Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 1 May 2011 (→Amina Mariam Bokhary: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:15, 1 May 2011 by JzG (talk | contribs) (→Amina Mariam Bokhary: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
Archives
no archives yet (create)
Gastrich, PRT, October 2005, December 2005, January 2006, January 2006a, February 2006, February 2006a, March 2006, April 2006, May 2006, June 2006, July 2006, September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007, August 2007, October 2007, December 2007, January 2008, February 2008, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008, June 2008, July 2008, August 2008, September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, May 2009, June 2009, July 2009

Obligatory disclaimer
I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?
This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)
This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

busy

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Christian Zionism in the United KingdomDougweller (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this interests you, but a while ago it was cleared up, it's now a mess again with the same editor replacing his earlier stuff. "It is a commonly held belief, whom some see as an established fact, that within the politics of the UK today the Israel Lobby is extremely influential, as is the case in the US, but admittedly in Britain to a smaller yet still substantively significant degree." with no source, as an example

Page about MEDINA

Hello JzG,

thank you for your advices and comments about the page about MEDINA. Please, remove your request for speedy deletion due to CSD A7 since this criterion can only be applied to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.

Furthermore, please notice that I added some more appropriate citations from reliable sources (see reference 2,14,15).


Regards Hobramski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobramski (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That ANI posting!

Hi Guy,

Just to say that I redacted that posting from the history at WP:ANI after Fred removed it. Basically, it's a ReallyBadIdea™ to post the contents of private correspondence on-wiki - we have precedent for that here - and it's particularly unacceptable if it's from an OTRS queue. Jes' sayin' ... In this case, the person mentioned in the original posting claims not to be involved and that this was part of an ongoing campaign against them. Given that their RL name was involved, I felt it better if this was removed. A request had also been posted to Oversight - Alison 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • There was nothing in there which identified the sender, and I checked that there was nothing there which was not also available online. Fred's response makes sense, his judgment on this seems sound to me. Removing the thing is of course absolutely fine with me since it seems the real-world posting was a troll. The message to OTRS was not, I think, form a troll, but from a concerned citizen (whose identity I thought I had removed from the pasted content? If not then that was definitely careless). I'd probably have mentioned it if I'd seen the original myself. And of course it's not the first time I've been trolled and it won't be the last :-/ Guy (Help!) 21:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice of RfAr/Clarification

names you as involved, though it asks for no sanctions against you. --Abd (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken Ring (astrologer)

Not sure why you deleted the predict weather section. It is an important part of his biography and his main claim to fame before the earthquake business. Improving it would be nice, but we can not just delete it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it was written like a press release whic had then been polished up by his advertising executives. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it was mainly written by typing his name into google news and local newspaper archive search engines and then referencing any hits before September 2010. As he was hardly notable until then there was not much information beyond a couple of interviews and some minor mentions. They talk about what he has done, which belongs in a Biography. When his website is used it is attributed to the site or to Ring himself. I have removed some, and as it now stands that section cites it six times (out of 28 total refs). Three of those are used to support the claim he denies global warming, because in the current climate saying someone is a denier (not skeptic) of AGW (let alone warming in general) needs some strong evidence. By the way, I am not an advertising executive, in fact I have no faith what so ever in this guys predictions. I have tried hard to be neutral and may have over-compensated some however. AIRcorn (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nervous?

This looks a bit unusual... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it's fair to say that letting Abd loose on any article where he has one of his advocacy interests is a stupid thing to do. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm just confused by your non-monotonic editing, with text growing, shrinking, being summarized, and then regrowing ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the phrase "oh no, not again" summarises the situation nicely. In the end the final argument was the best: the request embodies precisely the behaviours which led to the ban. I believe it's a footgun job but I do not know and frankly the very idea of yet another go round Abd's thousand-times-refuted claims makes me feel physically ill. There is literally no way to get Abd ever to drop an assertion once he's made it, he is the sole bearer of enlightened truth and the rest of the world just needs to keep hearing it until they believe. Take the blacklisting: he argued for delisting for, what, a year or more? Eventually he hits the discussion page on a day when nobody's around who remembers the original problem, and bang, he's "vindicated". Bullshit! I linked the site because Jed Rothwell spammed it, Jed Rothwell's acolytes spammed it in proxy for him after he was banned, and Abd and his mates kept linking to copyright violations hosted there. That is the objective truth, but Abd never accepted it, never will accept it, and interprets the delisting as full and final vindication of his many-times-rebutted view that listing it was "abuse" that caused "damage" by not allowing people to cite copyright violations for "convenience" (something the intellectual property lawyers foolishly forgot to write in as a permitted exception) and by suppressing WP:TRUTH which is, of course, ruthlessly suppressed in all the reliable sources. I cannot express how much I despair of his deceitful POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You may want to take a break in a quiet corner of Misplaced Pages, something like science or medicine. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ha! I am currently arguing with Dana Ullman, who has challenged me to point out where he lied about Darwin and Florence Nightingale's purported support for homeopathy - it's in his book on "cultural heroes", a book that arm-waves away the documented fact that Hitler was a great advocate for homeopathy but claims both Darwin and Nightingale as supporters despite their having ridiculed it in writing in documents which are easily available to even the casual reader. Oh, and another homeopath is asserting that Luc Montaigner's recent (unreproduced) work "proves the scientific basis of homeopathy" despite Montaigner writing that you "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy". And craniosacral therapy is also in need of a substantial rewrite, references like Lee R P. Interface: Mechanisms of Spirit in Osteopathy. Portland, OR: Stillness Press, 2005 have no place in the discussion of the actual mechanics of the body - that should come from medical texts, though most inexplicably omit the cranial tides, much as they omit Qi meridians and miasms. It's a conspiracy. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Presented without comment. MastCell  17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ho yus. And for why I think it's worth the effort, see http://www.safetyandquality.health.wa.gov.au/docs/mortality_review/inquest_finding/Dingle_Finding.pdf (pdf). Guy (Help!) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That's awful. And a reminder that ignorance and misinformation can be surprisingly lethal, which is what motivated me to start editing Misplaced Pages in the first place. MastCell  19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Arguing with quacks and cranks is good sport, but never forget that there is a serious side to it. Some of them are delusional and some are deeply unpleasant. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the ones who are delusional but pleasant are the really dangerous ones. MastCell  20:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

