User talk:JzG/Archive 148

Just an FYI, I agree 110% that Bejan's ideas are fringe, and support their removal. However, I reverted and change the reference for two cases, because although the citation was Bejan, it was an uncontroversial idea (e.g. that populsion requires momentum transfer). If you find any other similar statements referenced to him, maybe swap Bejan out for this ref instead: ^[1] Cheers. HCA (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, HCA, thanks for letting me know. There were three IPs and one or two users who added dozens of references to Bejan, mainly promoting his "constructal law", so I removed all of them. If you can voich for this being non-abusive and non-fringe that's good enough for me. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was surprised to see your blanket deletion of all but one of the books listed under the Further reading section in this article. As they all seem to provide valued insight into the topic, why do you consider them "spammy"? Perhaps I'm missing something on WP's standards. Please help me out. Thanks, Architect21c (talk)

That article is horrible. It looks as if it was written by the PR agents for a group promoting the theory. The majority (and most of the external links) were associated wit Reggio Children. That's a bit like having a long list of links to Steiner published books at the end of the article on Waldorf education: these pedagogic cults generate a walled garden effect. The article still reads largely as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your formatting for hidden messages is wrong, and is causing everything on the page after the message to be hidden. You might want to fix that. bd2412 T 05:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh, on second thought, I went ahead and fixed all of them. bd2412 T 05:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, bd2412, changed the regex and fumbled it. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. The effort was worthwhile. bd2412 T 12:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

JzG, is oll.libertyfund.org (technically) the same as econlib.org? They look different, but ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Same group, different slice of the libertarian policy-based evidence making pie. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone replaced an econlib.org link with this one (IMHO, a further WP:POINT violation) ... to replace material which (partially) is already in WikiSource .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I bet that pie tastes rotten. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Diff please? Was it that IP on the blacklist? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

diff. No, someone who is very .. vocal about my actions at the blacklist. I replaced the same book (A Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations) earlier with the link on ibiblio.org. It may actually also just be in university libraries (I link "JS Mill, Principles of Political Economy" to http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/mill/book5/bk5ch01 (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Principles_of_Political_Economy_(J.S._Mill,_1848), but that one is incomplete).

@Roxy the dog: which pie? Mine not for sure, but if this is what I think it is, someone's pie is spoiling very fast. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Beetstra I think there is a decent consensus that, regardless of the overall view on use of think tanks or otherwise, free material should be linked from free sources such as Wikisource or Gutenberg, rather than from websites promoting an agenda. We would not tolerate this if the full text was on Amazon, either. It's nothing to do with the ideology of the site, it's the fact that it has an ideology, and a mission which is orthogonal to that of Wikipedia. Gutenberg's misison is free knowledge. Econlib's is the promotion of libertarian ideology. It would be the same if it was marxists.org. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly my thought. And this specific case is replaceable by WikiSource .. what more do you want. No, the editor insists that he should be allowed to link to econlib, doesn't care about the history of econlib, and now basically 'evades' the blacklist by finding another entry into the same site (at least this is a silent admission that there are alternatives, something I've been saying since the beginning ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Randykitty#e-Century Publishing Corporation. Regards:) Winged Blades ^Godric 16:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am reinserting this because I feel this reflects objectively his work. I see all biographies has the works of peoples. once again I do not what I am doing wrong Noellesch9 (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC). In anycase, I will not edit Korstanje anylonger, this is a waste of time, I need to edit other biographies which are completely wrong as Zygmunt Bauman, Jean Baudrillard and so forth.

IGI global is not a vanity press, this means that you have no idea what you are saying. I can discuss this with a real academicians, but IGI global is reconized by the masterul book list of Clarivate. do you have some idea what it means?. I find wikipedia biographies were bad contructed, what is written has no sense or simply have nothing related to what real scholars published. I liked to help in this matter to introduce Wikipedia in the academic world but far from this, I came across with editors like you that do not want to help, only destroy ... ok well done, have a nice day.

Yes it is. See , and many more. You're a promotional single purpose account, so there's no reason you would be aware of all the effort that goes into managing abuse of crappy source son Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Winged Blades ^Godric 11:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

We seem to be in disagreement about the main sources I used when I wrote the article, which you have removed twice. Can you explain why you think they are spam? Both provide a long list of filaments and their uses and neither are promoting a particular manufacturer, once these references are removed much of the information in the article becomes unsourced. Also you removed an external link to a video taking the viewer through the process of the creation of the filament, again I don't understand on what basis you think this is spam. To help I have listed the references and video removed below:

• https://all3dp.com/best-3d-printer-filament-types-pla-abs-pet-exotic-wood-metal/
• https://www.matterhackers.com/3d-printer-filament-compare
• http://3dprintingforbeginners.com/filamentprimer/
• https://filaments.ca/pages/temperature-guide
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEkksADFjP8

