User talk:JzG/Archive 133

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

→

Archive 140

predatory publishers question

Hi JzG

So I have been reading a lot about predatory publishers because of the note you sent me. I do not understand how you can tell the difference - or how Wikipedia could be screening for them. So normal for profit journals like Nature that published Jeffrey Beall's original article obviously have a conflict of interest with open access. But they also offer open access publishing for a fee in some of their journals?!?! Jeffrey Beall himself isn't overly notable -- and has a long article about him - which has confuses me further on how to choose when and what to add or what is appropriate here. If you have a link to Wikipedia policy on this I would be much obliged.

Thanks --Gihiw (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Beall's criteria and the reasons that they lead to unreliability are detailed in our article on predatory open access publishing. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I had found that article before - which list are you using Beall's black list? Do you cross reference to remove all the white list journals by DOAJ? Is that Wikipedia policy -- as it kind of smells wrong that Beall has that much influence over the what ends up here.--Gihiw (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind - I read the top of your page - Gihiw (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Chandra W

• Chandra Wickramasinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was going to tell you to bugg off but you are an administrator, still, you are an obnoxious warrior with your head up your @. I cleaned that article over the years and remark the craziness of his research. Of course he publishes his junk his own predatory journal!! Deleting that fact is plainly sTOopid. I'm out. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Well, that's a first: being an admin has never stopped anyone telling me to bug off before...

The problem is that this is a WP:BLP. I absolutely agree with your diagnosis of his views, but WP:RS makes two stipulations about sources: they must be reliable and they must be independent. The sources I removed are neither. I suggest you discuss this at WP:FTN where you will find aficionados of crazy ideas like the government suppressing the "truth" of alien visitation. I would be very happy to see this foolishness properly documented by reference to credible sources, if you can find any that discuss it. Sadly most scientists, faced with claims like that, will simply point and laugh, not write up scholarly refutations. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This really belongs to the article's talk page (so feel free to move it), but I find your reverts borderline bizarre. The material added by BatteryIncluded certainly falls within the purview of WP:SELFPUB, all five points of it. No such user (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:PRIMARY sourced to an unreliable and predatory journal. It fails every definition of acceptable sourcing. Feel free to document this by reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of STOopid circular thinking you are stuck with: The Journal of Cosmology states he owns it, but you delete it because it is "published" by the Journal of Cosmology. Way to go. Keep droning your policies, maybe someday you will believe them. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is a perfectly sound reason for that. Predatory journals have been known to make claims like that without permission. Now, we have here a WP:BLP and we do not include stuff of the form: X said $STUPIDITY in $CRAPJOURNAL <ref> $STUPIDITY in $CRAPJOURNAL</ref>. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that he's fucking $EDITORINCHIEF of the $CRAPJOURNAL, and we're discussing his own WP:BLP. Are you seriously disputing WP:SELFPUB#4, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity? – I find it highly unlikely that $CRAPJOURNAL would make a claim that X is their $EDITORINCHIEF without X's knowledge, regardless of their crappiness level. No such user (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The journal says so, yes, but as I pointed out, predatory journals have been known to make claims of editorship which are, bluntly, fraudulent. Regardless, that would still be WP:PRIMARY and this would still be a WP:BLP. The solution is really simple: find discussion of his crazy ideas in reliable independent sources. Being self-published does not render a predatory journal reliable, and nothing, in this case, would render it independent. It has to be both, not either/or. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Guy, your interpretation of the policy is way off. WP:PRIMARY only stipulates that A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. and tells us to Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources in BLPs (WP:BLPPRIMARY). A couple of paragraphs below, WP:BLPSELFPUB says that Living persons may publish material about themselves and then repeats the criteria of WP:SELFPUB I cited above (which goes on to allow even Reddit or Twitter posts by the subject as a source, subject to editorial consensus). We might have an editorial debate whether the contended text satisfies WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV, but to wholesale reject subject's self-published articles in an magazine whose editor he is on the basis of WP:PRIMARY is downright bizarre.
As you seemingly entrenched your position on the matter, what venue would you propose for the round 2 – WP:BLPN seems appropriate? No such user (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are quote-mining the policies looking for reasons to include the content, IMO. That is actually a very normal behaviour, we all do it. I want to document the fact that someone makes insane claims just as much as you do, and I often have to sit on my hands to stop myself including substandard sources for The Truth™. Here's the spirit of the policies as they apply here:

• WP:BLP: Sources should be high quality, especially for contentious or unflattering material (which this undoubtedly is);
• WP:RS: Sources should be reliable and independent (which the predatory journal unquestionably is not);
• WP:PRIMARY: primary sources are deprecated. That word only in the para you quote - it's not a synonym for always. It's a red flag that says you should not be doing this unless it's uncontentious.

