (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Patroller User:Kleuske first removed my edit to illustrate in the article the role of wood as an art object on the grounds that in his opinion the piece of art shown in [File:DNA Tree Trunk Wellcome Trust Genome Campus Hinxton.JPG] is not remarkable and doesn´t resemmble what he thinks it should resemble: the DNA molecule. The art piece under question appears to have been regarded by one of the most prestigious genetic research centers in the UK, (and indeed in the world) i.e., the [Wellcome Genome Campus] to be shown on permanent public display. It seems that the patroller is confusing the lack notability of the artist who made the piece with the remarkability of the work itself, which is evident from the comment above. I would like to invite third parties to resolve the dispute on what I consider to be common sense, and authorize the inclusion of the edit removed. Thank you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed the point extensively with patroller in the corresponding talk page with no agreement How do you think we can help? By weighing out the opinons disputed and deciding User talk:Kleuske#Wood_as_an_art_object 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.

IBM PC DOS, etc.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bumm13 on 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute IBM PC DOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) TRS-80 character set (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) VGA connector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) VGA-compatible text mode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bumm13 (talk · contribs) Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It seems as though I've fallen into a case of rules lawyering and "policy" enforcement from User:Deacon Vorbis. He has decided that he must (at all costs) revert my edits to articles that he personally dislikes (per WP:NOTBROKE)), even if it fixes punctuation or redundant linking. This really is quite passive-aggressive on his part; I've tried discussing the matter politely with him but he seems to think that whatever his thoughts on policy are are the final word and no other action by other editors are valid. As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience. I'm not going to play games here and get sucked into WP:3RR and other childish editing games. He also seems incapable of any non-"black-and-white" thinking on objective matters (such as Wikipedia guidelines (which are not rules or laws) governing this project. I suspect I stumbled into editing articles in his "pet" area (math and technology) and that he feels the need to invoke "Protecting the valor of Wikipedia at all costs", which is a wreckless sort of mindset; we're all supposed to be working together toward the common goal of making information avaiable to people on the internet worldwide, not working against each other. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Involved party (Deacon Vorbis) needs to re-evaluate his view of Wikipedia policy and that not act rashly before reverting experienced non-vandal editors. How do you think we can help? Quit reverting my correct (not merely good faith) edits (behavior modification by other party involved). Simple as that. Summary of dispute by Deacon Vorbis Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. IBM PC DOS, etc. 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:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jasper Deng on 05:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) Unscintillating (talk · contribs) Lynton1 (talk · contribs) Dream Focus (talk · contribs) Blackguard (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to seek third opinions at WT:WikiProject Computing#Talk:Microsoft Hearts without success. How do you think we can help? 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. On principle, I am neither against a section of this nature nor in favor of it. In this case, however, what I opposed was category-2 patent nonsense and contextless statistics. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Unscintillating 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) 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) 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. Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Fourth statements by editors Jasper Deng's response to my question is that he continues to refuse to consider anything that is not the removal of the entire section.  Since I have no support for what I think is the best version of the article for further discussion, it is best that I join with Lynton1 in supporting the stable and consensus version of the article as per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and as the proper discussion platform to continue to seek support for the partial removals that I support.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator 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) 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. Dream Focus 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC) @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) 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. Dream Focus 20:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) (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) (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) (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) 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:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2#Photograph

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Smerus on 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2#Photograph (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Smerus (talk · contribs) Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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/Archive 2#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.

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. Filed by HamzaShirazi on 12:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ayyār  Users involved HamzaShirazi (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, I've got a problem with another user, making modifications about the Ayyār page. I've tried to discuss the problem with him, and fully explained my point on the talk page. I've asked for him to come to the said talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayy%C4%81r&action=history 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.

multiverse

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Jimjohnson2222 on 02:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Multiverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jimjohnson2222 (talk · contribs) jytdog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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. Nothing meaningful was done offline via email. The relevant Talk page discussion is at Talk:Multiverse#Removal_of_James_Johnson_reference.. The filer has acknowledged writing the piece that they want to cite, so WP:SELFCITE is at play here. 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) 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) 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) 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? -- Dane talk 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Reminder to participate in the case sent to both parties. -- Dane talk 05:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC) 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? -- Dane talk 20:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC) 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) 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? -- Dane talk 00:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC) 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) 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. -- Dane talk 04:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC) 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) 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. -- Dane talk 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) 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? -- Dane talk 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Fifth statement by editors Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs) no objections to rfc. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Holly River State Park

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 184.15.48.187 on 20:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Holly River State Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved bitmapped (talk · contribs) Huon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 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) 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) Holly River State Park discussion Please keep dis withcussion 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) Editor Note One of the affected sources was a Q & A sesion with the actual organizer (http://www.visitwebsterwv.com/2015/11/13/irish-road-bowling-draws-interest-in-webster-county/), which was severly misrepresented as promotional. Wester Co tourism has no affiliation with the park in anyway shape of form. 184.15.48.187 (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.