Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 4) (bot |
→Topic ban for Vani Hari and its talk page: new section |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
Thanks for helping me at the edit warring discussions. But it is good to know that undoing policy violations counts towards 3RR blocks. Now that I really learned this, I will behave differently. Still there is a problem: an user inserts made up content and it is not obvious vandalism, so it is a content dispute. So for the hours needed to settle it, Wikipedia will display wrong content. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 15:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for helping me at the edit warring discussions. But it is good to know that undoing policy violations counts towards 3RR blocks. Now that I really learned this, I will behave differently. Still there is a problem: an user inserts made up content and it is not obvious vandalism, so it is a content dispute. So for the hours needed to settle it, Wikipedia will display wrong content. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 15:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Admins usually refuse to enforce V policy. We don't have super admins to train admins how to edit and read sources. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 17:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
:Admins usually refuse to enforce V policy. We don't have super admins to train admins how to edit and read sources. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 17:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Topic ban for [[Vani Hari]] and its talk page == |
|||
My dear QuackGuru, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from participating in [[Vani Hari]] and the talk page. It seems clear to me, as an uninvolved administrator, that you are a stumbling block in an otherwise ordinary discussion, dragging out over weeks what could have been resolved in days or less. I do this in reference to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]]; you were notified back in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=240153498&oldid=239936674 2008 already], you were cautioned a few times, and you were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=602791940 notified again] in 2014. I am topic-banning you from those two pages for three months, and from discussing the general topic anywhere else on Wikipedia, hoping that a. that article will continue to improve and b. that you will not act similarly on other pages. Kind regards, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:45, 19 April 2016
Check sources
www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette
http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/
Can you please clarify your tagging? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You think sources over 50 years old are reliable? There is no need for all the sources. See WP:OVERCITE. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the "duplicate" source for GE moving away from beryllium-based phosphors? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will try to shorten it to three sources next time. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- This really belongs at Talk:Berylliosis, rather than here.
- I see the Army pamphlet as quite useful as it's a simplistic overview of the whole issue, from the viewpoint of explaining occupational hygiene to the layman. I see the Scribd source as robust, because the likelihood of it having been corrupted by a conspiracy is too far-fetched. Nor is anything about it suspicious. If you really want rid of it though, there are plenty of comparable sources so it's no great loss.
- The GE paper though is significant because it discusses one of the very first industrial reactions to beryllium exposure for occupational hygiene. I must make some phone calls and get a copy of it ordered. I know of nothing else that covers the same issue, although the 1949 journal is close. I just don't see the RS issues on this paper - these pre-computer index technical papers are poorly indexed and hard to find online (NASA have had an interesting project to put some pivotal 1930s NACA work online) but this is GE we're talking about, they're a robust publisher and archivist of technical publishing for a century.
- There is also a possibility that, in the great re-organising of the two beryllium poisoning articles, the fluorescent tube content belongs with acute poisoning, rather than chronic berylliosis. As the phosphors in the tube were more soluble than beryllia, their risk is of the acute form. There is a strong correlation for beryllium between the chemistry of the risk material and the clinical condition that develops, the articles still need to make this clearer.
- There's also perhaps scope for some more on generalised sarcoidosis and its confusability with berylliosis. Outside of manufacturing towns familiar with it, this has been a regular mis-diagnosis for berylliosis. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The WP:TRIVIA content is still in the article. I don't think it is necessary to include the Army pamphlet. I don't think the Army pamphlet is even reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's the "trivia"? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The part "It is most classically associated" is unclear. Is it still associated with them are not? QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- So clarify it. There are many sources available, from the Army pamphlet onwards.
- No one develops berylliosis naturally. No one develops it unless they are exposed to industrially refined beryllium compounds, which have only existed since the 1930s. Even amongst miners its rare, although it was initially high amongst smelter workers. This is not fluorosis, where some obscure forms of natural geology can generate problematic levels of exposure. This is an entirely occupational disease (in the sense of caused by industry, as it may also affect those around it but not directly involved).
