Jump to content

User talk:JzG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 16:04, 13 May 2015 (→‎Sigh: sublime). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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?

About me

JzG reacting to yet another drama

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and stale

Please reconsider

Please reconsider your close on Andreas Lubitz, instead of an AN request I'd rather ask for you to reconsider it seems more reasonable. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME state "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" and "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". I've mentioned this in the DRV. RoySmith believed that AN is more appropriate. There was a guideline based policy for retaining the information which leads me to believe no consensus was formed, your closing statement stated so itself. Please reconsider. Valoem talk contrib 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. I concluded much the same second time (and it would be amazing if I did not, human cognitive bias being what it is). Try asking someone else. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable enough, would you object if I ask DGG to reclose the discussion? (I haven't pinged him do not know if he is interested). Or simple yet reopening discussion with your permission. Valoem talk contrib 23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recruiting a specific admin who has already expressed an opinion? Bad idea. I trust DGG implicitly, but recruiting him by name is likely to backfire. The backlog list works on the "cab rank" principle, use that maybe.. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I would be able to close this decision is if I closed against my own opinion, recognizing that the consensus was opposed to my view. I have done that a number of times, usually in the hope of making it clear that the matter had been settled decisively. In this case I think JzG's close was wrong, and subsequent publications have demonstrated so; therefore of course I cannot close a disputed discussion in support of my own view. JzG, is you didn't notice, he as a person was the subject of a first page NYT story last week. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can reopen it if there are no objections, the best way would be go through AN for a random uninvolved editor. A few more source could be added to the discussion. Valoem talk contrib 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intensely dislike the "keep asking until you get the answer you like" approach to Wikipedia articles. I can't stop you, but my recommendation is to wait a couple of months and see if any kind of historical perspective begins to develop out there in the real world. Either way, I'd rather not know about it, so I think we are done, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I am trying to do, I feel the answer could be better addressed given sources provided. I understand where you are coming from. In someways I agree, and you are definitely not alone in your views. Some editors believe that having articles on perpetrators of heinous crimes in someway glorifies their actions. On the contrary I feel the opposite is true, the only way to prevent something such as this going forward is to understand it which requires documentation. It is especially true when the event is current, more sources can be provided with greater detail due to sheer interest and input from multiple editors. After several months of expansion we can look at the article and see if it has stood the test of time, logically I feel this is more efficient. Anyways, I hope we agree on somethings, if you don't mind can you or DGG remove full protection from the redirect I am going to reopen discussion. I'll leave you out of it going forward as requested. Sorry for any troubles. Valoem talk contrib 02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannotdo it, being involved.JZG can if he wants, as he originally placed it. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved per RoySmith request, I feel that you are a reasonable and rational person, given this here is my logical breakdown why the most vital time to retain this article is now not three month down the road. Currently this person is receiving intense continuous coverage participating editors are most likely to expand this article when the event is ongoing, so the true growth potential is maximized now. The optimal way to handle this is expansion for the current year and reevaluation in the future. I hope you agree, but I will gladly listen to opposition. Valoem talk contrib 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You had an RFC, and an AFD and a DRV and still you want to keep beating this dead horse. Guy's advise is wise and sensible and we will have a much clearer basis to establish a clear consensus after some intervening time. Have you read the essay about dropping the stick? Spartaz Humbug! 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz have I been unreasonable about this? I chose not to AN this because that's always a mess, plus Guy personal bias is understandable. If he truly disagrees then I will drop it for now, but I certainly did point out legitimate reasons did I not? I did not make a big stink of this talking to the editor directly engaging him in discussion with reasonable approach is how we should operate. Valoem talk contrib 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you are being unreasonable. At what point will you accept that community process has gone against you? Seriously? If you are to be a successful editor you have to learn that process doesn't always go your way but you seem unable to accept this when it happens. Its got nothing to do with right or wrong, just the amount of disruption that re-arguing the same case causes by drawing in other editors to a subject that is already closed. If you carry on then at some point someone is going to start questioning whether you are a net negative - and this would be a real shame because you are keen and energetic and trying to do what you think is right. Its just that occasionally you have to accept that process doesn't give you the right answer - sometimes not even half the time.... Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz I am very active right now so I'll respond quickly, I do not believe in bias on Wikipedia, it is very clear to me that is person is notable. If you think I am sticking this I would gladly AN, but I think that Guy is an editor whose bluntness I respect. For example he believes that Global warming skepticism is in fact Global Warming denialism and he is correct here, but has not made the appropriate argument to favor this change, I feel that I could change this throughout Wikipedia with help. The same is with you, your closure of Allied Wallet is in fact correct canvassing did indeed have an affect I've overturned it in your favor, I hope you understand that now is the time to have an article for progressive expansion. Let me know if I am wrong. Valoem talk contrib 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you are wrong. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I am going to clarify for both Spartaz and Guy because of this comment. I believe I am correct based on policy which is why I am pursuing this, a simple "you are wrong" doesn't cut the muster, but more specifically, I have only participated once in this discussion and was not involved the in the original merge discussion. I did not bring this to DRV, so I'd like to give this a shot. I thought this way would waste less time for everyone. It has not worked out, I will revisit in the future ... for the first time. Valoem talk contrib 00:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to pursue it because you did not get the answer you wanted and will not accept any clarification that does not move you towards the answer you want. You won't accept "no", you won't accept "wait", you won't drop the stick. Feel free to continue pursuing your crusade, but leave me out of it please. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV edits on Mohs surgery

