User talk:JzG/Archive 82

Copy of Sheldon Brown's Cyclists' Touring Club certificate

"He was honoured by the Cyclists' Touring Club for his exceptional work (I have a scan of the certificate, which I was responsible for sending to him). "

I can't find any mention of the certificate on the CTC site. Do you know where I might find it online? It might help silence the nay sayers. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

* AASHTA :o) http://sheldonbrown.com/org/journal/journal-0309.html Guy (Help!) 00:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, this is just what I was looking for. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Who are the Cycling Touring Club? Are they cited as reliable sources by some recognised authority in cycling, such as Halfords? If they issued this certificate themselves, doesn't that count as being a WP:SPS, which means that I've got an ALLCAPS wikilink into a sentence and so I win? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The oldest cycling club in the world. We have an article: Cyclists' Touring Club. They are the authority by which we would judge Halfords, not the other way round. That's a bit like asking if Walgreens endorse the FDA as an authority. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"silence" the nay sayers huh? That sounds like some serious WP:POV and "trust me" fallacy right there. By default, if its not WP:V, its a nay. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See my talk page for a reply to comments that appear to be addressed to me. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If one were brain-dead enough to believe that in order to be verifiable, something must be available on a website which is authoritative, independent and also does not support or endorse the subject, then yes. But that's not what WP:V says. The fact that he was recognised by CTC is trivially verifiable,as is the age and stature of CTC as an organisation, as is the standing of Sheldon Brown as a cycling expert, verified from reliable independent sources. An American bicycle mechanic warranted an obituary in The Times of London. Doesn't that suggest to you that perhaps the cyclists in the discussion are right and the naysayers are, to use a technical term, wrong? Guy (Help!) 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You summed up with: Consensus is clear: Sheldon Brown's website is a reliable source, as attested by reliable independent commentators— yes, yes, good. But you continue —and informed dissent cited. Am I just suffering from caffeine deficiency, or is this unclear and perhaps better reworded? -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One of us is, for sure... I fixed it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical references

Hi, maybe you will find this useful: User:Richiez/Medical references quick and easy Richiez (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic RfC discussion

There is a discussion on the talk page of article chiropractic which you've heavily contributed. It would be grateful if you would chip in on the RfC. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

COI

Leaving aside the recent specific discussion on the Chropractic article, I find COI a fascinating topic and think (based on my RL experience) its potential for damage in much underappreciated on WP. I am seeking admin's advice -- are there any avenues I might pursue (as a fresh-ish editor) to broaden my understanding of this topic and ultimately help to ensure COI dangers are better understood on WP? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)