User talk:JzG/Archive 126

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 120

←

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

→

Archive 130

Are you serious in claiming that this letter[1] - is a official (or inofficial) letter from the institutions of the 3 scientists that have written it?

How are you determining that? --Kim D. Petersen 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am saying that it has a header which says it is from those departments. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? The header says no such thing. Please take another look. The letter is formatted like a scientific paper, and all it tells you is what universities the 9 authors are working at. So i'm still curious as to how you are claiming on AE that this is an official/inofficial letter from those universities/insitutes. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to go down the road of debating how many angels dance on the head of this particular pin, the point is that it was presented by Ferret as an obviously egregious example of ZOMG!!111one!!eleventy Terrible sources! and in fact it is a defensible and on the face of it quite reasonable source in an area where there is clearly no scientific consensus and significant concerns about tobacco companies recruiting new customers to highly addictive nicotine-based products. It is a content dispute, and the AE report is egregious. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with angels on a pin. And everything to do with the relative reliability of a source. The very thing that holds Wikipedia together: WP:RS. And in this case the significantly more serious WP:MEDRS.

And you just testified to AE that the above mentioned source is usable in a WP:MEDRS context!

And i'm asking you in all seriousness - do you really think that, or did you for a moment, let your rationality go, because you think that AlbinoFerret is/was POV pushing? --Kim D. Petersen 23:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret is making vexatious complaints in an attempt to gain advantage in a content dispute. I have no actual desire to get involved in editing the battleground article son vaping, my point was simple: to represent this as an obviously egregiously bad source is simply wrong, regardless of what final consensus on Talk might be. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on whether or not you have a case or reason against AlbinoFerret at all. I want to know whether you think that the ends justify the means - here in context misleading AE about the WP:MEDRS status of a source. --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am an outsider, and not a committed advocate on either side. That might tell you something about which of us is more likely to be objective here. I do not succumb to the fallacious view that all comments must be justified tot he satisfaction of all participants, however partisan. OK? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Again not answering the question, which is not about commentary, advocacy or justification, i couldn't care less about that. It is a question entirely about the relative reliability of sources (according to WP:MEDRS and WP:RS). Could you try again - with only Wikipedia's rules and guidances in mind? --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not obliged to justify myself to the satisfaction of every passing activist. Clear now? Guy (Help!) 22:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But i think that you are supposed to justify yourself to a fellow wikipedian on Wikipedia issues. --Kim D. Petersen 01:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Read the statement again. And then feel free to wander off, since I am not a massive fan of activists with a vested interest in using Wikipedia to promote their external agenda. Guy (Help!) 01:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A moment ago, you were telling me that you were the objective and non-committet to a specific view, but right here you are expressing what Wikipedians shouldn't: Assumption of Bad Faith, making personal attacks and displaying a particular POV (which is opposed to whatever POV you believe that i possess).

