User talk:JzG

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review. The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet.

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user is a
Rouge admin.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 2 months, and 28 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years and 10 months.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

---

G. Edward Griffin

Guy, with regard to this edit, we recently had an RFC that specifically addressed the question of including "conspiracy theorist" in the first line. The closing was a clear "no", based on the derogatory nature of the term. In fact, the closer (an admin with no little experience) removed CT from other parts of the lede. We have Griffin listed in the CT categories and CT is in the infobox. So I urge you to self-revert the edit and put the term somewhere lower in the lede. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS: At present the question is moot. The edit was reverted, citing the consensus BLP problem RFC result. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Question, in addition to bypassing consensus to make the lead fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV, did you also just violate 1RR by making 2RR? [1] [2] Just wondering. I was concerned that your concern over me crossing the sanction line may have caused you to cross the line instead. Uh oh. Hope not. Atsme☯^Consult 00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC concluded we do not call him a conspiracy theorist, which we don't. It did not conclude that we may not say that he is known for promoting conspiracy theories, which he is (as per the infobox). Your view on Griffin's ideas is so far out of line with the consensus of the reality-based community that I do not think you are actually qualified to comment, and in any case the RFC was dominated by walls of text from you. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, please stop casting aspersions. Your comment "I do not think you are actually qualified to comment" is hurtful, and unwarranted. I would never say anything like that to you. Atsme☯^Consult 17:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You insist on taking this personally. It is not personal. Wikipedia aspires to be a reliable encyclopaedia, therefore we reflect the consensus of reality-based sources. You have consistently over several weeks now advocated the legitimacy of laetrile, a quack cancer treatment that is not only refuted, it is one of the few that has been vigorously prosecuted by the medical authorities in the USA. You plead that his advocacy is not conspiracy theorising, but the very book in whihc he does it, posits a conspiracy by the medical establishment to suppress the "fact" that "vitamin B17" deficiency causes cancer, and that laetrile therefore cures it. That's a conspiracy theory, and one based on fundamental errors of fact.

Along with that, you have consistently downplayed the overwhelming consensus that the Zionist conspiracy, New World Order, 9/11 Truth, chemtrails and other ideas for which Griffin is known, are (a) wrong and (b) conspiracy theories. Every time you address one of his ideas, you do so form a standpoint that is substantially outr of line with the real-world consensus view. Your best course is to shrug and leave the article. Your worst course is to claim that you're being oppressed and attacked, because you aren't: you're merely advocating content, at enormous length in some cases, that has no place on Wikipedia. You seem to want to turn the article into a GA by removing all reference to the fact that every word he's published appears to be paranoid conspiracist twaddle. A genuinely good article would not downplay that fact. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not downplayed anything, and you need to stop spreading lies and casting aspersions about me. I have asked you politely to please stop but you continue to ignore my requests.

• It is with much regret that I must now make this a warning to advise you that if you do not stop, I will file an AE to have you TB. Atsme☯^Consult 21:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? You might want to think long and hard about that. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not really. That isn't at all who I am, and I believe the same about you. It just saddens me that we are at odds. Atsme☯^Consult 21:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

On this, at least, we are as one. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

You are hereby warned for making this revert against consensus at G. Edward Griffin, based on your comment in the closure review at AN you were obviously aware of the close. This warning is issued under the WP:ARBPSEUDO decision and will be logged and may, in addition with your previous warning, may be taken into account and may lead to substantive sanctions. The appeals process for discretionary sanctions is here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense. I have clearly missed a comment somewhere, which is easily done in this case. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

