User talk:JzG/Archive 101

With this removal, I can understand removing that last phrase, which is clearly OR, but why did you delete the evidence that Medical Hypotheses was active in promoting a dangerous idea in 2001? Was that necessary, or am I missing something? It should also be mentioned in the body per LEAD. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The only source for the thiomersal bullshit being in MH, was a link to the article (a primary source). Feel free to include it if you have a secondary source that shows this to have been the origin, rather than just some crank trying to plant something in the text to support a hare that was already running. The bit on AIDS denialism is well sourced and has multiple references - anything else would have to be shown to be similarly prominent I would say. Incidentally, I found the article while researching this blog post: GcMAF: The superhero for your health problem?. If you know of more sources for our GcMAF article then please drop them here, it could do with beefing up. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To make this easier, I'll copy that content:

• Also the thiomersal controversy, "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years"^[1] was published here.^[2]

Are you interpreting "was published here" as "was first published here" (in 2001)? That's not what it says, but I can see how you might jump to that conclusion. Maybe a rewording would be better than a complete deletion, because it should be mentioned. The fact of their 2001 publication is noted here: Thiomersal_controversy#Publicity_of_concern.

I have no idea if they were the first. They did promote the idea of a link. It's unfortunate that it took until 2010 for Wakefield's fraud to be uncovered so much that he finally got what was coming to him.

For context, Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper was published in 1998, and Medical Hypotheses published their story in 2001.

Regarding the removal of thiomersal from most routine infant vaccines:

• Although thiomersal was largely removed from routine infant vaccines by summer 2001 in the U.S.,^[3] some vaccines continue to contain non-trace amounts of thiomersal, mainly in multi-dose vaccines targeted against influenza and tetanus.^[4] (Source: Thiomersal_controversy#History)

Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So, that sentence:

Also the thiomersal controversy, "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years"

The source says that the Wakefield MMR-autism hoax was the most damaging in the last hundred years, not the thiomersal bullshit. The sentence is WP:OR and not supported by the source.

Then, the only source for it being in Med. Hypotheses is a link to the original paper in Med. Hypotheses, so we'd need an independent source for this being (a) true and (b) significant. Truth will do for inclusion in the body, but significance would be needed for it to go in the lede as that would imply parity of importance with the rather public AIDS denialism which forced a revision of the journal's editorial policies. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That sentence is used in several articles, and I'll bet it was the same editor who did it. I don't have time right now, but it should be possible to find who added it, and then check their contribution history about the same time. Then modify (not undo) their additions in other articles. Good catch! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Dear Guy (JzG), I noticed that you have semi-protected the 'Xenoglossy' page with the following explanation: "Protected Xenoglossy: Persistent vandalism, IP user not engaging with community. This should cause the user to engage properly." This is not correct. You have protected the page in the incorrect wrong format. It was I who tried to save the page from being destroyed and what you have done is exactly protect the new incorrect form of the page. This page has been build up bit by bit in the last 6 years. Please return it to the original format. Don't let three users who want to apply their personal taste, take over the page in this form.74.195.244.87 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, it's almost as if you're the problem and steadfastly refuse to recognise the fact. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yo. Care to look at Dried fruit? I'm told it reads like promo, etc, and its tagged 'n all, but what do I know about bio? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I replied to it there. User talk:KenAcoustic --KenAcoustic (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This article just went through AfD so I don't believe the PROD is appropriate czar ⨹ 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Find a source that is primarily about the subject, rather than a recycled press release, and I might believe you in spite of the spamming. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

