User talk:JzG/Archive 115
 | 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 110 | ← | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | Archive 117 | → | Archive 120 |
Rev-del please
Hi Guy. When you get a moment could you redact this edit? I am pretty sure that one of the questions in there violates WP:OUTING. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I believe it should be redacted. 79616gr (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan
Just letting you know between us as I don't think it should go on the ANI complaint - you should see the edit summaries on his reversion of both our edits on his talk page. As you said; not cool. I honestly think it's worth a block, but it's not my call. I mean the edit summaries, not the reversions which he is quite entitled to do as it's his talk page. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Kww/TRM
Hi. I'd definitely agree that BLP trumps INVOLVED. If only there'd been genuine BLP issues to address. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- BLP is broader than libel and contentious material, Dweller: it covers any material that has been challenged by any editor and requires that inline citations be provided for any such material, even if the material would be considered non-contentious in all other respects.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- But you have to pick your fights. Some material is potentially damaging, and therefore will get wide latitude when it comes to removal. Other material gets an official "meh", and fighting over it looks pretty lame. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Bear's Guide
Hi JzG, hope you're well. Why bother reverting after I added a proper citation for Bear's guide on the BIU page? Can you please at least read through the edits you wholesale reverted and leave the ones you do agree with? I'm no fan of the subject either, but we do want clean-looking pages with cites, encyclopedic tone, and other relevant information written succinctly and factually. Just my two cc. Thanks21:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I did. Sorry, but I have seen too many similar edits from people recruited by Martin. I am happy to discuss it on Talk. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, did you want to start with the citation for Bear's Guide in lieu of the "needs better citation" code? That is a new section on the talk page.DavidWestT (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Toy Story Franchise links
Since you cite WP:OVERLINK as a reason for your revert, let me point out what overlook actually says:
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
I highlighted the part that you may not be aware of.--JOJ Hutton 11:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am aware of it. Two people disagree with you. Did you notice that? Guy (Help!) 13:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well excuse me, I didn't realize that it was about winning and trying to get as many people to agree with you. I thought it was about using the guidelines to create useful and easy to navigate articles. Guess I was mistaken.JOJ Hutton 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am sure you did think that. My interpretation is that you're wrong. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page. I actually don't care very much. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well my interpretation and the interpretation of many other editors is that charts, graphs, and lists should contain links. We should error on the side of usefulness instead of trying to make Wijipedia difficult to navigate.JOJ Hutton 00:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- we should err on the side of discussing it on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well since the article has included those links for years, you should have taken that option instead of continuing to revert.--JOJ Hutton 12:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- we should err on the side of discussing it on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well my interpretation and the interpretation of many other editors is that charts, graphs, and lists should contain links. We should error on the side of usefulness instead of trying to make Wijipedia difficult to navigate.JOJ Hutton 00:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am sure you did think that. My interpretation is that you're wrong. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page. I actually don't care very much. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well excuse me, I didn't realize that it was about winning and trying to get as many people to agree with you. I thought it was about using the guidelines to create useful and easy to navigate articles. Guess I was mistaken.JOJ Hutton 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Notice: General Sanctions on all Zeitgeist Movement articles
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Zeitgeist Movement.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Sorry for the impersonal template etc, but gotta let everyone know who got close enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I rarely touch them other than to fight off the occasional rush of idiots, so no problem. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments there have been unnecessarily intimidating though, including the most recent comments. This is exactly the kind of tone we're supposed to avoid. The first link: you're basically saying that people who prefer to use the word "documentary" have no place on Wikipedia, even though the survey shows that people support the "documentary" option for reasons other than being conspiracist cranks. The second link: "Not all members of TZM are conspiracy nuts, whereas the Merola brothers clearly are." -- this kind of angry commentary does not help at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:SPADE. There is no point pretending that the content of the first Zeitgeist film, in particular, is anything other than conspiracist claptrap. All that happens if you pussyfoot around these issues is that people think they may stand some chance of getting a result which there is no way on eartht hat they will ever get, such as representing conspiracy theories as if they are real. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling it a documentary and saying that the conspiracy theories are true are separate things. You're claiming that they're the same thing and and by doing that you're being directly hostile towards other editors. Look at my vote on that survey and tell me that I'm not fit to edit Wikipedia. Is that what you actually think? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm really not. I'm saying that it is a propaganda film, not a documentary, and I agree with Arthur that there should be a term for films like this which pretend to be documentaries but aren't. That would also cover Eric Merola's two Burzynski films and his quackumentary on laetrile, it woudl cover What The Bleep, and many other subjects. There is a massive difference in character between a polemical documentary (cf. Bowling For Columbine, which is essentially factual but selective in what facts it presents) and Zeitgeist, which draws no real distinction between truth and delusion.