Think a bit about that when you reread the above. --Kim D. Petersen 05:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Kimmy, you are the president of e-cig advocacy organization and as I noted below you are pressing way too hard. Please dial it down - there is no point to what you are doing here and it is making you look very bad. Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything, it is obvious that you have a vested interest and I am simply not interested in butting heads with you. I will form my own view, lobbying by those with a dog in the fight is likely to make me more sympathetic to the other side, so it's up to you if you want to convert me to an anti-vaper or let me make up my own mind case by case. And do be absolutely clear: the more obviously you, as one with a clear and documented COI, hate a source, the more I am likely to think it is significant and important. And the same applies to the anti-vapers. The best result will be gained when the obvious partisans simply STFU and let people with no preconceptions judge without interference. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I ask that you change to "involved". Involvement isnt just on the topic but past interaction with an editor. During the GMO Arbcom case I was one of the editors that sought to bring you into the case because of your behaviour [2] which you fought against. Per WP:INVOLVED "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." AlbinoFerret 14:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If every person who has ever thrown a brickbat at an admin is forever after declared to be involvement, we will run out of admins rather quickly. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Albino and Kim, you are both relentless on this e-cig stuff. I understand why both of you are - Kim with your presidency of the advocacy organization and Albino with e-cigs having basically saved your wife's life (if I am remembering that correctly) - but the current full-court press is... unseemly, and you don't seem to be able to see it. Please consider dialing it back. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are remembering wrong. As for dialing it back, I have considerably dialed it back from the same point a year ago and no longer spend as much time there but involve myself in other areas. I am also focusing on PAG, WP:NOTABOVE. Im sure you recognise the link you created Jytdog. Policies exist for a reason. Core policies like NPOV even more so. AlbinoFerret 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for remembering wrong. The two of you can hear that you are being way too intense, or not. As you will. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your misinterpreting focusing on PAG as intensity. In contentious topics under DS its necessary to focus on content and PAG to avoid issues. Sadly not everyone thinks PAG are important, but straying off of them in contentious areas imho is a prescription for disaster, as is situational adherence to them. You and JzG should be applauding it, how many times in the past have you ave to deal with situational application of PAG to introduce something? Probably more times than you can remember. As I have said before, I learn something from each disagreement. 10 months ago I learned that PAG need to be followed, the essay was one of my first moves forward, a way of putting what I learned down so I hopefully dont forget it. AlbinoFerret 02:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. Intensity is about the rate at which arguments are churning & new threads are being opened (as you yourself told me here), and escalation to drama board actions being initiated. Everything is dialled up now. I am barely watching the talk page anymore as you are all just Going At it. Dialling it down is entirely possible. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no control over other editors following PAG, nor in good faith not address violations of core policies. AlbinoFerret 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The urgency and churn-rate of disputes have nothing to do with PAGs per se, in fact are counter to them. But you are committed to your course, so off you go then. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Every section started recently has a PAG issue. In fact all talk page discussions should, as content needs to be discussed according to PAG and if it adheres to PAG. As to being committed to PAG, yes, and something you may have missed, but I also brought what I consider a pro ecig editor to AE because of not following PAG. AlbinoFerret 04:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey JzG/Guy, just wanted to ask if you would consider making your userpage a redirect to your talkpage? Keep it completely locked-down if you wish to, but it would help when pinging you to not have a "red-link" appear. Anyway, you choice. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's red for a reason. One day I might change it, but not just yet. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not important, but the hat was actually done by HighinBC here. zzz (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also by DrChrissy here. Which is ironic, really, given the complaint. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Did my listing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bernie_Sanders violate WP:CANVASS? If so, should I strike it and/or hat the whole section?

Relatedly, is there any way to close a problematic RfC, wherein most participants fundamentally misunderstand the subject of the debate? (Admittedly, I have noticed that this is often the case, and I wonder if the RfC process should be reformed.) In this case it seems that BLP demands a certain outcome.

I'm hoping this notification does not violate WP:CANVASS; I'm asking because you're British and presumably disinterested in the subject matter, and because I did not want to post on another forum. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable venue to ask for more input. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

...by this edit. I do think I get the idea - the mainstream is indeed not the extreme position - but characterising "environmentalists" as the extreme seems, well, extreme. While there are, of course, some mythical Gaia types, environmentalism is a very broad idea, and certainly encompasses a lot of mainstream science. And for me, the mainstream position is certainly enough of an argument to support environmentalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

They are extremes in the sense of their approach to the issue of climate change. Denialists are usually libertarians who are motivated to deny climate change by the implications of regulation on both liberty and finance, and environmentalists are likely to adopt the precautionary principle and advocate restrictions on liberty (e.g. punitive taxation on fossil fuels) in order to protect the planet. The two groups may not be extremists in the sense that ISIS are extremists, but they are the opposite ends of the continuum of views on climate, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my edits, calling them "disputed" without any specific grounds. Looking at your history with a quick-search, I can see that you have a reputation for such behavior. You are not a nice Guy, pun intended.

