User talk:JzG/Archive 163

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
 * Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BOFH? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Think Geek. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfulfilled
It's a small thing, but I just wanted to point out that my revert actually left out the references to the Star Trek character. I suppose I should have used "partial rv" in my edit description. --tronvillain (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am trying not to care about this, but see above. The exception for plot elements in NOR was originally written for excerpts from books to illustrate the plot. We now have editors writing lengthy novel synopses for every insignificant episode of every popular TV show, entirely from personal observation and interpretation, and it's probably too late to stop it. I don't think this is "Knowledge", it's interpretation, and it's not the purpose of Wikipedia. But in the same way the school wars established that Wikipedia is a directory of schools, a cabal of like-minded editors is likely to maintain this status quo. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick
I have been told you are the administrator responsible for the decision to delete this Wikipedia biography. I am asking you please to reconsider. Dr Kendrick is a Scots doctor who has practised as a GP in Macclesfield, Cheshire, for many years. He is one of an increasing number of GPs who are concerned about aspects of modern medicine and has published several books on the subject for the general reader. As his opinions are highly critical of the status quo, he has had few reviews in the medical journals, who prefer to ignore him rather than answer his specific points. His main concern is that 40 years of intensive research have failed to prove that cholesterol/saturated fat is the cause of cardio-vascular disease, and that the prevailing belief that it is, is the main reason for the huge increase in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes throughout the world. This is possibly the major public health issue of our times and threatens to bankrupt health care systems in many countries. Because Dr Kendrick remains something of an outsider in academic circles, though he is right at the front line of practical medicine, he lack notability in the strict sense of Wikipedia's guidelines. The effect of this is to censor his contributions to an important debate of great public importance. It raises the suspicion that Wikipedia is in thrall to those who profit from the present situation to the detriment of patients. The page about him has been removed by an editor who is now going after other people with similar concerns, but whether this is a personal campaign or is more widely organised is unclear. The page about Dr Kendrick was brief and non-controversial, but gave Wikipedia readers details of his publications and a link to his blog, enabling them to follow his arguments elsewhere if they so wished. If David Icke can retain his Wikipedia page, when a respected physician who wishes to help his patients cannot, there is something very wrong with Wikipedia.Shirley49 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see arguments to avoid regarding deletion. See also our general notability guideline, as noted by editors advocating deletion. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read them both. They need to be applied with flexibility and common sense. Notability now has the effect of turning Wikipedia into an academic cartel, which is extremely elitist, or alternatively, catering only for the widely popular. If somebody's credentials are false, they can be challenged at any stage provided the page remains extant. At present, all those on the inside have to do to suppress unwelcome criticism, is to refuse to review or discuss the outsider's work. Where is the academic ideal of open debate here? A Wikipedia page should not be taken down except in very exceptional circumstances; if necessary it should be amended by agreement, to keep it within the law. Where secondary sources are hard to come by because of the circumstances, what's the hurry? A note asking for them can be affixed, and this will draw the reader's attention to a lack of academic or other credentials which might dent the subject's standing, but increasingly it might not, as conformity within academia seems to be more valued nowadays than it used to be. If Wikipedia wants to discuss controversial subjects it must do so fairly, not insult the minority viewpoint in its pages, and it should also provide a link to a page where the minority can express freely what may, occasionally, in the future, become the accepted truth. Anything else is censorship, which I thought the free world was opposed to. For example, Wikipedia has a page about flat earthers, which discusses them in a reasonably objective way, relating their various beliefs and factions with clarity. But get a subject which is controversial, like the lipid hypothesis, and the bias towards the mainstream view become far more obvious, and this is given the last word in any discussion of the dissenting viewpoints. I stress, once Wikipedia gets the reputation of suppressing free speech from anyone, it will lose whatever reputation it still has more quickly than you or any other administrator can press delete.Shirley49 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All that discussion at the AfD, and you still haven't got it. