AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) →Seriously?: add |
||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
: If every person who has ever thrown a brickbat at an admin is forever after declared to be involvement, we will run out of admins rather quickly. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
: If every person who has ever thrown a brickbat at an admin is forever after declared to be involvement, we will run out of admins rather quickly. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Albino and Kim, you are both relentless on this e-cig stuff. I understand why both of you are - Kim with your presidency of the advocacy organization and Albino with e-cigs having basically saved your wife's life (if I am remembering that correctly) - but the current full-court press is... unseemly, and you don't seem to be able to see it. Please consider dialing it back. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
:Albino and Kim, you are both relentless on this e-cig stuff. I understand why both of you are - Kim with your presidency of the advocacy organization and Albino with e-cigs having basically saved your wife's life (if I am remembering that correctly) - but the current full-court press is... unseemly, and you don't seem to be able to see it. Please consider dialing it back. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
::You are remembering wrong. As for dialing it back, I have considerably dialed it back from the same point a year ago and no longer spend as much time there but involve myself in other areas. I am also focusing on PAG, [[WP:NOTABOVE]]. Im sure you recognise the link you created Jytdog. Policies exist for a reason. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
::You are remembering wrong. As for dialing it back, I have considerably dialed it back from the same point a year ago and no longer spend as much time there but involve myself in other areas. I am also focusing on PAG, [[WP:NOTABOVE]]. Im sure you recognise the link you created Jytdog. Policies exist for a reason. Core policies like NPOV even more so. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:19, 31 January 2016
Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).
|
---|
I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review. The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
- In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
- My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
- Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
- My Last.fm profile
- vGuyUK on X | SceptiGuy on X
You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.
- 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?
About me
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Oh_no%2C_not_this_shit_again.jpg/200px-Oh_no%2C_not_this_shit_again.jpg)
I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
RfC and other closes
I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24
I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.
What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?
I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?
What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?
I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?
I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously? Your response to a topic ban is to ask for help in productively planning for what you do to pick the issue right back up again when the ban expires? And your best idea for where to get advice on this is one of the most evil bastards on the project? You are doing this wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but whom do you mean by "evil bastard"? I sent the same message to all the admins who participated in the block.
- My view on this matter up until now has been "it is okay to participate in discussions of WP:LQ just not to initiate one" and it is clear you don't think that's the way to go. But not everyone who participated got a topic ban, so clearly simply doing so wasn't the problem. In your opinion, what is? There is clearly a disconnect between my view of this issue and yours and I am trying to resolve it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Guy is in fact a very nice person, not an evil bastard at all, but his Wikipedia persona often concentrates on topic areas that are infested by lunatics. He has developed a particularly decisive style of interaction, which for some people would justify his self-deprecating description above. I hope it will save Guy's time if I suggest that it would be wise for you to leave entirely and forever the subject area of your ban. Any return should be undertaken very cautiously and very, very briefly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Backed out change from Flow Based Programming page
Can I ask why you backed out my change to the FBP page? It is a Reference to a paper from M A Jackson, a recognised expert. GeraldByrne (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- That article is plagued by primary sourcing and statements from personal knowledge that push the limits of WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Hassan Rebell unblocked
I've done a WP:ROPE unblock of this user. Since you have a notice saying it's ok to undo your blocks if the reviewing admin thinks it's ok, and he'd had an appeal on his talk page for just over a month with no reply I decided to just do it without a discussion here. Hopefully there will be no further issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, I suspect the user will not last long but I'm happy to let you give him the benefit of what doubt there might be. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Cryonics organizations
I have mentioned the issues regarding Cryonics in the article talk page following advice on WP:FTN. I look forward to further discussions. Tiddlypeep (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Intelligent Design and all that
Hi. Have already written too much on RSN, but I think that you asked for examples to confirm the reasoning I claimed is being used on the article (i.e. that certain sources might make ID, the concept not the movement but the concept it promotes, sound like it has a distinguished pedigree). I suggest searching for the search term "pedigree" on the archives of that article. (Though it is probably not the only word used to explain the argument, and much of this is from periods before I arrived.)