Mohs Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will grant you that Hoxsey practiced quackery in that he promoted unproven or fraudulent medical practices, but if he was well-known as a quack, you would have lots of references calling him that. We should not call people quacks in Wikipedia's voice. If you are caught up in some crusade to right wrongs using Wikipedia, you can change it again and say something to the effect of "Harry Hoxsey, called a quack by x[citation] , . . . ". We expose quacks on Wikipedia with cited facts, not name-calling. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could try considering why on earth we would allow the grossly non-neutral term "lay cancer specialist" to stand, which is what I fixed. The technical term for a "lay cancer specialist" is: quack. We have an article on Hoxsey therapy which describes this quackery. It was already linked fomr the Mohs article. It says in the lede: "The sale or marketing of the Hoxsey Method was banned in the United States by the FDA on September 21, 1960 as a "worthless and discredited" remedy and a form of quackery.[1]" Guy (Help!) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "This Week in FDA History". U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Archived from the original on 8 November 2006. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
Well I didn't let the term "lay cancer specialist" stand, I undid your first edit and changed it to "uncredentialed lay cancer cure promoter" here. You changed it to "medically unqualified cancer quack" and then after undoing that, I just took out any kind of description of him and moved the focus to what he did with this edit. It is safer to call an action, method or product quackery then calling a person a quack. By the way the reference above doesn't use the word quack or quackery. That would justify taking the word "quackery" out of the article. I'm not gonna. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not neutral either. He was a cancer quack. A fraud, a charlatan, a predator on the sick and desperate. And despite that, people are still selling his quack treatment and (possibly worse) black salve. When a treatment is actually banned as fraudulent, there is not much scope for residual doubt. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see that. I guess it is a question of where to draw the line. I just today noticed the Arbitration Committee thing below, so it looks like there will be plenty of discussion about where that line should be. I am happy with the way it is now and am also happy to have your view on it. Thanks for taking the time to give it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. The ArbCom thing is unlikely to change anything, we already have policies and previous arbitrations that cover this field, it's just that Wikipedia is crap at dealing with civil POV-pushers. I made a note on the Mohs talk page. My main problem is that I can't work out whether we should even discuss Hoxsey, since the explanation of why they are different and Hoxsey is fraudulent while Mohs is not, takes so long that the reader is likely to lose the will to live before reaching the end. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators behaving inappropriately and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1candidate (talk • contribs)

I think you may have fired the WP:FOOTGUN. I do love the idea that calling you an acupuncture apologist is a personal attack, though - as a skeptic I would be mildly offended if anyone accused me of promoting acupuncture, but most quackery shills are proud of it, or at least no so ashamed of it that they would complain about being identified as a proponent. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Further to your comments at the initial assessment of A1c's problems with you, the only block I ever had was for using the phrase "Advocate of Ayurveda" as "Personal attacks or harrassment". sheesh. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Advice please. should I post the following at the above request - ..."Does Arbcom now have their new supply of proven effective aboriginal hunting boomerangs, or do they still rely on those kiddies ones made of balsa that have so little effect?" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the humour level down. The goal should be to get sanctions in place which would allow us to immediately block editors that insert pseudoscience advocacy. Without that, this will go on forever.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have always found that not being involved at drama boards is good. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, sorry for the reality check, but yes it will go on forever. Arbcom will never pass sanctions prohibiting pseudoscience advocacy. You just have to take a deep breath, maintain your composure, and try to limit the damage while staying within the rules of the Wikipedia Game. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boris, why do you have to depress me so? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 04:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existing sanctions are sufficient, but the only people who understand the problem and are motivated to pursue them are automatically dismissed as "involved". Callenecc was very helpful at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently, that's the first time for a while that I have seen anything other than unambiguous zealotry picked up at all. We have never dealt well, as a project, with civil POV-pushing. Our policies penalise those who are wound up to breaking point by endless querulous demands, rather than those making the demands. This has always been the case. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For info, when Olive uses the term "allopathy" I normally counter by using the term "real medicine" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV infobox again

