User talk:JzG/Archive 111

Your POV edits on Mohs surgery


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)
 * 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. " Guy (Help!) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

May 2015
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have always found that not being involved at drama boards is good. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Boris, why do you have to depress me so? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 04:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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 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)
 * 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)

Not yet closed
You marked it as ✅, it is not formally closed. Samuel (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

A1candidate again

 * A1candidate described his edit as "format" but he removed text sourced to a 2011 review, this NIH position statement, and this 2012 review. The edit had nothing to do with a format.
 * A1candidate wrote "@DrChrissy - I've restored it back to where it belongs. Hopefully, the disruption will stop." A1candidate added an entire section about veterinary acupuncture. However, there is a specific section for related practices. See Acupuncture.
 * A1candidate deleted the QuackWatch text against a long established consensus.
 * A1candidate added this to lede. The edit failed to gain consensus. A1candidate added this to lede again but it is not a summary and it is poor evidence. More concise information in the lede is "It is rarely used alone but rather as an adjunct to other forms of treatment.[10]" There is a discussion about the sources. See Talk:Acupuncture and see Talk:Acupuncture.
 * A1candidate added this to the ethics section again but it is not about ethics and the same source is summarised in the effectiveness section.
 * A1candidate deleted this from the body again but it not speculation. See Talk:Acupuncture.
 * A1candidate added information about electroacupuncture again but the article is about acupuncture not a related practice. The latest edits by A1candidate did not improve the page according to the comments above.
 * A1candidate was continuing to edit war even after being warned by an uninvolved admin.

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)
 * Thoughts? ...beware the boomerang and the learning capacity of the antipodeans.... DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I reserve judgment for now. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

TV infobox again
Hi, Guy. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but after that protracted infobox discussion that ended at, 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 and going forward.

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

I've restored the agreed-upon version,, 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)
 * Technically, I think you're both wrong, but you're less wrong. This 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)


 * 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)
 * That has to be the first time I've been accused of being calm in ages! Guy (Help!) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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."  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 &#124; privacy • COI) 10:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * "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 &#124; privacy • COI) 15:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * clink* （ ^_^）o自自o（^_^ ） cheers! --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 05:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Sigh
Teahouse/Questions. The Doctor is worried... --Neil N  talk to me 19:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; privacy • COI) 20:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; privacy • COI) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; privacy • COI) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)?   --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 05:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; privacy • COI) 16:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

ANI
Could you restore the deleted articles to my user space please? And restore three of them that had assertions of notability to mainspace? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None had assertions of notability. I will restore them when the ANI thread concludes if there is good evidence that this is not disruptive. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Three had assertions per the thread? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they did not. I replied there, as that's the correct venue. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Just because you are an 'editor' that does not mean that you have a superior knowledge on this particular subject. I feel you are being very rude and dismissive by not being prepared to discuss this with me? I will invest sometime in editing the article properly as clearly you have some sort of bias regarding this one way or another. Threatening to ban me without the courtesy of hearing my case is immature and abusiveJohnnie1917 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant subject is Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may safely assume that I know a very great deal more about them than you do. What is your connection with this group? Guy (Help!) 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)