Let me already predict what your first reaction might be: some sympathy for the concern that some editors who want this easily sourceable information to be included might have intentions which are "bad" in the sense of being "anti" what I would think is best for science and indeed humanity. It means basing edits on judgments about fellow editors. But then we should think about it again, and indeed I think this example is a classic reminder of the reasoning behind the 3 key core content policies, which were heavily debated and carefully written as I am sure you know. Guessed-at intentions of other editors should not matter. The situation is similar to for example someone arguing that Nazism was influenced by Nietzsche, which is something sometimes very badly understood and overblown. There are all types of standard approaches about how we judge which things we can say about the link between Nietzsche and Nazism, but the intentions of our editors is not one of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- The topic of that article is Intelligent Design, the brand created by the Discovery Institute in response to McLean v Arkansas, which killed its previous brand, Creation Science. There is another related concept, creationism, which has a longer pedigree, and in discussion of which the term "intelligent designer" was occasionally used, but our article is about the Discovery Institute brand. The concept you are discussing is covered at teleological argument, which is linked from the ID article. To conflate the two adds only confusion, they are separate concepts, the one only coincidentally related to the other. I don't blame you for the confusion, the religious right has a positive genius for Orwellian use of language. They undoubtedly chose the term very carefully with the exact intent to evoke vague memories of the teleological argument among a judiciary who will almost all have gone through a Sunday school education; the term seems to me very clearly intended to resonate with distant but nonspecific memories of early education, with the hope that this would somehow appear to be a "lost" part of educational tradition and thus clear the great hurdle of the anti-establishment clause. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, we have no source which describes it as a "brand". It is either a name for a political/religious movement, or it is the teleological argument they use, or it is teleological arguments generally. The subjects are connected, even though the movement wants to de-emphasize that (and WP goes along with this). I see you can give no source which says otherwise, while many explicitly say what I just said. I accept that the movement is what the article about, and that it should have an article separate from teleological arguments generally (actually I count at least 3 or 4). I agree that confusion has been deliberately created by that movement, and that this is part of what makes it hard for WP. (You think I've fallen for it. I think you have!) That is also the position of the editors who work on it. Anyway, I think it needs no further discussion from my side. Most relevant to the general concern which was raised is that the editors themselves of that article quite blatantly say that they are vetoing discussion of certain sourceable information links based upon bad editor intentions, (or the potential for editors with bad intentions). That is how they see it themselves, so even if they are wrong, it is a relevant example. WP:PARITY does not tell us to do this, and it is contrary to our core content policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- As I have pointed out before, if you google cdesign proponentsists you will learn everything you need to know about the term which is the subject of that article. You want the article to be about something else, but it isn't. It is about the term coined by the Discovery Institute in order to try to get round the First Amendment, and it is a direct replacement for their earlier term, "creation science", as the sources make absolutely clear. The article where your proposed edits belong, if anywhere, appears to be teleological argument, but it does not belong in the ID article because the ID article is specifically about the term coined by DI and not about the looser term "intelligent designer". I think we're done here. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, you and me using google are not RS, obviously (though the ID talk page shows a lot of this approach). Instead I followed WP policy and looked for real sources in order to check the verifiable facts of the matter and avoid trying to be a journalist. Included in this I asked editors to name their sources and looked at those, both strong and weak. Anyway, what I think has been admitted many times over many years by editors on that page is that the term was not really coined by the DI. The DI claim they got it from NASA and that it was an engineering term, in court, because they wanted to deny they were a religious movement. This claim was a lie (which WP editors now often repeat). Actually the term is reasonably easy to find in 19th century theological debate concerning the teleological argument. The DI use it pretty much exactly the same way (although as Sedley explains their approach is more like Galen than Paley). But this is beside the point, because I understand what you mean and agree: They made the term popular and more notable as a term for what we cover in the article teleological argument, as well as being a term associated specifically with their movement. (The term is used in both contexts, a lot, often together. No one can find a source which says this is a confusion or wrong. And for example no one has ever given a source which implies that the "wedge strategy" has to be present for the term to be used correctly.) But in reality the term is not really interesting, because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Even if they were using a new word for an old idea, we should mention that if sources mention it, right? Anyway, I think we and most experienced editors would agree that the movement deserves an article and the broader teleological argument deserves an article. Both should mention the term. No problem with that.
