User talk:JzG/Archive 165

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 160

←

Archive 163

→

The dufflebag RfD closure

Hi, would you undo your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_11#The_dufflebag and relist the discussion, please? RfD discussions typically run for 7 days before being closed. feminist (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSD#R3 - an implausible typo, as the first comment established. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider this to be a clear-cut case of R3, as the addition of "The" does not push this redirect to levels of implausibility. I consider this to have a reasonable chance of surviving deletion if allowed to run its full course at RfD. I also have no way of verifying whether this was recently created because it was never mentioned in the RfD discussion. If this were, as the nomination asserted, a content fork, some content from the page history may potentially be salvaged to be used in articles. Undo your closure, and relist the discussion, so that the discussion can run for a full 7 days. feminist (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

But adding the mis-spelling does (definite article plus mis-spelling equals implausible typo), and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It was originally created as a mis-spelled slang neologism and redirected because that's easier than deletion for a non-admin. Please don't waste any more time over this blindingly obvious result. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wakefield

Hmmm.... Both are accurate, but "fraud" is backed by RS and is more specific and stronger than "dishonesty", which is extremely vague to the point of including minor mistatements. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that dishonesty is the word used by the GMC, and fraud is in the next sentence (ref. "fraudulent" study) so it read awkwardly. Not precious about it though. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Carry on. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Improper reverts

Since there's twice been no consensus at COIN that I personally have a COI, and there's an RfC in progress that exactly fits my situation, you should -- obviously -- stop using COI as a reason to revert my edits [1][2] until/if there is consensus on the subject. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable revert, that I would have done. Please stop your COI editing. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would you misrepresent a general discussion about SCAM practitioners as excusing your own obvious COI? "Not all SCAM practitioners have a COI, therefore I don't have a COI" is not a great argument when your edits show clear evidence of pushing a POV that is in line with your admitted commercial interests. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what causes a COI. It's got nothing to do with a user's edits -- edits bear on things like TE and SPA. COI has to do with an editor's real-life connections. The situation the RfC contemplates is identical to mine, no more, no less: a declared CAM practitioner editing in their area. Now do you understand? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A declared CAM practitioner = A declared Fraudster. Now do you understand? --Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea who I am or how I practice. Try commenting on edits not editors so much. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Addendum, to Guy: I find it ironic that you say my edits show "clear evidence of pushing a POV" when you supported this revert of my adding an "acu doesn't work" source. It's pretty obvious you didn't read it. (See your comments -- and silence when I asked you about this -- at Talk:Acupuncture#Headache and section right below.) You weren't the only one. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Douglas H. Evans

As far as an advertisement, first of all, for the record, I get so tired of anonymous deletionists and so much of the goings on here. This is just one of many, in support of a certain status quo. I don't care in the remotest about the various Wikipedia rules, agreed upon by so many who I haven't one iota of respect for, largely because they won't stand up and be counted and support each other in deleting and/or wrecking content. And those people are always in the majority here. And NONE of them who tag and delete and remove seem to take the time TO FIX whatever it is they have a problem with. Having said that, Advertising? Really? This is a man in retirement who takes on the odd job in between looking after his house and puppies. He needs no advertisement. Everyone who is anyone in the "code warrior" community, who works on passing or killing code change proposals, knows Doug Evans. Even for those who only watch the live streamed ICC events, you can't help but notice Doug at the podium for each event - both when he worked for Clark County and now. He is a published author on fire protection issues, which is of statistical importance considering the worldwide death toll due to fires every year. He is what one calls "salt of the Earth" kind of individual who has made a lot of contributions to fire safety. But none of this matters. The rules agreed upon by all the anonymous parties - that matters. Nominate for deletion and ask questions later. Now, there isn't even a discussion page for the deletion anymore? Is that the latest trick now? I am increasingly sick of this.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And you think that calling me an "anonymous deletionist" helps your cause? Way to go. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Permethrin data sheet

Hi J- I saw your revert of my restoration of that fact sheet link, and wanted to let you know that I contacted the owner of that pesticide fact sheet site before I did that. He got right back to me, claimed to be on the ISO committee that covers pesticides, and I saw no reason to disbelieve him. I did suggest to him that he might add an "about" page to his site. The site's legal info page is the closest I could find. I don't mean any of this to prove anything, just wanted to let you know that I looked into it. I err on the side of nixing links to personal and advert-y sites, but I have reason to believe we can have confidence in this one. Eric ^talk 14:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

So.

