User talk:JzG/Archive 216

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 2024

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Burzynski Clinic has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Your edit inserts Reuters' copyrighted content.
"Online claims that the drugs are a cancer “cure” and that any of them has been FDA-approved are misleading" =
"Online claims that the drugs are a cancer “cure” and that any of them has been FDA-approved, are misleading".
You're a comma short of verbatim copy. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's plagiarism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a summary of what the source says, and is entirely appropriate. If you really insist, you can put it in quotes, but it's unnecessary because it is a de minimis quote. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a concise statement of the facts. There's no need to rewrite it in a contorted, sub-optimal way. In any case, copyright is not applicable to single sentences. It could go in quotes, but it's not plagiarism because it's cited. Jehochman Talk 01:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It is the exact wording from the source, but one comma was added. Fair use clearly applies here, but it would still need to be attributed and be enclosed in quotes. A paraphrase would only need the source. BTW, my clarification that it is plagiarism is directed against the claim of copyright infringement. That's overkill. Plagiarism is the correct word. That's all, and it's not a big deal. Shit happens. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I said 'that's overkill' the other day. You are plagiarizing me! And quoting me out of context!
This is how silly this sounds. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
LMFAO! Cool. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable approach. WP:ATT or whatever. But the OP is apparently a fan of batshit insane anti-medicine conspiracy theories. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Burzynski Clinic, you may be blocked from editing. With https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=1196870669 you removed two reftags. For which you have no good excuse. You also added incorrect information about the number of trials. An finally you removed fact and fv tags. On what bases, specifically? None. {{tfact|date=January 2024}} doesn't require talk page discussion. {{fv|reason=Not mentioned in SBM-Gorski-2017.}} doesn't require talk page discussion. What about my edit changed the article in any way that was controversial in terms of what readers saw? Nothing. Only, I made an edit and you have irrational negative beliefs about me. </nowiki> So again, why remove each of those things? Your ES doesn't explain any of it. Trigger happy much? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User_talk:JzG, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=1197266633 I'm not. I've said very clearly that most of the negative info on Burzynski is true. Your comment was false but even if true, it was a personal attack.

Read my words again, slowly: To be clear, as far as I know, he's a fraud. I'm fine with much of the negative content about Burzynski and his Clinic. But in looking into it, I'm finding a lot of clearly false statements about him. I'm not a fan of fraud or defamation. ... Wikipedia will do a lousy job of convincing people that he's a fraud, if it continues to peddle demonstrably false claims about him. Consider: Do you contest or agree with the last sentence?

And the blowing off and denial of what was blatant copyright violation and plagiarism disgusts me. As a result, I suspect it is the tip of an iceberg. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

RudolfoMD, two things:
  1. This edit summary is way over the top. It's a clear violation of WP:AGF and thus a personal attack: "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Burzynski Clinic."
  2. Stop templating the regulars. Save templates for newer editors, not old timers like JzG and me.
Compared to us dinosaurs, you're a newbie. Guy (JzG) has been an admin for a very long time, and I've been here since 2003. Stop talking to us as if we're ignorant newbies. We aren't perfect, but be civil and always AGF. Instead of accusing, try asking. Instead of treating Wikipedia like a battleground, aim for a more pleasant communication style. (Yes, I know I also fail in this area.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You have fewer than a thousand edits and 8 months experience, you're butting heads not just with me, but with multiple more experienced editors and admins, and yet you seem to think the problem is everybody else. I suggest you pick an editing topic that is well clear of WP:FRINGE until you have more experience. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Hooke citation

I've been working recently to get Robert Hooke up to GA standard. Almost there. A mere () five years ago, with this edit, you cited Gibben & Gibben as crediting him with the work that led to Boyle's law. Unfortunately you didn't give a page number. Do you still have access to the book? If so, would you let me have the page number (or even update the article yourself), please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that my local library has a copy, so unless you still have the page marked, feel free to leave it with me to dig it out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have the paperback edition (Gribbin J, Gribbin M (2018). Out of the Shadow of a Giant: how Newton stood on the shoulders of Hooke & Halley. London: William Collins). At page xiii it has, "It is now widely accepted that it was Hooke who discovered what is now known as 'Boyle's Law' of gases..." and at page 19 it has, "Boyle was short-sighted and bad at arithmetic, so we know for sure that it was Hooke who not only designed the experiment but also made the careful observations and records" that led to the law. I can't guarantee that the pagination is the same as the 2017 hardback. Brunton (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, my friend, you have saved me an anxious search through the attic :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I do, but it is packed up, alas, due to remodelling work at home. I could have asked Lisa Jardine (we discussed this online) but she is, alas, no longer with us. I salute you for taking on this tremendously important subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It's also in Gunther, by the way, I believe in his reproduction of Waller. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

ZTE Open C

I am a user of the product and saw the article was deleted and your name was in it. Can you explain how to get it accepted? Search the name online return many products. There are concerns of technocracy against this handy product, not helping censorship, so it discontinued Intodefinitecubic (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You need reliable independent sources discussing the product in depth (not just listings, blogs or whatever). An article in Computer Weekly would usually suffice, but not if it's paid advertorial. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Turbo cancer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Turbo cancer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. R3ap3R (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that was spectacularly ill-judged. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation

Hello @JzG

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, nice! Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have thrown in the towel after all the nastiness. Unfortunately, this sets a bad precedent, as now AGF and NPA are openly allowed. The actual content and sourcing are ignored. An editor's personal political opinions are being used against them, which is a clear PA:

"Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

No one has shut down the attacks, hatted the thread, and issued warnings. I don't recall having any problems with Chris Troutman before, but he's a nasty one.

Imagine threats to AFD an article because of one well-sourced mention of Trump. No other reason! One short mention makes it an ATTACK PAGE????

"Although none of the wikilawyering, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or lack of a consensus to exclude are convincing, in the interests of calming the waters, I'm removing the mention of Trump. The Trump exception rule prevails, yet again. Continuation of this thread is unlikely to shed more light, only heat, and that's not good." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Consciousness_of_guilt#COATRACK Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_216"