- But I think you are completely forgetting the general policy question which was originally under discussion, and what aspect of the debates about our ID article might be relevant to it, and indeed whether your claim that WP:PARITY is the appropriate guidance is correct. If you search for the word "pedigree" on that talk page you will see the same argument being used over and over by experienced Wikipedians in order to justify the walling off between the two articles (for example the resistance I mentioned concerning adding dab information). It has nothing to do with looking at sources, but about guessing the intentions of other Wikipedians. It led, at least I think, to deliberate ignoring of sources and ironically to WP unwittingly following the DI. Even if I am wrong and they were wrong about the sources, which you have not demonstrated, this is how they argued it, and that is what was relevant to the discussion on RSN. So let me take that point out of the context which you clearly have feelings about:
- Let's say you find an article one day where you see that editors have long been talking past each other, let's say about Palestinians and Israel. You find that reasonable-looking sources about a particular link are being excluded and people are understandably sensitive about it. Let's say it involves sources about a claimed link between Palestianian nationalism and Nazism. Let's say that you find that the main argument being given on both sides is that they both suspect that the other side only want to have WP present facts in a certain way because it will favor today's Israelis over Palestinians or vice versa. And let's say both sides can find good journalistic and op ed evidence in their favour, arguing that disreputable movements have promoted the position of their opponents, "proving" that WP should not do what these disreputables do, and indicating that perhaps some Wikipedians are pushing the POV of those movements. It is a claim of guilt by association. What do you do next? I think what we should normally do is go to the best sources, and follow the guidance given by the core content policies. We should not obsess over what bad intentions other editors might have. We go to the best sources. We can also mention op eds where notable and relevant. We avoid being original.
- Do you agree on this general point, if not on the specific example of ID? If so, then we are in agreement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Context is everything, of course, and if this were Israel/Palestine - an area on which reasonable people may differ - your point would be valid. It's not about Israel/Palestine.
- The article on ID is about the term coined by the Discovery Institute, an objectively false characterisation of creationism as a scientifically defensible theory of origins of life. We have a court ruling to guide us on the provenance and validity of ID. The article covering the term is teleological argument. If you want the ID article refactored to cover the term, and split off the ID coinage to something like Intelligent Design (creationist Trojan horse) then feel free to propose it on Talk, but what you're proposing is somewhat akin to adding historical sources on fraternal relations to Big Brother, with the effect (and I am sure it is not intentional) of making authoritarian dystopias look less problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- As I have pointed out before, if you google cdesign proponentsists you will learn everything you need to know about the term which is the subject of that article. You want the article to be about something else, but it isn't. It is about the term coined by the Discovery Institute in order to try to get round the First Amendment, and it is a direct replacement for their earlier term, "creation science", as the sources make absolutely clear. The article where your proposed edits belong, if anywhere, appears to be teleological argument, but it does not belong in the ID article because the ID article is specifically about the term coined by DI and not about the looser term "intelligent designer". I think we're done here. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, we have no source which describes it as a "brand". It is either a name for a political/religious movement, or it is the teleological argument they use, or it is teleological arguments generally. The subjects are connected, even though the movement wants to de-emphasize that (and WP goes along with this). I see you can give no source which says otherwise, while many explicitly say what I just said. I accept that the movement is what the article about, and that it should have an article separate from teleological arguments generally (actually I count at least 3 or 4). I agree that confusion has been deliberately created by that movement, and that this is part of what makes it hard for WP. (You think I've fallen for it. I think you have!) That is also the position of the editors who work on it. Anyway, I think it needs no further discussion from my side. Most relevant to the general concern which was raised is that the editors themselves of that article quite blatantly say that they are vetoing discussion of certain sourceable information links based upon bad editor intentions, (or the potential for editors with bad intentions). That is how they see it themselves, so even if they are wrong, it is a relevant example. WP:PARITY does not tell us to do this, and it is contrary to our core content policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- To me the subject we were discussing is resolved well enough by your agreement on the hypothetical case. Clearly indeed that change of context helped, and your personal understandings about ID would not allow you to agree with me in the original example context.
- Concerning the differences between us about ID, if you are aware of any source which demonstrates that I am wrong in anything I said, I would be honestly interested and appreciate a note about it. Please note by the way that some of the ways in which the ID article has been changed over the years resulted from my period of discussion there, for example it now does have a dab header. Based on the difficulties of getting such obviously needed things, and the types of arguments and sources I saw, I do think my Palestinian hypothetical is accurate as a parallel.
- I am understanding your proposal about a new article to be both sarcastic and not well thought through. (I can't even follow the last sentence. How can we find sources for historical relations to Big Brother?) If that is incorrect then I leave it up to you concerning whether you want to explain more about why it makes sense. Personally I think that there are already too many articles about this same subject, and there should be more merges. We don't need an article for every aspect of a subject, if those articles all look like articles about the same subject, as do Intelligent Design and Intelligent Design Movement.
- "with the effect (and I am sure it is not intentional) of making authoritarian dystopias look less problematic" I just register that "there is that logic again". Let me note once again that in fact, this should not be a factor concerning how we use sources on WP. If Nazism was notably and verifiably influenced by a poet everyone loves, then we report it. If the ID movement verifiably and notably uses older religious terms and ideas, then so it did, and we report it. I think you agreed with that.
