User talk:JzG

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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.

Institute of Ideas deletion

Can you explain why the page for the Institute of Ideas was deleted? It was an active and influential organisation, and Claire Fox has since created the Academy of Ideas, which is essentially the same thing. Without the wiki page, people are unlikely to be able to trace the history of Claire Fox, or the activities of the organisations that she has operated. Given that she makes regular TV and radio appearances, especially on the BBC, it would seem rather important that there is a page about IoI.Vectronn (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Ideas, a redirect was created two years later, I deleted the redirect due to a complaint but I can't remember the details. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy Paradox

Accuracy Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted 07:13, June 29, 2005 by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 22 § Accuracy Paradox)
Accuracy paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just stumbled upon a mention of my user in regards to the Accuracy Paradox article. I had not logged into Wikipedia for years. You suggested the article may have a WP:SYN issue. I looked into what this means and would like to consider improving the article if possible. However, I wonder if additional edits by other users have meanwhile addressed the potential issue? Tilmann.Bruckhaus (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be deleted again (as it was when first created), as it has no reliable independent sources. You appear to be engaged in promoting the concept so should not edit the article directly. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I AfD'd the article, and it turns out to be a copyvio from a book written by a Tilman Bruckhaus. User:Tilmann.Bruckhaus has emailed me claiming to be unable to comment on my Talk page, and asking if I could undelete the article, or advise how to proceed. Thought you should know. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 06:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Where is the previous deletion? It's not in the log for the accuracy paradox page. My recent deletion for copyvio is the only entry. There's nothing for an article at a different title in Tilmann.Bruckhaus's deleted edit log either. SpinningSpark 13:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a VfD, and the OP re-created it a few months later. It seems likely the IP that created the original is also the OP, since the primary source for the term is a book by the OP published through academic vanity press IGI Global. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refspam?

Can you please explain this edit? I placed the source there, when I wrote the rest of the article, as can be seen in the revision that I finished up on. How is that REFSPAM? Vanamonde (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See 132.170.194.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - seems that most references to Matusitz were added by SPAs like this. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you would not object to my reverting those edits of yours which removed references I added myself? Vanamonde (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be fine, but I am suspicious of an author who mainly writes on marketing, but is also referenced on the subjects of terrorism, an obscure musical genre and so on. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I will do a little more digging, and if the source is not essential, I'll do without. Rowman and Littlefield are usually decent, but there's exceptions to everything, I guess. Vanamonde (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes vanity spammers are also genuinely valid sources (e.g. Pearce), so it could go either way. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions 2

I assumed good faith the first time you said you weren't meaning to cast aspersions, but this[1] edit summery is not OK, I have told you that you can raise issues with my editing on my talk page, but instead you accuse me of having a pattern of defending charlatans using your edit summery, where I cannot defend my editing. You added an unsourced negative statment about a living person[2], I removed the unsourced claim[3], and you then restored it with a source[4], which made it no longer a BLP vio. This would have been fine, if it wasn't for your edit summary making it sound like I an trying to defend antivaxers by removing a clear cut BLP vio (and I assume you knew that calling someone anti-vax without a source was a BLP vio, given that you are an experienced admin) Please be more careful with your edit summaries in the future, and as always, if you have a problem with my editing, you can raise the issue on my talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are being paranoid. Defending the indefensible is a tough job, and I respect those who do it. In this case I did not source the statement (I have now). As previously, if you are not well versed in the antivax crankosphere you might think that Tomljenovic is a legitimate researcher, but the evidence very clearly shows that she is an antivaxer working outside her area of expertise in order to produce "evidence" to support her pre-existing beliefs. She has spoken at anti-vaccine conferences and co-authored a number of crappy and sometimes retracted "studies", part of the cottage industry of erecting aluminimum as the new bogeyman to replace mercury now that has been convincingly refuted as having any effect whatsoever related to vaccines. You should follow Science Based Medicine and Skeptical Raptor, both extremely well informed. Example: https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/christopher-shaw-and-lucija-tomljenovic-anti-vaccine/ - Tomljenovic, Shaw and Exley are all part of this and I believe all are funded by the anti-vax Dwoskin foundation. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do sometimes read SBM and respectful insolence, and while I am not super familiar with Tomljenovic, I knew she was at least quite biased against ajuvanated vaccines. However, I was unaware of a sufficient source to call her antivax in WP's voice. I apologize for sounding a bit pissed off in my original comment, there is another very experienced user who has made repeated assumptions of bad faith towards me and others, complete with threats of sanctions, so I got a bit defensive when I thought you were starting to assume bad faith. I still think I can (and should) remove unsourced negative content about antivaxers, just as I would remove unsourced BLP content on any article, this doesn't mean I am trying to defend antivaxers, just that I am not making exceptions to BLP to criticize them. I still would like you not to misrepresent upholding BLP policy as wanting to help antivaxers, though. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than that. She is an antivaxer, plain and simple. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then get a sufficient source and don't accuse me of defending her when all I am doing is removing unsourced material. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You reverted. Funny, the more you complain, the more you seem to defend antivax cranks. It's a puzzle. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tornado chaser: - how about this book she authored? Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks antivax, but you don't need to convince me that she is anti-vax, you need it cite a source, the fact that I think of her as antivax too doesn't make it not OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did. But you reverted. Three times now. Guy (Help!) 01:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that source, you can certainly write it as "Shaw and his colleague, Lucija Tomljenovic, who has authored anti-vaccination literature..." etc. Black Kite (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably solve the BLP issue, but would be quite redundant given that the next sentence talks about her co authoring a paper claiming that aluminum in vaccines is harmful. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this is a case of WP:SPADE. Guy (Help!) 01:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An essay doesn't override WP:BLP or WP:NOR, and anyway that essay is talking about labeling editors, not the subjects of articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the harder you look, the more likely you are to find some reason to oppose every reality-based edit regarding antivaxers. I am bored with this now, I am off to watch a documentary about Syd Barrett. Guy (Help!) 02:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that I must want to defend antivaxers because I remove unsourced material and OR should stop. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that antivaxers be treated more fairly than everyone else should stop. Now o away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. Guy (Help!) 02:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]