User talk:Guy.shrimpton
Welcome[edit]
|
Here you go AlexF[edit]
By way of introduction to the subject below, you should review exactly what the Jrf-web-team account has been editing. If you do, you'll find that it has only corrected factual mistakes around the history, connections and Chief Executive for the charity. There have been no attempts to use it for publicity or promotional purposes, merely to safeguard the organisations' reputation against errors. I'm not sure on what basis this 'appears to be mainly intended' for any purpose beyond what it has actually been used for.
It's worth adding that JRF - Joseph Rowntree Foundation - is a charity focused on researching and solving the causes of poverty. It's not a organisation looking for promotion or publicity. If we can't manage and protect the page about the organisation from such reputationally damaging inaccuracy, who will? I assume you intend to block every other organisation and celebrity's admin account?
Further, let me explain the current situation: your unhelpful and unnecessary block to all accounts and the IP required me to log in via another computer to remove a factually incorrect and defamatory statement connecting the work of Joseph Rowntree Foundation to an organisation that has been associated with someone who became terrorist. This statement was retracted by the newspapers in questions (Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust are not the same organisation, or directly connected), and your blocking of (and the subsequent refusal to unblock) the account and IP for no good reason has extended this reputationally damaging error. You should think about that...
If you want to message me directly and discuss the edits that you feel justify your action in blocking the IP and account, please let me know where I can contact you, or post them here.
- Guy.shrimpton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- Guy.shrimpton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jrf-web-team". The reason given for Jrf-web-team's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because '''it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes'''. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy. Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. What can I do now? If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".
Decline reason: Based on your above posting, it seems that auto-block is working as intended. PhilKnight (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
AlexF and PhilKnight[edit]
You keep saying 'it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes' and yet there is no evidence of this whatsoever and all the evidence points the other way. The purpose of the account is - as previously stated and as the evidence shows - not for any publicity or promotion, but purely to remove erroneous information about the charity and it's work. Case in point, information that was incorrectly associating Joseph Rowntree Foundation with another organisation found to have accidentally sponsored a terrorist.
If the problem is the user name (and that is just an assumption since you've not bothered to say), we are making a request to change it. However, the purpose of the account is to protect the organisation from slander / defamation, not to promote the organisation's work.
As for refusing to unblock the IP, why? If you have a problem with that account, block that account. I post on a number of subjects, have done for a decade.Guy.shrimpton (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes to Bosnian pyramid claims, as the original text was supported by reliable sources and your version was not. Now that your changes have been reverted, you need to seek consensus for your version on the article talk page before attempting to change the article again. Please see WP:BRD, which offers some guidance. To be frank, we've had a lot of Osmanagić supporters trying to rewrite this article as if his claims are archaeologically genuine, but unless the academic establishment supports his claims then you are not going to succeed in such an attempt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
-- Jesus, using the academic establishment with its very obvious vested interest as a bench mark for fringe subjects is basically ensuring nothing can ever be changed. For what it's worth, the academic establishment agreed on gravity which has since been disproved, scientifically. Yet I have doubts such changes would be allowed...
- (I'm really not sure in what way gravity has been disproved - I just tried jumping up, but I fell down again as usual. Still, that's a bit of a tangent really). Of course academic establishment understanding changes, and new and better understanding comes to replace older flawed understanding. And at each stage in that progress, an encyclopedia should reflect the academic consensus at the time and not try to preempt it. An encyclopedia, by its very nature, is supposed to be behind the curve, not ahead of it. So when ideas are considered fringe and not accepted by mainstream academia, that is the only way Wikipedia should present them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
-- as per usual you seem to be missing the point to try and win a debate. Actually gravity has been disproved, in the way it's described. Experiments have shown this, such as those conducted to prove that the centre of the earth is the centre of what we experience as gravity. They dropped two long cables down the deepest dug hole. While the expectation based on gravity was that the cables would meet they actually moved apart. It left science stumped.
Further, experiments in space have shown our understanding of gravity based on what we're still taught in schools is false and only describes behaviour on the surface of the planet. But don't let these facts get in the way of your refusal to move from a vested position.
The same debate occurs with Egyptology, which is actually very distant from both real archeology and from science in its behaviour. It's not interested in facts, but fitting findings into its agreed timeline (or excluding them). Look at the Sphynx. The actual science of Archeology doesn't agree with Egyptology, nor does the science of Astronomy and its awareness of the position and procession of the stars. The two sciences agree but with each other and those decried by you as pseudoscience rather than Egyptology. Go figure eh. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.