1. We do not take his word for that.

2. Even if we did take his word for that, his website is a self-published source and not authoritative.

3. Even if it were, him reverting the link back in by himself, as he did, is a fast track to blacklisting.

I find it impossible to believe that some retired data scientist's personal website is the only possible source for this. And it's not. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I get all that. I don't think it was meant as a source, and do not necessarily support retaining the link, just wanted you to know I'd looked into it. I only now noticed that he had reverted you before I did. An IP editor has done so again since; I hope it wasn't he. Eric ^talk 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I get that. I mean no criticism of you at all and I believe you when you say the information is correct. I have a wider issue with non-authoritative links being added to WP:LINKFARMs at the ends of articles and I think in areas like this, where misinformation could be genuinely dangerous, we should follow WP:MEDRS as closely as possible and stick to independently reviewed authorities, that's all. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Did you see that you are encountering further Helvetican opposition? Eric ^talk 15:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a concern. I do not think it is the site owner, I think he is in the UK. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Incel

Um ... I don't know what you wanted to do with this edit, but I doubt this was it. --GRuban (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Nope, no clue what happened there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Prosecution of Jeremy Bedford-Turner

Hello, JzG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Prosecution of Jeremy Bedford-Turner".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Odd closure". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

LinkSearch postprocessor

Hi. If I read it correctly (at ANI), your goal is to get lists of mainspace articles that have ELs to specific websites, right? You don't want to see ELs from other namespaces. I wrote something to do this recently to get just the mainspace mailto: links. It's not pretty (i.e. no GUI), runs from the Windows command-shell batch files, using wget to get the LinkSearch pages, and perl to process them to spit out just the mainspace results. The output is a simple HTML doc with links to the pages. This would eliminate the need to edit the non-mainspace pages to insert the nowiki tags. I don't know what your level of computer knowledge is, but if that works for you, let me know and I can make it available.

BTW, are there usually less than 5000 results for your searches? Note that LinkSearch will retrieve a max of 5000, even though the links provided on the page only go to 500. E.g. [3]. If so, the whole thing could be done with a mod to the JS script mentioned at ANI instead, deleting the non-mainspace links instead of/before/while sorting. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an API for linksearch that allows specifying the namespace. It is still broken in that you have to run it twice to get http and https (it's useless searching for just one of those these days). See mw:API:Exturlusage. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It's all way harder than it needs to be. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing on alternative medicine talk page?

I find that my entry on this talk page has been unfairly closed because Roxy the wolf didn't provide any reason to that. Please let me at least put my TLDR description in easily visible place; outside the TLDR box. I request to allow me to do this. I spent a lot of time writing this shit, and I want my opinion to be actually visible and encouraging to read. ~~----The Polish Onion

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article. Your rant was not. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So do you want me to open a new discussion, and propose a change to the definition of alt. med. written in that article? That would do it, right? This should be considered as improvement: adhering definition to the definitions provided by major online dictionaries. Or not? This is basically all I can propose for now, cause I consider your alternative definition as mendacious.

Also, I'd like to challenge a closing of that discussion, due to the fact that the discussion just started, and that the reason written behind closing was not justified: "Yup!" - What the heck is that supposed to mean? ~~----The Polish Onion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.232.76 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing on alternative medicine talk page?

I find that my entry on this talk page has been unfairly closed because Roxy the wolf didn't provide any reason to that. Please let me at least put my TLDR description in easily visible place; outside the TLDR box. I request to allow me to do this. I spent a lot of time writing this shit, and I want my opinion to be actually visible and encouraging to read. ~~----The Polish Onion

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article. Your rant was not. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So do you want me to open a new discussion, and propose a change to the definition of alt. med. written in that article? That would do it, right? This should be considered as improvement: adhering definition to the definitions provided by major online dictionaries. Or not? This is basically all I can propose for now, cause I consider your alternative definition as mendacious.