So now all you need to do is go and get some reliable independent secondary sources that note his promotion of bullshit. If it is significant, and not just a minor part of late career atrophy of the critical faculties, then that should be really easy. We have a fair bit of it in the article on Linus Pauling, for example. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, his being an editor-in-chief of the JA&O seems uncontroversial enough to be included. Does Biopharma-reporter qualify as a RS in your opinion [1] – Wickramasinghe's theory was described as a 'load of rubbish', granted, by unnamed virologist contacted by the reporter?
Btw, did you notice the double entendre in "I want to document the fact that someone makes insane claims just as much as you do"? No such user (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO it is controversial because it is a predatory journal. The source you cite does appear to be acceptable, at least I would not challenge it if it were added. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

You deleted an article before the Afd got completed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhalchandra Dattatray Mondhe. Please undelete so discussions can continue. Thanks. Lourdes 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It was created by a prolific sockpuppeteer and almost certainly paid editor (he works as an SEO). So it's spam. If the topic is notable we can WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. May I request that you do not supersede community discussions with a speedy? The end result of the Afd may well match your decision. But good form recommends you do not waylay Afd procedures, unless there are clear cut BLP or vandalism issues. Thank you in advance for considering. Lourdes 08:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

May I request that you don't attempt to filibuster janitorial work cleaning up abuse? This is a sockpuppeteer SEO editing almost certainly for profit. See WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My attempt is not to filibuster janitorial work. My apologies if that's what it came across as. I have not been able to see the contents of the article, so presume the article must be unambiguous advertising (as per your deletion note) rather than abuse, as you mention here. You obviously have much more experience in this area so I'll defer to your request and confer instead with other editors on your deleting an Afd candidate via the speedy procedure. Thank you. Lourdes 08:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to provide the text if anyone wants to start over. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have used the references and created the article again. Do tell me if it looks okay. Thanks again. Lourdes 11:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer some weightier sources, specialist journals and the like, but that's just me. As an article, it reads just fine, well done and thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and add stronger sources as you mention. Thanks for the feedback. See you around. Lourdes 14:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Mathematics and Computer Science

Why "Mathematics and Computer Science" is "predatory open access journal"? Is there a list of "predatory journals"? Will you remove references to arXiv papers? What is your math. background?

Kind regards, Trace on the Moon (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The DOI is 10.11648 which is the company identifier for Science Publishing Group, which is on Beall's list [2], discussion https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/17/science-publishing-group-publishes-junk-science/ here]. The journal page shows that this is indeed the publisher. Feel free to source the same content to a credible journal. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI close and topic ban re Cultural Marxism

You closed this with a 3 month topic ban for the editor about whom the complaint was made, declaring a "consensus" in favour of a ban, but without specifying what the person had actually done wrong that was ban-worthy. However, I counted on the page five people calling for a ban, four (including an IP) explicitly against and five basically saying "there's no need" (me included). I may have missed one or two, but how on earth does that amount to a consensus to ban? Especially of course when you note that, of the five calling for the ban, one was the complainant and one was the person who ended up also closing the section and instituting the ban (a problem in itself of course, surely). The person you've banned had engaged in a brief bit of edit-warring and minor incivility on the talk page, but had opened an RFC to get further input and had ceased making any edits days before the punishment was meted out. Not only was there no problem to solve by that point, but this seems to say to people that editors in a content/presentational dispute can can get people who disagree with them banned if they go to ANI and get four other people to post in support (who may or may not be active on their side in the dispute in question), one of whom then goes on to make the call. I think I'm losing count of the number of levels at which this is a problem. N-HH talk/edits 22:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the arguments and formed the view that the editor needs to leave that topic alone for a while. See my comment on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. And your answer here doesn't address a single one of my points. You seriously think it washes to say, "I'm an admin, I think a topic ban was a good idea, as I said in the discussion, despite majority opinion, so I imposed one – and you're getting off lightly?" Plus, to be a bit more legalistic, perhaps you could read this section of the banning policy – especially re authority and venues for imposing bans, the need for the sanctioned editor to have been "repeatedly disruptive", the requirement for consensus, the requirement for an uninvolved administrator to make the decision and the fact that bans "are not intended as a short-term measure" – and explain how this action fits in with pretty much any of that. N-HH talk/edits 08:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It is my view, based on the discussion and a review of the article history and user contributions, that Last Contrarian is headed down a well trodden path to perdition on that article. The article itself has been a bone of contention for a long time, with entrenched positions divided largely along ideological lines, a toxic combination on Wikipedia which often leads to flame-outs. I note that LC has not appealed or dissented. You can ask for a review via WP:AN if you like. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but again that doesn't address any of the points. We all have our own "views" – but we don't get to go around unilaterally banning people based on them. Anyway, whatever. As for AN review, I have no intention of creating more noticeboard drama over this, assuming this kind of action is not something you make a habit of. N-HH talk/edits 09:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The English language is a wonderful thing. In a sentence like "It is my view, based on the discussion and a review of the article history and user contributions", view is synonymous with conclusion, yet in other contexts it is synonymous with opinion or belief, and the ambiguity can be exploited for endless fun. Meanwhile, I offered you a way forward if you are determined to challenge this (noting, in passing, that LC has not chosen to do so: maybe LC recognises some facet of this that you don't?). I would point out that if you are determined to challenge it then it will almost certainly go to WP:AE, where sanctions have a tendency to be harsher and are also recorded in perpetuity. I think I was letting LC off lightly. You plainly disagree, but I am not going to discuss it further here because (a) you are not the user involved and (b) I think any review requires more eyes than it will get on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for accepting my edit. It clearly looks like some promotion is going on there, especially with the "However..." wording. The "However..." wording is a big red flag, I think. Good luck, 69.50.70.9 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Renegade & Renagade