e/c This is a bullshit warning, as the terms of the arbcom decision were not broken-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This place is becoming fucking ridiculous. It is no longer possible to do the right thing for fear of offending the notions of POV-pushers about "process". Guy (Help!) 08:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(I didn't mean Arbcom above, but RfC instead.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. Jonathunder (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the report that led to this: Atsme accuses me of passing 1RR and possibly 2RR. In fact, I made precisely one revert, which does not even violate 1RR. The first edit is not a revert, because the text is significantly different, and the one revert of its removal was in any case over a week later so would not have violated the 1RR restriction. No restrictions were violated. That is an absolute fact. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The original report is here. What Callanecc wrote there in response to it, is the same as what he later wrote to you. The warning wasn't about the 1RR DS but rather about adding material you knew (or should have known) wouldn't find consensus. You'll do better if you argue with his actual justification for the warning... :) Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thx for explaining that to him, Jytdog. His constant aspersions are problematic. Atsme☯^Consult 20:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What "aspersions"? There is nothing wrong in wanting to see the report that yielded this bullshit warning. Your paranoid conspiracist nonsense, however, is defintiely problematic. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What Callanecc is doing at the moment is a well used admin trick called "Giving you lots of rope and waiting for you to hang yourself." That latest reference (on another page) to an edit of yours is part of the technique. I'm sure you've used it yourself. I've had it used on me. His defense of POV pushers and quacks using civility clauses of PAG is what the lunatic charlatans are working for. It is a well used, tried and trusted strategy. I'd use one of Atsme's nonsense phrases, "I consult you" to calm down, but grandmothers and eggs come to mind. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sanction modified, see [3]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ALS/Cyanobacteria

Hi guy. On the article Talk page, with regard to using a primary source in a health-related topic, you wrote "Actually my view is we should use them *as well*. The Dunlop paper was widely reported, and is plainly reliable, relevant and important."

I am taking this here since this departs from talking about the ALS article per se and is more general. I know you are both busy and experienced, so please forgive me for this. I don't know when the last time was that you took a minute and read MEDRS but please do look at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources and please see the lead of my draft essay, Why MEDRS?, which attempts to explain why WikiProject Medicine tries very hard to keep primary sources out of health-related content. Primary sources in the biomedical literature are generally not reliable for WP. Press releases hyping the findings of primary sources are really not reliable.

The Dunlop paper is a primary source showing in vitro results.

I spend a lot of time dealing with FRINGE content about health, and most times (not this one!) it is added to WP by editors who find some primary sources that support their POV. For example there are a few recent primary sources that show anti-cancer activity for laetrile in vitro. MEDRS' emphasis on secondary sources helps us keep FRINGE content out of WP. I follow it consistently in all my editing.... Do you see what I mean? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but this is not the first paper linking ALS to cyanobacteria toxins. I am well aware of XKCD 1217 and the problem of quacks making extravagant claims of cure, this is a completely different kind of in-vitro result, it does not promote a miracle cure, or even a molecule that might one day result in a cure, it is research on the causal mechanisms. I think we probably both have very similar experiences in this area so I am happy to talk about it, but I do see a difference for exactly that reason. Plus it's by Dr. Rachie, which is double awesome :-) Guy (Help!) 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that cartoon!  :) I hear that reasoning, i do! It is just in the neverending struggle with FRINGE POV-pushers, that kind of subtlety (and it is really not that subtle) about mechanism vs treatment goes out the window and more importantly, is often fuzzy on toxicity issues (for instance, someone could come by and make a huge struggle out of putting UNDUE weight on content from this source, and want to talk about how dangerous cyanobacteria are.. I have been through that on many toxicity related issues (e.g endocrine disruptors, BPA, which remains a nightmare pileup of primary sources) ... and i find it best just to avoid primary sources like the plague. I appreciate you talking! Thanks for all your great work here. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally. The difference here is that this is work confirming a plausible causal factor fingered by others in the past, rather than seeking to prove that weed cures cancer. In fact most of the crank cites are valid, just not the inferences that are drawn from them. There are components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer. I am pretty sure we are both on the same page here. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

yep! Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Like the following research perhaps? [4] Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

atsme that is a primary source. all of wikipedia is meant to be based on secondary sources. this is especially important for health-related content; please read WP:MEDRS. We do not base health-related content on primary sources like that. we don't follow the basic science; the field determines what WP:WEIGHT to give basic science through secondary sources and we report what those secondary sources say. using primary sources in WP and deciding what weight to give them, is WP:OR. are you aware of any reviews in the biomedical literature that discuss laetrile as a useful treatment (or even potentially useful treatment) for cancer, that should get even close to equal weight to the many secondary sources that say it is quackery? Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, please explain each of the following as they relate to your statement above: [5], [6] and [7]? Why are the journals you support (over 30+ years old) that are cited in the article ok to use to label amygdalin quackery but The Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics is not sufficient to cite updated peer reviewed journal content (respecting policy of course) that the substance is still under academic debate? Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, a publication of Association of Radiation Oncologists of India (AROI), is a peer-reviewed online journal with Quarterly print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.cancerjournal.net.. At the very least, it justifies a topic that is still being researched as you both just confirmed. Please explain why you believe WP:FRINGE/PS does not apply as follows: Questionable science: Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.? And please don't attack my question rather help me understand your position because based on my interpretation of what I've read, you support a double standard, the outcome of which is contingent upon POV. Atsme☯^Consult 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to ignore your personal attacks; I do wish you would limit your comments to content and not discuss contributors.