- Incidentally, I am broadly left-wing and anti-establishment. I have no love for the targets of TZM or the films. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's great and your opinion is 100% valid but when we're talking about the article then we need to rely on what sources say. Calling it "propaganda" (in the article) like it's fact is not justified, is it? I'm just asking you to please have a little more chill on that talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, well, here is where we reach the heart of the problem. A group of editors committed to The Cause are active on that article. They will do whatever they can to cast the movie(s) in a favourable light. That is as expected. Those of us from the reality-based community need to actively look for sources that establish reality, in order to maintain the integrity of the project. I suspect that the "documentary" thing is a lost cause, since several sources carelessly repeat its self-classification, but in order to maintain balance we absolutely should find sources that highlight the craziness of its content, and sources that point out that whatever it calls itself, a documentary it is not. I think it is really rathe rimportant that Wikipedia does not promote conspiracist claptrap as having any real-world validity. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's great and your opinion is 100% valid but when we're talking about the article then we need to rely on what sources say. Calling it "propaganda" (in the article) like it's fact is not justified, is it? I'm just asking you to please have a little more chill on that talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Calling it a documentary and saying that the conspiracy theories are true are separate things. You're claiming that they're the same thing and and by doing that you're being directly hostile towards other editors. Look at my vote on that survey and tell me that I'm not fit to edit Wikipedia. Is that what you actually think? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:SPADE. There is no point pretending that the content of the first Zeitgeist film, in particular, is anything other than conspiracist claptrap. All that happens if you pussyfoot around these issues is that people think they may stand some chance of getting a result which there is no way on eartht hat they will ever get, such as representing conspiracy theories as if they are real. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments there have been unnecessarily intimidating though, including the most recent comments. This is exactly the kind of tone we're supposed to avoid. The first link: you're basically saying that people who prefer to use the word "documentary" have no place on Wikipedia, even though the survey shows that people support the "documentary" option for reasons other than being conspiracist cranks. The second link: "Not all members of TZM are conspiracy nuts, whereas the Merola brothers clearly are." -- this kind of angry commentary does not help at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Major misunderstanding / misrepresentation of my position on CoI by Guy / JzG
Guy, You write at ANI: {tq| Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy.}} and {tq| Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation}} That is a major misrepresentation of my position on CoI. It shows a major misunderstanding, which I'd like to correct and strongly urge you to correct once you understand why it's so off.
I have NEVER asserted that WP:COI does not have the force of policy. I have NEVER pushed the idea that the COI guideline is merely a guideline not a policy, so it's OK to violate it. In fact, I was referring to it (incorrectly) as a policy in that ANI thread, so rather the other way round.
What I've said is that I wish that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing" in [[WP:COI] changed to a "must not".
I am on record many times as being in favor of that.
What I've said is that because of the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing.", it doesn't forbid paid advocates' direct article editing.
So you're making it sound like I believe the opposite of what I actually believe, which is that folks need to honor WP:COI, but not misrepresent it.
I argue for a broad interpretation of compensation. It is a gross misrepresentation of my position for you to represent me as arguing for a narrow interpretation.
Why do you misrepresent me like this?
Please retract.
