User talk:JzG/Archive 140

Typhula quisquiliaris
I understand the rationale of removing articles from bad journals, and I'm super on-board with that. What I am not on-board with is removing sources but leaving the claims they cited intact; in the above article (and I'm guessing similar is true in the other articles you've removed sources from) you've left "Upon these substrates, it feeds as a saprotroph, breaking down the dead organic matter in order to sustain itself" and "The species has been recorded in ... northern Africa" uncited; as they're not particularly controversial, removing them wouldn't be ideal, but perhaps you could have replaced the reference with a fact tag? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I remove the claim if it looks dodgy, and leave it if it seems uncontentious or appears to have another source. It is literally impossible to clean up bad sources without someone arguing that (a) I shjould always leave the claim and tag it fact or (b) always remove the claim or (c) never remove the source until I find another one. One in a hundred ends up with a post like yours. It's not that I don't get it, it's just that it's impossible to do this thing in less than geological timescales without the occasional arbitrary call. Guy (Help!) 01:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. I looked through your other edits and thought you made the right call in most cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. This is a task I always do manually, and I try to exercise sound editorial judgment. It doesn't always work, mea culpa. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection on Linsner deletion request
I have lowered the protection level to autoconfirmed, and even think that that is too high. At worst the situation is meatpuppetry, and the situation is not so bad (just 3-4 editors) that that warrants protection. See Protection_policy as well, extended confirmed protection is only to be used if lower protection has shown to be ineffective. I do hope that the closing admin does see what is happening there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is more the BLP concern. An appearance of votestacking at AfD makes a biography subject look really bad and also tends to result in inflammatory comments. A calm debate based on policy is much less of a problem. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'confirmed' protection should keep out socks without edits, while still allowing the subject to comment. They talk about offline sources - I hope that they can come up with some.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
Hi JzG. The Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Clarification needed as to why I have been indefinitely topic banned from religion and Pakistan-India topics arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. It may be advisable to review WP:DR for next steps. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent block
Hi there. I just wanted to express my concern about your recent block, because it seems like you were WP:INVOLVED in this case. I happen to agree with your assessment, but I think that because of your participation in the discussion on the subject matter you should have left it for another admin. This message is intentionally vague because I have no desire to cause you any trouble. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to provide more detail. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 23:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been involved in enforcing WP:NPOV on that page for years, and this is a rather blatant sock, but if anyone wants to challenge and/or lift the block then fine, I try not to get too personal about these things. Guy (Help!) 05:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, you are right, I am too close to this, I have unblocked. I am travelling today so can't take paret in any discussion, that's part of it too. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad it all worked out and somebody else went through with it. Take care.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I might just take this to ArbCom. Guy was clearly involved and is clearly an out of control raging maniac who has to promote his agenda above all else. The fact that other admins had to cover his arse, banning Ellquamentary for him, to cover the whole thing up and make it look like it was justified in the first place (it wasn't) is equally repugnant. LesVegas (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey. Knock off the bad attitude. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your prerogative, but I would remind you of WP:BOOMERANG. The fact that another admin made the same exact decision for the same exact reason reinforces the fact that it was the right decision to make. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 22:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't stop you. I think it would make you look worse than me, but hey. Obvious sock remains obvious... Guy (Help!) 23:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole damn thing stinks.
 * I tag a lede that's under dispute, not just by me but by other editors on the talk page (like Elquamentry)
 * Guy gets me topic banned for tagging it, all under the pretense of "nobody supports your tag"
 * ....which is clearly a farce since Elquamentary supported my tag
 * So to cover his tracks and make the whole damn thing look justified, he bans Elquamentary, even though he did nothing wrong.
 * Guy gets called out for his behavior and doesn't even see the slightest bit wrong with anything he did. Big honking red flag right there
 * An entire day later he reverses it, and another admin (Bishonen..who isn't involved on Acupuncture, BUT IS INVOLVED WITH ME) quickly covers up for Guy's mistake. Move along, nothing to see here.