You provide three links - two are sources summarizing the state of the field back when laetrile was seriously investigated and found to be both lacking efficacy and harming people. Those are fine sources. I am not aware of any further clinical research that would change the scientific consensus, which is based on the clinical research that was done and is based on not only the articles you cite, but statements by major medical and scientific bodies. The third link is to a search of the indian journal you mention above. That is a low-impact, open-access journal; you are putting that next to Cancer, for example - one of the highest-impact journals in the field. I don't know if you know how rare it is for mainstream scientific journals to actually come out and call something "quackery", Atsme. It is crazy rare. After that, it would take extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim that laetrile for cancer is anything other than quackery. Something like Cancer or a journal of similar stature, or a major scientific or medical body, to come out and give credence to the use of laetrile to treat cancer. That may happen one day. It has not happened yet. The idea is still very solidly FRINGE, not a "significant minority view." Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are casting aspersions yet again by falsely accusing me of personal attacks like you did above. I ask that you provide the diffs that brought you to such a conclusion. If determined to be PAs, I will apologize. If not, I expect an apology from you. It doesn't surprise me that you consider the two antiquated sources cited for inclusion of negative material as fine sources, but they are still journals, long outdated, and are what you explained to me as being primary sources, therefore WP:OR. If my source is OR, than the two cited sources are also OR. A particular POV has been given UNDUE at Griffin while the author's views are being completely suppressed which is violative of NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, this is getting really really boring. The problem with the source you prefer is that it is a premliminary study in vitro which may or may not result in a useful compound for some component of treatment of some cancers, and it's being used to "counter" the resounding medical consensus that laetrile - a health fraud that has been prosecuted numerous times - is somehow valid. As I pointed out before, I think, even if the paper you prefer turns out to be validated, it will not validate laetrile. If canabinoids have useful properties in treating some aspects of some forms of cancer, that does not mean that smoking weed will have the same effect cancer, and it absolutely does not mean that smoking weed will cure cancer. The Dunlop paper is a confirmation of toher work making a link between certain toxins and a metabolic process that could plausibly trigger ALS. It is not being touted as a miracle cure, so the red flags do not apply. You need to look at the XKCD cartoon I linked.

I repeat: studies on cells in a petri dish do not, cannot, and will not change the consensus view of laetrile, formed after clinical trials proved it not to work. In fact, the trajectory of every single cure ever known shows an exponentially declining effect from petri dish to real populations, which is why treatments get withdrawn from time to time, but in this case before the test is even made we know the clinical outcome: the substance does not cure cancer. Whether or not it has any utility as an adjunct treatment or a specific therapy for certain diseases does not change that in any way.

And even if it did, which it won't, that absolutely and categorically does not substantiate the claim that the FDA and Big Pharma are suppressing laetrile as a cancer cure. The reaosn it is not approved or used, is because the best evidence shows it does not work. People want to believe it works. They take it despite the evidence that it does not work. Many thousands of people have done this. If it worked, this would show up by now in survival statistics, and it would have been revisited. That has not happened. In fact, people who use alternative cancer cures, die sooner, not later. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well the same damn thing happens when they use chemo and that is an undisputed fact. Regardless, you have missed the point entirely. The research is there, it is scientific and still under review by academic debate whether you want to admit it or not. My advice to you is to stop attacking the BLP using contentious material based on 30 yr old research and present it in an encyclopedic fashion, which is nothing like what you do on your online blog. Learn to separate the two. Atsme☯^Consult 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a very telling remark.

