User talk:JzG/Archive 61
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Nomination of Teddy bear parachuting for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teddy bear parachuting 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy bear parachuting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Billy Hathorn: Spamming on nearly 50 articles
I came across your comment about Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) on this talk page, while leaving a message and I saw you created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn. I want you to know that after four years Hathorn continues to create articles about unknown people, but what I discovered was worse than that. I tried to talk to the user, but he won't reply. So I did some digging:
In 2006, for example, he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis!
It appears that most recently he has been creating articles about unnotable religious figures, like L. L. Clover, and then bases the wikipedia articles on his (Billy Hathorn) own publication. I nominated three of these unnotable articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. L. Clover and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History). In each one I've added tags and voiced my concerns about the contradicting sources, missing sources and so on, but have never received a reply back. Instead, Billy (the creator) of the articles keeps citing himself and removing tags without explanation.
For example, concerning the fact that two sources contradict one another I put the tag here, and when it got removed I again put it here. I posted the issues on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary.
The creator the article's response was to remove the tags without comment and cite his own article. (His name is Billy Hathorn and the article he cited four times is "Austin Toliver Powers" by Billy Hathorn. It's the same article cited by himself in related articles like L. L. Clover (out of 19 foonotes, 10 are his).
To save an article from deletion, he lists the subject's books and citing himself three times (Hathorn adds Hathorn, "Powers and Clover.") I'd also like to point out there is no evidence of these books on google books.
He has only published what appears to be three articles in local history papers, but has cited his publications in these wikipedia articles: Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.") HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- These references should be removed. He knows full well he should not be doing this. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed you also edited on the talk page of Hyles–Anderson College. Please have a look at the article as there is some reverting back-and-forth over a long list of local pastors from small towns. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- It got reverted by the same person. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
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
[1] names you as involved, though it asks for no sanctions against you. --Abd (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia in the first place. MastCell Talk 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 Talk 20:11, 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)
- That's awful. And a reminder that ignorance and misinformation can be surprisingly lethal, which is what motivated me to start editing Wikipedia in the first place. MastCell Talk 19:57, 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)
- Presented without comment. MastCell Talk 17:43, 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)
- You may want to take a break in a quiet corner of Wikipedia, something like science or medicine. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:04, 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)
- 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)
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. SilverserenC 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)