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 06:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for such rudeness. I would like to ask a simple question I hope - what WOULD make Malcolm Kendrick sufficiently notable for a Wiki biography? Is it number of books published? Or sold? Or the number of peer reviewed papers or what? The number of Google hits for his name? I ask as there is clearly an element of subjectivity involved - but since you were involved in deleting the entry because he was NOT notable you must also be able to say what would reverse this.Boddisatva 13:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPainter (talk • contribs)
 * He could become WP:NOTABLE. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 13:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of categories and 'Reference' section
Hello, JzG. Could you please be more careful when you remove articles' content? I understand that you're a Wikipedia admin, but such edits aren't ok from any perspective. You've removed categories and the 'Reference' section in that article. Well, I hope it was just a mistake.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me to that error, caused by the previous edit breaking the heading formatting through insertion of a spam link. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, JzG. I'm glad it's quickly solved.--Russian Rocky (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi JzG. I noticed today that the page about me was moved in the users page and I perfectly understand the reasons why you did it, however I'm writing you just to understand if and how I can make make that page relevant again, I'm not the one who created the page and I'm aware of what Wikipedia is and so on, I'm just kindly ask you to help me understand what shall be done in order to have the page back in the public section that's all. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincenthorse (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BIO and WP:AUTOBIO. Writing or editing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged due to the inherent conflict of interest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Negro slave(s)
Just wanted to let you know that I've restored Negro slave and Negro slaves: not objecting to the idea of deleting the original vandalism creations [which I didn't restore], but objecting to deleting the good-faith conversion of them into useful redirects by one of the Arbcom members. (They're also not implausible, since they were in common use for decades, and the target covers the topic pretty well.) If you yet find them strongly objectionable, you can go ahead and re-speedy-delete them, as I assure you I won't consider it WP:WHEEL; I'll disagree, but I'll not make any attempt to dispute the redirects or to dispute your administrative actions. Just please cite the diff for this edit if you do redelete them; I don't want us to get dragged into a fight by some third party who fails to notice that I'm okay with restoration. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Point of order, Sir! Joe Roe is not yet an ArbCom member! Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Synopses
Hi. I know you've been here since 2006, so I'm a bit mystified by this, but regarding this edit, just so you know, the content of narrative works, such as books, films, TV episodes, comics, etc, does not require secondary sources, as long as they've been published/released, because those works function as their own primary sources for their content (cast, characters, plot). This is indicated at WP:FILMPLOT, WP:TVPLOT, WP:BOOKPLOT, et al. Most synopses across Wikipedia lack citations, and this is perfectly acceptable. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that is merely a local agreement to ignore policy. WP:NOR has no exception for this. See "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The "looks like a Talosian" stuff unquestionably requires secondary sources, any interpretation does, anything other than a straight statement of the action does. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's not ignoring policy, it is policy. Synopses that are merely descriptive are do not serve to "analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize".


 * The Talosian bit is analytical/evaluative, which is was it was supported by secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But unreliable ones. Anyway, I no longer care. This is a battle that was lost years ago. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Vulture and Forbes magazine are not "unreliable." They are entirely reliable for entertainment-related material like this, which is why they are used thus. Moreoever, you did not just remove the bit about the Talosians, but blanked the entire synopsis.