Hi, Guy. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but after that protracted infobox discussion that ended at [1], the agreed-upon wording was "third-party source required." In fact, User:AussieLegend appeared to agree to that when he left it in his edits of [2] and going forward.

But then, today, he unilaterally removed that wording [3], and when I pointed this out, he included different phrasing to reflect his own personal position [4] rather than the one we all agreed to.

I've restored the agreed-upon version, [5], but judging from his past behavior and this unseemly tactic now, I'm wondering if, to quell things before they escalate, you might reiterate to him that wording was agreed upon as of March 22 and to please not change it? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically, I think you're both wrong, but you're less wrong. This [6] is the actual position, and it is not specific to this infobox parameter, it actually covers any statement on Wikipedia that may be subject to challenge or controversy. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I appreciate your being the calm, mediating force, and I also appreciate the wording you've inserted. Thank you for taking the time, and again, I'm sorry this came up again. With sincere regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be the first time I've been accused of being calm in ages! Guy (Help!) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet closed

You marked [7] it as  Done, it is not formally closed. Samuel (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think another section got added while I was closing the one below, so the wrong entry got marked closed. I fixed it. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Engineering and Management

Though earlier versions were written as pure advertising, the version you deleted [8] had been revised sufficiently to be straightforward description. Please restore it. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure. It opened: "University of Engineering and Management (UEM), is a premier technical and management university" and most of the content (and edits) seem to be by Uemk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a COI editor. Over half the article was uncited promotion of activities of the institution. I stand by my view that it was spam, I will not complain if you or any uninvolved admin chooses to restore and neutralise it but I am afraid I am disinclined to do so given the rather obvious COI and what seemed to me to be blatantly promotional content. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't please

It's more than fine to raise valid concerns about a COI, but you have no business going on in this way to speculate about another editor's beliefs, motivation, character etc.: "Middle8 has a material conflict of interest. Evidence he presents is unlikely to include anything that challenges his beliefs."[9] I've cited your diff on my user page (at bottom of that section), and will be happy to remove it from there if you redact the personal attack at Talk:Acupuncture.

Ironically my views on acupuncture and evidence and PAG are probably a lot closer to yours than you realize, cf. my comment to a now-banned editor here, or here re MEDRS, where you commented.)

And sure, there is validity to the argument that acu'ists are conflicted when it comes to fairly depicting the shrinking evidence base -- but where are the journals, editorial boards, academic departments and so forth with actual COI policies?

So it would be more appropriate to say e.g. (and for sake of accuracy to add the parenthetical): "Middle8 has a material conflict of interest (IMO; far from everyone would agree), in which light their contributions should be considered."

Happy editing, Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting your COI is not "speculating" about anything, you have freely admitted it in the past - you just seem to want to deny it whenever it is relevant. As to the rest, all reputable journals have COI policies, I don't know what you're getting at. FWIW I think the periodic upwelling of pro acupuncture advocacy on the Talk page is all just part of life's rich pageant, I am much more irritated with people like A1candidate constantly revisiting past debates in the hope of one day getting an answer he likes. I suspect that may be sorted in the not too distant. I am sure you and I would get along just fine in person, much is lost in the translation to text - you can always email me if you want to sound em out on whether we would agree. I suspect that any edit on which we both agree, would be a good edit. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agree on your last two sentences; hear, hear. What I'm getting at are two related but distinct points:
1. The nature of COI and precedents (or lack thereof) for it. I don't deny it, but I don't embrace it either. Cochrane has COI guidelines, yet acu'ists are not considered conflicted there, and for that matter I haven't seen them considered conflicted at NEJM or JAMA or anywhere else. Have you? But of more immediate interest,
2. What you said: [10]
  • "Middle8 has a material conflict of interest." = OK
  • "Evidence he presents is unlikely to include anything that challenges his beliefs." = not OK
Do you see why? You're making multiple assumptions (wrong ones) about another editor's beliefs, motivations and character. A person's beliefs, and how they are formed and modified and acted upon, are deeply personal. NPA means respecting such boundaries. So don't "go there". There are lots of ways to talk about COI or editorial bias (diffs are nice...) that don't involve talking about what someone else thinks, believes and feels. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Middle 8: Yes, you are right and I apologise. You have a self-awareness which is lacking in many, albeit that it took you a little while to understand why the COI is relevant - it takes me longer to revise my view of people than it should. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A1candidate again

Since nothing is being done at ArbCom I think it is time to report him to AN/I or seek other options.

A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? ...beware the boomerang and the learning capacity of the antipodeans....DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve judgment for now. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe...just maybe....

...if you'd be a little more charming and a little less abrasive you'd reap sweeter grapes.🍇 Atsme☯Consult 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I just have limited time for endlessly repeated arguments. Did that ever occur to you? I'm runnign a $1.5m project at work across multiple countries, singing in nine choirs with at least two concerts a month, and trying to do my bit for Wikipedia in what's left. Last weekend I was singing a Missa Superba by Johann Caspar Kerll that has not, as far as we can tell, been performed in England for over 300 years. Next weekend I am singing music by Palestrina, Giles Swayne and others. The weekend after I am singing the baritone solos in a Fauré Requiem and a song by Vaughan Williams. In June it's Poulenc and others, in July, Spem in alium. I also do all the staging and lights for most of my choirs, and create rehearsal recordings for a couple.
What are your hobbies? Guy (Help!) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I try to keep in mind a comment by Kenneth Goodman, who is co-director of Ethics programs at the University of Miami:
"Civil society sometimes requires we take a deep breath, recognize many of our compatriots are morons, and press on with grace and dignity. It can make you nuts, but that's what civilization requires."
Admittedly I sometimes forget the 'grace and dignity' bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but usually on Wikipedia the only result of being warm and fluffy towards someone with a no-hope request, is that the request gets spun out endless.y. Better in the long run to say no, politely but firmly, and tell them why. One day I will master the "politely" bit of that. Maybe. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - RL keeps getting in the way. In response to your question about "endlessly repeated arguments", my answer is no, it never occurred to me. The reason being, unlike you, I never got angry or impatient over your endlessly repeated arguments but that's old news. [12] Anyway, just an FYI -- singing in nine choirs should have the opposite effect on you: [13]. I didn't validate the information against a Cochran review but according to science, you should have returned to editing feeling all kinds of love for your fellow Wikipedians <3. I'm thinking maybe you should have visited a massage therapist and followed it up with a slight chiropractic adjustment to help you relax and get some of the kinks out of your armor. I'd even be willing to pay for it. ^_^. One of these days when you don't have such a busy schedule, I'll tell you about my hobbies. Atsme ☎️ 📧 22:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, Guy, Deepak Chopra once offered me a free consultation when I questioned the clinical volume of his medical practice. I haven't cashed it in yet, and if it will help mellow you out, you're welcome to redeem it. Just show up at the front door to the Chopra Empire and tell them you're the famous MastCell, from Wikipedia, and you're there for your free wellness optimization. You could also fork over a few thousand dollars for Transcendental Meditation training; we've got a number of editors here who could probably ring you up if you're interested in that sort of thing. Not that they have COIs or anything, of course. MastCell Talk 23:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MC, I thought he wrote books about sex. No? Atsme ☎️ 📧 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're thinking of Sigmund Freud. :) Or maybe Chopra does too, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't include that sort of thing in the free introductory package. MastCell Talk 00:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's him, [14] - thought I recognized that name. Guy - I found some stress relief for you!! [15] yes Recommendation - listen to it before you engage in a discussion with me. Atsme ☎️ 📧 01:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I hope y'all realize I'm just yanking your chain.[reply]
You should check out the Wisdom of Chopra. Also follow DBag Chopra on the twitters. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Possible_racist_comment. The Doctor is worried... --NeilN talk to me 19:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[16] I'm AGF-ing; they may simply not know that it's a completely true statement. Sucks to get wrongly accused of racism, very sorry to see this come up. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 20:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Water off a duck's back. I know that when people's beliefs are challenged, they can get very defensive and often kick back. Nobody who actually knows me would accuse me of racism, no point talking about the realities of it but any of my work colleagues would be most amused by an accusation of racism against me. Thanks, though. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I don't get (from the AGF standpoint) is why wonder so-very-in-public when they could just ask here. But then I've way-the-fuck-too-fast escalated too, so, actually I do get it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not got to the bottom of DrChrissy. I can't say I'm impressed with what I've seen to date on acupuncture, but xyr contributions to wildfowl articles look very good indeed to me (irony not lost). Have a look at some of them, I think you'll be impressed. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same here, saw some good stuff and will dig deeper.
"Xyr"; cool! I've met one of the people who's championed that group o' pronouns, and xe/they are remarkable: really sweet, really insightful, taught me some critical things about relating to some important people in my life. "Xe" et. al. are imo like Esperanto: an ideal solution that I doubt will really catch on. So I usually default to "they". But "xe" is by far a better conversation-starter. cheers. Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I don't recall where I picked it up, exactly, but I am pretty sure it was a Sci-Fi book. I used to read masses of them, but I've sort of gone off them lately, apart from the Culture novels and some of Scalzi's books. The main problem is the tendency of modern authors to write themselves into corners full of cliches, sadly. And I don't like fantasy much. Stainless Steel Rat, now, that is brilliant :-) Guy (Help!) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Love, love the Culture series. Actually have four more to go (Use of Weapons and the last three) and am kinda savoring them. They somewhat changed my worldview (clarified my idea of a utopia). What a loss Banks was. I'm getting more into SF in general (have been more into non-fiction) and will check out that other stuff one of these days; SSR sounds fun. BTW just now figured out your username was from Adams.... my wife digs him; can't believe I haven't read that yet either, but what I have read sounded on the money. Have you read Paul Kirchner's Realms (trippy comic book)? [17] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use Of Weapons is just nasty, but I enjoyed the rest, including Hydrogen Sonata - though it is rather obviously a conscious farewell to the Culture universe, which does induce a certain tristesse. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But he loved SF so much (he'd said it his favorite thing to write); I bet he would've come back to it. I admit I wanted to see if Banks would subject the Culture to some ironic, macabre end... some wayward Minds interrupting their finally trying to Sublime, maybe the sublimed Airspheres society getting their revenge, anything. Suspect he would've, had he not himself exited so strangely. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that he's a trusting soul and doesn't understand that there are bad people out there that write false papers and even create dodgy journals for the purpose of publishing dodgy papers. Or even (*gasp*) manipulating politicians into funding medical treatments that don't work. I doubt there's a lot of problems with deceptive sources about wildfowl.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The acupuncture page says. "Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive.[75]" I'm good at finding sources. QuackGuru (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI?

Yes. William Connolley was found to have a COI on climate articles - are you sure? I admit, there have been so many its hard to keep count, but I don't recall that one William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was my understanding. Though frankly I think it's bullshit to accuse a professional scientist of having a COI, so I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Please let me remind you. I have requested you strike comments you made about me here[18] and here[19]. Please do this.DrChrissy (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who accused me of racism (in two separate venues) for stating a well-known and documented fact. What you need to do is to stop randomly proposing sources without any suggested text based on those sources, and stop acting indignant when others reject your proposed sources. I believe you lack WP:COMPETENCE in this area. I have said before, I think your edits on wildfowl are very good (in as much as I, a non-specialist, can judge), but your attempts to intervene in acupuncture are shedding heat, not light, due to your lack of familiarity with core concepts such as journal quality. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YCL Britain

Please stop reversing revision. These individuals are not irrelevant but represent a full time line of YCL leadership. Is in keeping with page as reflects continuity between YCL of CPGB and CPB which is accepted in the rest of the article. Happy to discuss at greater length. Kind regards Johnnie1917 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a single purpose account whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is adding trivia to an article on a minor political group, and whose recent activity consists solely of adding a laundry list of mainly non-notable individuals. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator with tens of thousands of edits to thousands of articles over nearly a decade. Which of us is more likely to be right on this, do you think? However, thank you for drawing the article to my attention, I have pruned some poorly sourced and largely promotional material and removed a couple of unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SWOT

I think I will start the Society of Wikipedia Old-Timers, open to any editor over the age of 50. Or maybe not. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=662169402"