Also, I'd like to challenge a closing of that discussion, due to the fact that the discussion just started, and that the reason written behind closing was not justified: "Yup!" - What the heck is that supposed to mean? ~~----The Polish Onion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.232.76 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Apes and such

I think it was in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution I read a story that went something like this: A creationist criticised evolution because no "missing link" had been found between species 1 and 2. Later, one (call it 1.5) was found and shown to the creationist. However, this doubled the strength of his argument, since there was now missing links between 1-1.5 and 1.5-2. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Ha! Yes. Tiktaalik, anyone? I think there are several things going on at once. One is that once one has vested belief in something that is objectively incorrect, cognitive dissonance is particularly strong, because so very much evidence shows it to be incorrect. Another is that cdesign proponentsists don't actually understand what they are critiquing - they have no real understanding of cladistics and obviously most of them flatly refuse to accept the timescales involved, so they believe that failure to observe novel species in real time means it never happened. A third is that creationist thought leaders are indoctrinated in rhetorical techniques that reinforce belief, such as focusing on the fact that a crocodile never evolved into a duck, or "why are there still monkeys". A fourth is the human supremacist worldview - the biological equivalent of the strong anthropic principle. And of course there is that special contribution of subconscious, and sometimes conscious, dishonesty that religious zealots use to isolate themselves from fact: the belief that because it was written in a specific book by specific humans, it is somehow endowed with an infallibility that is unique among all of history. Homeopathists are the same. Samuel Hahnemann was the first and pretty much only man who was ever right about medicine in the whole history of the science. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing link

JzG, I'm confused by this edit. I do not understand why the link has been removed...the document appears to be fully in the public domain. What am I missing? — Huntster (t @ c) 19:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The "Online Library of Liberty" is a libertarian think-tank that was widely spammed by a group of editors who received incentives to insert links. These are public domain documents, and driving traffic to a site that wraps them round with propaganda is a very bad idea. I have found a better link. In many cases the references are bald-face lies, claiming the "online library of liberty" as the publisher. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose I understand that, but unless I'm missing something else, you removed the link rather than replacing it. I suppose that regardless of how I feel about the host, I would rather see *some* link to a PD resource than no link at all. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Huntster: There are many hundreds of these links, and they are often hopelessly vague (e.g. cites to Cicero linking to a page about him, or in some cases a collected works, book, rather than to a specific piece of writing). Replacing them takes anything up to half an hour per link. I have been doing this, and have yet to find one that was not replaceable, but the rate of addition has, at some points, exceeded my ability to correct. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Nice work on moving the MMR vaccine page and getting this to a resolution. Here is hoping our little efforts save lives. Thanks Akrasia25 (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Akrasia25: Gluten free, I hope? I am coeliac :-) Guy (Help!) 12:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Homo rudolfensis

Guy would it be possible to protect this page from vandalism? Been a couple of times now. I don't know how/who to ask.—Akrasia25 (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reg Meuross draft page

Dear JzG. I note you have put the Reg Meuross page back to draft status], the reason being that it is published by a 'paid editor'. I hope I can explain to you that I am not a paid editor. I have declared in the COI section on my profile that I work with Reg Meuross but I receive no financial or other benefit from his page being published, I have done it because I believe that his stature as a singer songwriter warrants it and his songs are of interest to the wide public if they are researching subjects. His song Flora Sandes was played on BBC news last year, and his new song cycle about the Triple Trawler Disaster contains subject matter of interest to anyone researching that subject. I can elaborate more if it's helpful. But mostly please could you direct me to next steps? I see there is a 'send for independent review' button. Should I do that next? I have worked hard on the draft, seeking independent citations etc. I appreciate your help and advice. Many thanks Ktwhitehouse (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You ahve a COI, if you want the article moved to mainspace you need to go through article review and have someone else do it. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine injury

Can we have an RM on this first please? I suspect this is more complicated than it looks. Bradv🍁 01:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it isn't, actually. The technically correct term is vaccine adverse event (hence Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). Guy (Help!) 09:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with bradv. Please undo this and open a discussion. Natureium (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article and the sources? Most fo the article content is about vaccine adverse events, which is how these are described in the literature. "Vaccine injury" is primarily an antivax term, used to describe autism, which is not an injury and not caused by vaccines. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I replied you in the talk page listed below. Check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.172.232.76 37.248.157.14 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)--The Polish Onion

Closed Discussion on NoticeBoard

Why did you close the Ben Swann discussion on the Noticeboard claiming the lede was correct? Did you even read the thread and look at the links? I proved that the segments were not Reality Checks. The un-sourced and misleading "espoused conspiracy theories" claim is a different discussion, but there's no question that the lede is factually incorrect. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Every single source cited in the article on the subject says "YouTube channel". The lede is not correct. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing you have said shows the article to be incorrect. The fact that you would prefer it to be more flattering is not a matter for noticeboards, but for the talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)