User talk:Jtrevor99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Roman Numerals[edit]

Already answered your post to my talk page (which see). Sorry to have to revert a good faith edit like this again - more a matter of "where" than "if" it belongs. In this case with other "special uses" further down the article (always a good idea to read an article from top to bottom before editing it). We have, as I mentioned, sections further down on fractions, and on specific modern uses. A bit pressed for time or I'd have written this myself - but you're probably in a better position to do so than me anyway. This discussion, by the way, probably belongs "in public" (on the talk page for the article) will move it to there when I have a moment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Binksternet. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Syngenta have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not use Gawker to defame Hayes. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! We need to talk about this. Hayes' own statements are defamatory, and my entire intent was to include a defense of the people he is defaming (including some of his colleagues) by calling his statements into question. I am not intending, in turn, to defame him, so perhaps I could have worded it better. (And to be honest, I didn't know that Gawker was...ahem...a questionable source. I see your point on that now.) At any rate, I would at least like to see the statement regarding Syngenta's response reinstated, as their response is intended to defend the persons they see Hayes as defaming. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: I just saw that Jytdog restored that statement. I can live with the article as it currently stands and agree it uses better (non-inflammatory) language than my version did. Thanks for bearing with me :)

Open Invitation to Discuss[edit]

This is an open invitation to Binksternet, Jytdog and any others who have interest in the Syngenta article to settle our qualms here. I honestly thought we had settled everything with this revision [[1]], as Binksternet did not initially respond to requests by Jytdog and I on Jytdog's talk page to discuss our differences when Binksternet was invited to do so. However, in my opinion, Binksternet's actions after that were uncalled for. Twice emphasizing Hayes' accusations (once on the Democracy Now show and once in the paper), a move that was unnecessary, was met by my adding more detailing Syngenta's response to those accusations. Binksternet then deleted that response 3 times - just short of the 4 times required to be guilty of edit warring, due to it being a "primary quote". (Why Syngenta cannot be quoted on a page about Syngenta is beyond me. By this rule, we ought to delete all of Tyrone Hayes' quotes from the Tyrone Hayes page.) If Binksternet's actions had been justifiable, I would have respected them. To wit, I did not ever try to delete his comments; I only attempted to balance them. His repeated attempts to silence Syngenta's response to Hayes belies his biased view and shows that his actions were irresponsible. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Any response by Syngenta should be shown to be significant. If the response is published on their website but nobody comments about it in the media, the response is not significant. The Syngenta article in Wikipedia is not a promotional organ to be used by Syngenta. Instead, it should be a balanced and neutral representation of the published opinions and facts about the company, primarily composed of third party publications. Third party sources are especially important on controversial matters. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Are there Wiki guidelines regarding this? (Honest question; I really do not know.) If not, my opinion is that quotes by the subject of the article ought to be allowed, particularly if the Wiki article itself states "The subject stated that..." or "According to the subject...", as I did. Absence of the quote would promote bias by promoting Hayes' allegations without making any reference to the response Syngenta made. I could MAYBE see doing this on Tyrone Hayes' page, but I believe it irresponsible to silence Syngenta on Syngenta's page.
That said, I do apologize if you believe in any way I'm guilty of bias. I have been trying to balance the section so that both sides get equal airtime, and it has been motivated by what I believed to be your bias. I think it is misrepresentative to say I've tried to make this article a "promotional organ"; if I were trying to do that, I would have deleted all negative references entirely. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and there has been a public media response to Syngenta's rebuttal. See for example (yes, it's Jon Entine) or (Bruce Chassy). I expect more will be published in the coming weeks on both sides of the issue. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Jon Entine is paid by Syngenta. The website is an attack page wholly unusable as a Wikipedia reference. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that does not negate any of the other points I've made, including a request for guidelines from Wikipedia itself governing such things. So far I've seen nothing that indicates your response regarding primary sources is anything other than your opinion. But regardless, as stated, my only intent all along has been to present an unbiased view, that gives equal footing to Hayes and Syngenta. I believe the current article comes close to doing that and I can live with it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A 'balance' is achieved not by countering negative words with the same number of positive words, but by looking at all the published third-party sources and summarizing for the reader the balance found in them. So if the published balance is against Syngenta, which is what I have seen, then the Syngenta side of the story should not be given as much coverage. See WP:NPOV, especially the WP:BALANCE paragraph, for more on the issue of achieving proper balance.
