User talk:JzG/Archive 171

Goldfinger

 * Please note that the Griswold source used in the Goldfinger article is an SPS, this does not mean that it has to be removed. There is a degree of flexibility in the guideline, and Griswold has been used on more than one featured article (i.e. those that have been through source reviews) because of its pedigree. Given it is an acceptable source, please do not tag the source or remove the material from the article. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's self-published, there's no evidence it's significant. AuthorHouse is a dross works. "Given that" implies it's acceptable. Not to me it's not. Guy (help!) 22:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You could actually ask why it's an acceptable source, rather than just stonewalling. Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. Now, given SPS allows self-published works in some circumstances ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."), and given this a source that has passed FAC source reviews and been accepted by our reliable sources noticeboard, I think we're OK using it for one small, uncontentious point. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What a great reason to drive traffic to a vanity press. Not. Guy (help!) 17:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one is driving traffic anywhere. We are using one uncontentious point from an entirely acceptable source that was commissioned by the Fleming estate. I don't care if you have a beef with the publishers, but please don't remove that link again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're demanding that I not identify a self-published source as self-published, and not challenge inclusion of a vanity press, based on the fact that a third party likes it. Guy (help!) 18:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is misrepresenting the situation and what I have said. The work was commissioned by the Fleming Estate. Not 'liked' by them, but commissioned by them. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's been cleared by the RS noticeboard and at several FACs. It's use is acceptable in this article and there is a consensus to allow its use in this narrow way. Again, please do not remove the information again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kagundu


A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kagundu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RF cavity thruster
Hey. Reluctantly messed with your edit on RF resonant cavity thruster. I think the crux of the controversy is what this device is, not if it's correct. The "inventors" claim that it's a space drive, but actually it's a microwave oven. Anyways, nice editing with you. Heptor (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh. You're not wrong... Guy (help!) 18:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
For blocking the trolling sock(?). Any thoughts if the edits of the registered editor who displayed a similar levels of battleground mentality/NPA violations merit at least a warning? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No specific opinion, feel free to take it to the usual drama venues. Guy (help!) 14:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will consider it if it continues. Back on the topic of IP/socks, I have next to zero experiences with WP:SPI, but the following seem suspicious:, , , , , and also a different pattern but relevant interest area/harassment for . One IP might be a regular contributor forgetting to log in, but 5+ seems to show a pattern of indef ban evasion, since it is hard to believe a random anon contributor (or five...) would know how to use an advanced template. WP:DUCK suggests it is the same person, who is trying to promote a particular agenda (see also  for possible more of this). Since you blocked one presumed sock, I figure you may want to look into those as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need a category for sockpuppets by master? See User_talk:Bradv. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ramesh Nagaraj Rao
Did you perhaps mean to fully protect this article? The semi-protection you applied won't have any effect on any of the editors who have made changes to the article over the month of October... Just figured I'd message you and give you a heads up. :-) Let me know what your thoughts are (ping me in your response here so that I'm notified); I think you might want to consider modifying the protection level you applied here. Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , D'oh. I are idiot. Thanks. Guy (help!) 07:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * HA! No problem. I got your back! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