What would be fair to say is:
Elvey is right that the COI guideline offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is correct when he points out that paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from, but not forbidden from, direct article editing by the guideline, and he wishes it were stronger and a policy not a guideline. However, I think that his pointing out this fact is unhelpful. If there's consensus on that, Elvey has agreed to stop pointing out this true information.
--Elvey(t•c) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. This is at ANI and can stay there. Oh, and I think you are remarkably foolish. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well you don't deny misrepresenting what I said. I didn't expect you to imply that you think it's ok for you to misrepresent what I've said on ANI. I thought I'd let you know on your talk page and expected you to be civil. How foolish of me, indeed, it seems. --Elvey(t•c) 23:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi JzG. I've removed your comments at this page - whilst there was nothing objectionable in them, the workshop page of this case closed a couple of days ago. Thanks for taking the time to add your input, nevertheless. Yunshui 雲水 12:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Meh. One more example of Wikipedia becoming a bureaucracy, IMO. Nothing personal though. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You'll get to comment when the "proposed decision" phase opens next week. I'm a bit surprised at how eager they are toss WP:V in the trash in order to excuse desysopping me. I will take no substantial offense at a "desysop KWW for being a lame jerk, but don't throw WP:V in the trash to do so" position.
BTW, I was a bit surprised at your selective reading of WP:BLP. Why is it a BLP violation to go against the "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" bit, but not the "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" bit? Out of two adjacent sentences, why does one carry absolute weight and the other carry effectively zero when evaluating whether material is a violation?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is one of the lamest disputes ever to make it to arbitration. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- If viewed as a content dispute, yes, it probably is. I certainly agree that the material in question is pretty lame. I see the policy issue as important, that the need for sourcing is driven by obviousness and common knowledge concerns, not by a perception that the material is trivial or lame.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- NOnetheless, it was not of sufficient importance to press the nuclear button. In fact, if you'd reported it instead of blocking, TRM would have come out of it far worse than you. I think you know this. You got carried away, IMO. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- If viewed as a content dispute, yes, it probably is. I certainly agree that the material in question is pretty lame. I see the policy issue as important, that the need for sourcing is driven by obviousness and common knowledge concerns, not by a perception that the material is trivial or lame.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Workshop edit
Hey JzG, this edit is too late as the Workshop has ended, see the history, one other late addition has already been removed. Just wanted to let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah well. I have been thinking about the case for a long time, obviously too long. I am more used tot he old school of arbitration where "it ain't over 'til it's over". Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Abortion article
Dear JzG, would you mind explaining your edition in abortion article? I would appreciate your sources too.Germanxv (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NPOV. You should discuss any such changes on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's fix the Academy of Achievement article
Hello Mate - I added some info that you deleted back to the Academy of Achievement article. Please bear with me - I'm going to do what I can to get rid of all the company sources that they host on their own server, if I can, and find proper sources. I started a discussion thread on the talk page.Talk:Academy of Achievement#Request help to repair article Let me know if you want to Skype - my handle is TechoTalk1. Cheers!TechnoTalk (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- If by "fix" you mean remove the laundry lists, promotional guff and blatant PR, then sure. Not sure why you reverted it all back in, though. It makes it look like a body whose importance relies on spamming Wikipedia. Try some reliable independent sources and keep the namechecks out. Also the list of golden plate people is defended on the ground that there's a list of Rhodes scholars. The Rhodes scholarship is vastly more significant. The content surrounding this topic gives the appearance of having been written by their PR, and that's not good. