Talk:Matthew Israel

Revert
User:Alexbrn: You have removed all references to this source, claiming it is a blog. It is not a blog, but a newspaper article published in the Boston Phoenix. The blog is just hosting the file, which is irrelevant. Also, please do not accuse me of things like BLP violations in your edit summaries when it is not actually true.--Wikiman2718 (talk)
 * autistichoya.files.wordpress.com is a blog, no? We shouldn't be linking to it, and especially not making what looks like WP:COPYLINKs to content. I am unsure how good the underlying source is, if that can be cited. Using self-published sources like WP:FORBESCON for content about BLPs is a violation, yes. I have not looked at the article's history so am not "accusing" anybody but if you did that, please from now on pay heed to WP:BLPSPS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * For the second time, the source is the Boston Phoenix. I will re-instate the content so that it cites the Boston Phoenix directly, rather than through the hosting service. And just in case you missed this also, please stop making false claims of BLP violations in the edit summaries. We all know you found this article through ANI. You have also found articles like ABA International by following my edits. Please do not pretend that you are unaware that I wrote 99% of the text in this article. Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your AGF-o-meter is on the fritz again. Although it's possible (and often necessary) to track problem editor's edits through their history, a better way to find problems more widely is to use Wikipedia's reverse link lookup ("What links here?"), focused Google searches (e.g.) and so on. There's no need then even to look at contribution histories, but just to judge text on its merits. This finds problem content from anybody, and even from IP socks they may have used ... Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For sure, you're not following my edits. I'm sure that this revert was made based on content, and not because I was the contributor. I'm sure that the fact that it occurred just two hours after I posted a link to the article at ANI, and within 10 minutes of your post to that very same thread where you identified me as the contributor, is again, pure coincidence. Please note that the edit summary in that linked revert is suspiciously similar to this one, in which you roll back over 100 of my edits to return an article to a state where it makes false claims of efficacy with non-MEDRS sources that we are still considering as possibly fringe. But I'm sure again, that this is sheer coincidence, and that all these reverts were made based on content, and not contributor. So in conclusion, I apologize. I thought that you were harassing me, but now I can see that I'm just imagining things. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing, you've apologized to somebody! Just a shame it's not honest. As you noted, that GED was flagged-up at ANI, so was low-hanging fruit for fixing. Once the other obviously problematic stuff is removed, it may be necessary to drill into you and you socks' edits, down just to see how much damage you've caused by copy/pasting the same deceptive advocacy all over Wikipedia. Anyway, this is off-topic here so I shall not respond further on this matter here. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GED was not "flagged-up" at ANI. That is blatantly untrue. I posted that ANI link to GED as evidence to support another argument I was making. You say that the article is "low-hanging fruit for fixing", but you have so far managed to contribute just one one edit which you were immediately forced to undo upon realizing you had reverted the entire article in trying to remove my contributions. You also accuse me of socking, but that was not the finding of the thread. As noted in there, going to IP to avoid harassment is non-abusive. One final thing: I do not appreciate these claims that I am involved in bad faith "deceptive advocacy", especially when you are unable to find substantial problems with my content. Please stop making them. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

All the WP:COPYLINK problems were returned. Wikipedia takes copyright problems extreme seriously. if you believe you have a RS you can cite to support material, cite it. But do not put links on Wikipedia to illicit copies of copyright material hosted by blogs. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, that statement is inaccurate. In manually reverting your removal of content, I successfully modified three uses of the citation to reference the Boston Phoenix directly, but missed one. I was an easy mistake for anyone to make. Let's assume good faith here. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)