My edits were in good faith and I was working with one other old-timer wikieditor, but since you already made yourself into judge, jury and executioner (your M.O), I'll just let you be right, because arguing with you isn't really interesting. 178.197.239.154 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done, you saved me having to semiprotect the article. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

..take up your QG challenge, however I got distracted by this and fell off my seat laughing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I simply refuse to put that on my watchlist too. The usual suspects turn up enough already. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

MastCell's comment is fucking brilliant! Guy (Help!) 16:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

per this request from me? Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

don't think so. Just as people don't understand what theory means in theory of evolution, they will not understand the similarity between popular diet and fad diet. It is, simply put, a fad. Hipsters follow it. Enough said. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"The first is that it's sourced to a journal published by OMICS Publishing Group, a predatory publisher that exerts no evident critical review. The second is that your rename request makes it seem very likely that you yourself are the author"

Let me know which publishing group is not a predator because the articles on biofield is published in NIH also which is well recognized and gov authoritive if you want i can give you the refrence of NIH articles also and secondly what is the problem if i am an author though i am not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntucker28 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No chance. A single study, based on time lapse microscopy only, of a differently-plausible "treatment", published in a predatory journal. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

so I posted at WP:AN/I for a review of your close. Meanwhile, it seems like personal attacks are now the rule for some editors there, and I would like you to examine some of the non-collegial comments and charges. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is out of all proportion to the objective importance of the issue. I suggest you avoid the ANI discussion. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lorenzo Iorio. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• See also User_talk:LFaraone, User talk:JzG/Archive 125, Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 1, Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 2, Talk:Telisto (hypothetical planet), 45 Wuz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 21a12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 21aGUSH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• Also ping @Jehochman:. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Which editor, Stifle? A real editor or a sock? Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock. Of course. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We gotta do what we gotta do. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 124.171.129.170 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As much as I like to see my position reinstated in the article (I sure hoped RSN would give a more definite answer, but well), did you notice the article was full-protected? LjL (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, no, I did not, at no point did the interface flag this - bizarre. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think you now did the right thing although it's annoying; otherwise, chances are a big fuss would have been stirred. LjL (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Naturally. All three of the ED fans on Wikipedia are really really incensed that the world considers their party to be a bunch of knuckle-draggers. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JzG,

I noticed that you deleted a table of competitions from the International Bodybuilding and Fitness page. I think that at least a sentence listing each of these competitions is significant because that's how this organization is formed and people may want to know that when trying to learn about the IFBB. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks for helping!

Stephilippou (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that as someone with a conflict of interest your views are more likely to be supportive of IFBB than Wikipedian ideals. The list of trivia can be safely left to IFBB's webmasters. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for responding!

Stephilippou (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please revert your undiscussed move here, and propose a page move through the proper process. I will certainly oppose, as the old name is certainly the WP:COMMONNAME. Tiresome people are always trying to move churches to their full official name, and it is disappointing to see someone of your seniority joining their ranks. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you see that the issue had been discussed on talk before? Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I grew up in St Albans, I went to St Albans School. The building we titles St Albans Cathedral is known locally, almost without exception, as the Abbey. The station is St. Albans Abbey. The associated primary school is The Abbey School. Abbey Mill Lane. Abbey Avenue. Abbey View. The Abbey Gateway. This is a case of the principle of least astonishment. Any local seeing the previous title will be irritated, as I was. It is the Cathedral and Abbey Church of St Alban, or St Albans Abbey. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? WP is not written just for locals, and you haven't even used that name. All Italians call their cathedrals "Duomo" and Germans "Dom", but we don't use these, but what the general WP:COMMONNAME is. You know this perfectly well. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I care, obviously. Plus, Abbey scores more Google hits than Cathedral. Plus, the full name is actually correct. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that I've opened up a AE case on Semitrangenic here where you were involved in some of the evidence (should have a pin anyways). You did technically break 1RR in that case, but I'm not seeking action against that as it's ignoring the larger problem of both the editor and what happens when someone initially starts gaming 1RR and their content remains. Do be careful in the future though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a topic ban will be good for everybody, including the user, who clearly finds this topic too vexing to engage calmly. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey JzG,

Can you please do something about the editor Chrisw80 as I notice he's on a bender to cause edit-wars and delete anything to do with the 'Mnookin' book as a source. He denys the text exists and now deletes article content as below - which, by the way, was made accurate by editors a decade or so ago. He is rash in his actions as the text in book is correct as I have a complete copy of the e-book. I will not debate with him for fear of getting my account deleted as I noticed is his strategy in his edit-wars. Don't know what his problem is.