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! I'm the one who made that quick comparison, and perhaps Kennedy Center Honors or something like that is more appropriate. Having awardee names is also important -- I find it difficult to evaluate the credibility of awards/honors (which I enjoy reading about here on Wiki) without knowing who in the past has accepted. In any case, I'm happy to help TechoTalk find independent sources and fix language. Qalandariyya (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- No it's not, per WP:LAUNDRY. The award is vastly less significant and in any case see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The intent appears to be to inflate the significance of this group. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll hunt more sources. I looked up the sources that are/were there, but in PDF format on an Amazon server, and many of them do not seem to be available online in their original form. My earlier question on the talk page was if it's better to just cite the original sources but not use PDFs? It's an odd scenario - we can cite the article and nobody without great difficulty can confirm whether what we are citing is actually in the article (I guess this is kind of like how print books are cited today), or we can cite the PDF that sits on what appears to be a company leased server. To your point, can one accuse people of trying to inflate the importance of the group, while ignoring the media coverage the group has gotten?TechnoTalk (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's better to cite independent sources but NOT direct from the academy itself, because they think everything they do is of paramount importance and we want someone else's judgment, not theirs. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll hunt more sources. I looked up the sources that are/were there, but in PDF format on an Amazon server, and many of them do not seem to be available online in their original form. My earlier question on the talk page was if it's better to just cite the original sources but not use PDFs? It's an odd scenario - we can cite the article and nobody without great difficulty can confirm whether what we are citing is actually in the article (I guess this is kind of like how print books are cited today), or we can cite the PDF that sits on what appears to be a company leased server. To your point, can one accuse people of trying to inflate the importance of the group, while ignoring the media coverage the group has gotten?TechnoTalk (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- No it's not, per WP:LAUNDRY. The award is vastly less significant and in any case see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The intent appears to be to inflate the significance of this group. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! I'm the one who made that quick comparison, and perhaps Kennedy Center Honors or something like that is more appropriate. Having awardee names is also important -- I find it difficult to evaluate the credibility of awards/honors (which I enjoy reading about here on Wiki) without knowing who in the past has accepted. In any case, I'm happy to help TechoTalk find independent sources and fix language. Qalandariyya (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi JzG. You closed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles? in May. As an uninvolved admin who is familiar with the topic, would you consider also closing Wikipedia:Bot requests#Remove persondata per the closure request here? (I am an uninvolved editor who has no opinion on the topic, so I don't think it is untoward of me to approach you asking for a close.) Thank you for your excellent work at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sara Pezzini
In regards to your recent edits at Sara Pezzini, while not policy it is recommended that editors follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as means to achieve consensus. Your bold removal of source content on April 17, 2015 was reverted today on July 28, 2015. At this point, instead of re-reverting, we should allow the WP:STATUSQUO to remain while discussion is proceeding. Thank you--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, the default is not for disputed information to remain in the article until there is agreement to remove it, that would be a POV-pusher's charter. You can probably tell from my edit history that I have a little bit of experience of this kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, JzG. On article Synclavier, you've deleted the entries with a summary "primary self-published". However, it seems slightly hasty. Before the deletion of description, we can try to recruit the reliable sources using {{citation needed}} tag. Isn't it nice idea ? --Clusternote (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- My experience is that {{citation needed}} remains in perpetuity (I am cynical, I know). I see you have sourced them, thank you. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Premature close?
