User talk:JzG/Archive 155

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reconsidering Steve Laury

Hmmm.... it turns out Steve Laury, which you deleted and whose restoration I declined at WP:REFUND (and I also blocked the plaintiff), is notable after all. He meets multiple WP:MUSICBIO criteria:

Even if criterion #2 is not met, he still qualifies as notable based on criterion #5. Based on that, I think the article should be restored. Because the record label was mentioned multiple times, it didn't qualify for A7 either. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

For me, the only thing that counts is whether someone not associated with him can write an article based on non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Subject notability guides are only an indication of subjects that re likely to meet WP:GNG, they cannot trump GNG because GNG is based on V and RS. If we don't have multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources, we can't verify that an article is neutral. We definitely can verify that most revisions of the deleted article were not. Not nobody's standing in the way of a new and properly sourced article, I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I've seen cases where an article was deemed keep-worthy when sources were difficult to find but the artist met one or more of the other criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, particularly for musicians notable before the internet became widely available. I was in the process of finding all of this guy's album articles and tagging them with {{db-a9}} when I realized that he may be notable after all. Sources may be difficult to find because his notability stems from the early 1990s, before the World Wide Web. For example, he apparently charted on Billboard in 1991, but Billboard's own archives don't even go back before 2005.
Apologies for removing the archive tags you put on the WP:REFUND discussion, but I felt that words to the effect of what I've written here should be brought up there. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kandi_Barbour

Just my personal viewpoint, not wanting to comment on talk or whatsoever, since the article had went through 1 AFD, and closed as "keep" see 1st AFD, moving back to the version then which is in 2007 AFD Version and add reliable sources maybe right. The AFD is too short in my opinion for 'Keep' by current standards but that's what standards are that in 2007 anyway. Just my humble opinion and as mentioned, I am rescuing myself away from this, so I did not post at AN/I or talkpage. Thanks for indulgence in advance --Quek157 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to add if I am there voting, I will vote as per Delete - No RS, no coverage in depth, non notable person (using 2007 languages where there is not yet all the abbreviations) --Quek157 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Two !votes in 2007 counts for pretty much nothing. Standards have changed very substantially since then. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
yes. I wholeheartedly concur with Quek157 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Storm's a-brewin' at food irradiation

Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Student editors have been assigned to rewrite the article. See note on my talk. I mentioned to Herna327, apparently their leader, about consensus issues. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP RfC comments

Hi, I have moved your comment from the "comments" section to the "threaded" section as it seems to fit in better there. You may wish to leave a !vote in the "comments" section as well. Regards, --LK (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

meatball:ExpandScope wrt User:Philip Cross

This is somewhat re your closure at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross.

If you hadn't noticed yet, someone has taken their feud with Philip Cross a bit public. [1], which showed up on hn even... [2].

Is there a substantive history between Philip Cross and User:KalHolmann or so ?

ps Hello! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. This strikes me as one of those cases where someone was editing articles from the standpoint of an opinion, as everyone does, and people with a vested interest in the subjects began to attack them, leading to escalation. You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Granted I'm probably a little more suspicious than the average person. But my spidey senses tingle whenever an editor's first two edits are to trivially bluelink their user and talk pages, and just a few edits later they show commendable mastery of complex templates and Wiki syntax. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Mine too. Let's wait and see. If he continues the feud, he can perhaps join theantiphilipcross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 21:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... well... of course the situation was continued off-wiki. I get the impression that KalHolmann wanted to deal with their issues on-wiki first, but did not get the opportunity to do so. This then lead to the expansion of scope. To prevent: check/ensure there was substantive discussion somewhere on-wiki somewhere first (if/when possible) before rapid closing a discussion.
I guess there is an on-going off-wiki feud, in fact.
Thanks for taking the time for me! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kim Bruning: Few people are more welcome here! It is a source of sadness that we converse less often than of old. I have opened a question at WP:AN because I do agree that this is not an obvious one. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick FYI: You've been mentioned off-wiki: https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html (see under Wikipedia Response) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, not a surprise, that is a pseudonymous partisan website. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The controversy regarding Philip Cross is spreading. See the Medium article by Mark F. McCarty.[1] Page Notes (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban enforcement?