- IMHO, much of the drama on the ID article is coming from people struggling with reconciling religion and modern science personally. Some people need to believe that the DI is like nothing which ever happened in the history of religion and philosophy, because they want to protect some sort of "rump religion" they have. Our best sources deny that this is correct though and show us the ID movement uses old ideas and words. And in fact religion and philosophy is filled with similar examples. The use of "noble lies", especially concerning religion and piety was argued for by the Socratics who are also the source of teleological arguments, making ID's wedge strategy quite old fashioned in approach. As with heliocentrism, the Socratics were quite aware of arguments for evolution and concerned with the effect it would have on piety. They used the language of science, natural philosophy, to support religion and piety. This well known step was considered controversial then too and influenced medieval approaches to science. But WP is methodologically sceptical, like modern science and modern scholarship generally, not pious. This is a different approach to Socrates, and WP should not be defending any kind of spiritualism or religion. ...So (TLDR) either you have sources, or else your personal opinion is just your personal opinion and not relevant to what we put in WP. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Question about the contentiousness going on at WP:RSN
I know that when a lack of competence leads to disruptive behavior (such as insisting that OR should be in an article and trying to own the article to keep it in, to cite a recent example in which I was involved) the admins can step in, and I know that you -being involved- aren't in a good position to step in even if it gets to that point, but I was curious if there was a point at which continuing a fruitless argument in wikispace/talkspace could warrant admin intervention. I'm not asking for it, mind, just asking if it would be a possibility if things don't die down at the linked thread. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the real risk is to articles. The best course is to look for evidence that fringe proponents are pushing for POV edits to mainspace, or actively recruiting other fringe proponents when they are failing in an attempt to get fringe views into mainspace. And if the topic area is under sanction - climate change, GMOs etc - then AE is the right venue. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- If I may comment, I can imagine there might be many specific cases which can be helped by discussion on RSN. It really depends on the type of case. But that board is definitely best for specific cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @JzG: Oh, I agree. I don't see any risk to WP in the discussion, per se. I just see something that can bog down editors who aren't ideologically opposed to skepticism, as they're drawn in to argue about something, rather than editing articles. Anyways, it doesn't matter as the discussion at the RSN has been closed, and the discussion at FTN has petered out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion at BLP Noticeboard
My first and last posts to the thread you just closed at the BLP Noticeboard were to note that the disputed statement is not supported by the sources cited in the article. From WP:BLP:
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. 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.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
As far as I'm aware, no one in that thread or in the Talk discussion at the article has pointed to specific content in the sources cited in the article to validate that they support the statement. If I'm mistaken, please point me to the evidence. Otherwise, please help me understand how that's not a BLP violation. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- You failed to persuade at the Talk page, and you failed equally at BLPN. Now, as they say, go and WP:SYN no more. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
spam whitelist
Hi Guy, regarding a recent 'declined' you marked at the spam whitelist, I'd very much appreciate it if you would reconsider. I don't believe the fact that it is a self-published book makes it an unviable source, in this context. There IS a reliable source that proves the lulu.com link is the only 'legitimate' ebook version of this person's thesis, and the fact of the thesis' existence is crucial to her ongoing notability. I've explained this in greater detail on the request page: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Lulu.com_listing_for_.22Offending_Women.22. Sincerely, Wittylama 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment on Talk:Michael Greger
I'm troubled by this comment. It's one thing to disagree. But to accuse me of supporting crankery when I am trying to reasonably work through a policy issue is really insulting. I never endorsed any of the people in the BLPs under discussion, and that's a complete misrepresentation of my view.
I discussed the issue of using PARITY to override BLPSPS with an admin here and she told me straight-up that it was not permitted. So I hope I can be forgiven for thinking policy is against using self-published sources in BLPs. I even suggested changing the policy to allow some use of such sources against cranks. Yet you apparently see this as a pro-crank position. I would appreciate if you'd at least explain why you think I'm wrong, rather than accusing me of harboring secret alt-med sympathies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are using policy as a crowbar to try to get your opinion reflected as fact. There is no problem with the text you dislike so much - it is, in fact, completely accurate, however much some people might wish it were not. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what opinion you imagine I have. I probably don't have that opinion, because in fact I'm dubious of all these people, as I've made clear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are arguing for something you don't actually believe? Fine, whatever. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've been arguing that the current use skeptic SPSs in BLPs of pseudoscientists, which is supported by consensus, is nevertheless prohibited by WP:V. So I want to propose a change in WP:V to allow it. There's a separate and less significant argument about the merits of the specific source in the Greger article which is not worth getting into - but note that I endorsed the criticism of Greger from a different SPS that Alexbrn previously added, which said he offers a biased perspective by selectively excluding coverage of certain studies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are arguing for something you don't actually believe? Fine, whatever. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what opinion you imagine I have. I probably don't have that opinion, because in fact I'm dubious of all these people, as I've made clear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ping
Mabelina has written on his page, repeatedly linking my name, and, well, not quite yours, but he linked User:JzG/help, which was probably an attempt to ping you. I don't have time to look at it properly right now, I will later, but it's not looking good — I mean I suppose the hint that "one alternative route could be very expensive" can only mean one thing, and that's not all. Anyway, I'll get to it, and give him some information as well as remove tpa, unless you get there first. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
- Never mind, Bbb23 has already revoked tpa. Funny story: when I started to read Mabelina's post beginning
@Bishonen and JzG/help: I have now had sufficient time to look back at some other instances on the Admin board & I can see there are quite serious instances of downright rudeness, falsification, etc…
,[1] I thought at first he was referring to his own posts on ANI, and was writing an apology. That probably shows my lack of experience with the user. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
Seriously?