Regarding the uses of primary sources versus third-party secondary sources, read the guideline at WP:SECONDARY. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
by the way, User:Binksternet, since this is a strict principle for you, we should remove ALL of the citations of Hayes' primary studies from the atrazine and syngenta articles, right? I'm actually 100% with that, as I don't think primary scientific papers should ever be cited. but my sense is that you would go ballistic if i did that. so you can drop the WP:PRIMARY stick, unless you want to actually live by it. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
At WP:MEDRS there is a very carefully crafted guideline which says that peer-reviewed scientific studies are primary sources and "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." Of course, the Syngenta website is not at all reliable for conclusions about research as it is not at all peer-reviewed. It is only reliable for the opinions of Syngenta and for uncontroversial facts. There is no parity at all between the Syngenta website and a research paper by Hayes. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
the carve out in MEDRS, which is abused far too often and I fight all the time, is based on the same carveout in plain old WP:RS. In fact the bar against using primary sources is higher in MEDRS than it is in plain old RS, since biological sciences are more unpredictable. No leg, there. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
you are right, binkster, that NPOV is not about equal numbers of words. we give WEIGHT as per reliable sources. WEIGHT discussions are really hard, because how big something is in one's eyes, depends on what one looks at - not just weltanshaaung but weltbild - not just your viewpoint but the scope of the world you are viewing. for what it is worth, the vast majority of scientific studies to date support atrazine being safe enough, when used as directed blah blah blah. bink, if you have not seen them, it is because you haven't looked at the scientific and regulatory literature. if you look a lot at anti-pesticide sites then yes, i do understand that what you have seen is mostly negative. this is where wikipedia is really hard - people don't see the same worlds. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, my argument isn't about the "same number" of words; it's about stifling entirely one side of the discussion. Democracy Now did not bother to get a response from Syngenta, nor did the New York paper, nor did the huge number of blogs and environmental activists sites that have gleefully covered the interview. Responsible journalism requires that both sides at least have representation. Syngenta quite simply has not gotten the representation in the media on this issue that Hayes has, which is a clear example of bias; I therefore disagree with your argument because it is in favor of perpetuating that bias.
A few other comments: I have noted that Syngenta's response has also been covered in public media, though you have countered that those sources are suspect. I should note that Hayes himself is suspect, since his employer, Berkeley, has known financial ties to Greenpeace. Yet I have not used that point to try to stifle what Hayes has to say. Second - and you may find this hard to believe given the history here - I would have the exact same problem if the article covered only Syngenta's side of the issue. Third, you might note that I have not attempted to edit any of the other sections that make Syngenta "look bad". That is because, in my opinion, those sections adequately present both sides of the discussion. Fourth, thank you for the WP:BALANCE and WP:SECONDARY links. I am examining them now, but my initial reading of WP:BALASPS would suggest my edits were justified. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Finally, for a bit of humor - to help dispel my and others' tempers - our disagreement could be much worse :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
WOW that is impressive. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Two things. First, it might be better to move this discussion to Syngenta's Talk page. If you're both in favor, please tell me here and I'll do so. Second, I started a discussion on the Neutral POV Talk page regarding the (in my opinion) apparent conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. Feel free to weigh in. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Kitteh wach your uzer page now, OK?

Bearian (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Aww, cute! She looks like my Smokie! :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