Hi. Just wondering how to go about getting enforcement of a topic ban. The user in this AN/I thread has avoided the area until the last couple of days, but is now making biased edits to the main article on the immininent abortion referendum in Ireland. Diffs:

I've warned the user but if they persist, do I need to go to AN/I or is there some other mechanism? WP:TBAN isn't clear on this. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


My farcical topic ban, so it really was designed as I long suspected, not so much a topic ban but as a political tool...to keep me from jeopardizing your "edits to the main article' on the imminent abortion referendum in Ireland".
You seem to make a game out of this encyclopedia, hounding User:Leftwinguy92 with erroneous sockpuppet claims, now too is it?
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Erroneous only in that I thought he was a sock of Apollo, he turned out to be a sock of someone else. /shrug. How I am somehow supposed to be responsible for your topic ban, resulting from an AN/I thread I did not instigate, is a bit of a mystery to me. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned this at ANI but can you please ensure the topic ban is properly recorded (probably at WP:EDR) so we don't get another round of wikilawyering if blocks are levied. --NeilN talk to me 15:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Per WP:BRD, you made a BOLD removal of this source, were reverted, and you should instead of edit warring simply bring your issues to the talk page and gain consensus for its removal. The source violates no guidelines which are grounds for immediate removal. I direct you to self-revert, restoring the article to its stable state, and discuss this in good-faith. -- Netoholic @ 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I took it to the talk page already. You inserted it into the article yourself (the BOLD), I reverted, you know it's contentious, you know why, and the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. BRD starts with insertion of material, not removal. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and BLP attack