The world of quackery is obsessed with chemo, having failed to notice that the world has changed since the mantra was laid down. They have not noticed that over the years chemo has become a great deal less unpleasant, that doctors often don't use it if it's not indicated (e.g. in non-invasive cancers, or for some oncotype breast cancers), or that some new drugs directly target the cause rather than merely fast-reproducing cells.

But the real dishonesty in the claim is that no, people who have conventional cancer therapy - whether or not that includes chemo as either a primary or an adjuvant therapy - do not die in the same way as those who believe quacks and charlatans. Cancer survival rates have doubled since the 1970s thanks to medical advances (not quackery), children with Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with chemo are now cured nine times out of ten, and more than half of all people diagnosed with cancer in the West today will still be alive in five years. Some cancers still have dismal survival rates, others are now so well managed that you're likely to die of something else entirely.

All that said, your statement in and of itself tips your hand. You have outed yourself as a believer in anti-medicine conspiracist nonsense. The purpose behind your relentless whitewashing of the Griffin article is now clear.

As to the research, you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand what it means, or why it is irrelevant to the laetrile conspiracy theory. I've explained it at length, and you still profess not to understand, so I guess you're in denial. Remember: it is really quite easy to kill cancer cells in a dish. The trick is doing it in a human body, without killing the rest of the body as well. Laetrile is, in point of fact, a form of chemotherapy (the main side-effect being cyanide poisoning), but it's one that's been tested and does not work. Many quacks have made large sums of money pretending otherwise, and most of them have ended up gravitating to Mexico to avoid regulation. Desperate people will pay huge sums for false hope. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This exchange is puzzling. Promotion of amygdalin is obviously quack central, and the conspiracy theory stuff about it is textbook wingnuttery. Our own article on it is pretty good, with sources as strong as one could possibly imagine (i.e. Cochrane/Ernst[8]) ! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea that chemotherapy is uniformly toxic and ineffective, as expressed by Atsme above, is an unfortunate and outdated form of ignorance. It is valid, and even essential, to question the risk/benefit profile of any proposed cancer treatment or chemotherapy, as they can vary from marginal to dramatic depending on the situation. But to argue that chemotherapy is no more effective or useful than laetrile is deeply ignorant, and one hopes that no one would make health decisions on the basis of such a poorly informed viewpoint. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why must you cast aspersions and keep trying to discredit me? Jiminy Cricket, Guy, you are not acting in GF. And then you go and say this: ...do not die in the same way as those who believe quacks and charlatans. First of all, dead is dead regardless of how you get there. Secondly, I don't know of anything worse than chemo. Please focus on article content as I have done and stop your PAs against me. Your RS argument at Griffin is based on 25–30+ year old WP:OR, as well as sources that reflect partisan bias and are questionable according to WP:RS, and worst of all, junk sources like Popular Paranoia, the latter of which might as well be Mad Magazine. I know you are a far better editor than what your antics portray. You taught me a great deal about RS, and I will always be thankful for the time you spent helping me. I do not want to be at odds with you on this topic, but my concerns are that you are overlooking important factors in both FRINGEBLP and NPOV.

In addition to serious NPOV issues, we also have the improper sourcing of blanket statements (when sourced at all), the stating of opinions as fact, and SQS to prevent Griffin from promotion to GA. The fact it is still a start-class attack page after nearly 3 months of debate and an RfC that confirmed my position regarding the labels conspiracy theorist and conspiracy theories is testament. What do you think would be the result if I nominated the article now for GA? Look, I know you don't like Natural News - fine, that's your opinion - but your assertions of what Griffin advocates are not properly sourced, if sourced at all, which permits me to use it for demonstration purposes: [9]: (my bold for emphasis) His research led him to the conclusion that naturally-occurring Laetrile is indeed an effective treatment for cancer. To my knowledge, Griffin never said it was the cure for cancer as you alleged in the lead. I've asked you numerous times to please source it with inline text attribution. Also, Griffin says he has seen literally thousands of people benefit from treatment with Laetrile. Anecdotal, yes, but treatment and clinical trials have confirmed such cases per RS which I've cited previously. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