By odd chance I ran into my herptologist friend today and asked him casually about atrazine, and he right away started talking about "Taylor"... but since I'm not really getting involved, I'm not going to relay his professional gossip. Just thought it weird to happen to see that guy today for first time in NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:University of Warwick - Anelloni.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:University of Warwick - Anelloni.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No need. Gizmodo made it look like the University of Warwick had released that image for free use in any citation; however, further research (on and elsewhere) makes this less clear. Due to the ambiguity I won't challenge this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I changed my mind, as still more research leads me to believe Warwick released these photos for free use in any article covering the "anelloni" pasta type. It also needs to be made clear that Warwick is the copyright holder, not I have written a dispute response as directed (or, at least TRIED to address the concerns) and am interested in your response. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia decided to delete the image. I guess they think an image that the copyright holder has already given permission to use isn't acceptable. And since no other image of it exists right now, apparently someone's going to have to go make a plate of this type of pasta and then take a photo of it, just to bypass use of a photo that already has the appropriate permission. If this is indeed the requirement of Wikipedia's policy then Wikipedia's policy on this matter is truly laughable. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This does look quite frustrating, hopefully my explanation at the end of this message is more useful than this wall of text! However, before I get to that I've declined your WP:PROD on the redirect at Anelloni, because redirects cannot be subjecet to the PROD process. If you wish for it to be deleted, you should file a request at redirects for discussion. I didn't actually know about this until today, but when I looked it up, this appears to be the case. Secondly, due to the way that Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons deal with licensing, unfortunately the kind of specific permission given (can only be used articles discussing this type of pasta), is considered non-free, hence requires the fair-use template. It would need to be public-domain, or under some sort of Creative Commons License (only some, not all! (non-commercial doesn't work, for largely the same reason their conditions don't) to be acceptable without fair-use. It's a policy which I've questioned at times, but it's very much in effect, and explains why the image was deleted despite the specific permission given. Hopefully my explanation was of use. If you have a question regarding either of these topics, feel free to leave a message here, or at my talk page. NativeForeigner Talk 10:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation and help! I too didn't realize Redirects are not PRODable - good to know. The set index proposal seems like a good alternative, especially if there is more than one type of Anelloni (a fact I didn't know). Regarding the photo deletion - I suppose I understand the reasons for Wikipedia's policy on this, even if I still think it resulted in an incorrect decision in this case. Nevertheless it wasn't a particularly important photo and probably not worth fighting the policy itself in this case. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart and TIGHAR[edit]

Have you ever looked at the MOA of the TIGHAR organization and its work on finding Amelia Earhart? Look up Smithsonian Curator Thomas D. Crouch's "Searching for Amelia Earhart." Invention & Technology, Volume 23, Issue 1, Summer 2007 or Richard G. Strippel's "Researching Amelia: A Detailed Summary for the Serious Researcher into the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart." Air Classics, Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1995. Both researchers have very definite opinions about the TIGHAR group's single-minded pursuit of the so-called Gardner Island hypothesis/theory. The annual or semi-annual TIGHAR pilgrimages to the Nikumaroro atoll/island are undertaken by "amateur" archaeologists who pay their own way and always seem to find amazing discoveries which then fuel the next expedition to the Pacific. I was briefly a member of TIGHAR, but left when it became obvious as to their real purpose, stoking the mythology of fallen aviators. As to Rossella Lorenzi, her work is of the "Golly Gee Whiz" variety and has a garage full of Earhart discovery stories. If you wish to discuss this topic with me, send me an email, I would have sent this to you via email, but that doesn't seem possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, actually I didn't know all of that but will gladly look into it, thanks. In the meantime I maintain that the aluminum panel at least deserves mention in the article, even if it the mention needs to be shortened, due to the widespread coverage in numerous big-name media outlets, as testified to by multiple authors' attempts to add mention of the panel to the article. I don't take issue with your further tweaking of the statement especially given your personal history but don't think it should be omitted entirely. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a Lockheed Model 10 Electra (CF-TCC) at my local air museum and I have flown in it. After seeing the hubbub about a window panel being discovered, I specifically examined the starboard rear quarter to see what had to be done to cover a rear window and window opening. As far as I could see from the photograph of the piece of alcad that was discovered, it's smaller than Amelia's field modified window, and the rivet lines would not line up with the original structure at all. As far as can be seen in photographs of Amelia's Electra, there was a row of rivets around its circumference that secured the rear window on the starboard side. The most telling quote in articles about the find was that Alcoa has examined the remnant and confirmed that the type of material was an AN-13 type, first manufactured in 1943. The last word is from Ric Gillespie: “Funding is being sought, in part, from individuals who will make a substantial contribution in return for a place on the expedition team.” ..and so on it goes, P.T. Barnum said it, but it bears repeating, "a sucker is born every minute." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting information! Well, I'm happy with the current text and think we've derived a less biased, appropriately shortened, description of the topic in question. Given your significant expertise in this area I'll defer to your judgment on any further changes, so long as the panel isn't omitted entirely. And, thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Christians worldwide[edit]

Hi, thanks for bringing that new source to my attention. I don't happen to have that book, so I think you should just go ahead and add the source to the article and change the number yourself. My main problem isn't so much the specific numerical value; it's that whatever numerical value we decide on has to be supported by some reliable source. In the previous version of the article, none of the four sources cited after the figure actually stated 2.4 billion, so it seemed to be a completely invented number in that context.

So yeah, if you have a book that says 2.4 billion, cite it at the end of that sentence. Problem solved.UBER (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point! Will do, and thanks. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)