User talk:JzG/Archive 149

Alexander Hochberg
The recent contributor to the Alexander Hochberg article probably does not have English as his/her first language and clearly needs help with sourcing the content. Just deleteing swathes of the content does not help with the editorial process. Even now, there is no 'sources required' message on the page to help him. Your heavy-handed action is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.Shipsview (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , per WP:FTN the content included a bizarre unsourced conspiracy theory about the subject being replaced by an anonymous group of Russian spies. We don't flag bonkers stuff like that, we revert it pending much better sourcing. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi
I made an error recently that you (thankfully) pointed out to me regarding a bad source and journal. Is there a list of those somewhere? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

remove journal identified as predatory open access
Could you explain better what you're doing here? In particular, are you certain that the remaining sources provide all of the information given in that paragraph? If so, no complaint. But if you're not, this is a problem, since information and source need to stay together or need to be removed together — if we can't be using the journal, we can't be providing information derived from it, and we definitely can't produce a hoax by presenting information synthesized from three sources and saying that all of it comes from two sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When I find a source that should be removed as failing WP:RS, if there are other sources for the content I usually leave it, and if there are not, I remove it. Here, there were other sources. I can only see a brief excerpt of the book. You're welcome to remove the bullet pointed trivia if you like. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

AJTR
While the corresponding updates looked to be good, the removed part surprised me.Any comments? Winged Blades Godric 13:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, actually, thought it was an impostor, but it's not. I presume E-Century still want to turn their articles into lovingly crafted adverts? Guy (Help!) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Check my latest reply:) I'am taking a chance.It will be at least some fun! Winged Blades Godric 15:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

rm
please remove my name from that list of dogshit, thanks. LaceyUF (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Superstition in Turkey
How about we discuss it there? For now I don't see any proof that this source is unreliable, so I cannot support its removal. Please reply there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Our edits crossed eachother I think
&#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Improper COI tagging. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just notifying since there's a complaint about the ongoing COI issues at Language Creation Society and the individual who started the thread neglected to notify everyone involved in cleaning up the COI issues. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mesh (band) unprotection - asking salting admin per WP:RPP
Hello, I am writing to request unprotection of the salted title Mesh (band). The band has had six charting albums in Germany (one as high as #12), plenty enough to hurdle WP:MUSIC; the German-language article notes as much, and is sourced. Chubbles (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Astro (television)
Hello JzG, I noticed that you nominate Astro for deletion. I think we should do a major cleanup to this article by restructuring and reorganizing it by removing copyrighted contents and irrelevant informations in order to be an encyclopedia article. We have discussed this matter at the Articles for deletion/Astro (television) and other users agreed that this article should be keep and not be deleted. Thank you. Fandi89 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fill your boots. The existing article is crap written by a spammer, so a rewrite seems like a perfectly decent idea to me. Guy (Help!) 06:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Winged Blades Godric 13:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Food Irradiation
Hello, I just wanted to comment on the recent edit war on Food irradiation. I understand that it must have been frustrating dealing with that editor, but I do not think you handled this the right way. The dispute was over two sentences you removed from the article, but when you brought the issue to RSN, you only included one of the sentences. With the context of the second sentence it was pretty obvious that the first one was presented as a viewpoint of organic advocacy groups, not a statement of fact. Then the consensus on that thread was that advocacy groups cannot be used as sources for factual statements, but can be used for statements about their own point of view, which you misrepresented on the article talk page as blanket support for your removal of the text. It takes two to edit war, and you were the one who initially removed the text, and continued to revert every time it was re-added. Now that you've indicated you can accept a modified version of the original, I wonder why you didn't just suggest such a modification in the first place. The IP who keeps commenting on the talk page and RSN, whether or not it's same as the user who was edit warring, does have something of a point. Anyways, this is just my opinion on the matter, as a somewhat neutral third party. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The dispute was over crap sourcing, and I have little patience with people whose only interaction technique is angry shouting and accusations of being a pharma shill. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I agree with you, just by looking at the thread above it's obvious that editor was way out of line. And the article is better now than it was before. It just seems like a lot of unnecessary drama for a change that amounts to a dozen words, and I hope you might recognize that you played a small part in that too, regardless of the other party's extreme behavior. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, my point was exclusively about using an activist source with a long history of funding anti-scientific bullshit, as a source of a purported fact. Beyond that I really have no caring. Wikipedians at cross=-purposes? That never happens except on days with a Y in the name :-) Guy (Help!) 15:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's back!
You might like to know that one of your favourite articles is back from the dead! Biogeographist (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD. Lede sentence is identical, same person created it. I think this is WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well well. Virtual Collaboration and Community, Ann Borda (VeRSI, Australia) and Jonathan P. Bowen. In Information Resources Management Association (ed.), Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications, IGI Global, chapter 8.9, pages 2600-2611, 2011. So Jpbowen is obsessively writing about how wonderful IGI Global is, when he is published by IGI Global. Just fancy that. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop bullying, blocking and accusing me because of my edits and comments at birth control. It is simply completely ridiculous to claim that I personally attacked Doc James because I suspected that he may be misunderstanding some surprising, ie. non-obvious mathematical facts. Wikipedia rules do not grant any users, no matter the background, any special authority that makes it an offense to hint them that they may err about something that is common fallacy.