spam blacklist

As you know, I'm no advocate fo rcold fusion or fringe science in general. However, I reverted your rather bold re-addition of lenr-canr against prior consensus. The last full discussion was to not blacklist it, and I do not think you can restore it without a full discussion to demonstrate that consensus has changed. I suggest we discuss it there, notifying interested parties. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Did you actually read the rationale? It is being used to link copyright violations. This despite numerous previous warnings over exactly that issue. Sometimes I do wonder why the fuck I bother. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter what your rationale is if it is clearly against a prior consensus. It looks like you're trying to push an agenda here against the subject area with your actions. Silverseren 02:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not against a consensus, it's against Abd badgering until everyone else's back was turned. It's a biased site littered with copyright violations and spammed by its owner. Abd wanted it delisted so he could advocate in an area from which he's topic banned for tendentious editing, and this week he linked a copyright violation hosted on that very site. If the link balcklist is for anythinbg, it is preventing abuse. You know, like people linking to copyright violations and proxying for site owners banned for spamming it. That sort of thing. The consensus is in the policy, not in any individual decision taken by one or two people, and the way Abd has been enabled over the years is disgusting. Tens of editors have wasted thousands of hours resisting something which should never have gone beyond warning, final warning, block. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Amina Mariam Bokhary

from memory, this page was properly sourced. I would dispute the fact that it was an attack page in that we have articles on criminals of all sorts. There is no doubt to my mind that the subject is notable. True that there has been some overreaction in the press, but Bokhary is a well known and controversial figure exactly for her outlandish behaviour. I believe the article should be restored, and properly weighted. --Ohconfucius 02:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Ohconfucius. I agree that the article may have given too many details. But one cannot say it was not sourced, and this person is routinely making headlines in Hong Kong, so there is no question about the notability of the topic. Maybe she's "famous for being famous", but still famous. Moreover, the case can be considered as a proxy test for the independence of justice in Hong Kong, which is a big deal within the framework of One country, two systems. Traffic statistics give about 30 views of the article per day in March 2011, whci is low but not minor. I believe that Misplaced Pages should have an article about this person. It could be much reduced in length/ details and given full protection to avoid unnecessary additions of sensationalist details. olivier (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the entire thing was negative in tone. This was not anybody's fault, she seems to be a problematic individual to say the very least. I think it needs a careful review and rewrite, with many fewer tabloid sources, and am happy to place it somewhere that can happen. Her family are on the case, so we need not only to be fair but to be seen to be fair, yes? Guy (Help!) 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you then please userfy for me? I realise that it may be in violation of Misplaced Pages:USERFY#What_cannot_be_userfied for a time, but I'll try to clean it up quickly before putting it back to mainspace. Thanks. --Ohconfucius 02:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You got it. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Airfence

Hi you had deleted this article a couple of months back stating it to be advertising. I have now re written the article, and just to inform you that I do not own this product. I invented it years back but have now sold it. It is being used in race tracks, ski slopes etc around the world, and I think it is worthy of a mention on wikipedia. There are a couple of other wikipedia pages that make a mention of airfence, and a lot of youtube videos and other sources that show its uses.

Can I upload the rewritten article once again?Mrx1015 (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what is the next available course of action, can some one else write this article. If you search 'air fence' online sufficient material should be available to write the article. If required I can help with specifics and technicalities. Mrx1015 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The next course of action is, to be blunt, for you to go away and forget about using Misplaced Pages for self-aggrandisement. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Category: