Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slawekb (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 11 August 2014 (→Jacob Barnett relativity claims: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Electronic harassment‎

Addition of reams of poorly-sourced POV-pushing tinfoil-hattery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it is WP:COPYVIO too -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I wondered about that. Where is it from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I found some of it here but it makes my eyes itch. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1892 "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- Lord Kelvin

84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Kelvin wasn't very hot on that one, was he? Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Codex Alimentarius

This edit seems to be yet another attempt to add fringe material to this article. So far as I can see from the sources, this violates WP:UNDUE (note that the article for Rima Laibow was deleted at AfD and the article for Scott Tips looks like going the same way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. More of the same POV pushing from the same contributor... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SPA POV pushing as pretty much a primary defining characteristic is grounds for sanctions, and I think the time to consider sanctions here as definitely come. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SPA needs to be discouraged from repeatedly attempting to insert by force fringe-altmed-conspiracy stuff into the wiki. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SPA now waging a slow edit war at Dipak K. Das to insert superfluous promotion of Scott Tips. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is really what to do about this editor. Either he doesn't understand our guidelines and policies or doesn't intend to follow them, but either way I don't see him as ever being anything but a drain on other editors. Sorry, no good faith here for this editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that was discretionary sanctions are for? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable UFO incident?

Falcon Lake incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What are your thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The usual. Guy claims he saw something and the government documents that he claimed it. Some other guy interested in UFOlogy eventually writes about it in a book, but no mainstream sources do. Without mainstream sources discussing the subject, it could be merged to some parent article. Location (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no notable UFO incidents. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Aw c'mon see, Roswell UFO incident, that's pretty notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

However in this case, I see no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay then: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake incident. jps (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz

Leonard Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.

jps (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. As you alluded to above, the article appears to exploit tenuous links between Horowitz and Kimberly Bergalis as well as Horowitz and the Jeremiah Wright controversy as a backdoor approach to notability. The bulk of the article is built upon either primary source information or information that does not mention Horowitz. Location (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree I am not seeing RS discussing the subject significantly. There is an entry at The Skeptic's Dictionary here but even adding that to everything already in the article does seem to warrant an article. A quick check of some of the databases I have access to doesn't return anything of substance. I see no reason not to proceed to AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And so: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Zhi Gang Sha

Zhi Gang Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article requires cleanup. Not sure if it is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot help with the clean-up right now, but it looks as though he might squeak by WP:GNG. Location (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely needs some cleanup but as Location said seems like it might manage GNG. Ref #2 is a Sydney Morning Herald article which while very derivative of the Wired article lists some fairly notable attributes. Coverage is thin though, I'd say its borderline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The link to the Wired article is a deadlink. Coverage is too thin IMO. I am having trouble finding enough reliable sources on the subject. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive link here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That specific link can't be added to the article. My edit was rejected. See my "Edit filter log": "06:45, 9 August 2014: QuackGuru (talk | contribs) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Zhi Gang Sha. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: archive.is additions". QuackGuru (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the internet archive link to the reference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is likely notable with the recent fixes. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

He's got an NYT Best Seller and publishes with Simon and Schuster, so he probably meets GNG criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Olmec and a post to my talk page (Pre-Columbian European contact stuff)

See User talk:Dougweller#Olmecs - comments at Talk:Olmec would be nice, and I'm struggling with the out-dated source at Tyrian purple - looks like no one's paid much attention to it. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

She's also unhappy about my revert at Aztec calendar stone. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in my edits to three articles; Aztec Calendar Stone, Tyrian Purple and the Olmec articles. Primarily I want to learn to create Author Profiles. I was encouraged to 'edit' before I 'create' new articles. My primary but not exclusive genre of authors is relative to their academic books on ancient historical mysteries such as Atlantis. I myself am not a scholar on these subjects but I thought I could add to the body of information provided in the sub topics throughout Misplaced Pages as my 'learning the ropes' entrance. I have read the Wiki pages above and recognize room for improvement even with my minor edits. I suspect I will get many 'bumps' from others, you, on Fringe theories as the entire genre of ancient history mysteries is in essence Fringe theories based on scientific analysis of artifacts. You comments to assist me in my development as an editor are most welcome. Thank you, Peggy Morin-Vilhauer (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Peggy Morin-Vilhauer

I've just been looking at this, since I saw Doug's revert at Olmec, and went on to look at your other edits. The 1909 source seems to posit pre-columbian contact on the basis of a "codex". I've looked at several sources on thew use of purple dyes in the Americas. None seem to think pre-Colombian contact is required to explain it. There is nothing wrong with using old sources if the content is uncontroversial (many pages on Misplaced Pages are based on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica), but this source is one old essay that has been picked up by fringe writers to provide "mainstream" support for contact theories. Scouring old archives in this way, rather than building on the latest research, is typical of fringe writers. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Coyame UFO incident

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident (2nd nomination)

I keep working my way through this. Eventually we will have a well-curated list. But we're not there yet.

jps (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Refrigerator mother theory

This article seems to be overly sympathetic to the discredited theory. Bhny (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems neutral to me. And rather dull.--Auric talk 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson

I missed the fact that this had been recreated with a different name and thus missed the AfD. It just was closed as Keep, but the article is a mess. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

EmDrive

Claimed thrust machine EmDrive. Needs some real attention, particularly the use of poorly peer reviewed chinese journals. It's full of original research, citing a 1952 article for large sections, Second Quantization (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And, on a related note, Quantum vacuum plasma thruster was recently in the pop sci news. . Seems they were only measuring noise as their control set-up also had unexplained results that weren't supposed to be there. Our article trumpets this fact as some sort of vindication of a new effect. Sigh. jps (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And now this: Talk:EmDrive#Pseudophysics. jps (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.

Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences. (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And then we have Beyond Treason which evidently makes a compelling case for " US government testing of chemicals on its own citizens such as Operation Whitecoat and MKUltra being responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism currently does not include any reliable secondary sourcing, but I have found news coverage of various protests. Is there an article that touches upon criticism of depleted uranium to which this could be redirected?

Beyond Treason does not appear to have sufficient coverage to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). I was going to say that it could be redirected to Joyce Riley, but that article redirects to yet another unsourced article, American Gulf War Veterans Association. Have we stumbled upon a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden? Location (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And now I've found Dave vonKleist who sounds like a very unpleasant person (well, not in his article but then his article barely scratches the surface). An academic source for his article:And Those are about his "truther" leanings. The nastier side of him and Joyce Riley are mentioned at And we have American Gulf War Veterans Association which sounds innocuous until you look at their website. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Add William Lewis (film director) and 911: In Plane Site to the list of articles that should go. Location (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason.

jps (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that opposition to the use of depleted uranium in weapons is hardly just a 'fringe' perspective - it is one that for example the United Nations has taken note of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether the issue is notable (it is), the question is whether these people and their films and organizations are notable because of their involvement with it, which as far as I can tell is not the case. If we had an article about Joyce Riley I suppose all this could be merged there, but we don't and probably shouldn't. Anyway, the association's article is now at AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Gulf War Veterans Association (2nd nomination). §FreeRangeFrog 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Riley receives trivial coverage in a handful of news reports, however, that is all I see of her in reliable sources. Perhaps Joyce Riley should redirect to Gulf War syndrome, but there is not enough for a stand-alone article IMO. The beliefs of both factions of the American Gulf War Veterans Association are somewhat nebulous, so I couldn't even recommend a redirect there. Location (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge anything useful in to the Depleted uranium article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The only useful stuff is about the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons so I turned it into a redirect.

Started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dave vonKleist - after I remove quite a bit of copyvio I searched for sources and failed. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would advise caution around the ICBUW article, considering that it was mostly written by ICBUW (talk · contribs), who may also have edited other related topics in a way that frames the ICBUW's position as the definitive Truth. bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

POV-fork masquerading as a list article.

Or so I believe. YMMV.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of arguments for a young Earth

jps (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Light reading...

I thought I'd drop this here, but it may be more appropriate at WT:FRINGE. If so, please give it a move over there. Thanks.

Misplaced Pages has been moving more and more toward adopting a presumption of null hypotheses when it comes to WP:FRINGE material. This also explains situations where we preference material that is skeptical over credulous (see WP:FRIND, for example).

I wonder if it might be possible to shore up this emerging characteristic.

jps (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin (again)

There is a debate on this talk-page about a positive review for Radin's book in a fringe journal and if it should be used on the article or not. Any comments, suggestions etc needed. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. It would be helpful if you would link to the review and summarize the discussion. WP:RSN is another option. Location (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, they are looking for a source to cite a sentence to: "Radin's work has received great support from parapsychologists" or something of that ilk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a long debate on the talk-page about "biased" sources and skeptics that I have no interest in, but the original discussion was about a review in a fringe journal (the JSE) and if it should be included or not for Radin's article. Oddly the user who wanted this mentioned has since come out of the closet and openly admitted the journal is unreliable. So I think this has been solved. Goblin Face (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Spartacus Educational

Those familiar with the website might be interested in Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard#spartacus-educational.com. Location (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst fringe article on Misplaced Pages right now?

Here it is! Ann Druffel and not a single reference!? Goblin Face (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Vast majority was copied from her website, so I removed those portions: . Among reliable source, I could only find one brief mention in a newspaper: . I don't see much need for discussion; redirect to Mutual UFO Network. Location (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup - no obvious evidence of notability as an author. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Chanfray

This article needs reliable sources for some of it's claims. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have done a few searches and found nothing of any value. Goblin Face (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As always, feel free to strip it to reliable sources. I imagine that he was a French Uri Geller and that you would dig up more in French sources. Location (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy

In 1964, Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden was imprisoned on bribery charges. Bolden tried to weasel out of it by claiming the charges were trumped-up because he was going to speak to the Warren Commission; he later took a kernel of truth regarding a potential threat by an individual and claimed that he had knowledge of a wider conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. The Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations said "bulls**t", but various conspiracy authors over time have unsurprisingly chosen to believe Bolden. Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy appears to have been built by User:Podiaebba upon those sources, as well as a few mainstream sources that also took Bolden's allegations at face value when he was promoting his book in 2007. According to the talk page, User:Ad Orientem challenged this as an alleged incident, but the challenge appears to have fizzled and the article continues to present Bolden's allegations as fact.

Should this redirect to the section entitled "Allegations of a Chicago plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy" within Abraham Bolden? I have spent a fair amount of time reworking that article, but I have left the lede alone until this can be resolved. Thanks! Location (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be redirected. The current article is trying to present fantasy as though it were true. Not the first time for Podiaebba; I hope that habit has been broken now. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New Paradigm Films

New Paradigm Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable to me, but maybe it does to you?

jps (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And, I should have mentioned, there's a little walled garden: Troll (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rover (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). jps (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be notable in English sources, but given that this is apparently a Norwegian company, someone would need to check for Norwegian sources to know for sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Although most Norwegian material that is notable tends to end up in English somehow. jps (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Rajesh Shah: BLP of a practicing homeopath

Rajesh Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across Rajesh Shah when I saw that new editor had linked to it from Life Force Homeopathy Clinics. I tried to verify the sources, but most of them are dead links or irrelevant pages. The only one that checked out was this one from the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy". I would like second opinions on this reliability of this source and the notability of the subject. Thank you.- MrX 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly linking to way too many WP:PRIMARY sources. The media sources may not be enough to establish notability for a WP:FRINGEBLP. I'm not sure. jps (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Notability looks questionable. We wouldn't see the publication of a few papers as sufficient evidence of notability in conventional medical research, and proficiency in self-publicity isn't evidence either. I suppose it might be worth checking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine, but AfD seems appropriate to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Murphy (businessman) BLP

This is a BLP of the founder of GATA, a fringe group that has been a major purveyor of conspiracy theories among gold bugs. There has been a persistent and ongoing effort by gold bugs to create and edit articles in ways that promote their views. This appears to be another example. Any suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett relativity claims

Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a dispute over at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Specific details concerning the extent to which the WP:FRINGE guideline applies to claims made in the tabloid media about the subject of the article. The article was the subject of a recent AfD. In the analysis of one editor (User:Agricola44) at that debate, most of the stories on the subject contained questionable claims, like that Barnett had disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, disproved the Big Bang, was tipped for a Nobel Prize, and so on. There is an editor, Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), over at that discussion page who doggedly denies that such claims were made in the press, despite obvious consensus to the contrary. So as to avoid any appearance of stacking the deck, here is a small selection direct quotes from news articles concerning the subject:

• Indystar "The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further."
• Time "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" and "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."
• CTV News "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking."
• The Blaze "he’s working on an expanded version of ’s theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course."
• Yahoo News "12-year-old boy has new theory of relativity" and "he's about to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity."
• Huffington Post: "Barnett believes he can prove Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong, TIME reports. Astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton confirms he's onto something. Another project in the works: disproving the Big Bang Theory."

Now, it seems to most editors over there that the mandate of the neutral point of view policy is that, in light of such fringe claims, to assert that they did not hold up under scrutiny. There is at least one secondary critical source on the subject, a blog post by Phil Plait (aka "Badastronomer"), on the matter, available at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/, that we cite as clear evidence of this assertion. There is another source authored by Steve Novella that we do not cite because it is a self-published source, but that also gives critical commentary on claims made in the media, available here.

I am referring the matter here, because the editor in question seems absolutely to refuse to get the point, starting new discussions with the same old arguments that have already been solidly rebutted by other editors (myself, Agricola44, and User:David Eppstein). Given this persistence, there is very little involved editors can do, and I think it is necessary to involve the wider community in this matter. There was already a thread on ANI a few days ago (in my opinion premature). But since that thread, Viewfinder's continued stubbornness leads me to think that the time for community involvement and possible sanctions has gotten much closer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

1. http://archive.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius-work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI
2. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/#ixzz1HvFA9JaT
3. http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/15-year-old-jacob-barnett-one-of-the-world-s-most-promising-physicists-1.1479602
4. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/25/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/
5. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/move-over-einstein-12-old-boy-theory-relativity-20110328-130551-810.html
6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/jacob-barnett-12-year-old_n_841577.html

I am astonished that SB has raised the matter here. He insists that he has obliterated my case, in which case my position will have no impact on the Jacob Barnett article. Please do not sanction me. If a neutral party has some helpful advice for me, then I would welcome that. Viewfinder (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder, even in this short post you have completely misrepresented the dispute. At least 3 editors have categorically rejected your arguments at the talk page. Still more at the original AfD. Yet you continue to reiterate the same arguments. This is considered to be disruptive editing, and at this point I think sanctions are the only recourse available to get you to accept the consensus and stop wasting everyone's time. Your most recent post, an obvious pretext for rebooting the discussion yet again has convinced me of this. As for your comment here, I think the first law of holes applies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that Viewfinder's brief comment here already exhibits one of his frequent debating tactics, insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him is "non-neutral" and that only opinions from others will be listened to. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope it would not be out of order for me to point out that despite SB and others aggressively making his case for the deletion of Jacob Barnett at AfD and DRV, the article was not deleted. What appears to have upset SB and his cohorts is that I am refusing to plead guilty to their charge that I am denying relativity and the big bang, and to support his condemnation of the mass media for their coverage of Jacob Barnett. I have stated my case, he has stated his. We do not agree. I am not editing the article. Viewfinder (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added this to the talk page thread: "I think it is time for us to agree to disagree about the media coverage of Jacob Barnett and discontinue this thread. I am not editing the article on this matter." Viewfinder (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I think that, following admin rejection of its deletion, SB has re-written the article in a manner that slants it against the subject and his mother, and has done so with intent to get the article deleted in the future. But that is my personal view. I have made my case, it is up to others decide whether or not I have made the case that anything in the article should be changed. Viewfinder (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder (talk · contribs) persistently either refuses to or can't get the point. He is obsessed with this BLP of a minor to an unhealthy degree. The consequence is an editor who is not basically WP:COMPETENT and impossible to engage with constructively -- and thus is a continual source of frustration to editors who are trying to work this out. My attempts to engage with him have resulted in the very friendly tactic of him sticking his fingers in his ears and going "na-na-na-na-na".

The article if written to WP:NPOV will inevitably be negative due to ridiculous WP:FRINGE claims that do not stand up to basic scrutiny. Viewfinder (talk · contribs) doesn't understand that these claims are WP:FRINGE, and is mightily impressed by them.

My previous suggestion of a topic ban was rejected because he wasn't being rude or making personal attacks, and as we all know around here admins like to skim-read disputes and decide the argument on who loses their temper first. Given proper implementation of policy and correct closure of the 2nd AFD where there was a clear and unequivocal consensus to delete, we shouldn't have an article on this unnotable individual anyway. This is despite Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s triumphalist clams that the article is notable because it was kept at AFD. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your previous suggestion of a topic ban was rejected in part because of your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. More of which is on display here. --NeilN 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the material in question is fringe, it was written in publications that are certainly not fringe. The above contribution includes a personal attack, accusing me of "unhealthy obsession" with a minor. Viewfinder (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved editors: This is not ANI. Please take this discussion back to Talk:Jacob Barnett, particularly since Viewfinder stated he/she will not be editing the material in question. Location (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that discussion should be at Talk:Jacob Barnett, but the original notification was well within this noticeboard's remit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution