JzG, same old same old, Repeats old claims Options

[Abd]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

[Cla68]

Removes convenience copy of paper

JzG made this copyright argument over and over before, and edit warred over inclusion of sources from lenr-canr.org. The whole issue was debated ad nauseum at the WP whitelist page, and the link he removed was whitelisted specifically for usage, on consideration of the copyright arguments. There is no legal risk whatever to Wikipedia for this link, because lenr-canr.org does claim permission, and is not obligated to provide us with specific evidence for every one of their thousands of pages.

Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in the field, and if the publisher doesn't want the page offered, it can request it be taken down, and it's highly likely that they would do so. Wikipedia should not link to known copyright violations, but JzG's claim does not establish that, and he's just repeating the old arguments he made before, that were rejected; he thinks he can get away with it now that I'm blocked. Maybe he will, but I rather doubt it.

JzG also nominated for deletion my "Cabal" evidence page for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Watch him, folks, he'll do what he thinks he can get away with, and more.

You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Mathsci]

You should expect some editors to try to undo some of the edits you made now that you're temporarily banned and can't respond on-wiki. It's the nature of the Wikipedia model.

Exactly which edits are you referring to? Abd has hardly made any edits to wikipedia articles that have lasted. Easy enough to check for yourself. He has created a stub or two.

Just as when Abd was page banned, things will proceed calmly.

It's like having a fly in the room: irritating when it's there, but immediately forgotten once it's been swatted.

BTW Abd's allegations of a cabal, rejected by ArbCom, have so far driven away two female contributors, Woonpton and Crohniegal. Not great. But that's what happens when people make things up.

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[Cla68]

BTW Abd's allegations of a cabal, rejected by ArbCom, have so far driven away two female contributors, Woonpton and Crohniegal. Not great. But that's what happens when people make things up.

Well, Woonpton told me on her userpage that, "I'm not at all interested in editing noncontroversial areas of the encyclopedia...my interest was in hoping to slow the accelerating handover of the encyclopedia to fringe interests of all kinds." I guess that included ABD.

In my opinion, anyone who edits Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation" are doomed to disappointment and frustration, because the Wikipedia model doesn't support that kind of agenda. You have to be willing, in most cases, to compromise and allow minority viewpoints/POV in if they're supported by reliable sources.

[Mathsci]

BTW Abd's allegations of a cabal, rejected by ArbCom, have so far driven away two female contributors, Woonpton and Crohniegal. Not great. But that's what happens when people make things up.

Well, Woonpton told me on her userpage that, "I'm not at all interested in editing noncontroversial areas of the encyclopedia...my interest was in hoping to slow the accelerating handover of the encyclopedia to fringe interests of all kinds." I guess that included ABD.

In my opinion, anyone who edits Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation" are doomed to disappointment and frustration, because the Wikipedia model doesn't support that kind of agenda. You have to be willing, in most cases, to compromise and allow minority viewpoints/POV in if they're supported by reliable sources.

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

[Grep]

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

So I wonder who it was who actively edited Myron Evans and later voted to delete it as "extremely bad science" (see commentary here), edited Florentin Smarandache 15 times, edited Ruggero Santilli, edit warred with Danko Georgiev MD to remove "contentious detail" about Unruh's interferometer from Bill Unruh, edit warred over Jeremy Dunning-Davies, created Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, ...

Must have been some other member of the team then.

This post has been edited by Grep:

[Mathsci]

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

So I wonder who it was who actively edited Myron Evans and later voted to delete it as "extremely bad science" (see commentary here), edited Florentin Smarandache 15 times, edited Ruggero Santilli, edit warred with Danko Georgiev MD to remove "contentious detail" about Unruh's interferometer from Bill Unruh, edit warred over Jeremy Dunning-Davies, created Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, ...

Must have been some other member of the team then.

Many of the articles you're talking about have been deleted. I wonder why? Could it be that they involve (a) pseudoscience (b) self-promotion? Didn't Danko Georgiev MD out me on wikipedia as the chairman of the mathematics dept in UC Berkeley? Was he not indeed stopped from editing WP by his acting Ph.D. supervisor in Japan as a result? Was the deleted article by Georgiev not on his own unrefereed research and a BLP violation of Bill Unruh, the Canadian physicist?

Perhaps that escaped your notice.

As for Francesco Fucilla and his self-promotional films (all 3 deleted fairly recently), as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about. He - and the IP edits you're referring to - have been discussed on various noticeboards.

I'm glad you like the ECE theory article. Which articles have you edited on wikipedia, either recently or back in 2006/2007?

Just as a matter of interest, unless you're an admin on en.wiki, how can you see deleted contributions?

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[Grep]

Which users are you suggesting edit Wikipedia with the intention of trying to "fix" controversial science articles and eliminate "misinformation"? Certainly I have never edited any wikipedia article of that type. Who are you talking about then?

So I wonder who it was who actively edited [long and boring list of controversial science articles]

Many of the articles you're talking about have been deleted. I wonder why? [...]

So you have indeed edited controversial science articles, some of which you "fixed", and some where you voted at AFD to "eliminate". Why did you deny that before and why are youbothering to obscure it now?