 * I wasn't pissed about the TBan. I wan't even pissed at Guy for initiating it. If Wikipedians want to have horseshit articles that are an embarrassment to the project, and ban one of the only academics in the field of Chinese sinology and history that's ever given a shit about editing on Wikipedia for fre, who also pretty much only uses the talk pages anyway to make his points and bring everyone back to a discussion on how Wikipedia is supposed to work, then fine, no sweat. Not only do I not despise Guy and his ilk, I really feel sorry for these power tripping crusaders who devote their life to lying to audiences, declaring themselves to be the ultimate authority regarding what the "scientific community" says about a particular topic, while suppressing what the real scientific community (NIH, WHO, NHS, Cochrane and others) also say about that very topic. They worship at the feet of an out of work former scientist, Edzard Ernst, and disregard anything the modern scientific community is continually discovering. Then these crusaders even have the gall to pretend they respect NPOV policies and WEIGHT guidelines and you don't, when they revert you, it's because you were out of line, when you revert them, you're edit warring. And round and round their merrygoround propelled by bullshit goes. No, none of that made me pissed, but when he banned Elquamentary while involved, THAT made me pissed and ArbCom will hear about it. LesVegas (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Les, we'll never be friends. That actually bothers me because I like everybody (ask my project managers). However, there's a fundamental fact about me that I'd encourage you to check out and verify for yourself. I was a Wikipedian, and a Wikipedia admin. before I was a skeptic. Before I even knew what a skeptic was. I was working to defend BLPs before WP:BLP existed. My views, my conclusions and my agenda come from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I suspect that if you asked Jimbo directly, he'd tell you this is true. I am old school, an anachronism. I date back to the days of "fuck process". Look at the version of WP:INVOLVED from the date of my RfA. Oh, wait, you can't: it didn't exist. Topic bans are a good thing because they allow us to control disruption without having to siteban people. Back in the day it was block or not. I always hope that every topic banned editor will find a way to drop the WP:STICK and get the kind of joy out of Wikipedia that I have done. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You know, there comes a certain point when us talk page stalkers get sick of seeing this kind of argumentative crap pop up on our watchlist and we just go ahead and file an ANI report on behalf of the party being subjected to the abuse. I'm just saying; just because Guy's willing to let you vent your spleen on his talk page doesn't actually mean it's okay for you to do it. Half of what you said above is flat out wrong, anyways. So take my advice and drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse. We both know the best you can hope for is to not face any further sanctions, and we both know this sort of behavior isn't likely to result in that. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. Editors subject to topic bans rarely agree with the ban, and very rarely see their edits as anything other than a service to the project. Which is why they are topic banned in the first place. Venting is fine. If LesVegas wants to actually find out my real views or understanding, he can ask, but I doubt he will. I'm a skeptic. Every skeptic I know has this niggling voice at the back of their mind: but what if it's true? I have never met a homeopath or trypanophile who is troubled by such doubts. Hence the proponents of SCAM tend to end up banned, and the skeptics don't. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But Guy, you have actively suppressed Cochrane updates being added to the article, as well as "positive" statements from the NHS and NIH being added. It doesn't matter what you believe, although I have never asked because you've already let everyone know anytime you get a chance. But when you call me a pseudoscience pusher for adding Cochrane updates, or even one time when I added historical sinological tidbits--I mean, it makes your argument look absurd. That other editors support you, and team up on me, only makes it look like a coordinated effort to keep the article in a state of shit only to promote an agenda.
 * Oh and I looked at Elquamentary's edit history and he does look like he might be a sock, so I probably won't take it to ArbCom. I still think you were wrong, and a little more inquiry into Elquamentary might have been warranted. I just got pissed off becuase there's an untold number of editors only since I've started who are "pro- acupuncture " who I've seen banned, some real experts like DocChrissy, and it makes me really pissed off because only skeptics are allowed to edit that article into the ground. Even with me, I broke no rules..I was banned for my viewpoint and don't even pretend I wasn't.. Anyway, forgive me for seeing red, I hadn't looked at Elquamenvary's edit history yet. I won't report you, Guy, so please feel free to destroy more articles. LesVegas (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!". And now I recommend you wander off bfore a passing admin more WP:ROUGE than me notices that you are discussing changes to the acupuncture article. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok well, I took a second look at Elquamentrary's edit history and when you compare it to everyone else who starts on Wikipedia, it looks pretty much identical to a lot of newbies. New editors should be given a chance and good faith should be assumed. Hell, you could've asked for a Checkuser but you just banned him anyway. I think it was to cover your tracks and promote your little agenda in your content dispute, but we'll see what ArbCom thinks. You were involved in the dispute, between he and I so I changed my mind and I'm filing at ArbCom anyway. Anyway, no hard feelings, bro, and Merry Christmas! LesVegas (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've informed LV that further discussion about this block (including the proposed ArbCom case) is a violation of his topic ban and will result in a block. Also, I've removed a comment from this section that Roxy made about someone uninvolved in this issue; don't poke people who are just going to get in trouble when they object to being poked. It's mean-spirited and unfair. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I suggest we all leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Every skeptic I know has this niggling voice at the back of their mind Ahh yes, I know the one. I call him Bob. That's the thing people who dislike skeptics don't seem to get about most skeptics: we're skeptical of our own beliefs, too. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * LesVegas, above wrote one of the only academics in the field of Chinese sinology and history that's ever given a shit about editing on Wikipedia for free. They are apparently talking about Ellaqmentry there?  If so a) i don't see where Ellaqmentry has disclosed that in WP and  b) it would appear that Ellaqmentry  is more likely MEAT than SOCK per se....   LesVegas also seems to be communicating that at least some other people advocating for acupuncture in WP are not editing "for free", which was startling to read....  Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting I'm an expert in a particular subject editing for free. I don't know about any other editors, but of course, I do know about your history of paid editing, so please. LesVegas (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey you are the person who wrote "one of the only" so either you are just making shit up there or you actually are aware of what other advocates are doing.  I have no history of editing for pay, so when you say you "know" stuff it is clearly not reality-based but rather you making shit up.  WP is reality-based which is why you keep running into brick walls here. Whatever -- as the community has declared, dealing with you on acu-matters is a timesink. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "one of the only" in the context of having academic expertise and editing a certain article, not "one of the only" unpaid editors. And I know you think being reminded of NPOV policies and guidelines are a time sink and that's sad, but oh well. I guess that means you're paid by the job, not by the hour. LesVegas (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be able to know the editor is an "academic in the field of Chinese sinology and history" and confidently call them "him" (despite the username starting with "Ella") would indeed suggest WP:MEATy goings-on. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit unfair as LesVegas can't contribute without risking a block, but I will remind people that being an expert in Sinology and acupuncture is almost by definition a problem for Wikipedia - a bit like being an expert on baraminology. Chinese studies of acupuncture are never negative. When your entire field of study is founded on repudiating the null hypothesis before you even begin, you have a problem. It's actually worse than homeopathy: at least some of the cottage industry of homeopathy pseudoscientists admit that they have a mountain to climb when it comes to plausibility. But these are deeply held beliefs. We should be aware of that. If 2016 has shown us anything, it is that beliefs do not change in the face of rational discussion, however convincingly they are shown to be false. My favourite essay on the subject of strong beliefs is WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add one final note: if 2016 taught us anything else, it's that the establishment mob shouldn't dismiss the concerns of the little people. The establishment tried over and over to rig Brexit and the US elections (much like what goes on in the Wikipedia community) and ultimately failed. As a side note, I happen to be in a position where I hear that much of the junk science and coverups put out by the agencies like the CDC will soon be investigated. It'll be funny to see how the Wikipedia establishment community reacts and does their best to sugarcoat scientists getting, say, arrested for fraud. When the angry commoners band together and try beating down the castle's door, all the king's men won't be able to withstand it. Some of the precious articles you all have ruled for a decade, will fall, and with it, your reputations. You will pridefully scoff at my forewarning, and Roxy will no doubt wittily woof, but mark my words, your day of reckoning is coming. I can't wait to laugh when you lose. LesVegas (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's called the endarkenment and I fear you may be right that it's nigh. Fortunately there are (still) enough good Wikipedia editors that Helm's Deep is yet to fall. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the proponents of SCAM are a vicious hate-filled mob who will destroy everything rather than tolerate reality-based opinions that conflict with their dogmas? That's a bit of a bleak view. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that went a bit French revolution very quickly.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The parallel was of course with the election of Trump. That's a better analogy than Les probably thought, since Trump also gained support with glib promises and claims, most of which were bullshit, and is deeply in bed with science denialists and people who will profit from the removal of key regulations which exist to protect the public. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I would love to see some CDC type get arrested for fraud, if their actions warrant it, although I wonder whether the person in a position to know this is maybe just getting it from some woo noticeboards. Beyond that, Guy, I don't know that I've ever seen more acid thrown at anyone on their user talk pages as this thread. Thanks for your efforts and for putting up with all this. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * heartbreakingly sad, that somebody who claims to be an academic and one would think is committed to healing and health, embraces and even threatens ugly pitchfork-and-mob populism driven by fear and ignorance which is yes, an endarkenment that is going on worldwide - the rise of bullshit - speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. We live in dark times. That is some sick shit. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Potco edit
Just to clarify, the edits you made to the potco article are actually confirmed content (Even if some of them weren't sourced).