- The text in the article is reasonable (but can always be improved). These are the industries that have always had the high risk for beryllium exposure. I fail to see how any of this is "trivia". Even in a "medical article" (which isn't a narrowness we recognise at WP anyway) the industrial occupational hygiene aspects are essential: there is no exposure and no condition without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- See "Industries using beryllium in their products include aerospace, automotive, biomedical, defence, energy and electrical, fire prevention, instruments, equipment and objects, manufacturing, sporting goods and jewellery, scrap recovery and recycling, and telecommunications.[13]"[1]
- The article says "It is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, microwave semiconductor electronics, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating)."
- "It is most classically associated" does not make sense." Which source said "most classically associated"?
- Where does the article say it may also affect those around it but not directly involved? QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Classically" is obviously used here in the sense of "archetypally" which is reasonable editorial lattitude for copywriting. If you object, you may of course edit this. It's not a sourcing issue.
- The article does not say that those around it may be affected, so that still needs to be added. I only mentioned it here to try, fruitlessly, to avoid a challenge to the narrow claim of being "occupational" when those not directly on the payroll are affected too. In the past those downstream of smelter plumes have been affected, in today's post-industrial age it's often about re-using old factory sites for housing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Those around may be affected can be added to which section using which source?
- It's not a sourcing issue? It is a sourcing issue according to WP:V policy. I think the wording can be clearer. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Add it to whichever section you like, with whichever source you like. Berylliosis and occupational ABD has a huge literature - just check PubMed (I presume you have access?). Aluminium smelters are the more interesting search term, as there's more beryllium as an impurity in bauxite aluminium ore than there are pure beryllium production plants. You might also find Harriet Hardy at Los Alamos interesting as a name - she was instrumental in the recognition of the long term hazards to workers in the US nuclear industry. From what's there already, the Cooper & Harrison (2009) paper is a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The part "It is most classically associated" is unclear. Is it still associated with them are not? QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's the "trivia"? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The WP:TRIVIA content is still in the article. I don't think it is necessary to include the Army pamphlet. I don't think the Army pamphlet is even reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will try to shorten it to three sources next time. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the "duplicate" source for GE moving away from beryllium-based phosphors? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Query
Regarding this, thank you, but perhaps you could give some evidence at the case page ?
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since you're more familiar with those older accounts than I am, perhaps you can explain it better at the case page ? — Cirt (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
WURT
WTF is WURT ? — Cirt (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- it is the self-name of someone who is socking who is upset with me and guy per at least two messages they have left. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Renameduser024#Comments_by_other_users Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is the Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team. You can join. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- QG, what does this and this have to do with improving Wikipedia? Real question. A second real question - these socks are specifically targeting me and Guy. Why do you support that? Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with improving. I don't support it. This all started with Reform of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- That essay unfortunately attracted a bunch of disoriented and disgruntled editors who don't really understand this place. I have been sympathetic to what you were trying to do but the clamor of people like whoever is doing this socking has dragged your effort down. And your not distancing yourself and your effort from them, hurts you and your effort. They are stealing your brand and trashing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with improving. I don't support it. This all started with Reform of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- QG, what does this and this have to do with improving Wikipedia? Real question. A second real question - these socks are specifically targeting me and Guy. Why do you support that? Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My edit warring
Thanks for helping me at the edit warring discussions. But it is good to know that undoing policy violations counts towards 3RR blocks. Now that I really learned this, I will behave differently. Still there is a problem: an user inserts made up content and it is not obvious vandalism, so it is a content dispute. So for the hours needed to settle it, Wikipedia will display wrong content. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Admins usually refuse to enforce V policy. We don't have super admins to train admins how to edit and read sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban for Vani Hari and its talk page
My dear QuackGuru, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from participating in Vani Hari and the talk page. It seems clear to me, as an uninvolved administrator, that you are a stumbling block in an otherwise ordinary discussion, dragging out over weeks what could have been resolved in days or less. I do this in reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience; you were notified back in 2008 already, you were cautioned a few times, and you were notified again in 2014. I am topic-banning you from those two pages for three months, and from discussing the general topic anywhere else on Wikipedia, hoping that a. that article will continue to improve and b. that you will not act similarly on other pages. Kind regards, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)