I am not (in the past or now) proposing that we give his views undue weight, however according to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories and NPOV: A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. You cannot deny the inclusion of RS material that represents the basis for Griffin's views in his BLP as long as we do so from a NPOV, state such in a dispassionate tone, and comply with Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience and FRINGE with strict adherence to FRINGEBLP. Your attempts to suppress all mention are what some editors find troubling and consider contrary to NPOV. Continuing my demonstration: He also learned that cancer is a disease linked directly to a deficiency of vitamin B-17 He believes there are links to a deficiency of vitamin B17 not that cancer can be cured by consuming more amygdalin as is incorrectly stated in the lead. However, perhaps the most important and most troubling thing he learned was that Laetrile and its health potential were being kept out of doctors' hands for political – not scientific – reasons. He stated that it had potential, not that it was the end-all cure as what is currently being portrayed in the lead. We need to fix the issues by writing correct passages based on what Griffin actually believes as verifiable in RS including self-published sources. I ask that you please stop allowing your POV on fringe, laetrile and quackery to totally consume this BLP.

In closing, I draw your attention to how Griffin's book The Creature is reflected by a RS from another country where US politics don't play a significant role. Following is an excerpt from the keynote address given by the Attorney-General for Australia at the G-20 Anti-Corruption Roundtable in February 2014: Combating corruption is for all those reasons a critical issue for all governments, and is something that calls for constant vigilance. In his 1994 book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American scholar G. Edward Griffin wrote, “To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.” [17] I believe it was Alxbrn [18] who commented on my statement that "not all readers agree with that opinion" when he said, "yes but fools and cranks." Atsme☯^Consult 19:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Only one person is discrediting you, and that's yourself. Now go away, you're boring me with your wall of text apologia for whacknuttery. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that was unabashed fuckwittery from Atsme. As we say in the Amygdalin article: A 2011 systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration found:

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

References

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the only remaining question is how long to let this farrago run. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, Guy - you're the one who stated above: There are components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer. I never even came close to saying any such thing - you did. And you want to castigate me for what? Atsme☯^Consult 20:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just wanted to add to Alexbrn's comment above from the link he provided for primary sources or WP:OR: Main results: We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review and an additional 6 in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. Atsme☯^Consult 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is trolling right? Or do you really not understand that a Cochrane systematic review is about as solid a secondary source as can exist? Its assessment is what we call "expert". As opposed to the amateur flapdoodle of conspiracists. Anyway, I'll go quiet not ... WP:DNFT and all that ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There may be components of amygdalin that have valid therapeutic uses. I explained, at some length, why that does not validate laetrile. You ignored everything past the b it you liked the look of.

Let's try this again.

There is primary research, as yet unvalidated, that shows some signs that some component of amygdalin might have a valid therapeutic use. If this is validated - and it has not been as yet - then it still has a long way to go before it reaches anything usable in humans. The vast majority of compounds that show promise at that stage, do not make it to market as a valid drug.

But even if it did, it would not validate laetrile. Most drugs start from a natural compound of osme sort, and most of the plants fomr which they are extracted are of limited to no therapeutic value. It would be like finding a therapeutic compound that is present in grapes and claiming that this validates drinking red wine as a cure for disease.

And even if it did validate laetrile, which it won't, not least because it's already been tested and shown not to work, it absolutely would not validate Griffin's conspiracy theory or his assertion of the entirely bogus idea that amydgalin is a vitamin, and cancer a disease caused by a deficiency thereof, because that is purest hokum.

So even the most unlikely outcome possible from the study you cite could not possibly validate Griffin's case.

Add to that his advocacy of AIDS denialism, New World Order, 9/11 "Truth", Jewish conspiracy theories, gun nuttery, chemtrails, FEMA camps and FSM knows what else, and you have a canonical example of the modern American crank. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

guy, were you referring to resveratrol on purpose? :) GSK has $720M worth of regret over that. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dominic Frisby

Hello. I was hoping to create a page for Dominic Frisby, but Wikipedia won't let me, and I was wondering if you might be able to help. You deleted two creations of it in 2007 and 2008. I don't doubt that you were right to do so, as he wasn't sufficiently notable seven years ago, but he should be now:

• Life After the State, 2013
• Bitcoin: The Future of Money?, 2014
• Keiser Report, 2014
• IMdB