I only blocked one of the two accounts being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DerekWinters to stop editing anatomy articles. The second account is the same editor making the same contentious changes, which is why I noted "This action is separate from the discussion above as to the appropriateness of the edits". Perhaps it will be beneficial for the editors discussing the possible disruptive nature of the edits to continue the discussion? It's your call.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Acute lack of competence. I think we can block in short order, topic bans are not going to help. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okie dokie.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Acupuncture
Just wanted to let you know that you hit 4RR today at Acupuncture. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Two separate bits of content. It would be nice if the pro-needle editors didn't make changes without consensus, through. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- You might want to brush up on WP:3RR. (Read the part highlighed in red that says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period".) Here are the four unmistakable reverts made in an 8 hour period: [1] [2] [3] [4] ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) bloody frustrating that you people are having this conversation. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was just thinking about you Roxy! ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kind thoughts, I hope ! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was reflecting on this conversation partly because of the way Guy was using terms like "woo" and "believers" and "pro-needle editors", and partly because of the reverts. The other reason I thought of you was I saw the "Lunatic Charlatans" userbox that I remember seeing on your userpage. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Acupuncture is a mix of needling, whihc just might have some specific (i.e. non-placebo) effect and woo, which is the mumbo jumbo about meridians and qi and such, in which I seriously hope no Wikipedia who aspires to edit on medical topics actually believes. There is a definite pro-needling contingent on that article (e.g. LesVegas). Some are not only believers but also practitioners, and some of these openly admit their COI. So we see the addition of speculative identification of any number of implausible and mutually inconsistent mechanisms, almost always emanating from authors who clearly identify themselves as true believers, as we saw with that most recent paper that states acupuncture has been used for relief of intestinal distress for millennia, as if that validates it. The same argument would of course also validate bloodletting and trepanning. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not here to argue about acupuncture, though I am familiar with the various parties editing the article. In this case I just wanted to remind you about 3RR. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Acupuncture is a mix of needling, whihc just might have some specific (i.e. non-placebo) effect and woo, which is the mumbo jumbo about meridians and qi and such, in which I seriously hope no Wikipedia who aspires to edit on medical topics actually believes. There is a definite pro-needling contingent on that article (e.g. LesVegas). Some are not only believers but also practitioners, and some of these openly admit their COI. So we see the addition of speculative identification of any number of implausible and mutually inconsistent mechanisms, almost always emanating from authors who clearly identify themselves as true believers, as we saw with that most recent paper that states acupuncture has been used for relief of intestinal distress for millennia, as if that validates it. The same argument would of course also validate bloodletting and trepanning. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm very happy with the outcome of that conversation at my Talk page, but astonishingly frustrated by the number of supporters of nonsense (nonscience?) who do not have wkipedia PAG at the top of their priority list. We are constantly confronted with this in areas covering fringe on wikipedia. Support from civility warriors (not you) doesn't help the situation. Guy's language is quite normal in areas where mainstream comment and thought takes place, it is just a reflection of the contempt felt towards these people who would bring an 'endarkenment' as opposed to 'enlightenment'. 'True BelieversTM' and other woosters are a scourge for which wikipedia has as yet found no cure. Also - do you or Guy think there may be traction for renaming the Dunning Kruger Effect? I think it should be moved to "The ATSME Effect" -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 13:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was reflecting on this conversation partly because of the way Guy was using terms like "woo" and "believers" and "pro-needle editors", and partly because of the reverts. The other reason I thought of you was I saw the "Lunatic Charlatans" userbox that I remember seeing on your userpage. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kind thoughts, I hope ! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church section removal
I recently partially undid a deletion you made to this page, where you cite "zero reliable sources." The section in question has multiple independent, third party sources ranging from local (Independent Appeal, The Jackson Sun) to national (ABC News). I am unclear as to why you believe these are not reliable. Can you explain? That the petitions were launched seems to be fairly well-attested. I like what I read on your "help" page,so I hope that this can be explained/resolved effectively. ◄Zahakiel► 23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- The main problem is the links to the petitions themselves (which is original research and solicitation, neither of which is acceptable) plus links to copyright content uploaded tot he petition site with no evidence of release form the copyright holder. Actually the entire thing is fatuous nonsense, but you probably know that. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Update: thank you for drawing this article to my attention. Most of the references were primary sources (e.g. saying that the church believes X drawn from Y source, with a link to Y source), several were copyright violations, there were a number of blogs and other manifestly unreliable sources - of over 100 linked references, more than 2/3 fail WP:RS. The article badly need pruning down to what can be drawn from reliable independent sources, which is not a lot as this sect is described as "tiny" by at least one of the tiny number of actual WP:RS in the article. Further discussion should be at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Guy (Help!) 08:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning for removing the petition sites and copyright violations, but I am unclear as to why the Church's official site is not a proper source for its own beliefs, since this is a statement of the Church's own position. Are other religious articles not sourced by their sites' information, or must they be reported from unaffiliated sources? ◄Zahakiel► 17:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- The article had dozens of cites tot he website, with absolutely no independent review or discussion. I can provide a similar number of links to my website outlining my views on things, but it's what reliable independent sources say that matters. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)