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)[reply]

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.

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, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

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?

I assume you know this already

You were mentioned (not by me ) on [| the AN ] page. It's the anonymous IP that keeps attempting to add in Fringe Sources in the Xenoglossary article. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 20:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who predicted that? Oh, everybody. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ArmyLine (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Load the gun again, your other foot is still in one piece. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, You are claiming that I have added "FRINGE" material while it is added from the same article that other parts of the story was taken and it was listed in the references. I just added another part of it. I think you are doing a very poor job as an administrator. You block out people that they don't satisfy your personal taste. You are not an unbiased observer. I think you should let another administrator judges about this case.74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong, and everybody else right? Thought not. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Xenoglossy page issue

JzG, You have semi-protected the 'Xenoglossy' page again. Please return it to usual. I am adding material from the same reference that it is listed in the article right now. I am adding different aspects of it. You are mistaken in your view point to support only selected part of Thomason reports. Please stop this biased approach. You can do a better job as an administrator.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]