User talk:JzG/Archive 112

Maybe...just maybe....

...if you'd be a little more charming and a little less abrasive you'd reap sweeter grapes.🍇 Atsme☯^Consult 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I just have limited time for endlessly repeated arguments. Did that ever occur to you? I'm runnign a $1.5m project at work across multiple countries, singing in nine choirs with at least two concerts a month, and trying to do my bit for Wikipedia in what's left. Last weekend I was singing a Missa Superba by Johann Caspar Kerll that has not, as far as we can tell, been performed in England for over 300 years. Next weekend I am singing music by Palestrina, Giles Swayne and others. The weekend after I am singing the baritone solos in a Fauré Requiem and a song by Vaughan Williams. In June it's Poulenc and others, in July, Spem in alium. I also do all the staging and lights for most of my choirs, and create rehearsal recordings for a couple.

What are your hobbies? Guy (Help!) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well... I try to keep in mind a comment by Kenneth Goodman, who is co-director of Ethics programs at the University of Miami:

"Civil society sometimes requires we take a deep breath, recognize many of our compatriots are morons, and press on with grace and dignity. It can make you nuts, but that's what civilization requires."

Admittedly I sometimes forget the 'grace and dignity' bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

True, but usually on Wikipedia the only result of being warm and fluffy towards someone with a no-hope request, is that the request gets spun out endless.y. Better in the long run to say no, politely but firmly, and tell them why. One day I will master the "politely" bit of that. Maybe. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - RL keeps getting in the way. In response to your question about "endlessly repeated arguments", my answer is no, it never occurred to me. The reason being, unlike you, I never got angry or impatient over your endlessly repeated arguments but that's old news. [1] Anyway, just an FYI -- singing in nine choirs should have the opposite effect on you: [2]. I didn't validate the information against a Cochran review but according to science, you should have returned to editing feeling all kinds of love for your fellow Wikipedians . I'm thinking maybe you should have visited a massage therapist and followed it up with a slight chiropractic adjustment to help you relax and get some of the kinks out of your armor. I'd even be willing to pay for it. . One of these days when you don't have such a busy schedule, I'll tell you about my hobbies. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 22:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Along those lines, Guy, Deepak Chopra once offered me a free consultation when I questioned the clinical volume of his medical practice. I haven't cashed it in yet, and if it will help mellow you out, you're welcome to redeem it. Just show up at the front door to the Chopra Empire and tell them you're the famous MastCell, from Wikipedia, and you're there for your free wellness optimization. You could also fork over a few thousand dollars for Transcendental Meditation training; we've got a number of editors here who could probably ring you up if you're interested in that sort of thing. Not that they have COIs or anything, of course. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

MC, I thought he wrote books about sex. No? Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of Sigmund Freud. :) Or maybe Chopra does too, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't include that sort of thing in the free introductory package. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's him, [3] - thought I recognized that name. Guy - I found some stress relief for you!! [4] Recommendation - listen to it before you engage in a discussion with me. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 01:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC) ^{I hope y'all realize I'm just yanking your chain.}

You should check out the Wisdom of Chopra. Also follow DBag Chopra on the twitters. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I cracked a rib laughing. One of my favorites: Making tea comprehends spontaneous facts. And all this time I thought that's what making whoopee did. I'll just have to buy more tea. --Atsme^☎️📧 23:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

John Coleman (news weathercaster)

Why the protection for sockpuppetry? 1) There isn't persistent sockpuppetery. 2) The edit the "sockpuppet" was adding, I took responsibility for. Thus, there is no need for protection. Bgwhite (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations. "Tea Party News Network" as a source in a BLP? Really? And you were prepared tot ake responsibility for that? I have no idea why you would do such a thing. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see what I was doing instead of accusations. Read the article history, the talk page and what I wrote above.