Hello. I think there was a misunderstanding about the "Speedy deletion of a page" I requested. Renagade is the original page, I had moved it to Renegade (Jay Z song) because the title should be Renegade not Renagade. When the move was done, I requested for speedy deletion of Renagade as it was a redirect page. But you had re-moved the new page back to the old page. I think it's my fault for not putting the speedy deletion tag properly (I'm not very familiar with it). I wanted the old page which became a redirect, to be deleted. - Rizhopper (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Articled Deletion

hello, i'm writing you today to ask why my article was deleted, (ImaShiine)as it is similar to another article i aided in completing which can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bruno) as the people in these articles both have a significant amount of reliable sources, as well as a credibility in their profession of work. hope to hear back from you soon. Realisreal25 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neither article makes any credible claim of notability. See WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company

I believe this was mistakenly identified as spam; no one is going to be promoting a company whose claim to notability was that it became a case study on fraud and abuse for a U.S. Senate committee after it went defunct. Concerned user (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, let me look again. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Vijay Kumar Roy

Hey Guy. I'm not thrilled with your decision to delete this article on G11 seemingly without a pending nomination, after I declined a G11 nomination on the same article. (I don't mind if it stays deleted, since it has few redeeming qualities.) I assume you just didn't check the history before clicking delete? Regards, -- Y not? 02:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It was created by an undisclosed paid editing sockfarmer. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

no problem, cheers -- Y not? 23:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

anti-vaxxer?

Hi -- you might be interested in Robert Sears (physician) and some recent edits [3]. Not currently out of control, but could go that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching the Sears thing in the news but hadn't thought to check for article edits, thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group

Ok, I give up. I can't figure out why you did this [4]. Your edit summary doesn't give me any clues. Can you explain? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I am a nasty suspicious bastard and I think it is not unlikely that removing the citation form the sentence is step 1 towards trying to remove the sentence altogether. This happens rather a lot when a small subset of people don't like the reality-based consensus on something, especially when the thing is profitable. However, I'm not going to fight over it, I am just going to watch the article. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I was afraid I had violated one of WP's many rules. I will explain my reasoning on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You're violating Rule 5. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Better than Rule 34 I suppose... Guy (Help!) 22:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rule 34? Is that connected with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft? Thanks for that outsider yet insightful and thorough comment! Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to start at Plan B. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Or Plan 9. Because you need some unconvincing props in yoru life. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What about Rule 2πr? If one is to go in circles, at least one can be codified about it. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WHAT? Are eu clidding? Surely you can't be serious! Guy (Help!) 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not a series, I am The One and Only. But still don't call me Shirley, or I'd have to become serious I suppose. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 02:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Investindustrial

Hi, I write to you regarding the speedy deletion request on the Investindustrial page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investindustrial. I think that an Investindustrial page could be relevant to users. Several important companies pages in Wikipedia have a link or a reference to Investindustrial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Investindustrial, so it could be relevant for the user interested in this companies to know more about it, which as I stated above is an influent stakeholder for companies which have a page in wikipedia. The article went under a speedy deletion for "ambiguous promotional content" (G11), there is a new draft of it which provides a neutral point of view and an unbiased wording. The article provides references from reliable and well known sources external to the company (for instance international newspapers websites). Only one reference links to the company website, the other sources all come from websites external to the company. Could you explain which part of the article need a significant rewriting? Thank you Tinext (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure you think that. Try writing it up at Draft:Investindustrial so someone not connected to the company can review it. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok good! Thank you very much for your quick reply Tinext (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WilliamNOtis

Just a head's up per your note at the top of the page; I am reviewing this user's unblock request, and it will depend on the answer to my follow-up question posted there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

All good. I try to leave reviews like this entirely to others, as it minimises the chances of getting emotionally vested in the outcome. It's too tempting for an admin to defend a block and lose sight of the actual reason for it. I think your approach is spot on, and the result will be correct for all concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 193.85.211.55. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tomas Gorny

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tomas Gorny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NPA

I feel obligated to say you shouldn't call someone an idiot, even when it is arguably deserved. That is about all the official "warning" I can muster on the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing dispute

Hi; since I have seen you take an interest in some pseudoscience-related topics, perhaps you'd be interested in the mini sourcing dispute in Simulated Reality; the GSJ seems to me an obvious quack source. Another editor (Headbomb) and I have reverted the addition (by the same new editor) thrice in toto. I'm 2 reverts in already, and at any rate I won't have any time this week (it looks like this might take a bit of argumentation), so it'd probably be best if someone else could take a look. (Feel free to tell me if there are better venues to ask for that kind of help.) Regards, Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

AE

Hi, could you please tell me if I'm being accused of something in this comment, and if yes, of what? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart

I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: You didn't get the notification.... I've copypasta'd the notification from my page (Jed didn't know how to spell your actual user name, apparently...)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)