By the way, I have no connection with the subject. Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you write a draft (Draft:Dominic Frisby) and include reliable independent sources to substantiate the claim to notability, which none of the above actually are. The first two are sales pages (and should not be linked at all), they are also primary soruces for existence of books and so not evidence of notability. The second fails our sourcing guidelines and the last is a user-editable directory so is not independent and not evidence of importance. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I only have myself to blame (I would have made the same inference), but I wasn't planning to use those as sources. Anyway, I've created Draft:Dominic Frisby as you suggest. I've not added anything about the voiceover actor or comedian aspects, but I hope that the books are enough to establish notability. Edwardx (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The only source about Frisby is his publisher's blurb, which is not independent. Why do you think that a sales page for one of his books is a valid source? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

response to talk on Ecat about implication of possible ban jumping

I noticed that you implied that I might be avoiding my topic ban on the Ecat talk page by using an IP. In addition the the arguments that TenOfAllTrades made in my defence, I'll point out that the ip in question (143.161.248.25) is different from my own IP which was revealed (by accident) on the ANI, (202.36.179.100), and that the IP in question is in Austria, while mine is in New Zealand. See [19] if you'd like to check for yourself. If you'd like to check my recent contributions, you'll see that I've been keeping myself busy with other articles. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NUS

Oh, don't get your hopes up. I haven't even started looking for more sources, and it's a topic that invariably makes the news just about every year. It's also not a topic I care to spend time digging through newspaper archives if I can. What I am (fiercely) objecting to is the taking out of material sourced to WP:RS based on no rationale at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

which of course did not happen, since the rationale is that the source does not seem to me to be reliable, and you neve bothered to provide any evidence that it is.. Guy (Help!) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closure but a question

Thank you for closing this RfC, but I do have a question. The Newport Beach California Temple building was determined to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article here. Your closing comment states that "Notable buildings are notable, therefore pose no particular problem.". If the building is notable as agreed upon by consensus, and therefore poses no particular problem, why would it not be listed in the article? Just seeking more clarification on policy. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Entirely fair question, I have clarified. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response and added clarification. Best, Bahooka (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services again

Dear Guy, our not feeding the troll doesn't seem to have the desired effect. Please, take a look. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and your enlightening comments. Cheers, WeatherFug (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenoglossy page issue

Please remove the semi-protection from this page and stop blocking us from revising this page. Stop this destructive supervision please.74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You've been going at it since November at least... frankly, you need to find something else to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• What part of "no" are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you say "NO" to people not based on Wikipedia policy but based on your personal taste. If you can't do it right, let the other people do it. You don't have to have so much in your plate that you can't handle. You are really making Wikipedia a worse place than better. REmove the Semi-protection and comply with Wikipedia policy of proper referencing and editing. You can be a much better administrator than you are now. Think hard about what I said.74.195.244.87 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder

Would you mind slightly re-phrasing your close? As it stands, it looks like it could apply to state legislators, when the proposal (explicitly) only applied to U.S. Representatives (i.e. federal legislators). Thanks. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey

Thanks for closing the RfC there. Just to clarify the situation, it wasn't a matter of one editor doing X and another editor doing Y in response, it was, in fact, one editor replacing images with their own (X) and then opening an RfC (Y) when the replacement drew objections. It happened on three or four articles. Best, BMK (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

OIC. Well, that makes sense, and also explains the toys being thrown out of the pram. Matters not, it was not a hard one to judge form the comments. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin: Please discuss content, not contributors

Please discuss content, not contributors. I am going to start taking action on this pretty soon. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you void the prior RfC consensus about not naming folks who have no biographical value?

Your close at Template talk:Infobox officeholder is being interpreted to mean that this edit [20] is what you believe should be implemented. My read of your close indicated no such extreme change, and that you did not find the prior strong consensus to suddenly be void, nor did the convoluted wording of this RfC seem to envision any such edits that I can see. In fact, I suggest that you emend the close to state that rash edits are unwise as the strong arguments and the prior RfC indicate. The speed of the absurd Rangel edit indicates that such should be strongly worded indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read User_talk:Newyorkbrad#cloud_cuckoo_land noting Kraxler is blatantly edit warring on the Rangel page. and saying he will take me straight to AN/I. ("this was done according to the expressly stated instructions in the closing rationale, one more revert and the thing goes to ANI, directly") Note my clearly rhetorical question therein. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. That seems to go well beyond the cautious approach I advocated. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

