User talk:JzG

←

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two !votes in 2007 counts for pretty much nothing. Standards have changed very substantially since then. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes. I wholeheartedly concur with Quek157 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

#2 - Passion (Steve Laury album) reached #1 on a Billboard chart (this isn't cited)
#5 - published at least two albums on a notable label - Stepping Out (Steve Laury album), Passion (Steve Laury album), and Keepin' The Faith (Steve Laury album)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Netoholic, I refer you to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Netoholic, please explain why you do not have a COI on this article. (real question) Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]