OK now I know what his problem is, the text he can't see is only in the Australian edition of the book - as told by Mnookin here http://sethmnookin.com/tag/dana-mccaffery/ . And by the look of his userpage of it Chrisw80 is from the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongwool (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also proof - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/11/the-panic-virus/ - "Anyway, about Seth’s book, my friend and fellow science advocate Dr. Rachael Dunlop pointed me toward the new Australian edition of the book, which has a new preface as well. I’m happy to see that Mnookin directly takes on the situation in Australia, documenting the behavior of antivaxxer Meryl Dorey and relaying the story of the McCafferys, who lost their four week old daughter Dana due to pertussis and low vaccination rates. You can read the preface at that link above." - "Anyway, about Seth’s book, my friend and fellow science advocate Dr. Rachael Dunlop pointed me toward the new Australian edition of the book, which has a new preface as well. I’m happy to see that Mnookin directly takes on the situation in Australia, documenting the behavior of antivaxxer Meryl Dorey and relaying the story of the McCafferys, who lost their four week old daughter Dana due to pertussis and low vaccination rates. You can read the preface at that link above." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongwool (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Example of his removal.

The day after Dana's death was reported in a local newspaper, the AVN's Meryl Dorey contacted the Director of Public Health for the NSW North Coast, Mr Paul Corben, disputing that Dana had died from pertussis and demanding he provide confidential details of her death, including personal medical records and the results of diagnosing tests. Corben refused to release the information, citing privacy legislation. He later wrote to the McCafferys that the AVN's "callousness and disregard for you and your family is chilling indeed".^[1]

Gongwool (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gangwool, I'm happy to discuss this with you. I have been nothing but civil with everyone regarding this. Sources need to be reliable and verifiable per Wikipedia guidelines. I have every reasonable right to challenge a source and attempt to verify it. My good faith attempts at verification failed, and so I reverted. I looked in what appeared to be several different editions of this book even. I've even gone so far as to purchase a copy of the book (due to arrive on Saturday), just in case there really is something I'm missing. I shouldn't have to fly to Australia to buy a book (or loiter in an Australian bookstore) to verify a citation in an internationally published book. I'm not "on a bender" to delete everything using that book as a source. He seems like a notable and respectable author. If I could verify the book has actually stated what the non-NPOV text in the articles were claiming, I would be more reticent to delete it and more focused on fixing the tone. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: added '...an Australian...' to the bookstore loitering statement for clarity) Chrisw80 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Chrisw80 you should have practiced WP:Assume_good_faith and trusted the the person who put the cite there 6 years back as well as trust I'm telling truth. You don't need to buy Aussie book, double check everything, doubt everyone, just be a responsible Rollbacker and avoid editwars. Deleting something that's so established on WP over 6 or so years without dispute is a little bit like vandalism, you know. Gongwool (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the book hasn't even been out for 6 years. If you feel that I have not edited in good faith, please see Dispute Resolution instead of filling up the talk pages of various admins. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OK now your being silly, OK the books been out for 3 or 5 years (I made a little error). So I guess from your response that you won't WP:Assume_good_faith and your position is that you are not going to revert your edit back? Or if I edit it back you will start an edit war? It's evident now that you were wrong, nothing bad with admiting that. Gongwool (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I will not "admit" anything and this is not the correct venue for this discussion. I will resume this discussion on the relevant article's talk page. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He never did discuss it on talk page! What??? I think Chris' response shows why he/she shouldn't have been given extra WP privileges, whether they be RollBacker, RedbackSpider, RolloverThem or whatever he called it! Better standards are needed. Gongwool (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As in, suspend it here, and resume it on the talk page.. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct answer :-) Guy (Help!) 09:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. You deleted it prematurely. GangofOne (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No I did not. It was created by the author of the book, deleted once, and promptly re-created by him. It was an advertisement. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a noticebox at the top that said it would not be deleted until Feb 20. Your deletion was premature. That is the only consideration that matters. GangofOne (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see your error. You think that when a PROD is added this somehow wards of WP:CSD. It doesn't. An article can be speedily deleted during the period of a PROD or AFD, in fact it is quite common for obviously promotional articles like this one. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)