But yeah, in any event...thanks for responding to my queries. It is much appreciated. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a decision
Instead of giving presents 🎁 this year, I'm giving my opinion. Get excited!! 🎅🏻🎄🤶🎁 Atsme ✍🏻📧 02:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Needles to get out of jail free
(taking discussion of general topic here rather than Talk:Acupuncture) Re "get out of jail free" card:  You're right about blinding, and yet acu is used anyway. Because in clinical practice the placebo issue is irrelevant. Read what User:Jytdog (note, ping removed from Talk:Acu) said to Kww about that here. If there were another established, readily available practice that provided a little extra pain relief beyond usual care -- say, butt plugs and purple hats -- they'd probably use that in academic centers too, and Harrison's etc would mention it. Sounds perverse but I'm only half joking. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 23:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC) | ce 23:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And they could test it using sham butt plugs, or various sizes, and patient-blinded hats of different colors... imagine the possibilities. Love to be a fly on the wall for that.  Still, the evidence would be "low-quality" until they did that to a lot of people...  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 23:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Homeopathists claim the same. And they are wrong, too. Placebo treatments are unethical, especially when (as with acupuncture) there is a possibility of adverse events, but the real reason it persists is because it's profitable. I canot believe any SCAM practitioner would endorse the continued use of a drug after it has been shown to be worthless, yet pretty much every SCAM practitioner is doing exactly that. We know by now that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles or even whether you insert them at all, so all that's left is the therapeutic effect of talk therapy masquerading as woo. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But unlike with homeopathy there's a statistical difference (albeit not a clinically significant one) between verum acu and sham. If that's real (and I suspect it's not, and it's probably an artifact, but I'm not sure and nobody else really is either), then (so goes the argument) it's not unethical to use it even if the observed relief is mostly nonspecific.  Not saying that that's a great argument, but it exists; it's part of the picture.  Anyway, the bigger point is that acu is accepted in mainstream settings & MEDRS, and Wikipedia describes what is, not (only) what should be. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Acupuncture and homeopathy are exactly as effective as each other, it's just more difficult to blind acupuncture properly. This is the absolutely obvious conclusion from Vickers, and an intellectually honest researcher not vested in the outcome of the study would have admitted it. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you don't know that it's just blinding errors -- even though I think you're probably right, you can't prove it. Even Ernst expressed it as a suspicion, not a certainty (he didn't point anything specific in Vickers' methodology).  So we don't treat it as such.  A question, if you don't mind:  above I wrote "Anyway, the bigger point is that acu is accepted in mainstream settings & MEDRS, and Wikipedia describes what is, not (only) what should be."  I assume you disagree with that -- if so why, and how do you justify it from PAG?  Thanks.  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC) | added to cmt 01:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we do know, because the means of blinding has taken a long time to work out. Face it, Vickers is True Believer evangelism and has been busted wide open.
 * I will always dispute your WP:PROFRINGE advocacy, because it's pro-fringe. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't imagine I don't see the game here: repeatedly assert opinions as facts (that should guide the article) and then cry "sealioning" when called on it more than once.
 * As fringe as the sources I cite, yes. Have a better one (<== pun).  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly it. Vickers et. al. repeat opinion as fact, their opinions are financially motivated, and that's why their work is unreliable. Well done. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the fringe, unreliable Harrison's and NICE, not to mention the fringe, unreliable academic medical centers at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, et cetera -- actually it was 9 of the Top 10 US med schools, as of 2014 (according to the fringe, unreliable Gregorian calendar) .  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that NICE are withdrawing their recommendations for acupuncture one by one. Also don't forget that the only reason acupuncture remains covered by any health system is assiduous lobbying by the acupuncture industry, backed by industry funded pseudoscience. Given that the vast majority of acupuncture studies are conducted by True Believers, it is hardly a surprise that Σbullshit=bullshit, the same applied to homeopathy, the trajectory is the same for both. As the quality of evidence increases, the purported effect decreases, until you arrive at the point where it's obvious to everyone but the True Believer that there is no "there" there. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up
Probably nothing, but looks like there's some upset on twitter and your name appears in a screenshot. From what I gather, this particular aggrieved bunch are low-carb diet zealots ... Merry Christmas! Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, apparently the journals are "biased" against them and it's Wikipedia's sacred duty to fix that. Le sigh. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Robert Hooke
Hopefully you have already seen my reply at talk:Robert Hooke.

