User talk:JzG/Archive 176

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Input, please

Guy, to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS with reference to the university a doctor attended back in the 1950s, would painbytes.com be acceptable to cite? Also, if the biographical info of a notable published doctor is included in a 2014 journal by a listed predatory publisher, are we not allowed to cite that source for that info only or are we blacklisting all such journals because of their unethical practices? The doctor was attending the medical university in Budapest nearly 70 years ago when the Hungarian Revolution broke out so it’s probably assumed to be the one and only at the time. A couple of sources refer to him as attending medical school at the university in Budapest but don’t name it, whereas the few I’ve found online do name it. Atsme Talk 📧 13:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, we would not use a predatory publisher's bio for two reasons: first it's a predatory publisher and second the biography will be self-sourced (the journal will have no staff to write these). Painbytes doesn't allow access for me so I have no idea who it is. It's OK to use a RS that says Budapest and just omit the institution if necessary but some trivial information can be self-sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF so if a RS says Budapest and a non-independent sources says the name of the institution that would broadly be OK. You could also see if huWP has anything usable (sources don't have to be in English), someone at WP:WikiProject Hungary may be able to help with translation. Guy (help!) 19:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thx - for PainBytes, Google brought up this, this, see Table 3, Recommended Resources, and this reference for PainBytes. I'm thinking it's ok as a RS to cite for verification of a university the BLP attended. Atsme Talk 📧 22:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, doesn't look MEDRS to me but you could ask someone like Doc James or SandyGeorgia. Guy (help!) 23:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What text are you trying to support with what source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Doc - the following: He attended Semmelweis University Medical School, and it was during his second year there that the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 had begun. Using this source (pg 15-16}. Atsme Talk 📧 00:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on the other sources you found that recommend painbytes.com, I think you're OK here. BUT ... you said you had some higher quality sources that put him in Hungary, but don't name the institution, so you are only relying on painbytes for the name of the institution, right? In that case, I would spell all that out in the footnote, where you use the higher quality source as well. Source A says he attended medical school in Hungary, while source B says the school he attended was Semmelweis. I agree with JzG that I wouldn't use the predatory journal in any case-- this is exactly the kind of thing they might get wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry XMAS!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well JzG. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Trying to fix page "Juan Pavón" multiple issues

Hi JzG, In this change, back in Sept 2016, you highlighted multiple issues of that page. Since I understood then I had a COI with the topic (I know Juan), I stayed apart from the article, hoping others would work on it. In this time it had multiple minor editions, but I believe no one performed the rewriting work it needed. Thus, 3 years later, I did it, but I would rather not remove maintenance templates because of my past relation with him/potential COI. Could you please double check the page quality now and if deemed appropriate remove the maintenance templates that make sense to remove? I would also appreciate any advice you can give me to tackle the pending issues and improve the overall quality of the article. Thank you.Samer.hc (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

AE you closed

Edit5001 has been unblocked. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with

this blacklisting. E. Bik (and other reputed media covering these tales) have often referenced his articles and we need to decide on a per-case basis. By default, we shall not ever use such sources but ..... ∯WBGconverse 11:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, He spammed it. We do have a whitelist. Guy (help!) 11:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
We have EFs for a purpose. ∯WBGconverse 12:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
On further scrutinizing your contributions, you removed a link from Axel Haverich. I note that the link was present since the article-creation, and Ekem is an autopatrolled editor. Most probably, he was not spamming. Same over Olivier Voinnet, where the link was added by Wiki-vr.mp, an editor in quite longstanding.
May-be, you can explain if spamming by a single IP over BethAnn McLaughlin warrants using the blacklist? ∯WBGconverse 12:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe if you explain why a self-published source is valid for negative content in that BLP? If nobody has commented on these statements in independent RS then it's WP:UNDUE, and if they have, we can use the independent RS. Yes, I removed it from more than one place. The reasons should be obvious. The reasons for including self-published negative content in biographies, not so much. Guy (help!) 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
, As Guy says, we have a whitelist. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to find the original problem article - the report may have been courtesy blanked. I did not conjure this out of thin air, it came from a noticeboard report, and it wasn't one of the three articles from which I removed the link after posting at the blacklist (that was cleanup prior to blacklisting). It's possible I can't find the content because it was suppressed. Leonid Schneider has something of a reputation for trenchant comments. There were never more than a tiny handful of links though. Guy (help!) 13:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi JzG what do you actually mean with "he spammed it" ? I know that Leonid Schneider is known for a rather harsh way to say things, but that his just his style. His articles are always on the point, often used as a source for reputable newspapers or other scientists. He is also (and this is important) one of the first that dares to speak up about fraud, giving him a lot of trashtalk and backlashes (he has even faced several trials because of this and he has pretty much never lost any in regard to the claims concidering the fraud because he was always right when it came to the fraud)Garnhami (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Garnhami, I am still trying to find the original article, I think it may have been suppressed. The site was added forcefully and likely by Schneider himself given the language. None of the three instances I removed was legitimate per WP:ABOUTSELF or any other exception to RS.
Edzard Ernst also makes robust comments about quacks. We cite them in third party RS, not his own blog. Guy (help!) 00:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

AN thread related to an action you made

You probably should have been notified about it, but this AN thread is about an action you performed recently. I don't think anything else needs to be said there about the action in question, but I'm letting you know so that you can pursue other appropriate action for the article in question. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:ACR bottom

Template:ACR bottom has been nominated for merging with Template:Cem bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jesus Permuy

Greetings! In August 2018 you moved "Jesus Permuy" to draft due to its poor sourcing. I have been pecking away at it, and I think it is now suitable for mainspace, albeit with room for further improvement. Let me know what you think. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

BD2412, looks good to me. I am concerned about the promotional tone of the original editor's contributions but yours are fine of course. Guy (help!) 10:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. I'll move it back and peck through the remaining issues in mainspace. BD2412 T 13:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ping

Would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and tell me (on MEDMOS's talk page, or ping me) whether you think that you/other experienced editors are likely to be able to provide some sort of constructive response to the question? If it's seriously screwed up, I want to know ASAP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think it will end up at ArbCom. They are not interested in focusing on a resolvable scope. Guy (help!) 23:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Theoretically, none of that should prevent me from writing a decent RFC question. Do you think this will confuse people too much? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I think they will derail it, but please do have a go. Guy (help!) 09:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the sanity check. I appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ping on maintenance templates on article Juan Pavón

Hi, on December 21 I pointed out here (in this archived Talk page) some maintenance templates you had inserted in that article, and that now I attempted to fix. Since I received no reply and the talk page is now archived, I bring it up again, hope it's ok. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate procedure, or if you can point me out to another experienced editor who could handle this issue. Thanks a lot. Samer.hc (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

DRV Followup

At the [[1]] for Tiff's Treats you endorsed but qualified that you had slight reservations. Could you explain more what your reservations were? It seems like you were saying I super voted but then say I wasn't and so I didn't quite understand what your reservations were. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, it was a defensible action but it had a distinct whiff of supervote. The challenge was not insane but imo the result should be delete. Guy (help!) 10:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Thoughts about how the close should have been worded so as to avoid a whiff of supervote? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, sorry for the delay. I'd have noted that the balance of arguments to delete were stronger based on policy and I'd have explicitly mentioned HighKing's well argued demonstration that many of the sources are trivial and look like press releases, not intellectually independent coverage. In other words, show your working a bit more, so that it doesn't look like your own judgment of the article but demonstrates that it's a thorough analysis of the deletion debate itself. I am sure that is what you did, so all you need to do in close calls like this is to explain the closing rationale a little more clearly. Guy (help!) 10:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've generally avoided trying to call out editors by name in AfD closes and so yes I was referencing HK's work in that close. I'll rethink this practice. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, you keep on being you, my friend. All I am saying is that if it';s contentious, more rationale in the close is always helpful. Guy (help!) 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

spamlisting literally fake news sites

I showed this edit to the loved one and she did a thumbs up - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I approve this message. Guy (help!) 23:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Brian MArtin

Yes we should advise new users how to act, on their talk page yes, but it strikes me as a tad self defeating to clutter up a talk page with lectures about not cluttering up talk pages. We are hardly going to convince users behavior is wrong if we our selves engage in it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, he! Yuo're not wrong. But it is annoying: chinese water torture with pings. Guy (help!) 10:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

B737

I have made a proposal to restructure the B737 page at Talk:Boeing_737#Restructure_of_article. Your input is invited. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

New Peter Schweizer book on the way

I noticed via this opinion column in the WaPo that we might have "citations" to the next Clinton Cash incoming soon. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous edits on Lancet MMR autism

Ok I give up. Please see my comments on that talk page. Apparently you guys prefer amateur interpretations of scientific controversies and regurgitations to real references to primary literature. So be it and the last time I will attempt to contribute any serious effort to Wikipedia.

If the policy on synthesis is followed literally, I guess all that Wikipedia can contain is regurgitation of quotes. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

PeterNSteinmetz, did you read WP:SYN? Guy (help!) 23:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look at it after you pointed it out. I think these sort of policies will basically ensure that Wikipedia does not receive many contributions from content experts -- frankly we don't have the time to deal with all this.

It would be one thing if the editors bothered to try and help people with significant contributions integrate things into the Wikipedia way. But all that happened here was someone who is not an expert on the subject looked and tried to find one of perhaps several thousand such policies to justify reverting the edits, despite it being acknowledged that there was significant research contributed.

I think it confirms what I used to tell my students - Wikipedia is not a bad place to start to pick up pointers to material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNSteinmetz (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

PeterNSteinmetz, it's been policy from day one. And I pointed you to the Talk page where people can help you integrate what you know into the article. Guy (help!) 08:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Kaitlin Bennett

Hello JzG, hope all is well. I saw that you added PC protection on Kaitlin Bennett yesterday. Since then, almost all of the edits have been vandalism. I was just wondering if temporary semi protection would be better in this situation. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi Guy, how can you tell if an AE topic ban is still in force? If the relevant year of the log doesn’t list it as having been lifted, can it be assumed that it’s still active? Brunton (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably, Brunton, but it's also possible that it was lifted, say, the year after. Some admins will strike out a no longer active sanction (I do that), but some may not. To be safe, you'd better search the entire log for the username. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen, that only brings up the original log entry. Brunton (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Brunton, I have no idea - I suspect it relies on people remembering to update the pages, as you suggest, so I guess the only way to be sure would be to ask the user or search the arb subpages for the username. Which is tedious. Who is it? Guy (help!) 21:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
[2] Brunton (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Although it's nonsense, I actually thanked him for that edit, as it is an honest attempt to shed light on a topic. Subject matter experts...and all that. Even nonsense is a subject we have to cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen

Virginia Citizens Defense League. I was prompted to come here by a recent edit of yours stripping self-sourcing. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, ugh. And something tells me that Democratic Backsliding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) won't be troubling us for long. Guy (help!) 12:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
CIR?[3] Normally "aftermath" doesn't mean "things that happened before the event". And I'm not sure what point was intended it making sure it was clear it happend on MLKJr Day. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_176"