check my edit please
I may have altered some of your contributions. Could you check if the refs and intent are still correct? X1\ (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RSN
Background: Comments at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please read them before commenting here.''' -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood what I said; regardless, RSN is not the place to discuss politics. Atsme Talk 📧 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's actually the very best place to discuss your dependence on, and promotion of, unreliable sources and counterfactual narratives based on them.
 * The convergence of your lack of ability to vet RS (leading to advocacy of fringe POV and questionable competence regarding sourcing) and the AmPol2 sanctions on your case makes this a pressing matter which must be solved, and RS/N is the best place to deal with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh oh - my comments must be effective. Well, sorry, but no, RSN is not the best place to discuss politics, and neither is JzG's TP. Your POV is not going to change anything in the political arena. The investigations are ongoing whether we like it or not - and with the conclusion of each investigation, positions are changing - and that's why we have WP:RECENTISM. It is not my fault. I am here to build an encyclopedia and get the article right, even though I have not even attempted to edit any of the articles. I am terrified to do so because I fear retaliation by editors like you, and what you just did to me. I am not here to push a political agenda but you apparently are, and have gotten all emotional about it. Hey - I'm happy living on Bonaire most of the year, which is a long way from US politics. If you want to discuss politics in person, it won't be with me, so stop bullying. I have always been compliant with NPOV, though a few of my detractors may disagree - but oh well, facts are facts. I'm simply repeating what RS say - academia even admits there's a bias problem with msm -Reuters & Oxford - read it. I cited other academic sources at RS/N that say pretty much the same thing. We should be more concerned that your bias is bleeding into our articles because you actually edit them. You called the reporting in the the NYTimes "sloppy" and refused to accept the material at the Trump article. Why can you make such a determination, and no one else can be critical or cautious of RS without you attacking them?  You want to deprecate RS that consensus accepted many times over as generally reliable. So who is really attacking RS?  I will not respond any further to this nonsense. Atsme  Talk 📧 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they are not "effective", they are merely profoundly worrying. You have a trusted right (OTRS), I think? And yet you are demonstrating that you live in a reality-disconnected source bubble. That means when you help people who email the Foundation, I can't be certain your reply will be informed by reality, but instead it might be informed by Fox News. And no you absolutely have not always adhered to NPOV. I took me many months to stop you pushing fringe bullshit at G. Edward Griffin, for example. Guy (help!) 21:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick, Guy. I will not tolerate your bullying and unkindness toward me.  I'm done here. Atsme  Talk 📧 21:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullying? Hardly. You are very civilly being confronted with evidence of your incompetence to vet sources, especially in the AP2 area, and instead of showing some evidence that you believe what RS say, you double down by engaging in forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. That's a blockable offense. I don't see any other resolution to your personally systemic problem than the unpleasant enforcement of a topic ban from the AP2 area. Any admin can do it without further process. I think we've seen enough evidence.
 * You must not be allowed to edit or discuss these topics, especially the latter, since that is where your presence is a time sink that creates the most disruption and confusion (mostly to inexperienced and uninformed editors and readers). We can't have editors running around who defy our RS and fringe advocacy policies. It would also prevent participation in AfDs and other procedures when the topics are related to AP2. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , You're on dangerous ground. WP:CRYBULLYING isn't anything like an excuse. All I have done is point out that you are seriously out of line with both reality and Wikipedia policy. Guy (help!) 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OTRS rights? Really?? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, support for the Republican party view of things is not fringe. My own opinion, is that those who care greatly about it should not edit in this field, and that applies to those on both sides. But I'm not about to enforce my own opinion with blocks.  What I personally think about the  RW issue is & should be irrelevant but it does not seem to be the case for those discussing it here.   DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not fringe. But a Republican talking point that is objectively false is still objectively false. Even when it has the full force of the Presidency and the Department of Justice behind it. I have no idea how the US is going to heal itself from this situation - the courts have been the bulwark to date, but they are being packed with hard right activists resulting in insanity like the Rao dissent. Read Atsme's statements on RSN: they are the Wikipedia equivalent of outcome-based judicial activism. In context her argument is that reality-based sources do not report X as fact, conservative sources do, therefore we have to allow conservative sources as RS for the truth of X, even though X is not actually true. The closest we've come previously is attempts to get intelligent design or homeopathy reflected as fact. Guy (help!) 07:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to "fringe", I beg to differ. In the traditional sense, "fringe" refers to a minority position, and that is still the case with Trump and his supporters.
 * In the context of Wikipedia, we need to define "fringe" in relation to an editor's attitude toward our RS guideline, not numbers and polls, as I describe here:
 * In these post-truth Trumpian political times, "fringe editors" (read the ref) often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS,    and believe his untruths and the fake news stories circulated in his support and attacking those he does not like, especially Obama and Clinton.
 * These editors consider the RS we use to be fake news. Their bias and point of view are directly opposed to our RS guideline. Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and some of them edit here. Sustained disagreement with RS is a fringe position here.
 * For our purposes here, "fringe" has nothing to do with numbers and polls (99% of the populace and sources can be wrong), but to what RS say, even if the RS are only 1% of all sources out there.
 * Some could be under the mistaken impression that the above is just some form of political commentary, but they miss the point. Before Trump this was not a serious problem, but Trump calls all RS "fake news". This has changed everything. Now, political positions strongly affect how editors view RS, and that affects their editing and commentary, so this intersection of an editor's political POV and Wikipedia must not be ignored when it affects their editing and discussions. They must not be allowed to engage in forbidden advocacy of fringe positions here. This is where topic bans are necessary.
 * At Wikipedia, one cannot support RS and Trump at the same time because, in the immortal words of MPants, "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What DGG said. And it would probably be a good idea to dial down the rhetoric a bit on "both sides" as well. Referring to an investigation as an "inquisition" and Mitch McConnell as "Moscow Mitch" isn't helpful in what's supposed to be a collaborative project. ~Awilley (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, has Mitch agreed to hear the three election security bills now, then? Guy (help!) 07:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a note that FAC needs seasoned reviewers to vet articles for promotion to featured level. Peer Review also needs help from long time contributors, or even short timers that want to truly make a difference.--MONGO (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