Meanwhile, I was about to add citation tags to the (credible) material you added to the lead of Robert Hooke. Until I remembered that, per WP:LEAD, citations are not normally needed here because the lead is a summary of the body and that is where the citations will be. Only the body is noticeably thinner than the lead in some respects and specifically there are no relevant citations. So, since clearly you know (or have access to) a lot more about Hooke than I do, may I volunteer you to move to the body a lot of the material that is currently in the lead and then resummarise? Especially to #Oxford and #Newton. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been meaning to do this for ages, but I have a rather ambitious DIY project underway - I am hoping to do some of it over the next week. It has become apparent in recent years that Hooke's contributions were much more substantial than the more tentative early conclusions indicated. His image is of an irascible man, but the more you read on his life the more you have to conclude that he was anything but, at least until his last years, and was in fact both popular and highly respected as a diligent and exceptionally honest man. There's a mountain of evidence that newton was petty, vindictive and vain, and went out of his way to destroy Hooke's reputation. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Given over 300 years has passed, another few weeks are neither here nor there. I can see it becoming quite an undertaking. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Acute stroke imaging
I'm requesting your opinion, as a proponent of removing sources from predatory publishers. There is a new article at Acute stroke imaging which was basically a data-dump of an article from a SM Group e-book, under a CC attribution license. See Talk:Acute stroke imaging As I started to clean up the article and make it more encyclopedic and conform closer to the WP:MOS, I began noticing problems with the Mizra & Gokhale work. In addition the article appears to unnecessarily rehash material from Neuroimaging, CT scan Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging perfusion, and other existing articles. Do these two things make it an overall candidate for a WP:AFD as a WP:TNT? Or would it be better to strike the contents from Mizra & Gokhale and leave a stub for actual development in encyclopedic style from reliable sources? What should be said to the editor, Mikael Häggström, who created the article? --Bejnar (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I moved it to Draft for now. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

your assistance please...
WRT the recent Daily Mail discussion... You seem to have taken a recent look at the original discussion. Could you link to it in the recent discussion? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Klayman
Hi! In April you archived parts of this page, but there is no link to any archive on the current talkpage. Can you fix that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP
Where is the actual link where the Foundation mandates BLP 100% xwiki? You had mentioned this previously at q:WQ:VP. I see m:M:BLP which is a proposal and makes an "encouragement", but I'm not seeing where the Foundation in an official capacity clearly states "this is your local policy whether you like it or not". G M G talk  14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be my faulty memory. My recollection was that it was stated on the mailing lists, but it was a very long time ago and it might just have been a statement of opinion by Jimbo or something. That said, I cannot imagine why it would not be a global foundation policy that unsourced negative material about living people should be nuked on sight. I am sure we could both recount a hundred examples where BLP has been vital to preventing damage to real people. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did find this, although it is still...more diluted wording that I was hoping to find.  G M G  talk  22:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the amendment addresses Commons, but Commons has absolutely refused to take it on board. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mwright1469
May I ask why you've just imposed an indefinite block without consensus when the user had only just returned from a block? Deb (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edits. This is a Gamergate clone. We had dozens of sleeper socks like this during the height of GamerGate, all did exactly the same thing: some superficially reasonable edits, mixed in with gender biased and racially charged content. I do not think this editor will ever be anything ut a source of strife. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please show hard evidence; otherwise assume good faith. Also, why did you not follow Wikipedia etiquette and contact me before reversing my action? Deb (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the contributions. I linked two in my ANI close. And I didn't reverse your action. I took a separate action based on my own review. Sorry that offends you, I have no issues with you, I admire your assumption of good faith - I am just much more cynical. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Deb (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have edited Wikipedia before irregularly as an IP and am somewhat familiar with a few of the policies (how could you not be, considering how one is pounced on by experienced editors citing this or that WP). If you're making a back-door accusation that I'm a sock, I guess you'll have to go in search for evidence. Although sadly, evidence apparently doesn't seem to matter too much around here when instituting indefinite bans. If you decide to remove this comment (absolutely your call of course, it's your page) I will in any case be adding it to the ANI once the page is unprotected, for the sake of completeness and allowing myself to answer your comment publicly. RandomGnome (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)