Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105

Shugden socks

Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:

I lack the specific knowledge of the individual POV-pushers to work on that. See WP:SPI for likely help on the socks. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Awards Section on Banc_De_Binary

Hey JzG. I wasn't sure if you were aware that the article is fully protected and the only edits that should be made are those with consensus. I see some discussion about the awards section on the talk page but I didn't really see an edit request. I just wanted to make sure that you were just enacting what was discussed on the talk page or if not if you were aware that it was fully protected. Thanks!--v/r - TP 00:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, JzG. I have come here on the instructions at User:JzG/help that you linked from the administrative thread and I hope this request is not forum-shopping or a wall of text. I am concerned that I and BDBJack are being attacked because we are politely requesting basic policy compliance in the Banc De Binary article (and apparently because of past conflict in this area, in re of which the Board of Banc De Binary has asked me to post a statement at my userpage). For instance, our first correction request was to correctly reflect our legal identity in the first sentence of the article, based on a primary source we provided, and this request has been pending 68 days without positive answer despite our vigilant attempts to obtain the correction. (Yesterday editors finally trumpeted their apparently independent discovery of a primary source essentially identical to the one we originally posted, and consensus about the protected edit request was announced, but the correction has still not happened.) I also believe, though I have been both supported and contradicted on this point, that much of the poorly sourced information constitutes an attack page and has been designed to reflect poorly on the Banc De Binary principals, particularly 50% owner Oren Laurent, by attempting to exempt the information from biographical protection because it is perceived as corporate information (although the biography policy requires small businesses to be judged on a case-by-case basis).

Following the instructions of an administrator OTRS volunteer and of the administrator informal mediator, I posted a complete list of concerns so as to facilitate discussion, as concisely as possible. In the administrative thread, it has now been proposed that BDBJack and I be blocked or banned because of this alleged disruption, and as a compliance officer for Banc De Binary I take this proposal seriously. My request is that you review my behavior and BDBJack's behavior sufficiently to determine if we have committed some violation, and advise us how to correct any such violation. Incidentally, I respect your choice to delete the awards section, as I have not had a strong opinion either way about the section. In fact, the poor sourcing of the awards section is reflective of the poor sourcing throughout the rest of the article, and I would not think it ill if you took a broadsword to it. BDBIsrael (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have done OTRS work until recently, I wrote the standard advice you were given. What you need to remember is that while we encourage you to raise your concerns and request changes, we are under no obligation to make those changes or accept your concerns as valid. I do not think I am the first to have made this point, and there is no chance that you will persuade me to intervene on your behalf. I'm here to ensure the article complies with policy, and I'm afraid that an article which complies with policy is not going to please you very much, because your view of your business is badly out of line with the independent view. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, JzG. We are in agreement except for your concerns about our motives. We recognize that you and Wikipedia are under no obligation, and have not insisted at any point to our knowledge that anyone is under such obligation, and we would in fact be pleased if the article started complying with policy. We have only asked for compliance with policies all along, such as stating correctly what our legal identity is as demonstrated by independent sources. I'm glad that we are otherwise in agreement. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Last time I looked, it did comply with policy. I understand that you would prefer to emphasise certain guidelines and parts of policy that would make the article more flattering, but there are a good number of very experienced editors who disagree with your interpretation of our policies. And that's all I have to say about it here. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I respect your judgment and that of the other editors. Thank you for apprising me. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Trance (2013 film)

Edit war developing. Between User_talk:AbramTerger and Laura1822 over edit on Trance concerning Lord Poltimore. Please resolve. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Naim Dangoor

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Hearne

You salted the article for Kevin Hearne. I don't know what the previous article looked like, but the subject meets basic author notability, with reviews for his works in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly etc. as well as appearing on both the NYT and USA Today best seller lists. I put together a new stub,[1] but the page needs to be unprotected before it can be created. Please advise.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin

Can you watch this talk page. We have the same psi proponents soapboxing off topic discussion over and over. Goblin Face (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: Autism Research Institute

Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate your attention to the article. It clearly needs work. I understand your removal of the "Further reading" section. I have responded on the talk page of that article (I hope you don't object that I created a section starting with your post). Although some of the books I had added were crap they provide information (should be refs only though). I have re added the section with only books that are of better quality. Eventually they should be references instead. I welcome your thoughts on this and your contributions to the article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

help
Thank you, Guy, for your help "There are few things that can't be fixed by a dose of calmness and reasoned debate", for thinking about science, for rescuing an article from a sandbox, for realising sincere belief, good reason, added value, and that many of us are single-minded, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 July 2007, 19 March 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 561st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ONUS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ONUS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ONUS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Launchballer 09:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