For example, the Queen Anne's Revenge (From the fourth pirates movie was in Potco back when i played).

As a heads up, you can find tons of info regarding the QAR in Potco (Youtube videos/articles etc) such as the following.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrROcLMVJHc

http://piratesonline.wikia.com/wiki/Will_Scurvyrat's_Guide_to_the_Queen_Anne's_Revenge

As a second example, the developers who developed Potco were indeed Disney's VR Studio. Source: https://www.rpgwatch.com/games/pirates-of-the-caribbean-online-104/news.html

Quoted from article: "Pirates of the Caribbean Online: Q&A @ MMORPG.com by Inauro, 23:03 MMORPG.com is featuring a recently released Q&A session with Mike Goslin, the Vice President of VR Studio, regarding the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean Online."

As a final example, the two projects (Pirates Online Retribution and The Legend of Pirates Online) are developing Potco as both projects were properly sourced in the article.

I would also like to point out the following "And don't accuse admins of vandalism".

There was no need for a hostile statement such as the above, i was only trying to add all the info that was removed back into the article as it was all accurate. Expansions etc.

I have no wish for an argument, i am simply trying to do what any other good editor would do.

I will leave the matter up to you on the info that was removed.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
 * Wikipedia has no concept of "confirmed content". There is that which has reliable independent sources, and that which does not. Neither of the links you provide meets the test. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing discussion about the content of the article. Feel free to join.--Max Tomos (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you think I found this in the first place? ;-) Guy (Help!) 16:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of predatory open access journal sourced content
Hi, you recently removed content from Targeted alpha-particle therapy for being sourced to a "predatory open access journal". While I now see Omics International fits this criteria and the source should not have been used, the section you removed also contained a second citation to a paper in Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. Why did you remove this information given that the source does not appear to fulfil the criteria given on Wikipedia (not on Beall's list and present in a relevant citation index). Thanks, Beevil (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , seminars do not meet the criteria of academic research publications, hence I removed both. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, I shall have to take your word for it given I can find no guidance that would suggest such a source is unsuitable for these claims. Beevil (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to, but I think it's not really controversial to say that seminars and conference papers don't have the same status as fully published papers in journals. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the article is fully published in a journal, but perhaps that is getting into semantics. Regardless I have found alternative sources which are ultimately probably better anyway, so it is still a net gain to Wikipedia. Beevil (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing to add: This being a journal ranked 31 of 124 in its category of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging in the 2015 edition of Journal Citation Reports Beevil (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job, thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Question on your comment on my talk page.
How and where does one "declare any material conflicts" as you suggested I should do? Also, please read my comment on the brain fingerprinting talk page.Neuroscientist1 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Initiating a meaningful dialogue on brain fingerprinting
Please see my comments on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Brain_fingerprintingNeuroscientist1 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi, re this the quotes you were replying to are found in the TPG, and the ed in question was alerted to TPG several hours before they quoted it. So it's possible they're a newbie who actually reads the how-to links people send to them. It's equally possible you're right, too, of course. Just not sure how its helpful to say those things at article talk especially when circumstances are ambiguous. Just a thought. Merry whatever holidays you celebrate NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the American Legislative Exchange Council page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=758525256 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F758525256%7CAmerican Legislative Exchange Council%5D%5D Ask for help])

Template:Undisclosed paid
I'm not sure if it was intentional, but your most recent edit reverted to the template, which was made in order to prevent the double prefixed category Category:Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content from December 2016 from being populated. — ξ xplicit  07:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)