• The Tea Party network wasn't added in 2015. As I said above, I was taking responsibility for what the "sock" added not the entire article.
• OccultZone was saying sockpuppetry was happening daily. This is clearly false. The last confirmed sock edit was April 20 and only three sock edits in 2015.
• OccultZone was complaining about how the "sock" was adding info on the American Meteorological Association and its irrelevance to the article... what I took responsibility for.

Again, why the protection for sockpuppetry? Bgwhite (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at the source in the diff you just posted. Tea Party News Network. Slightly less reliable than The Onion. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at another ref. The ref you are pointing to... The video at the bottom, at 42 seconds in Coleman states he left the AMS and why. The video was put up and produced by KUSI, San Diego while Coleman was still working for KUSI. I'll redo the ref and point have it say it was from KUSI.

For the third time, answer my question. Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And in order to discuss it we need a reliable independent secondary source that establishes the significance of his statement, and how the reality-based community reacted to it. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB... see talk page and fringe noticeboard entry.. You are not answering my question and instead attacking MY edit. My question has nothing to do with the edit. For the fourth time, why the protection for sockpuppetry. Bgwhite (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Status

I'm mainly offline for the rest of today, Saturday 16-May-15. I will be singing music by Henry Purcell, Giovanni Gabrieli, Arvo Pärt, Giles Swayne and others. As per the page header, any uninvolved admin is free to reverse any admin action I've taken as long as they drop me a courtesy note - nobody is infallible, especially me. Have a great day, Wikipedia, I certainly intend to. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I insist on a link to your performance....PLEASE? --Atsme^☎️📧 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

^{Please don't tell me you hold grudges. And if you do, how is that physically possible? I think holding a grudge is PS, and I refuse to believe you could possibly be guilty of doing anything that would promote PS. --Atsme📞📧 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)}

A recording was made, I haven't heard it yet. Today I am working on Tallis' Spem in Alium, on Saturday I'm singing the solos in a Fauré Requiem and a song by Vaughan Williams as a solo. June 28 is V-W, Elgar, Diepenbrock, Poulenc, Debussy, Schroyens, Brahms and Mauersberger. I turned down two gigs singing solos in Captain noah and his Floating Zoo. Concert schedule is a bit bare after July though. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Wow!! For sure you have to share the solos with us. How exciting!! 🎤📻📀 --Atsme^📞📧 23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemonics help

The Chemonics PR people are back spinning and I'm a noob. Any chance you can help out? Thanks! Jon335 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If it carries on, please request semi-protection. 08:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:LearningRx

List the references on the talkpage you think are not acceptable. Because in the state that it is, the article will be unfairly voted to be deleted. And while you're at it, tag the content you feel is un-encyclopediac so others will be drawn into the discussion.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I tagged the article so other editors may see it and improve it. The previous edits had too much content lost. We should specifically identify and target these primary sources instead of deleting so much content. But before that we should reach cosnenesus which part needs deletions otherwise we'll end up edit warring over this, which I don't want.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You mustn't restore challenged material unless it is reliably sourced. That's the rules. What's your connection with the subject? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar, I thought you are a sock for Lumosity (based on your self admission), but it looks like you are too concerned about LearningRx. That explains things, unlike LearningRx which is a "Herbalife" of brain training, Lumosity is doing quite well and could afford to hire some rotten Wikipedia admin to promote it... Wiki-shield (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Who, exactly, are you accusing of taking money from Luminosity? I need to eb absolutely clear on this, because if it's me I will have to ask another admin to block you, but if it's another admin I can block you myself. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting... You better read Taeyebaar's statement and my response re Lumosity instead of threatening me here. You seem to be a bit too quick with your actions...