Are you serious in claiming that this letter[2] - is a official (or inofficial) letter from the institutions of the 3 scientists that have written it?
How are you determining that? --Kim D. Petersen 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, I am saying that it has a header which says it is from those departments. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? The header says no such thing. Please take another look. The letter is formatted like a scientific paper, and all it tells you is what universities the 9 authors are working at. So i'm still curious as to how you are claiming on AE that this is an official/inofficial letter from those universities/insitutes. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to go down the road of debating how many angels dance on the head of this particular pin, the point is that it was presented by Ferret as an obviously egregious example of ZOMG!!111one!!eleventy Terrible sources! and in fact it is a defensible and on the face of it quite reasonable source in an area where there is clearly no scientific consensus and significant concerns about tobacco companies recruiting new customers to highly addictive nicotine-based products. It is a content dispute, and the AE report is egregious. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with angels on a pin. And everything to do with the relative reliability of a source. The very thing that holds Wikipedia together: WP:RS. And in this case the significantly more serious WP:MEDRS.
- And you just testified to AE that the above mentioned source is usable in a WP:MEDRS context!
- And i'm asking you in all seriousness - do you really think that, or did you for a moment, let your rationality go, because you think that AlbinoFerret is/was POV pushing? --Kim D. Petersen 23:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret is making vexatious complaints in an attempt to gain advantage in a content dispute. I have no actual desire to get involved in editing the battleground article son vaping, my point was simple: to represent this as an obviously egregiously bad source is simply wrong, regardless of what final consensus on Talk might be. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not commenting on whether or not you have a case or reason against AlbinoFerret at all. I want to know whether you think that the ends justify the means - here in context misleading AE about the WP:MEDRS status of a source. --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret is making vexatious complaints in an attempt to gain advantage in a content dispute. I have no actual desire to get involved in editing the battleground article son vaping, my point was simple: to represent this as an obviously egregiously bad source is simply wrong, regardless of what final consensus on Talk might be. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to go down the road of debating how many angels dance on the head of this particular pin, the point is that it was presented by Ferret as an obviously egregious example of ZOMG!!111one!!eleventy Terrible sources! and in fact it is a defensible and on the face of it quite reasonable source in an area where there is clearly no scientific consensus and significant concerns about tobacco companies recruiting new customers to highly addictive nicotine-based products. It is a content dispute, and the AE report is egregious. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? The header says no such thing. Please take another look. The letter is formatted like a scientific paper, and all it tells you is what universities the 9 authors are working at. So i'm still curious as to how you are claiming on AE that this is an official/inofficial letter from those universities/insitutes. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I ask that you change to "involved". Involvement isnt just on the topic but past interaction with an editor. During the GMO Arbcom case I was one of the editors that sought to bring you into the case because of your behaviour [3] which you fought against. Per WP:INVOLVED "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." AlbinoFerret 14:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- If every person who has ever thrown a brickbat at an admin is forever after declared to be involvement, we will run out of admins rather quickly. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Albino and Kim, you are both relentless on this e-cig stuff. I understand why both of you are - Kim with your presidency of the advocacy organization and Albino with e-cigs having basically saved your wife's life (if I am remembering that correctly) - but the current full-court press is... unseemly, and you don't seem to be able to see it. Please consider dialing it back. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are remembering wrong. As for dialing it back, I have considerably dialed it back from the same point a year ago and no longer spend as much time there but involve myself in other areas. I am also focusing on PAG, WP:NOTABOVE. Im sure you recognise the link you created Jytdog. Policies exist for a reason. Core policies like NPOV even more so. AlbinoFerret 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)