I do not care about "qualified medical professional with peer-reviewed publications to his name". Wikipedia gives no special rights to contributors because of their professional or other background. If that were the case, it would mean that users are forced to disclose their formal education, professional background, academic achievements and most likey their identity, if they want to avoid their arguments and edits being given lesser weight than those of other editors. Doc James chose to disclose his identity, but that is in no way required or rewarded by wikipedia rules, so it is simply inacceptable to treat him as an authority over other users who chose to stay anonymous. What is required by Wikipedia rules is discussion, and it is the best argument that should win, not the user with the highest claimed authority.

And about the "as well as being a very experienced Wikipedian" I can only say that it is inacceptable to demand anyone from having as much edits as Doc James for his arguments to be taken seriously. Not everyone has the chance or time to edit wikipedia in their working hours and produce such an insane amount of edits as Doc James does. My first edit in Wikipedia was three years before Doc James and I have quite some editing experience in en.wp, de.wp and commons, though I admit I am not superhuman and cannot produce the throughput of Doc James.

You provide no real arguments for your revert, which is simply nonsense. My version avoids confusion and clearly says what the source tells us. I have explained this several times on the discussion page.

It is not the first time that I had a hard time discussing with Doc James until he finaly understood what my edits were about and that they were more reasonable than he thought at first. --rtc (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop your tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you consider tendentious about my editing? Why don't you even discuss my edits, but merely revert them and block me? I think you are completely on the wrong track and should consider resigning your admin powers. You simply fail completely to treat me fairly. --rtc (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Beall's Boss
... has published a response which I read, and now cant find. Have you seen it? It is interesting. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the university's "he has a right to say stuff" letter, or something new? Guy (Help!) 13:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I basically agree with what Beall's Boss says, I am not sure whether it is as black and white as portrayed here either: "Just because something was published in a predatory journal doesn’t mean that it’s false or poor research. Just because something was published in a prestigious closed-access journal doesn’t mean that it’s true or excellent." is true, but chances are that the information in the predatory journal are incomplete/improper does seem having a larger chance than in the closed-access journal. I mean, if you manage to get your crappy research through in an closed-access journal you are happy, if you don't, you may then try to get it published anyway by sending it to a predatory journal who does not have the same ethics.  On the other hand, if you have good data you may avoid the hassle that closed-access journals can be, and just dump it in a predatory journal (and maybe make some money at the side).  (not really the ethics that I would follow, though).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing that gets me about the predatory journals is the number of scientists from developing countries who get sucked in. They are taking money from people who are not well paid, who think they are doing the right thing, getting their ideas out there, but the crappy journals are not indexed, and very rarely referenced, so they are being defrauded of money they can little afford. I have less sympathy with the pseudoscientists and scammers who use these journals to knowingly try to get junk science out there. For Wikipedia, it is simple: the journals are essentially self-published sources, since they don't have functional peer-review. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm reading the piece now, and I've found a problem with the logic used...
 * The history of scholarly publishing is less a meritocracy of ideas and more a reflection of who held privilege in society. Access to at least one, and often multiple, intersections of privilege3,4 were almost a requisite for being considered to join in the scholarly conversation. Who and what got published was largely determined by established power structures that favored maleness, whiteness, cis-gendered heterosexuality, wealth, the upper class, and Western ethnocentrism. Note that these are still the dominant structures that control our social and scholarly discourse. - Shea Swauger
 * I don't disagree with any of the statements of facts within that quote. Being a straight, white, upper-class, Western man makes it far easier to get published, and always has. But I don't see how that rebuts Beall's point; If those structures still serve as gatekeepers to publishing, then they're irrelevant in evaluating differences between past standards and modern standards. One has to look at what has changed, not what has stayed the same. Not to mention the implication in that very quote that straight, white, upper-class, Western men don't publish pseudoscience. Ummm, they do. Minorities and women don't corner the market on bad science.
 * Considering that this is the very first rebuttal offered and described as a response to "...his most concerning position"; it's not looking this this will end up being a very convincing response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that - everything is correct in the document, but it does not, per sé, analyze what predatory journals do or the contrast between 'classical' and predatory journals. The old system is by no means correct/perfect (multiple peer reviewers may still collectively miss a blatant error, you will never know the presented data is actually nonexistent, the same data published in multiple journals, &c.). There are only few cases where publications are re-worked and checked for actual accuracy (Organic Synthesis series is one of those). But that does not change with predatory journals in any form - you can do exactly the same with predatory journals, you just know that it will be published anyway (if you pay enough). It just introduces a new set of problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Traditional Catholic
As you are the protecting admin, can you please fix the double redirect to Traditionalist Catholicism. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