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to separate out informational sources from those selling product, but when I visit a site and it pops up adverts and stuff trying to get me to sign up for spam, I tend not to look a lot further. YouTube is rarely, if ever, an appropriate source, either. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JzG, I'll look through and see what you mean, I don't think that a source with pop up adverts or is a video hosted on a specific platform means it is unreliable. John Cummings (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, but YouTube is self-published (see WP:SPS) and very often videos uploaded are copyright violations. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Do enlighten me, which part of WP:PRIMARY do you believe to "not permit use of activist organizations in an article about a general topic." --Ne0 (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We are using a polemical source to make statements about a neutral subject. PRIMARY/SELFPUB allows use of primary self-published sources for uncontroversial facts, but the Organic Consumers' Association views on this are not uncontroversial, in fact they are highly tendentious. OCA are a trade body for the anti-science organic lobby. Their statements on GMOs, pesticides, irradiation and so on serve an agenda, they are not neutral statements of fact - and the context here is one where a neutral statement of fact is purportedly being made. Feel free to substitute a reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

OCA are a trade body for the anti-pasteurization organic farmers/movement, thus their statements on GMOs, pesticides, irradiation and so on do serve an agenda. But the same can be said for every other group or movement. Examples: FAO & WHO statements serve an agenda, Codex Alimentarius. WIPO statements serve a purpose, Intellectual property. IMF/WB statements serve a purpose, Derivatives market. etcetera. They are not neutral statements of fact, as they serve an agenda. --Ne0 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The organic lobby, including the OCA, are funding groups like US Right To Know who are the primary group actively lobbying against agricultural technology. It goes beyond having an opinion. They are engaged in an all-out war against biotechnology. OCA bankrolls USRTK, that makes them an actor in this and not a commentator. They adopt an aggressively anti-biotech stance and freely mix scientific and pseudoscientific arguments without any sign of knowing the difference - or caring. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, here is my example: The biotech lobby, including Monsanto, are funding movements like Codex Alimentarius who are the primary group actively lobbying against the sale of food made by traditional agricultural & preservation technology. It goes beyond having an opinion. They are engaged in an all-out war against homemade pesticides, and naturally probiotic foods. They adopt an aggressively anti-tradition stance and freely mix scientific and pseudoscientific arguments without any sign of knowing the difference - or caring. --Ne0 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Codex alimentarius is a standards body, not an anti-science movement. Actually I am a bit of a fan, due to their role in ensuring that I can eat in most of Europe without being wiped out by gluten. I have coeliac. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

So tell me, on what basis does this 'scientific' organization label the "eternally harmful" POPs as safe to use, and label the "traditionally used" wild probiotic cultures as harmful ? --Ne0 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't call it a scientific organisation, it's a standards body. You assert that they label an entire class of pollutant as safe to use. {{citation needed}}. "Traditionally used" is a traditionally abused category, beloved of charlatans selling snake oil. You assert that Codex Alimentarius label the entire class of probiotics as unsafe. {{citation needed}}. And do remember: science can be wrong, but is inherently self-correcting, whereas ideology does not self-correct. OCA is as likely to accept evidence of the safety of GMOs, as the Society of Homeopaths is to accept that they are confectioners not doctors. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Codex Alimentarius' Standards are NOT based on legitimate Science, they are based on Corporate funded(bankrolled) science, skewed for the purpose of profitability ...Just like how the charlatans of Human Global Warming theory sell that ocean acidification is due to Carbon Dioxide. Codex Alimentarius had pesticide guidelines that required complying countries to violate Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants by setting a maximum limit on 7 of the 12 banned Persistent Organic Pollutants. | Codex Alimentarius' Food irradiation standard mandates irradiation of raw foods, thus eliminating their naturally probiotic health effects. This includes irradiation of wild culture Yogurt, wild culture Sauerkraut, etc. | "safety of GMOs" ??? GMOs are inherently ineffective at their purpose, and dangerous for personal/environmental health.

• GMOs manufactured to resist pests stimulate the evolution of pests, thus requiring especially deadly pesticides, and the pesticide's residues remain on the food, causing cancer, kidney failure, etc.
• GMO 'intensive farming' practices do not conform to Crop Rotation, destroying the environment by making the land unsustainable and promoting excessive use of fertilizer
• GMO foods are nutritionally deficient, encouraging the sale of supplements.

Obviously, no-one in their right mind will accept a product knowing that it is detrimental to their health/community. Which is why Corporations fund(bribe) scientific research. Example: Monsanto Bankrolls Codex Alimentarius standards, and FDA research. --Ne0 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah so you have appointed yourself as arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate science". I believe that concludes our discussion. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should elaborate on the subject of irradiation causing "nutritional content changes" and "loss of probiotic bacteria", to show that these theories are not neutral statements. --Ne0 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In this comment you say B1 is fine. I see no reason to replace it, but am not opposed to refinement." But B1 is proposed as a replacement for "Proposal A (Status quo ante bellum)" – this confuses me. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My bad, switching laptops due to BSOD. Will revisit. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Thought the BSOD was mythical these days, but have been stalled not so long ago by the SPOD. . . dave souza, talk 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)