I believe you may have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with regards to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia‎ article, due to one of the studies being heavily focused on your activities re: Brian Martin, and would advise you to use caution. Your edit summary for the removal of his section here includes a WP:BLP-violating disparaging remark. I strongly advice you to self-revert, suppress the edit summary, follow WP:COIADVICE, and avoid making direct edits within that area. I know you may not appreciate this, but I am coming to you personally first, as its better for all involved than the alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 17:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to seriously argue 'antivax crank' is a BLP violation, would you prefer 'scientific fraud'? Crank is at the bottom of the list of ways to describe someone who falsified research in order to demonstrate a crank theory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Netoholic, I refer you to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to debate the science behind it with me. I'm simply addressing your COI and BLP language choices. I realize you feel strongly about this, but that's exactly why its a COI and why I'm appealing to you to get yourself out of it. Has it crossed your mind that editing when there is a clear COI might actually be used against Wikipedia to lend credibility to accusations of bias? -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Has it crossed your mind that asserting "COI" just because someone launches off-wiki attacks against those who keep Wikipedia neutral, would be rather a bad idea? The most astonishing thing here, though, is that you actually chose to include that obvious motivated reasoning as if it were in some way a valid criticism of Wikipedia. I mean, really? Guy (Help!) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I did no such thing. Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia. This can go away. Let us handle this. There are certainly refutations out there for these claims of bias, and we'll incorporate them. But you really impede that process by participating in this COI area by removing them. For Wikipedia's sake, please let's make this go away. Trust in the process. -- Netoholic @ 17:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You started the article, you decided what content to include and what to exclude. You made the edit, you selected these fringe sources criticising our "bias" towards the mainstream, so yes, it is 100% on you. And with that we are done. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Netoholic, please explain why you do not have a COI on this article. (real question) Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: - Well, for starters, I have never been mentioned by name in any of the studies which critique Wikipedia's bias. I have no COI, I don't personally benefit or suffer from any of the content in the article, and I am not affiliated with anyone or any group mentioned (other than of course being a volunteer, unpaid editor on Wikipedia - but in that respect my COI is no different than any other person on the planet who wants to edit). -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And neither is mine. The fact that some antivaxer chose to take a pop at me and bleat about his article being less flattering than some of his less fringe peers is not really my problem, but including that shit is a truly terrible idea and you should not have done it in the first pace and absolutely not have restored it. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Netoholic thanks for answering, but that is an invalid analysis; COI is a broader concept than "financial" or "being mentioned by name". As someone who has invested many hours in WP, you absolutely have a "stake" in Wikipedia. There is no WP editor, and especially no long term WP editor, who will not bring dirty hands to a navel-gazing and contentious article like that. I strongly urge you to change your approach to the page and other editors at it, and consider yourself completely conflicted. (I am, as well.) Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: - You might as well propose deletion of everything in Category:Wikipedia then. We all may have bias when editing those, but WP:COI refers to avoiding editing when something is directly about you, as this Martin study is about JzG. He should be avoiding it, not only because it violates policy, but because it validates Martin. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What I am objecting to, is your coming here wagging a COI finger in someone else's face, with a big old plank in your eye. Especially as you are the one who added the content about Martin to that page. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I am pretty sure this has come up at a noticeboard before though, an editor involved in an off wiki dispute would have a COI with regards to an article subject, but an editor who has been merely criticised off wiki by an article subject does not have a COI on that alone. The simple reason being it would then be trivial for an article s–ubject to remove anyone who edits their biography in a manner they do not like by publishing an attack piece naming them. And it would make editing in the fringe area in a neutral manner impossible. I suspect its in the BLP or COI archives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not involved in an off-wiki dispute. I edited an article, and the subject chose to attack me off-wiki. That's the full extent of the "dispute". It's about as significant as the time Michael Winner had a go at me in his restaurant column because I politely pointed out to his PA in an OTRS exchange that typing all-caps is the email equivalent of shouting. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I didnt think you were, apologies if I was unclear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Not at all, it's a fair point given the recent Philip Cross nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but you're now at 4 reverts today on the article (counting the connected edits as one). -- Netoholic @ 11:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Only if you count removal of entirely unconnected material as part of a series of reverts, which we don't. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Took a look at the available evidence, concluded that Guy (not to be confused with Guy Macon) has zero COI. I also would refer Netoholic to the response given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to play with this, but it does seem that Guy has a conflict of interest in regard to a paper specifically criticizing his edits. As it mentions me as well, although briefly, I figure I do too, so I'm generally staying out of this. But we shouldn't accept that a person being criticized in a paper should be deciding whether or not that paper can be used as a source in WP articles. This is a different issue to whether or not Guy has a COI in regard to Brian Martin in general - it is just this one paper where I think Netoholic had a point. But is anyone really going to try and enforce this? I suspect not, so it is moot. - Bilby (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Your past defence of antivaxers means that I am very likely to think the exact opposite of anything you say, so posting to my talk page is only likely to be counterproductive. Nobody other than an axe grinder would seek to include that "paper" anyway, it is so obviously a self-serving whine fest. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not defend antivaxers - I defend Wikipedia against BLP violations. It is very easy to ensure that articles about people we agree with are compliant with BLP. It is very hard to do the same for those whom we are ideologically opposed to, but it is no less important.
In regard to this COI, I know you won't agree with me. But if anyone else was going through Wikipedia removing links to a published and peer-reviewed article critical of themselves, we'd have no problem arguing that they have a COI - even if the article was poor - and that they should not be making the decision about that article. When you go through deleting references to an article critical of yourself, you are also have a COI. The article might be bullshit, and it might not be something we should use, but that decision should have been made by someone independent. - Bilby (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually I have previously removed links to off-wiki personal attacks on named Wikipedians, regardless of whether I agree with them, over many years. I had a long-running argument with one user over this. We should not be importing off-wiki kvetching about Wikipedia articles unless there is substantial independent coverage of the matter, especially when the person kvetching is mainly upset about the fact that their fringe views are called out as fringe. Martin is an antivaxer. He is a former member of AVN, he supports Wakefield, he supported Wilyman, he supports the refuted OPV-AIDS hypothesis. All our articles on antivaxers are unpopular with the subjects, and that says only good things about Wikipedia.
And yes, you defend antivaxers. You've done it several times. I am persuaded that you do this out of good motives, but you do. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with you removing links to articles critical of other Wikipedians. The problem is removing links to an article critical about yourself. If this was some insane rant published on a blog post or crap like Natural News, then I wouldn't care in the slightest. But it wasn't - it was a published peer-reviewed paper critical of your actions in regard to a BLP. I'm not even going to argue that the article should be kept. It is simply that Netoholic was correct - you, as one of the main subjects of the article, have a COI in regard to that article, and shouldn't be the one deciding to remove it.
But I'll leave it. I didn't want to bring it up an AN/I, and I know that pushing this here won't help either. All we'll create is useless drama. I wish you could see why you have a COI in regard to this article, but I understand that it isn't going to happen. So be it. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If I thought there was any merit at all in the inclusion, I would not have removed it. Several instances appeared to have been added in violation of WP:POINT and it clearly fails WP:RS pretty much anywhere. And actually my original removal from that article was on the basis of WP:UNDUE - until I read the source I had forgotten it mentioned me, I had filed it under "ignore" along with Dullman's bleating on HuffPo. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to say "I told you so," but... OK, yes. Yes I do. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Social Science Computer Review at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017

Hello!

About this [3]. I added that, and a bunch of others I recently found after reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Nice_writeup_on_editing_to_Circadian_rhythm_and_Circadian_clock_in_journal. Based on your ES you don't think any of them should be there.

My thinking is that this is scholarly/academic press and it fits well. It is not, like you noted, "news coverage", like 99,9% of the usual stuff on these pages (there's a thing or two from Nature if you look hard), but from what I could glean from WP they're decent publications in their field, I didn't see "predatory" or something like that.

I'm fairly certain me adding these inspired Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG_should_be_topic-banned_from_any_mention_of_Brian_Martin. Sorry about that, unintended consequence. "Plenty of evidence for a butt-hurt academic." may very well be correct (slight COI-problem, for one thing), but we don't disqualify news coverage on these pages for being wrong/misunderstanding/lying either, and we shouldn't.

So, I'd like to re-insert that journal, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a news article, it's a non-news article in a minor journal, written by a subject complaining about editors of his article. We shouldn't really include that (for any value of article subject) unless there's wider coverage. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not a news article/news-coverage, but it is scholarly/academic press. Plenty of the news-coverage on those pages only appear once. I may try to get more input on this somewhere, if I do I'll ping you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really, no. Seriously, it lacks any rigour at all. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web

In case you missed it, I think you'll appreciate how the AfD was closed. And I think I deserve props for getting it reopened and then promoting the shit out of it. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. A bold but very well argued close IMO. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BethANZ

Do you have any objections to an unblock of BethANZ on these conditions? Your initial block was sound based on the obvious WP:COI issues surrounding links to her website. On the other hand, I do believe she is a reasonable subject matter expert on a fairly narrow topic, having devoted much of her retirement to this research as a labor of love, per this BBC article. I'd support (or issue myself) a reblock if she began canvassing links, refs, or engaging in ownership issues. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, On the basis that any repeat leads to a reinstatement of the block, I am fine with it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Hi Guy, I like what you say on your user page about sorting things out like grown ups. Could we have a discussion about my proposal at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Problem_of_definition? If I understand where you are coming from, you want to protect Wikipedia from people who are trying to legitimize fake medicine. But I am not one of them. I'm just trying to make this article credible. Please take another look at what I wrote, and tell me what concerns you have with it.--agr (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Cornerstone

Where can I find the AfD discussion for Cornerstone (statistics software)? I'm surprised it was deleted, as it is certainly a notable piece of software. The current article does sound a bit too much like advertising, but that's not a reason to delete. --Macrakis (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Somehow, this got added to my Special:Notifications... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

On mine also. Almost all of what you did was certainly right, and it is amazing but not exactly surprising that it had lasted this long --2009 if not earlier-- but perhaps most of he history section should be restored. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The fans can have it back if they can find reliable independent sources. The sources cited were TMI websites and a book by the founder. However, this was a first pass, cleaning the crap, I have no problem with rebuilding with proper sourcing - the organisation is clearly notable, though obviously much less so than its fans believe. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/craig-murray-and-caitlin-johnstone-have-just-explained-that-wikipedia-is-a-deep-state-psyops-so-5deede3ba3fc Craig Murray and Caitlin Johnstone Have Just Explained that Wikipedia is a Deep State Psyops — So Take a Look at Wikipedia’s Entry on the Douma “Gas Attack”
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155"