... there are a dozen sources at the AfD, if you'll take a look. I literally just recreated the article and it had an "under construction" tag at the top. I wasn't using the first source I added as its claim to notability. In any event, it doesn't qualify for a PROD as it just went through AfD. czar ⨹ 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The AfD is sourced? I'll be sure not to delete it then. Pity nothing other than a recycled press release has made it into the article, really. Hint hint. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I've removed the prod, since subjects that have been discussed at AFD are not eligible for deletion by prod. I also think the G11 speedy was inappropriate after the AFD closed as no consensus, as you were basically trumping the community's opinion with your personal opinion. If you think the article should have been deleted, you should either start a deletion review for the AFD, or start a new AFD if you think you have some reasons for deletion that were not brought up in the first one. Calathan (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The G11 was not tagged by me, I think, I was just cleaning up, but it is in any case unquestionably established that it was promotional and written for pay, and therefore eminently deletable. And if I could just be absolutely unambiguously clear here: THERE IS STILL NOT A SINGLE SOURCE IN THE ARTICLE OTHER THAN A RECYCLED PRESS RELEASE, and as far as I can tell the "sources" proposed at AfD were the same, so instead of bitching at the janitors perhaps the 3 people in the entire known universe who think this subject is of pressing importance (I discount of course the one who was paid to think it is of pressing importance), could actually add some sources establishing that the subject is encyclopaedically notable. You know, like we say in WP:5P and all that. Point made, I hope. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I just patrol prods looking for ones that are invalid. I don't know anything about Nyu Media, and I agree with you that it seems non-notable and should probably be deleted. However, the prod policy is clear that it can't be used on subjects that have been discussed at AFD. As a long-time admin, I would expect that you would be very familiar with the deletion policies and understand when they should be used, so it bothers me that you were using prod incorrectly. Furthermore, it seems obviously inappropriate to overrule an AFD outcome, as established by another admin, by deleting the article when he left it in place (I know you didn't add the speedy tag, but you should have checked the article history before deleting and seen that it had just had an AFD). One of the primary principles of Wikipedia is that it runs on consensus. Giving people the impression that admins will ignore consensus and not follow policy does far more harm to Wikipedia than allowing one low quality article to exist for a few days while you go through the proper procedures to have it deleted (which in this case would be deletion review or a new AFD). Calathan (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, you're not the problem here. I am old and grumpy and constantly hovering on the brink of admin burnout but the one thing absolutely guaranteed to get my goat is people who will do absolutely anything to keep an article apart from the only thing that actually matters, namely providing reliable independent sources. Feel free to ignore me. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please consider reverting this edit which you made through the full protection. As you can see on the talk page here has been discussion of whether the tag is accurate and it has been removed and reverted previously. The protection policy only allows administrators to make edits which are "uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus" in this case neither applies. Also given that there is a discussion on the talk page about how to word the lead and which sources to use your other edits to the page could also be considered controversial, so it might be worth gathering consensus for them or asking for feedback on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. Adding sources should be uncontroversial, though, as it's a BLP and a contentious statement. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Happily the new arbs are people I trust, especially DGG, who has amongst the best instincts of anyone I have met on the project.

