User talk:Guy.shrimpton

Here you go AlexF
By way of introduction to the subject below, you should review exactly what the Jrf-web-team account has been editing. If you do, you'll find that it has only corrected factual mistakes around the history, connections and Chief Executive for the charity. There have been no attempts to use it for publicity or promotional purposes, merely to safeguard the organisations' reputation against errors. I'm not sure on what basis this 'appears to be mainly intended' for any purpose beyond what it has actually been used for.

It's worth adding that JRF - Joseph Rowntree Foundation - is a charity focused on researching and solving the causes of poverty. It's not a organisation looking for promotion or publicity. If we can't manage and protect the page about the organisation from such reputationally damaging inaccuracy, who will? I assume you intend to block every other organisation and celebrity's admin account?

Further, let me explain the current situation: your unhelpful and unnecessary block to all accounts and the IP required me to log in via another computer to remove a factually incorrect and defamatory statement connecting the work of Joseph Rowntree Foundation to an organisation that has been associated with someone who became terrorist. This statement was retracted by the newspapers in questions (Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust are not the same organisation, or directly connected), and your blocking of (and the subsequent refusal to unblock) the account and IP for no good reason has extended this reputationally damaging error. You should think about that...

If you want to message me directly and discuss the edits that you feel justify your action in blocking the IP and account, please let me know where I can contact you, or post them here.

AlexF and PhilKnight
You keep saying 'it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes' and yet there is no evidence of this whatsoever and all the evidence points the other way. The purpose of the account is - as previously stated and as the evidence shows - not for any publicity or promotion, but purely to remove erroneous information about the charity and it's work. Case in point, information that was incorrectly associating Joseph Rowntree Foundation with another organisation found to have accidentally sponsored a terrorist.

If the problem is the user name (and that is just an assumption since you've not bothered to say), we are making a request to change it. However, the purpose of the account is to protect the organisation from slander / defamation, not to promote the organisation's work.

As for refusing to unblock the IP, why? If you have a problem with that account, block that account. I post on a number of subjects, have done for a decade.Guy.shrimpton (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid claims
I have reverted your changes to Bosnian pyramid claims, as the original text was supported by reliable sources and your version was not. Now that your changes have been reverted, you need to seek consensus for your version on the article talk page before attempting to change the article again. Please see WP:BRD, which offers some guidance. To be frank, we've had a lot of Osmanagić supporters trying to rewrite this article as if his claims are archaeologically genuine, but unless the academic establishment supports his claims then you are not going to succeed in such an attempt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

-- Jesus, using the academic establishment with its very obvious vested interest as a bench mark for fringe subjects is basically ensuring nothing can ever be changed. For what it's worth, the academic establishment agreed on gravity which has since been disproved, scientifically. Yet I have doubts such changes would be allowed...
 * (I'm really not sure in what way gravity has been disproved - I just tried jumping up, but I fell down again as usual. Still, that's a bit of a tangent really). Of course academic establishment understanding changes, and new and better understanding comes to replace older flawed understanding. And at each stage in that progress, an encyclopedia should reflect the academic consensus at the time and not try to preempt it. An encyclopedia, by its very nature, is supposed to be behind the curve, not ahead of it. So when ideas are considered fringe and not accepted by mainstream academia, that is the only way Wikipedia should present them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

-- as per usual you seem to be missing the point to try and win a debate. Actually gravity has been disproved, in the way it's described. Experiments have shown this, such as those conducted to prove that the centre of the earth is the centre of what we experience as gravity. They dropped two long cables down the deepest dug hole. While the expectation based on gravity was that the cables would meet they actually moved apart. It left science stumped.

Further, experiments in space have shown our understanding of gravity based on what we're still taught in schools is false and only describes behaviour on the surface of the planet. But don't let these facts get in the way of your refusal to move from a vested position.

The same debate occurs with Egyptology, which is actually very distant from both real archeology and from science in its behaviour. It's not interested in facts, but fitting findings into its agreed timeline (or excluding them). Look at the Sphynx. The actual science of Archeology doesn't agree with Egyptology, nor does the science of Astronomy and its awareness of the position and procession of the stars. The two sciences agree but with each other and those decried by you as pseudoscience rather than Egyptology. Go figure eh. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
RexxS (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)