User talk:82.21.88.44

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (82.21.88.44) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm RileyBugz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 07:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Daniel Pfeiffer, this IP will be blocked from editing privileges. Quis separabit? 02:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your recent edits have been deleted. Once you begin vandalizing articles your good faith is no longer assumed and other edits are subject to review and, if necessary, being reverted. If you return to vandalizing articles this IP and/or any other IP being used will be subject to an indefinite block on editing privileges. Please consider this a final warning. Quis separabit? 02:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the edits and summaries. Pfeiffer's article was 40% made up of "criticism" based on a twitter spat. In a WP:BLP. Really? You also reverted back in comments that Staver "has argued before" SCOTUS etc., when in the section below it is made plain that his arguments were basically laughed out. Of course Liberty portrays him a sa great legal sage, but his defence of Davies and his opposition to Obamacare did not even rise to the level of quixotic. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may have contributed to Pfeiffer's departure from the WH. In any event, if/when removal of text is disputed, then consensus must be sought on the talk page. Open or expand the discussion and stop acting unilaterally. Quis separabit? 15:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May have. Speculation. And actually probably didn't. Oh, and the onus is on those seeking to include disputed text, to achieve consensus. Otherwise any old shit can be added and then POV-pushers can demand consensus for removal. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

You reverted me here [1] and here [2], but your edit summaries make no sense, could you tell me the reason for your reverts? Also please see the talk page for the Greater Good article, I am not sure what you mean by "JAQing off" was this supposed to mean something? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Measles Control Campaign - I've reverted your delete

Hi. I have reverted your good faith edits which removed content from Australian Measles Control Campaign. Whilst it appears true that the anti-vaccine lobby were wrong to criticise dire outcomes from the measles vaccination campaign, my assessment is that the content you removed was not only neutral in tone, but that it was relevant to give balance to the article and also correctly-cited reliable sources. The section demonstrated that criticism, and it presented the data that showed those predictions were utter tosh, and cited an official's response to their warnings. I can see from your edit history that you are keen (possibly a little too keen at times) to remove content you think is unsound or incorrectly cited. But in this case I think retention is valid and that you were wrong to act as you did. It certainly doesn't promote the lobbyists. I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from with this.

I would urge you to take care not to confuse removal of all science-critical content or deleting poorly cited factual statements with making a net-positive contribution to Wikipedia editing. Quite a few of your edits I would support, especially where you've cleaned out promotional content and false pseudo-science statements that were unsupported by evidence. But others, possibly like some of your edits to El Capitan and certainly the measles campaign could be construed less positively. If the citations are poor, go look for better ones first, please. I would also urge you to register for a user account and put something about your Wikipedia editing interests on your User Page as this will make it less likely that a future admin will block your IP address for what might be deemed as disruptive editing, even when done in good faith. Please take this as constructive and supportive feedback, not criticism. It's always hard to get 'tone' across in text. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is a misleading organisation, it has been told to put disclaimers on its website, it has been legally forced to change its name. We have an article on the group. This is nto "science-critical content", it's anti-vaccination lies.

Please read the data. It shows AVN making dire predictions which, when compared to the actual data, shows the AVN are a bunch of loons. The info should stay. Jim1138 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no doubt if this is in any way significant it can be sourced to reliable independent sources. Those presented are: AVN and AVN. Neither reliable nor independent. See the talk page. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely disappointed that you felt you were justified to delete the reversion and edits I made to this article, and that you failed to appreciate that having that content there is not only relevant to the article, but shows the anti-vaccine group up to be the fools that they are, as Jim1138 said. You do a great diservice by trying to remove it, and if you do so again I will sadly and very reluctantly feel obliged to issue a warning notice which could ultimately result in your IP address being blocked - and neither of us want that. (I'm on your side, mate/lass!) Its presence there helps shows that conspiracy theorists are foolish, and the link to the page about them is justified, too. By removing neutral and balanced content you actually give succour to the silly conspiracy theorists who suggest that people are trying to censor their point of view. Your edit summary was also wrong in that the section you removed was sourced to much more than just unsound AVN propaganda. It's far batter to highlight their stupid ideas for all to see, as this article should (and now does)! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm extremely disappointed that you consider AVN to be an appropriate source for Wikipedia, since the group has been shown to be systematically dishonest.