One way to end the Old Year
Hello. I have been struggling with an issue for a while (a year or two) and today, although you don't know it, we crossed paths regarding the issue. I decided that what I needed was a Rogue Administrator to help me proceed with it and several things on your user page suggested that you were the one. It was what in a Bollywood film would be considered to be fate. However it is complicated and so I'd like to discuss some of the details elsewhere, so if you could email me at carptrash at gmail dot com I could proceed. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a neutral party on Talk:Vagina ?
Hey Guy,

You've closed down the 3O on that page stating I'm "not a neutral party". How come? AFAIK I've had no interaction with those involved or with the article. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. My searches found past disputes between you and Flyer22 back on ANI. I may have misread, I will look again. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If there was anything, I can't recall it (and frankly - I couldn't recall most editors I've had friction with, especially out of context). In your opinion, would a disclosure be sufficient under such circumstances? François Robere (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * François Robere, I queried why you accepted the case since it was not neutrally worded and since two editors had already weighed in. It was no longer a matter just between two editors. I've seen WP:30 editors decline cases under those circumstances. So I asked JzG and SarekOfVulcan about it via email. The editor who requested the case also seems to be asking more so about me reverting to look over matters, which is an acceptable form of reverting. Commonly, editors move content they've reverted to the talk page for discussion because they are concerned about the content. I do not see what I did as being much different than that. There have been errors in the other editor's additions and care needs to be taken when working on the article in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's past 3O then an RfC is the next step, and would probably work here. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fine with RfCs. They are my go-to during disputes. But I don't think that the RfC should focus on whether or not it's acceptable for me to temporarily revert to look over text and/or revert and take a matter to the talk page for discussion; that's more of a practice/policy matter. If the RfC is focused on content, then okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw your question and wanted to address it along with everything else, but Guy closed the discussion before I had time to finalize my reply:
 * François Robere (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the number of watchers of the WP:30 page is an accumulation over the years and doesn't accurately reflect how many are currently (as in "these days") watching that page. But I understand your rationale for taking on the case. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the number of watchers of the WP:30 page is an accumulation over the years and doesn't accurately reflect how many are currently (as in "these days") watching that page. But I understand your rationale for taking on the case. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Indigo children
Did you mean to leave the named ref? Bot. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Self published tagging
Hi JzG! You might want to slow down your tagging - you aren't just tagging sources as self published, but sources that have a self publisher in the title, bibliography entries, and in once case, a link to a self publishing company. It makes sense to tag self published sources, but uses other than sources don't need the tags. - Bilby (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found a couple where my regex matched a source and later something else, so fair point. Incidentally, my main purpose is to collect the things, not leave them tagged. I will be removing either the tag (if the source is valid) or the source, as soon as possible. This follows on from removing many hundreds of citations to junk journals, which is basically the same issue. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remembering that we accept self published sources depending on context, I'm not sure that this is necessarily the best approach. But at the moment I'm only concerned about misplaced tags. - Bilby (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only by exception. The default is not to use self-published sources other than for uncontroversial autobiographical details. Most of these are self-published books by people of no evident expertise. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

More on self-pub
Hi Guy. Thank you very much for your edit here on W T Stead. Can I ask how you were alerted to the self-publishedness of the work? Is the publisher name a flag, or even the author? I'd love to know, thanks.

Also, while you are looking at the article, do you think there is any point in that last sentence in "Website", where it (uncitedly!) says that the BL decided to archive his site in 2009 ... is this really a big deal? I actually don't know if they've archived 12 sites or 12 million and it does make a difference; I'm inclined to guess that it's not that notable or interesting but do please educate me if you know otherwise. Indeed, is there any point in the whole website section, do you think? It really only seems to say "famous bloke has website about him" ... do we need that? I'm honestly wondering whether the article would be any worse if I deleted most or all of that section.

Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a list of companies engaged in self publishing. The three best known and most widely (ab)used on Wikipedia are Lulu, Xlibris and iUniverse. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's handy to know - many thanks DBaK (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)