POV Pusher's charter

The opposite is true as well. Onus being on inclusion would also benefit POV pusher trying to whitewash. We should leave issues of NPOV to the NPOV policy and not try to address it with WP:V.--v/r - TP 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A POV-pusher trying to whitewash will quickly lose, based on quality of sources. The onus is always on whoever wants to include disputed content, to justify it and achieve consensus. It can't be any other way - and thids was previously agreed (at V or NPOV, can't remember exactly) but removed by someone at some point. The reason for removing it is not hard to guess... Guy (Help!) 20:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree, and I also think NPOV policy should stay in the NPOV policy. What impact does your change have on deletion policy, though? Can editors blank articles now until a consensus is achieved to keep it? I'm not invested in this enough to oppose you outright, I'm just not sure your change is entirely thought through. After ec: I've never seen it in WP:V before so I must have missed the conversation and the addition/removal.--v/r - TP 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
As we already say, just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it gets included. Anything other than putting the onus on the person seeking to include disputed content, makes it impossible to hold back WP:RANDY and his ilk, as well as POV-pushers, cruft and every other ill to which Wikipedia is heir. But I haven't the heart to fight it out. Wikipedia is losing the ability to keep crap at bay, and every time I spend more than a few minutes here I am forcefully reminded of it. Not that you are any part of the problem, it's more the likes of Brian Josephson, the Chopra fans, Sheldrake groupies and so on. Getting their way is vastly more important to them than it is to us, and they will never, ever walk away until they get what they want. One day we'll have an article on homeopathy that presents it as a valid medical treatment, you mark my words. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) this is, sadly, true. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
As another talk page stalker, I'm inclined to offer a tepid disagreement. Between MEDRS and the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia is inching towards improvement in its handling of the fringier aspects of medicine. It's not a perfect situation by any means, but I would argue that fringe medicine is about the only area where POV-pushers don't have an edge, because it's one of the few areas where there exists the necessary triad to keep POV-pushing down: stringent sourcing policy, active editors who have deep understanding of both the subject matter and Wikipedia policy, and enforcement tools that admins aren't afraid to use. (Yes, it is easier to pull teeth than it is to drag the homeopathy article toward a reality-driven POV. On the other hand – and not to downplay our problems – we've done a lot better cracking down on the miracle cancer cures and the anti-vaccinationists.)
Fringe physics (or pseudophysics), though? You're right. Softer sourcing expectations coupled with a lack of vigorous enforcement mean we're still giving away the farm on cold fusion and reactionless drives. Say what you will about Wikipedia's medical coverage, but you can't get away with building a medical article out of a Ny Teknik or New Scientist article and the inventor's press releases any more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to buy you all a drink. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a virtual swig (glug) thanks - but remember boys and girls, don't drink and edit - you'll often live to regret it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You make a fair point, in that the position on physics woo is markedly worse, but look at the articles on acupuncture and chiropractic, both of whihc are subject to relentless assault by true believers who steadily chip away at the reality-based perspective and insert references which turn out, on investigation, to be fringe, or not to actually say what they are purported to say (e.g. user A1candidate on acupuncture using tentative conclusions or "may play a role", represented as settled fact [2], whereas the consensus view based on the lack of repeatable evidence that location of needling, or insertion of needles, makes any odds, leans more towards the usual combination of placebo and other confounders).
Acupuncture and chiropractic are a litmus test here. They are actually quack treatments, they are struggling to hold on in a science-based world by desperately trying to find support for some subset of their ideas, but the majority of what is taught to and promoted by practitioners as "fact" is in fact complete bollocks. There is no innate, chiropractic subluxations do not exist, spinal manipulation does not affect the immune system, there is no qi, there are no such things as meridians, acupoints are not empirically verifiable anatomical structures - you know the litany. Does manipulation relieve back pain? Plausibly, but there's no evidence for maintenance adjustments, and the studies where, by the random effects inherent in p=0.05, a biologically implausible effect is shown (infant colic, asthma) are a statistical artifact and nothing else. The talk pages of all these articles are covered in WP:CHEESE, with cheesemongers such as Brian Josephson active at the edges and trying to amend policy to make the appeal to authority a valid argument on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To TCM and chiropractic I'd add osteopathy, TM and various Steiner things (not always health) as prominent examples among the many others. I'm increasingly of the view that it's WP:CPUSHing backed by a COI which is at the root of a lot of the problems: I wish the problem of COI was taken more seriously on WP. And yes, there are increasing attempts to modify the PaGs - WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are not liked in some quarters. Things are not helped by the large number of otherwise neutral editors who see reality/rationality as "just" another point of view: here for example I've just been told that Wikipedia cannot assert that the Earth is round (that thread BTW is a good example of the problem at hand). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
So basically what you guys are saying is that WP:FRINGE should read, "If it was featured on Dr. Oz, it's fringe." lol--v/r - TP 19:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a fair first approximation. Also any use of the words "miracle", "natural", "traditional", any reference to the cancer industry, any claim of suppression by the drugs industry or teh evil gubmints (especially the FDA), anything based on anecdotes, any Brave Maverick Doctors. The progress of understanding of h. pylori as a cause of ulcers is a perfect model. We can see at wat point it went fomr being amaverick idea to a tentative finding with inadequate science, to a plausible finding, to an accepted fact. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_99&oldid=1139601678"