Looking at your and Collect's user contributions, and at the history of the talk page at G. Edward Griffin, I saw that you have been interacting at that highly contentious venue for some time prior to your recent close of an RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder where Collect was the main opposer. Besides you closed the RfC 15 minutes after your immediately previous edit. I don't believe that it is possible to read intellegently through the 2 previous RfCs which had a direct bearing on the discussion, and the actual RfC, checking out the links, and come to a learned conclusion. Besides, your closing rationale was questionably worded (what do you mean by "suck and see"????), partly struck through and ambiguously worded, so that it triggered even more controversy. As a courtesy, I offer you now to do the following: Unclose the RfC, delete your rationale and the subsequent comments thereto, and refrain from making any further comments about it, essentially returning to the status quo ante as of February 23. The section header is meant as a hint. Kraxler (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- I posted here for input as to what his intentions were in the close. Why this post? If you are accusing us of tag-teaming on Griffin, I really would love to see you make the claim at AN/I. If you are accusing him of admin misconduct as WP:INVOLVED , then post at ArbCom noticeboards. Please! Collect (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely Guy's decision. He's an admin, and is held as such to the highest standards of prpriety. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, at this time. On the contrary, I'm willing to let it go, and start from the status quo ante, without prejudice. Kraxler (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In short -- you are accusing him of being WP:INVOLVED on a template issue because he and I have both edited the same BLP page where there is absolutely no conceivable evidence that the two are related, or that our edits are related in any way whatsoever - right? And where that BLP page does not have the WP:INVOLVED template at all? I suggest you note that I have edited well over 5,500 pages, and JzG has edited over 27,000 pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd probably find it hard to locate any busy Wikipedian with whom I have had no interaction, after seven or more years with the mop. You're welcome to request a review of the close if you like. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, may I inquire how you became aware of the existence of the RfC? It's not something one stumbles over by chance. And, how many RfCs have you closed this year, so far? Please provide links, if there are any. Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Where do you think? [21]. Now stop making a fool of yourself. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to quote from WP:Admin accountability: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." And now I'd like to repeat my second question: How many RfCs have you closed this year, so far? Please provide links, if there are any. Kraxler (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your question shows clear ill-faith and is clearly vexatious as I have responded fully on the relevant Talk page - the fact that you don't like it, is your problem not mine.

At the top of the admin noticeboard is a backlog list. It exists in no small part because those admins who do from time to time decide to try and deal with the backlog, spend the next month responding to querulous demands from disappointed partisans on their Talk page.

I have next to no interest in the topic (making me an ideal closer, whether my close is itself good or bad) and I've indicated how you can proceed from here, I gave three options if memory serves, and I am pretty sure that continuing to hector me here was not one of them. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler WP:Admin accountability does not mean you get to interrogate people. If you want to know how many RfCs this person closed this year you can find out right here. Given your tone don't be surprised if you don't get the warmest of receptions. Chillum 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Thanks for solving the uncontroversial issue. Can you please add these two uncontroversial Infobox items too (both ref to CIA) that I was trying to add in order to complete the Infobox, when the article got protected:

|official_languages = Bosnian (official), Croatian (official), Serbian (official)<ref name='CIA'/>^a

|religion = {{vunblist |40% [[Islam]] |31% [[Orthodox Christian|Orthodox]] |15% [[Roman Catholic|Catholic]] |14% [[Atheism]] and other}}<ref name='CIA'/>

Thanks again! Sevvyan (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please use {{editprotected}} on Talk, it needs ot be seen by other editors of the article. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't, as the Talk seems corrupted: look at my 3 attempts to post unblocking requests (scroll to bottom). Their fonts are all messed up, and when you click the "edit" tabs some nonsense text is displayed that looks like random excerpts from the article. Sevvyan (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you now remove the Inbox's internal reference to the footnote a, instead of entering the above CIA ref stating country's official languages? Sevvyan (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it was a footnote without a number. Your editoprotected requests appear to be showing up on the talk page. I checked that, and while doing so noticed the stray ^a. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Then please see my comment in the Talk and restore the Official Languages entry in the Infobox (where you left "a" alone by mistake, and then removed "a" altogether also by mistake). You can use the CIA ref again for the Official Languages entry, as it clearly marks Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian languages as the official ones. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)