User talk:JzG/Archive 41

Another chance for User talk:Jakezing

Your call. He seems to be jumping through the right hoops. What say you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you haven't been around, I went and started a discussion here. [1]. We'll see how that goes. If you get back, please feel free to comment... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce de Palma

I didn't want to let you know about this for fear of violating WP:CANVASS, but now that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bruce_DePalma is closed, just wanted you to know that justice was eventually done. THF (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chancellor of Germany

Hi JzG, a little while ago you reviews the speedy deletion case of Chancellor of Germany and decided it was not necessary to delete/merge the page (or whatever complicated solution a user suggested). The user has since re-listed the article for speedy deletion...despite being no discussion or even development to the case since it was last rejected...is that allowed? Gavin (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bircham International University

For your reading pleasure. Thought you should know. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. He can go back to sending his special pleading to OTRS, we do not need his threats and whitewashing here. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gene Ray

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gene Ray. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Not the nominator, just apprising you of the listing.) Joe 01:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Downs

You added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Downs to the AfD log for March 14 without completing the nom. I recommend that if you complete the nom, you move it to the AfD log for March 15 since the nomination text was not completed on March 14. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Martin Fleischmann

Re your removal of a link to a copy of a work cited as a reference in the article: you may not have been aware that there is an extensive discussion here on the talk page of the article about this very link, and that both now and at the time you removed the link, the discussion showed a consensus to keep the link, in the conclusions section here. You're welcome to participate in the discussion. I've posted a comment here about your removal of the link and my revert of your edit. Unless consensus about the link changes on the talk page, please don't remove the link from the article again. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into any discussion where abd is involved, because I do not have an indefintie amount of time and Abd is completely incapable of accepting any result not to his liking. He has decided to mount a crusade on behalf of the owner of lenr-canr.org. I have no idea why. The site is useless for our purposes, every single thing there has to be viewed with deep suspicion. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  I'm interested in the reasons why you view the site with suspicion. If there is any significant reason to think the work might be a copyright violation, please tell me what it is; I may be willing to investigate. It's my understanding that the only problem was that the site had added an editorial introduction, clearly marked as such, to the beginning of a different work; that isn't a reason not to link to this work. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The site is an advocacy vehicle for the fringe science topic of cold fusion. It claims to be a "library" but includes, for example, editorialised versions of the sources it claims to represent fairly. The site owner, Jed Rothwell, was a major factor in the cold fusion article's decline from FA to POV nonsense, and a lot of the material on there is copyright (as every piece of published material always is) but with no evidence of copyright release. Rothwell has spent years promoting the site on Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source, nor is it an acceptable source of "convenience copies" due to the extensive evidence posted in the past of playing fast and loose with copyright. Example: papers copyright Reed Elsevier, a company which has declined every request of which I am aware to allow third-party websites to republish full text. If Fleischmann has written a commentary and publishes it on his website then we can certainly link to it, if there is independent evidence of its significance, but in this case we have the cold fusion equivalent of the Discovery Institute being advanced as a source. Its goals and practices are fundamentally incompatible with ours. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

External sites do not have to conform to a NPOV policy in order for us to link to a convenience copy there of a reference. The site is not being cited as a reliable source, but used as a provider of a convenience copy of the work. I haven't seen any such evidence of "playing fast and loose with copyright"; please provide diff links to where the evidence was posted. As far as I'm aware, people reprinting copyrighted material or posting it on the web don't usually display evidence of permission but simply state that it's printed or posted with permission (and I believe Wikipedia follows this same practice when permission has been emailed to permissions-en). If a copyright holder has turned down some permission requests I don't see that as being evidence that they turned down other permission requests; besides, you haven't specified the particular requests you're aware of. If the work in question is not copyrighted by Elsevier then concerns related to Elsevier seem irrelevant to linking to this convenience copy of the reference.

If you're ever impeded by the length of Abd's posts, feel free to ask me to summarize them for you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but we have to adhere to WP:NPOV which means that polemical and unreliable sites are deprecated. We also have a copyright policy which does not make an exemption for "convenience". We also have a policy on undue weight which says that something is not taken to be significant unless reliable independent sources say it is significant. And Abd is an especial problem; every single time a debate starts up he begins by reiterating a litany of compaints every one of which has already been examined and dismissed numerous times before. So I choose to disengage. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. Khoikhoi 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)