November 2017

Apology

My apology. May I suggest adding such a link to your edit summary? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to do that.

Juniperus phoenicea

Exactly what do you mean by "predatory journal"? Seems to be a fairly broad and vague category. Jim1138 (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See predatory open access publishing. The journal has no effective peer review, papers are inserted in return for payment.

Thanks - Looks like a lot of people tooting their own horn. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about the size of it, yes.

My apologies for warning

Sorry about the warn. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happens all the time :-)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for your work in removing all these predatory journals, which are inherently not reliable due to their lack of peer review. I wonder how we could prevent their further usage on Wikipedia. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave: wp:Spam blacklist? Jim1138 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: Was thinking about this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave: Perhaps start by making a list from our master's deletions? Jim1138 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sadly, Beall's List is no more (I suspect legal thuggery from OMICS).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk • contribs)

Apparently it was Frontiers Media rather than OMICS. SmartSE (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should never cite anything to Frontiers. They publish so much bullshit it's untrue. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Removing content referenced to low quality academic journals. This should be discussed on case by case basis. There is no policy supporting removal of content just because the journal is low quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You identify the problem in the statement: they are low quality. Some of them are essentially the academic equivalent of vanity publishing. You pay, they publish. No peer review. You should check our article on predatory open access. Removing bad sources is not remotely controversial. It's 100% compliant with WP:RS. In fact, it is WP:RS. Wikipedia editors are not qualified to judge whether something in a crappy journla is OK because we've checked it and it's correct - we can only weigh the quality of the source. And these fail, by your own admission. Checking up, the publisher in question is Scientific Research Publishing. "This publisher exists for two reasons. First, it exists to exploit the author-pays Open Access model to generate revenue, and second, it serves as an easy place for foreign (chiefly Chinese) authors to publish overseas and increase their academic status." - Jeffrey Beall. Srsly? You go to bat for this? Find better sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk • contribs)

The edits I've looked at look good to me. Do you know who it was who added this in the first place? I noticed you've removed other references written by the same author, but wondered if this had been systematic? SmartSE (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, it was Farmbob.

November 2017

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Balkrishna but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh 666 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Or, as I did, create a talk page on the AFD pointing out that I can't create the AfD itself.

Try not to do that - nobody will know that it's there. Always best to post on the article's talk page or WT:AfD instead. ansh 666 20:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abd

Abd a banned Wikipedia editor has requested a global lock for your IP address [3] on meta-wiki where he is still active. He also put your IP on his 'study' here. His study is a slanderous hit-piece against skeptical users he has a grudge against. He mixes and confuses about 5 different skeptical users and different IPs and says they are the same banned user AngloPyramidologist. Basically if any IP address mentions Abd's username he claims this is 'harassment' and he logs the IP or user on his study. You might want to write a letter to the Wiki-Media foundation. An admin needs to globally ban Abd and remove his misinformation. I was just giving you a heads up about this. Something really does need to be done about Abd's harassment. He is using Meta-Wiki to host his personal grudges. 193.70.12.237 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[4] he had been banned all over the web. 82.132.226.145 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has abused the Meta.Wikimedia.org website. He recently filed a check user request for a bunch of different people including your IP [5] The O2 is me but I have no idea who the others are. He claims it is "LTA disruption". What disruption? This guy is harrasing people and posting fake checkuser evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.226.145 (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

You've done a lot of good work with fighting predatory publishers and low-quality sources, including at least one case I missed. Cheers. RexSueciae (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.