TalkOrigins
Are you kidding me? How is TalkOrigins not a reliable source? 七战功成 23:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , User edited. See WP:RS Guy (help!) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that. There is no reason that TalkOrigins cannot be a reliable source. 七战功成 23:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, it's user-edited. See WP:RS. Guy (help!) 22:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I had something to do before so I didn't reply to you in time. Now I am back to write something. This doesn't make it an unreliable source, TalkOrigins is recommended by a number of scientific organization and mainstream medias. The article's content is also exactly what TalkOrigins mainly focuses. So it should be reliable. 七战功成 02:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which scientific organizations and mainstream media? Please provide URLs.
 * Regardless, no user-edited source can be used here as a source for content, including Wikipedia. We do not consider user-edited sources to be RS. Period. The only place TalkOrigins can be used is on its own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Science"and "Scientific American" magazine: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5399/139.1, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/other-resources-for-defen/ The Dallas Morning News: https://web.archive.org/web/20061211193709/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/arts/stories/DN-web_07rel.ART.State.Edition1.4db5ac8.html National Center for Science Education: https://web.archive.org/web/20071021130247/http://ncseweb.org/link.asp?category=7 Since you said you guys won't accept it no matter what, so be it. I just provide some evidence for what I said. 七战功成 17:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to try and gain consensus on the talk page if you want. Guy (help!) 23:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi. I noticed at the "Counter narrative" AfD, it seems you have responded to almost every delete vote or maybe every delete vote. I just want to let you know this might be overdoing it. There is a word for this behavior, but I can't think of it. Respectfully, it is something akin to dropping the stick. And I know it is easy to get caught up and advocate against those pesky delete votes. I've done it myself in the distant past. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:BLUDGEON is the word you're looking for, I think. ~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was curious and took a look, but it doesn't really look like true bludgeoning to me since various points are being addressed or asked about that are part of legitimate AfD discussion (i.e., conversation, not just a single reply to each !vote). It's definitely generating more discussion than a normal AfD obviously, but sometimes it's easier to weight consensus when those mini-discussions break out. I stay out of editing politics topics generally, but as an uninvolved, I see plenty of other conversation where JzG isn't commenting too, so I don't see any bludgeoning problems at least as of this comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly. When someone makes a claim that appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the article's subject, or repudiates the existence of a large and growing number of sources specifically about the subject, that merits a reply. Guy (help!) 09:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll admit there is a fine line for what is bludgeoning sometimes, but when I do see it, I'd be pretty prone to discounting such comments if I was closing a discussion. I don't see anything that stands out as bludgeoning there by anyone, in part because your comments seem to be addressing slightly different points each time. Not knowing the depth and nuance of what's going on there and still picking up those differences hopefully means something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I caused at least some of the problem myself, the original title was bad, I could not think of a better one, but as I read more sources the term "counter-narrative" did begin to stand out. Some of the delete !votes read as thinly-veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT, something I hope is not actually the case. There has also been some thoughtful input from people on both sides, some of which is already reflected in the article by now.
 * Inevitably when you have a topic like this, where reality-based and hyper-partisan sources have a totally different view of the world, and where the hyper-partisan sources are contradicted in part or in whole by documentary evidence (e.g. the released redacted FISA applications, which are entirely open about the origins of Steele's report) then you have to conclude that the hyper-partisan sources are engaged in deliberate propaganda. And that is what the reality-based sources say is going on here.
 * In Wikipedia terms we have a huge problem if people are starting to equate mainstream with partisan left, and using that as a basis on which to assert false balance. I see some evidence of that in this debate. Reality based sources look partisan left because any reality-based commentary on the Russia investigation and its findings runs directly counter to the narrative put out by the partisan right. Neutrality does not lie halfway between the two. That's like the idiots who claim that Jenny McCarthy is not categorically because she only claims that *some* vaccines cause autism whereas the evidence fails to establish a link between any vaccine and autism, which leaves room for the possibility that vaccines might reduce autism in 99% of the population and cause it in 1%.
 * William of Ockham had words to say on that kind of reasoning. Guy (help!) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia terms we have a huge problem if people are starting to equate mainstream with partisan left, and using that as a basis on which to assert false balance. I see some evidence of that in this debate. Reality based sources look partisan left because any reality-based commentary on the Russia investigation and its findings runs directly counter to the narrative put out by the partisan right. Neutrality does not lie halfway between the two. That's like the idiots who claim that Jenny McCarthy is not categorically because she only claims that *some* vaccines cause autism whereas the evidence fails to establish a link between any vaccine and autism, which leaves room for the possibility that vaccines might reduce autism in 99% of the population and cause it in 1%.
 * William of Ockham had words to say on that kind of reasoning. Guy (help!) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * William of Ockham had words to say on that kind of reasoning. Guy (help!) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)