• I have no connection to the subject. If you checked the citations, one was critical of the program by a psychologist. And I have done the same for other brain training programs to keep them balanced. I still don't get your issue with the refs and don't know where else it was challenged, and no they were not primary at all. I have no idea what this "wiki-shield" is on about.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits of Cogmed article

Any explanations why did you remove 80% of article incl. history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? This is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every psychologist and mental health professional in US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. There is over 45 independent research studies from top universities and research labs supporting benefits of Cogmed training. There are only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are disproportionally inflated in popular media as, being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma. As a psychotherapist, I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes: it was poorly sourced promotional content. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Research is a promotional content???Wiki-shield (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In this context, very much so. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you are butchering Cogmed article again... What is your problem there??? You repeatedly removed properly sourced material regarding 54 independent research studies supporting Cogmed training benefits claiming that this is a promotional text... Since when mentioning supporting research by Harvard, John Hopkins, UCD, etc. is a promotion? The sentence you removed was as neutral as possible. I read WP:MEDRS and it doesn't apply in this context. Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV i.e. the article should reflect the facts rather than personal opinions. And the fact here is that Cogmed is supported by 15 years of extensive research from top universities in the world, only a couple of researchers object it. As a result of your edits it now reads like there is only a negative study about Cogmed, which clearly contradicts WP:NPOV. Wiki-shield (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer a topic ban or a site ban? Either is available, depending on how you continue to pursue your rather obvious agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sham surgery

Hi, Guy, this is fascinating, but surely that study, or a very similar one, was published well before 2013? I remember reading about it, at a time when I was having a lot of knee pain and was considering that procedure, which would put it in the early 2000s. Sham surgery might not be really ethical, I'm not sure. But it was incredibly eye-opening for me, so I have to be glad somebody had the boldness to conceive the possibility of studying surgery placebo effects. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

You're probably right, I am reasonably sure I'd heard of it before this study as well, but I did not know if that was form pre-publication reports. I was disappointed, I have a bum knee... Guy (Help!) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Stumbled across this discussion; with a similar topic, you might find this article interesting: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/upshot/the-placebo-effect-doesnt-apply-just-to-pills.html?_r=2&abt=0002&abg=1 The Placebo Effect Doesn�t Apply Just to Pills] 108.181.201.237 (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so there was a 2002 study. That fits very well with my recollection. It got a lot of attention at the time � I'm pretty sure it was reported on the news where I live, even. Thank you, 108. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC).

SCAM

It's clever, and using it may be cathartic, but I strongly suspect it doesn't help in winning people toward your view (which usually is my view, and my motivation for writing this). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I know, I know. It's a reaction on my part to the idea of "integrative medicine"> Where are the "integrative engineers" who use spaghetti for cables on bridges because organic? Where are the "integrative bakers" who make holistic use of the entire solanoideae family? We seem to be living through peak "other ways of knowing". Guy (Help!) 20:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I make my living by studying "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. A friend of mine is a climate scientist, worked at JPL for a while but had to go back to Nederlands after the "Laa Laa I'm Not Listening Act" or whateverthefuck. I think these guys want to die rich and take the planet with them. When I rule the world, I will make everybody at Fox News work in disaster relief until they get it. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to google. Well, it isn't Obama or Eastwood, so it must be global warming? -Roxy the Mainstream dog" (resonate) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Eastwood? Oh, that's a hoot. "I know what you're thinking. 'Will sea level go up by two meters or only a half?' Well, to tell you the truth, there's enough difference in estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity that I'm not quite sure myself. But seeing as business-as-usual will bring us to CO2 concentration around 900 ppm by the end of the century, and the Antarctic ice cap has never existed with a concentration above 750 ppm, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You win 1 (one) internet. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicely put. But... the man himself has now found biblical evidence that CC is real; don't you think your Clint's being a bit arrogant? . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice thing about the life of an avionics engineer: so long as the planes don't crash, there's a de facto assumption that my theories about how to design user interfaces for pilots are good.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder how many devotees of chiropractic would fly in a plane serviced by people with a complete alternate theory of how jet engines work. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Please have a look at this case--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Imagine that: a sockpuppet. Who predicted that? Guy (Help!) 08:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cogmed

Mind taking a look now at Cogmed and letting me know what you think? I believe there is still enough of a story there for others to further expand (positive, negative, and neutral). As I said at my talk, I have serious doubts about their program (I wouldn't let me grandchildren near this group). Hopefully, our article reflects the considerable academic skepticism whilst still presenting what the company at least claims to do. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Off singing

I'm off to sing in a concert. Back late this evening or possibly tomorrow, UK time. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Rhumidian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of questionable diagnostic tests, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Rhumidian (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Wilmshurst

Cas Liber (talk � contribs) 08:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your block rationale

Your blocking comment - what racist remarks? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WUWT

Thank you for your well considered efforts to resolve this long simmering debate. I may not frequently agree with you but I find your efforts at the RfC very helpful to the project. Well done. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing backlinks after deletions

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Micronesian Empire this morning as an expired PROD, but did not remove the backlinks as recommended at WP:PROD#Deletion. These are mainly from Template:Federated States of Micronesia topics, so I edited that just now. If you normally do this but overlooked it in a busy moment, please forgive me for raising it. Otherwise, I hope this is helpful. Thanks for your work here! � Fayenatic London 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The tool didn't do the needful, for some reason. May have been a glitch my end. Is it all fixed now? Guy (Help!) 21:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There are still direct links that were not from the template – I've deleted a few more but left some for you. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

All clear now, thanks. Somehow the talk page was left, but I've removed that too. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WUWT edit

Re this edit There's no evidence that skepticism is "widely characterised as [[climate change denial]" In the talk section, there is one source which makes this claim, but one source does not in any way translate into "widely". Please self-revert.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, is it now considered acceptable for an established editor, which zero edits to an article, to jump in an make a contentious edit while an edit war is in progress, without even attempting to see if there is consensus? You are simply fueling the fire, not helping to solve the problem. If you want to make an NPOV edit while the debate is in progress, why not remove both skepticism and denialism, leaving it described neutrally as a blog dedicated to climate issues, and the editors can then work to a consensus about what the reliable sources say?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, perhaps you're misreading the edited text, which says that WUWT promotes a " 'skeptical view' of climate change, widely characterised as climate change denial: the sources already cited support that statement. Neutrality, in particular weight and WP:PSCI, requires that we show what these reliable sources say. Your proposal violates policy. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that climate "skepticism" is legitimate skepticism. We bend over so far backwards to pander to these idiots that if we're not careful we will end up with our heads up our own arses. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, we are not here to pretend that shills for big oil and the useful idiots who enable them, are a legitimate part of scientific debate. The scientific debate is in the published literature, and the consensus is robust: the "skeptics" are in denial about this, we should and must call it what it is. And yes, long-term editors are allowed to come to articles with entrenched opinions and try to break the deadlock. In fact, it's encouraged, especially where there is a hard core of editors promoting fringe views. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on a pretty old RfC close

Hey. I ended up reading this old RfC on the reliability of Iranian sources after linking it to a new user, and I was wondering if you could expand a bit on your closing comments (sorry if this is too far in the past). In the RfC there were a few debates about the reliability of apolitical Iranian sources, for instance Iranian magazines about animals and hobbyist things, or Iranian scientific publications. Should the default on these sorts of sources also be not to include, or were the closing comments more in reference to political newspapers and the like? Thanks Bosstopher (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If they are politically controlled, then they are suspect. Scientific publications would normally be fine absent osme evidence of aosm eother source of systemic bias (as is the case with Chinese journals and acupuncture, for example, where pretty much 100% of all Chinese-published studies are positive). Does that answer your question? Guy (Help!) 23:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Partly, thanks. With regard to hobbyist magazines, the sort of publications I'm talking about would be liable to government censorship (I think) but not actually controlled by the government. But the sort of topics they'd be covering would be the sort of apolitical stuff that nobody would bother censoring. Bosstopher (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Impossible to say as a generalisation, so treat each case on its own merits. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)