User talk:JzG

Cut it out man

• "... we compromise endlessly between the status quo and what conspiracy theorists want the article to say."
• "I don't suppose the conspiracists will like this any more, though."
• "Your version is clearly designed to leave the door open to bullshit, in a way the sources do nto support."
• "That's as expected given your history, and it's your problem, not Wikipedia's."
• "The fundamental problem is that any accurate statement willcause you cognitive dissonance. Sorry, I can't fix that. "
• "... right after we topic ban the conspiracy kooks so they don't derail the discussion with attempts to mitigate cognitive dissonance."
• "That's good, because we've had to tolerate your advocacy for appeasing conspiracy theorists."
• "I know that as an admitted Truther you don't accept that ... And if you don't, you don't belong on Wikipedia."
• "That's why we're here in the first place. Autonova, a Truther ..."
• "...supported by multiple sources but consistently disputed here by conspiracy theorists..."

"Play the ball not the man", "discuss edits not editors", I'm sure you've heard them all a thousand times, but still that's a lot of ad hominem. And why? Because of a Truther userbox from five years ago?? People should be allowed to believe in silly things and not get attacked for it. If you look through the user's contributions over the past decade, it's mostly video games. They're not going around trying to pull hoaxes, or even being tendencious, or malicious, and yet you attack, attack, attack. It makes the whole damn page toxic because you keep making it personal. There are a lot of editors in that conversation; I only see two who are making comments about a specific editor's motivations and other ad hominem attacks; the other one is Pants. Please chill. Leviv ich 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Compromise with Truthers is an exercise in futility and destructive to NPOV. The attempt to water down the article has been going on for years and I, for one, am bored with it. But you'll notice that I have been the onw dredging up sources and making constructive proposals, whereas our Truther friend just wants to cut out all references to conspiracy theories being false. See also the above. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Levivich Good on you for trying to counsel the OP on his Talk page regarding how to structure an RfC. But I have no problem with Guy calling a spade a spade. Sure, we allow people to hold silly personal beliefs in UFOs or ghosts or conspiracies — as long as they don't disrupt articles in an effort to make them more sympathetic to those personal beliefs. In this case, we have someone who (currently, not five years ago) declares their affinity and work with the 9-11 Truther movement. That is an automatic conflict of interest when it comes to editing Wikipedia's conspiracy theory article. Given what they are trying to accomplish (removing "without credible evidence" as a defining characteristic of a conspiracy theory) we'd be naive to extend good faith and blindly assume they are only trying to improve Wikipedia. As for Guy's Talk page remarks, yes I agree he could tone down it down a bit. Ten comments about the editor's obvious COI is definitely overdoing it. One or two would have been sufficient. But as you can see, he's feeling frustrated, and with good reason. I invite you to put the conspiracy theory article on your watchlist. After several years, you'll notice the pattern; an WP:SPA or conspiracy believer shows up once or twice a year to try to make the article more amenable to their beliefs. Their methods vary, such as trying to introduce language that hints that some conspiracy theories are actually true, or revising the definition to leave the door open to credibility for certain theories. Their tactics can range from polite but persistent sealioning, to more openly disruptive edit warring. Long term editors do get tired of engaging in what is virtually the same debate over and over again, as I suspect Guy has. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a small comment - holding an alternative belief does not give you a COI. Believing in some conspiracies does not mean that you have a COI in regard to that conspiracy, and it certainly doesn't mean you have a COI in regards to conspiracies in general. Otherwise we'd have to say that people who believe in global warming can't edit the global warming article, or people who believe that Trump is an idiot can't edit the Trump biography. Having an opinion does not, in itself, give a conflict of interest. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not - unless you make your living from it (e.g. quacks and professional antivaxers). It does, however, call into legitimate question your ability to correctly assess sources and evidence, and it undermines any claim to objectivity in any area related to any delusional beliefs you might hold. So, a Truther is not an honest broker in discussions on conspiracy theories, because the commonly accepted definition of the term hurts them in the feels. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If you say so. But they don't have a COI. - Bilby (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free t point out where I said they did. I did, however, point out that they have an emotionally vested interest in the content of the page which is at odds with NPOV due to the fringe nature of the beliefs in question - and the lack of intellectual honesty around the framing of the dispute stems entirely from this. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you in regard to that point, as most of what LuckyLouie was writing was accusing them of a COI. An editor might be disruptive, push a POV, biased and difficult, but I don't think we should be using COI as a bludgeon - especially when it doesn't apply. We have a wealth of other polices which can be much more appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like we're in violent agreement then. In Wikipedia terms a COI is financial. This is not a financial interest, but a deeply vested emotional belief, more akin to creationism. I always find creationism a useful analogy, as most people on Wikipedia seem to grok the essential problem there. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm so reasonable, I agree as well. Most people think "paid editor" when you mention COI, but I was using the term in the sense of WP:EXTERNALREL. - LuckyLouie (talk)