Do you really want arbs to operate from instincts, rather than from knowledge and experience? I know I don't. To quote a Vulcan, "...one day your intuition will fail, and you will finally understand that logic is primary above all else. Instinct is simply another term for serendipity." Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I want them to act on facts, and be guided by instincts that are closely aligned with the project's goals. That is what I am absolutely confident DGG will do. Unfortunately, not all arbs can be Newyorkbrad: in this circumstance, DGG is an exceedingly good second best. His fairness is transparent. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose instincts are good in some situations, particularly those involving survival, fight, or flight. However, I don't think they are good in the realm of deliberation, where they can get in the way and arise as roadblocks in the form of emotional biases. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Read what I said. DGG is fair, transparently so, and has a good nose for what is and is not in line with project goals. Hence, I trust him, even though we have disagreed many times. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a form letter from me to you (don't go poking around in my edit history or it'll get even more obvious how much of a form letter it is!) to wish you happy holidays, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy December, Happy Snow, Happy Sunshine, and an otherwise generally happy end to 2014. Thanks for all the constructive editing, support and civil discourse. Here's to another year of assuming good faith of one another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Guy, thank you for your action on the above article stopping the edit war initiated by Tfd998. The same deletions have now been made under a unregistered IP 24.114.68.254, again without explanation. This could well be a sock of the banned "editor". I have no intention of keep reverting, thereby causing an edit war, but wonder if the article should be protected for a period? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. That's an indef and semi-protection then. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i am interested in introduce aspects about the history of the homeopathy, for example, you can see in acupuncture, there are the history of the acupunture. Regards. --Pediainsight (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We have more than enough detail on the period before homeopathy was understood to be nonsense. Additional data points for the breadth of the delusion are not needed. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I had a go at editing the Universal Medicine page in my Sandbox as with all the edits that have gone on, it is starting to appear really disjointed. I've introduced further section headings and moved text around, but not deleted anything (hopefully, if I have it was a mistake on my part!). In respect of the requests for no further significant changes on the page, I did not want to apply anything to the page itself. Could you have a look over the draft and see what you think? 79616gr (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing major, but in your AE statement, you put "anatomy" where I think you meant "acupuncture" -- 2nd graf after boxed quote from JIM.

BTW, I agree with you entirely. Best, BMK (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I've asked at WP:AE that you be warned for misrepresenting scientific consensus re acupuncture's efficacy, as you did here and have numerous other times:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:_JzG (diff)

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your hubris is exceeded only by your chutzpah. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago, people expected the level of craziness around here would improve after a few years. After seeing this, it seems pretty clear that nothing has changed or things have worsened - I don't know which it is though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Ncmvocalist: I wouldn't say crazy, but it is illogical to assert a consensus when you have only sources that show a significant view -- let alone when those sources are contradicted by equally good sources. This is NPOV 101. I think we are seeing confirmation bias, cf. what Feynman said about it being so easy to fool one's self. Nobody is immune to that, and here we plainly have a situation where editors can't meet the burden of evidence, yet persist in asserting their stance. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So you keep assereting. Meanwhile, anatomy books ocntinue not to include meridians or acupoints. You are in denial, and you are taking the piss. Go away. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "go away" you really mean I am unwelcome here, no problemo, but I've never been a dick toward you and am not starting now. I gotta say: you keep conflating TCM ideas with efficacy, but they're not equivalent. There's no reason that acu can't be effective just because there's no literal qi or meridians. The "mechanism" for eclipses used to be that a serpent swallowed the sun or moon, but they could still predict eclipses. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of self-awareness is duly noted. I will be sure to double-check my understanding of the scientific consensus with Edzard next time I see him. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought "WTF? WP:DTTR!" too when I got templated, but: . .... You KNOW Ernst??? Golly, I'll be glad to quit worrying about finding sources, knowing that now that you can just ask the dude. :-) We'll need a new template for that: {{GuysaidErnstsaid |date= |topicarea= |consensus=}} --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be a great idea if only I subscribed to the fallacy of appeal to authority, which I don't. I do, however, have a ready way of finding useful and pertinent information. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It must be fun to know him, he seems like quite a character, a fine mind. The fact that the objects of his ire are not infrequently academics (there's even the word, quackademics) -- as opposed to off-the-grid quacks -- says to me that there's a big slice of mainstream POV that hasn't yet come around. .... But this AE thing is less than useful and I am sorry I brought it up there. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Middle 8:, what you've described is not what I was referring to as craziness. One example of craziness is that an administrator (who also acts for arbcom) seems to have focused his comment on JzG's "incivility" in-reply to your remarkably inappropriate invocation of discretionary sanctions here, and did not even bother to address concerns of tendentious editing. I have noticed this type of thing happening in earlier years and it was becoming less common, but it is mind-boggling that such a foolish approach is adopted even now. Until the source of the issue which is enabling and promoting this type of approach is found, little can be done. Is it the community, arbcom, Jimbo...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, agree that the obsession with "incivility" is nuts. Why? Why fiddle with process while content burns.... why arguing about stuff when the stakes are so low.... --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a formality and because it is (AFAIK) a necessity for enforcement of sanctions; I know you know about this:

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Guess what? Involved editors are not allowed to issue DS notifications. I think you may be on the way to bannination, I certainly hope so. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I don't think thats true, could you point me to where it says only uninvolved editors may notify? (This affects some other areas I am involved in is why I am poking my nose here) Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts says "Any editor" FYIGaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that it particularly matters; Guy has participated in AE-related proceedings at some point in the past year.

I'm going to have to remember this quote somewhere for the future: "Wikipedians do not want to cite what the number 1 blog of world writes about them---it is kind of disturbing" NW (Talk) 20:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The result of this AE request, filed against you by Middle 8, is that both parties are to be warned. Accordingly, you are hereby warned to adhere to the standards of decorum expected of editors, especially those working in controversial topic areas; this includes abiding by the maxim of commenting on content, not on contributors. Further, you are warned not to invoke your status as an administrator during disputes—as I'm sure you are well aware, when discussing content, administrators are just any other editor, an their additional privileges are irrelevant. Bringing up yo administrator status can cause confusion as to which capacity your are acting in, and could potentially have a chilling effect on the willingness of non-administrators to engage with you in content discussions. Should you fail to adhere to this warning, there is a high probability that you will face substantive sanctions in the future. This warning will be logged as a discretionary sanction at the appropriate page, as will the warning to Middle 8. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The "chilling effect" is the vexatious attempt by Middle8 to gain an advantage in a content dispute through use of AE. There was no "incivility", merely terseness. Infinite patience with vexatious requests is an unreasonable demand. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Typical Lunatic Charlatan tactic, and an over the top warning. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, quite. The cited examples of "incivility" were actually just me pointing out Middle8's involvement with acupuncture is a COI and that he cannot possibly judge the neutrality of his edits. If we're not allowed to point out these obvious facts, how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing? However, the very next time he abuses processs, he'll be in front of ArbCom. On past evidence it won't take long. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is fine, but we are rapidly running out of uninvolved admins. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy, your mission as "quack buster" is well established, and you can believe me when I say it is not my intention to get in your way. I just ask that you please respect your position as admin and stop with the unnecessary insults and intimidation you have initiated against me on Griffin. If you will read the results of the ongoing Survey at Griffin Talk, you will see that I am not the only one who believes the changes are warranted. As you already acknowledged on the article's TP, you don't have a dog in this fight, so how do you explain your behavior and recent personal attacks and intimidation toward me? My only goal for Griffin is to expand the article per WP:PAG. I have every intention of adhering to DS, as well as to WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and expect the same from every other editor who collaborates with me in making Griffin a better article. It was because of my adherence to BLP policy and NPOV that I initially changed the lede, and it is still the reason I want to continue my work improving and expanding the article. No article in WP deserves to be a COATRACK, I don't care who you are, or what your motivations are for doing so. What's right is right, and getting the article right is our obligation as editors. If you and the others who are so set against me improving and expanding Griffin would simply AGF and allow me to work without the constant intimidation and insults, I believe you will be pleasantly surprised at the outcome. Jytdog has actually been quite helpful at times, and I maintain faith that we can achieve the desired result which will appease both sides without sacrifice. The problem seems to stem from the mistaken belief that I am somehow pushing a POV which favors CAM. That is absolutely NOT TRUE. I am bringing to WP the knowledge and experience of a 30+ year career as a successful publisher/writer/television producer, so please afford me the same respect I have afforded you. I thank you kindly for your consideration in this matter, and apologize if I have inadvertently caused you to acquire the wrong impression. Atsme☯^Consult 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is a conspiracy theorist, that's not our problem to fix. Of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst, and you're right, that does not in any way endear him to me, but that is not an isolated item: he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)