User talk:JzG/Archive 177

Archive 170

←

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

Archive 178

Archive 179

Archive 180

Suggestion regarding 'postmodernist approach'.

I was interested in your statement on the Brian Martin Talk Page that: "Martin is known for his advocacy of a postmodernist approach to academic freedom". I'd tend to describe his approach as libertarian, although you could be correct. Suggestion: you publish a critique of what you see as Martin's postmodern approach as a refereed article in a scholarly journal. Obviously a key element of any such article would be what we mean by the word "postmodern", and I would think you'd also have to reference Martin's work to back up your hypothesis. The advantage of the article, however, would be that this would be available as a reference for the Brian Martin article. Further, scholarly publication is often a career positive, in this case for yourself. Research17 (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Research17, no thanks. Martin has contacts and has already managed to publish an attack on those who accurately describe his pseudoscience advocacy under the guise of an "article" on Wikipedia bias. There is an inequality of arms. We stick to reliable independent secondary sources and leave it at that. Guy (help!) 09:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think it depends on how any article is framed. Probably an article presenting Martin as some modern day Darth Vader would not be accepted for publication, irregardless of whether the reviewers had any connection with Martin and irregardless of how well written. However I think a critique of the postmodernist assumptions underpinning Martin's work would be plausible, and likely to be published. Such an article might also advance critical debate. BTW, I believe you're aware of the review article by Kerrie Wiley et alia in the journal Vaccine last year. I think that's a good example of how one can be rigorous and forensic in criticism of a person's work, in this case a PhD thesis, and yet avoid a personal attack. I know that from your entry a few days ago you're not inclined to try such an article, but, for what it is worth, I think it's doable. Research17 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I now noticed this after replying elsewhere to try RSN (at Talk:Academic studies about Wikipedia). One thing however is that since it is in relation to Wikipedia and his own article, this is considered a primary source with a conflict of interest. It may be possible to mention its existence in his article if consensus develops for it (that it's WP:DUE), but I doubt that it could be covered in detail (to cover it a secondary or tertiary source's interpretation of that paper would be best). —PaleoNeonate – 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding: (and it's already in the article with a quote that I still agree is acceptable per my comment at WP:FTN); I'll be glad to comment on it at RSN if it's eventually there for other purposes after the FTN discussion is over. —PaleoNeonate – 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Link to a mondo film

Seriously? You do realize this is 2020, right? - Manifestation (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, oh, did they change copyright law in 2019 then? Guy (help!) 18:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I wish they did. Literally no one cares about the copyright of a Japanese mondo film from 1993. The old copyright rules are so out of step with the ideas of the internet. - Manifestation (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, not going to disagree. Guy (help!) 23:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Hey Guy, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

ANI close

Hi JzG, Hope you're well,
Just wondering could you possible close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davey2010_uncivil_and_rude for me please, An editor has taken it upon themselves to correct my English and so figured it'd be best to have it closed before an edit war starts,
Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A small experiment

Hi JzG,

Would you mind helping me conduct a small experiment, please? Based on your edit history, it appears that you have little to no interest in motorsport. I'd like to show you an excerpt from a source and ask your opinion of it:

In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion.

In your own words, could you please tell me what you think this means and what conclusions you think anybody who reads this might draw from it? For context, a "Priority 1 driver" is a competitor at the top level of the sport.

I know it's an odd request, but it will help me a lot with something. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, it means the driver has a consistent number year to year unless they are champion in which case they get number 1 and presumably their usual number is not issued. Guy (help!) 11:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. And yes, that's precisely what it means. I'm currently trying to deal with an editor who claims that this source and three others (which are less obtuse in their wording) are too vague; that because the phrase "permanent numbers" is never defined, readers cannot know what it means. It's likely to go to Arbitration because I think he's hounding me and he has a bad habit of wiki-laywering and misrepresenting things. That you have so deftly identified the meaning of the source will help me build my case if it goes to Arbitration (though I won't mention you by name; there's no need to drag others into it). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, seems clear enough to me - but it's not true that I have little to no interest in motorsport, just not in current motorsport because it's boring. I was a big BTCC fan in the 80s and was an F1 fan too - I met that Murray Walker once, at Sammy Miller's museum in Southampton. But these days my taste runs to Drivetribe, HubNut and the legendary Project Binky. Guy (help!) 11:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, though I don't think it will be a problem. The intended meaning of the source is pretty clear, so it should be easy to demonstrate that this editor is being deliberately disruptive. He has managed to drag a discussion about car numbers out for six weeks.

I do agree that most modern motorsport is boring, but not rallying. I spent most of my childhood in the forests of New South Wales watching rally cars go past. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: I read your politics page and thought it was fascinating and very well-written. I only wish I had read it six months ago, before I inherited a politics class from one of the rusted-on right-wing people you describe. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, Oberon area? my e-chum Peter Bowditch has driven those rallies and still photographs and reports on them. Guy (help!) 11:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of the rallies I went to—the ones I remember, anyway—were around the South Coast, but when I was very young and still an only child, we went further afield. So I may well have been in a state forest somewhere outside Oberon at some point. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Speedy deletion of Climate Forecast Applications Network

I believe the reason given [2] is completely bogus, but as suggested (but not completely applicable because there was NO discussion), I will "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision."[3]. Another interested editor discussed notability on the talk page, and asked how they could help improve the article, but did not express any concern about spam/ad/promotion. Please correct your mistake and restore the article asap. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, please don't write advertorial on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Climate Forecast Applications Network

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Climate Forecast Applications Network. 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. Yae4 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yae4 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Monsanto's article

I wrote 2 short sentences and added a picture in the monsanto article. Every time, properly referenced. I have been asked to provide some links, studies and references, and I did as asked. I've even copied the text suggested by another editor. Please explain what was wrong about it and how to solve it. If you keep removing it without giving any reason I'll have to look for arbitration. --Pablo Calfucura (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Pablo Calfucura, the source was unacceptable. You can hardly fail to have noticed that every one of your edits to that article has been reverted. The solution is to gain consensus on the talk page before making changes you know, by now, will be controversial, to an article you have also been advised is controversial. Guy (help!) 14:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback (if possible)

Hi Guy. I was hoping to possibly get some feedback on an article I created. It's currently in the queue to be reviewed and while waiting I wanted to see if there were any problems I missed and could fix by getting feedback from a few people. I'd hate to have it deleted over a simple mistake I could have fixed (or a big mistake I wasn't aware of making). The article is Bibliography of the Russian Revolution and Civil War. I'm sure you get a lot of requests, I understand you're busy and appreciate any time you can spare.   // Timothy :: talk  19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Guy, I would like to alert you to a complaint I have put to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution team concerning your editing the article relating to "Conspiracy Theories relating to the Trump-Ukraine Scandal." I am advised by that webpage to notify you, so I do that here. The issues I raised relate to the entire article and to your policies as editor of it, the language employed by you or allowed into it from others which is already prejudicial and lacking NPOV, the exclusion of all sources embodying conservative or right-wing views contrary to your own in this already clearly political matter involving both right- and left-wing groups and parties, etc., etc., etc., and your indifference to facts per se already in the public sphere and known to all when they contradict your own even if they come from mainstream media sources you otherwise acknowledge and use. 122.111.212.235 (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

122.111.212.235, please provide a link to that DR request, and please register an account. Your editing history does not include any links to that DR request, so who are you? You're not supposed to edit from more than one account. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, who are you? My message was to Guy. He has answered neither this post nor posted anything so far in my own User page. However, I did go back this morning to check the "Conspiracy ..." Talk page discussion, and noticed your comment there too. Thank you for making it. After seeing it, I went to the Dispute Resolution page and to my surprise found nothing there from me. I had completed all the required steps filling out the complaint, "Submit" included, as well as the notification of the other disputant, Guy, so the absence of my request on the DR page is inexplicable to me. Perhaps I missed a further step in the submission process, I don't know. Or it may be that because I phrased this as a request for an administrator editor to have a read of the article for NPOV and determine if a complete rewrite was needed, and indicated that I did not want to engage in a drawn-out dispute personally, the request was either transferred to another dispute panel or rejected en toto. I think the article, and Guy's comments and responses on the Talk Page, speak for themselves. They do not need my continued depressing and almost certainly pointless waste of time. For such I consider it. If Wikipedia as an institution allows such blatantly POV editing as we see in this article, that is their affair. One other thing: Wikipedia obviously tries to facilitate correction of disputes through its elaborate administrative apparatus. That is entirely to its credit. But it clearly fails to work with full effectiveness, due to the predelictions of editors predominating in the administrative functions, as the discussions on the DR page itself show, nevermind the blatantly slanted articles still in Wikipedia. But as a newcomer to all this, I also find the labyrinth confusing and unclear. Maybe I should have put my complaint to the NPOV board? The Third Editor (or whatever it was called) board? The Article Delete board? Or on any other of the many options and categories of disputes listed? As for who am I, I am just a sometime reader, not a full-time editor of Wikipedia, and that is the way I want to keep it. You suggest that I "register an account." What does that mean and why should I do so? My Talk page is sufficient. 122.111.212.235 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mine is something like the third most watched user talk page on Wikipedia. There are many "talk page stalkers" here.

You should register an account because it conceals your location and allows you to edit from multiple locations and devices with a single consistent point of contact.

Not having an account won't stop you being topic banned if you continue to advocate for inclusion of unacceptable sources or argue that exclusion of unacceptable sources is motivated by personal political bias on the part of individual editors. Guy (help!) 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

122.111.212.235, I suggest you create an anonymous username. By having an account, you will have many advantages not available to IPs, and none of the disadvantages of editing as an IP. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is to inform you that the request to the Dispute Resolution forum was "closed" by the editor Nightenbelle, on the grounds that the opposing editor at this Conspiracy theories article had not been informed by me the complaintant, the items requesting adjudication were not specified, and another forum might be more appropriate. Of course, the first two reasons are not correct, but there may have been some misunderstanding by Nightenbelle or other snafu: clearly you have been informed, Guy, here and on the article talk page, and we have specifically disagreed on the title wording, the reliability of John Solomon, use of Rudy Giuliani as an informant and the rejection of Solomon apparently simply because he interviewed Guiliani (and also because he is allegedly a right-wing conservative himself), OAN, and other issues. But perhaps another forum would be better: any suggestions? Two other points: 1: contrary to Guy's suggestion above I am acting on no nefarious intentions in using my IP, and not having an account. I don't see why I should be embarrassed by my IP address, and perhaps do not understand something BullRangifer does about how that could be a disadvantage or vulnerability. Could you clarify this, BullRangifer? In any case I thank you BullRangifer for your evidently well-intentioned suggestions. And 2: as for Guy's threat in regard for my supposed advocacy of "unacceptable sources," in articles on controversies between right- and left-wing groups, sweeping refusal to allow right-wing advocates a voice of course completely prevents a neutral point of view, guarantees automatic victory of the left-wing groups no matter what their views or questionable claims, and thus is very strongly prejudicial. Sources one might personally disagree with should at least be allowed to be mentioned in the context of the dispute itself, and consulted as expressing the contesting group's views, simply as a matter of relevant fact, not as an editorial endorsement. E.g., citing Marx's Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital would be relevant and even necessary, with quotes even, in any academic discussion of Communist versus liberal democratic views, regardless of one's own personal views about their reliability. The same is true of Hitler's Mein Kampf. It seems to me that there is a confusion here between editorial endorsement of the documents and persons involved, and simply noting the existence of these persons and documents as evidence of the contesting groups views and activities. One is a matter of fact, the other of opinion. They are different things and should not be conflated. However, this is something we can discuss on a dispute talk page.122.111.212.235 (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. You need to change our policy on what constitutes a reliable source before you can get what you want. Guy (help!) 13:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

122.111.212.235, I don't know if your IP address is static or dynamic, but if it's dynamic, your contributions will be spread out over all the IPs you end up using, and that's not good. We need to be able to contact you at ONE location, as editors are not normally allowed to edit from more than one account, and an IP is considered an account. Most IP editors don't even know what IP they are editing from, and do not respond to messages on their talk pages, likely because they don't get a notification, as do all registered editors.

There are many advantages to having a registered account, and no disadvantages. You will hide your location, and thus protect your privacy. Believe me, revealing your IP address can, in some instances, allow trolls and enemies to track down your real identity and make you vulnerable to threats and job insecurity. It has happened to me here. You can also have a watchlist, get notifications, are not blocked from editing articles by semi-protection, and a lot of other advantages.

As an IP, you will always be viewed with suspicion, which thus places you at a disadvantage, as your credibility will suffer, and that is your most important currency here. That's because most vandalism comes from IP accounts, and registered editors who will not stand behind their edits and comments will log out and use an IP, thus deceiving the community. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is, so it's wisest to stay far away from anything, such as IP editing, which automatically associates you with bad actors. There are no doubt other reasons why having a registered account is advantageous.

I also discourage the use of your real name, but that's up to you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)