Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Multiverse edits deleted

Multiverse edits deleted

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party

Multiverse
 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * []

Issues to be mediated
deletion based on opinion rather than contents of material.I do not accept Isambad's logic for deleting my edits. The journal is online, indexed and respectable. The article required extensive research. I do not think Isambard Kingdom has read the material or understands it based on his comments which lack any specifics. As stated in my comments above,the plan would be to possibly insert references in other related articles.Jim Johnson 14:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Jim Johnson 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Comment Is it possible that this request has not been properly submitted, and, therefore, not registering as a request needing mediation? I'm not sure, myself, since I've never submitted a form like this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I changed subject to subst and will try but do not know what it stands for. Jim Johnson 23:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Jim's papers are published in obscure journals, and they have not yet been cited by anybody (as far as I can tell). Jim also does not appear to be an established authority on the subject of his papers (though I congratulate him for taking the effort to write them). Among the sources cited in Multiverse and Dimensionless physical constant are papers written by some of the world's most famous and respected scientists. To cite Jim's papers in those Wikipedia articles would amount to putting them on the same tier as the works of those scientists. That would be inappropriate. I encourage Jim to make broader contributions to Wikipedia, and expend less energy trying to promote his own (non-expert) ideas. I know this might sound blunt, but he does not seem to be listening. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At least two other editors do not seem to support Jim Johnson's wanting to cite his papers: as per  and  as per, though, of course, they can each speak for themselves. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Jim Johnson 00:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. I'm going to reject this case under the authority granted to the Chairperson by prerequisite to mediation #9, "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." In this particular case, I'm going to recommend a couple of steps prior to going to either Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or RFC and that's, first, the filing party making a response to Someguy1221 at NPOVN, and if continued discussion there does not achieve a resolution, making a filing at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to, at a bare minimum, get some advice about the reliability of the sources being offered. If neither of those work, then try dispute resolution via DRN and/or RFC (though not both at the same time). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)