In this case it still isn't a COI. What you are looking for is WP:COI is not simply bias. - Bilby (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't want to suggest the user has a COI as it's defined in Wikipedia's guideline. In retrospect, I shouldn't have linked to WP:COI in my original comment. Conflict of interest would have been the better link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Arrr

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25#Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

×== Huh? ==

I thought it was clear that "the comments" referred to the comments by Soros on 60 Minutes, not the constant anti-Soros comments from Alex. Æthereal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to clarify this in the edit, but it has already been reverted without explanation. Æthereal (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Æthereal: OK, maybe talk about it on Talk? I think it was ambiguous in context, so maybe that was the issue. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For that indef, and also for the other ANI timesink before that. Even while I vehemently disagree with you on some things, I do appreciate what you do for the 'pedia. Leviv ich 21:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

De nada. Reasonable people can differ, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRAPWATCH

It's not quite ready to be fully released to everyone (bugs), but the current version of it is relatively clean of false positives. If you want to work on getting rid of some of those crappy references, I suggest starting at WP:JCW/Questionable5 and going up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

FeedbackFruits page deletion

Hello! I'm a relatively new Wikipedia user, and I've created my first page about a company called FeedbackFruits a while ago, as during my uni years we used to use them and it seemed weird that there was no wiki page about them, so I searched for sources and wrote it up. Could you please explain why the page was deleted without any discussion or at least attempt to remove whatever elements caused its deletion in the first place? Please, don't interpret my question as a critique or as a negatively loaded one, as I'm genuinely curious what went wrong. The code for deletion quoted was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)" - I didn't include any praise for the company as far as I remember, no mention of its superiority or anything like that, I simply described its existence and purpose. Thank you in advance - looking forward to your clarification! O..osd..O (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Help me to prevent a article deletion

Dear JzG I'm here for help and suggestions. I'm new in Wikipedia contribution. Is it alright if I edit a film production House 's article with trusted sources and news references. Though I'm a journalist of entertainment sector, I'm trying to create and contribute to film related articles. One of them is Dreams In Frame production house. But I can't understand why this article is being considered for deletion. Can you please help me to learn how can I contribute articles, which will be not deleted. Thanks a lot for your support. ♥ — comment added by Ajairapara 08:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ajairapara: See WP:COMPANY and when you have questions, ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse. (talk page watcher) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IRL Busy

A business trip to Bengaluru has been moved forward and extended at short notice. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of physicist Lorenzo Iorio

Hello. I am writing to you about the deletion of the page devoted to the physicist Lorenzo Iorio and the protection imposed on its recreation. I do not know the reasons, but there was a lot of mess around him. It does not seem that the main reasons were his non-notability. I can see that it is at the same level of many other physicists having their pages here on Wikipedia. It seems it was mainly due to sockpuppetry issues and some sort of personal grievances with some editors. Could you, please, deal with such an issue? Thank you for your kind attention. Best regards. Redwheel (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Admins have dealt with the issue. The promotional article has been deleted and the sockpuppets blocked. And yes, the core problem was lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination). Guy (Help!) 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

BLPN

I have mentioned you on the BLP noticeboard. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What was that about your not being excessively sympathetic to antivaxers? Your denials are exactly as convincing as hers. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)