User talk:JzG/Archive 98

DRV Closure

For some reason the signature in your closure didn't turn out... Good close by the way. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd. My template-fu is weak, sadly. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to subst: both the top and bottom templates (I haven't closed DRV before, so had to look it up). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! Of course. I knew that, but had forgotten. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Traditional Chinese medicine

Your statement of the case and any comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I already did. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I re-read your reply to my comment at that DRN more carefully, and am in agreement that we could just take your wording, more or less, and state it as fact. Where I differ (surprise, surprise) is with QG's insisted-upon wording, which represents a highly flawed reading of the source. See: Talk:Acupuncture#More_re_TCM_.26_pseudoscience_wording --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk

Your comment..."Men who stare at goats was not a documentary"....was better than the movie. Thanks for the laff. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ

How come this POV-pusher, legal threatener, and possible troll hasn't been blocked yet? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Because we play nice with BLP subjects until they give us no choice. Which is not that far down the road now, sadly. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in this, also see the comments. [1] Goblin Face (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This may not be relevant but the person on that link above in the comment section called Ben Steigmann is telling Targ to take legal action against Wikipedia and telling others to remove pseudoscience from parapsychology articles is a banned Wikipedia user. On his IP 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) he has admitted to being a banned sock puppet (you will need to read his two posts), here he admits it here [2] "I'm Ben Steigmann and my only former two sockpuppets are Pottinger's Cats and Blastikus, aside from many IPs".

These are just some of his socks:

[3],

[4],

[5],

[6].

The IP that was editing Targ's article was most likely him, as he has admitted he has had "many IPs" he's probably still on Wikipedia but there's not much that can probably be done about it. Goblin Face (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Logging of a ban

Hello JzG. Per your recent notice to LCcritic, please consider logging this community topic ban in WP:RESTRICT. That will simplify matters for admins who may encounter the issue in the future if any enforcement is needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, timely reminder. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of an invitation, I'd actually logged the community topic ban for you in the edit preceding yours at that page. I'd thought that it was inadvertantly missed and you wouldn't mind, but since noticing your edit to log the sanction again, I figured I had better be sure you were aware - and then noticed this thread on your talk page. My initial reaction was that I should revert my uninvited action, but having reflected on it, I think it would be better to check what you prefer. In fact, it would be better if you make the reversion you think is needed without waiting for me to come online next, but I'm fine either way. What I've found is that even with some of the useful work which emerges from enforcement, there are issues, including (1) the way in which some users have been going about their "enforcement" (or use of so-called discretion) (2) the disproportionate level of importance those users imposed on themselves being in that category and the apparent arrogance those users have then exhibited at enforcement discussions or otherwise; and (3) the way in which the previous two issues have been encouraged, permitted, endorsed, or forced within the project, directly or indirectly. It's my wish that the latter issues are not furthered anymore, even by trivial stuff like this. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I got called away. I will review and log if necessary now. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban list

Hi Guy, just wondering, concerning this recent topic ban of user LCcritic, shouldn't he be listed here? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, hadn't seen the similar message above. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all good, I got distracted and should have remembered to go back and log it. It's done now, feel free to tweak the text if you want, I'm not precious about it. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Darkwarriorblake

Your edit to that page just popped up on my watchlist, I did want to give you a heads up that it has a typo blocked form should be blocked from Werieth (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I cannot type accurately due to burn scars on one hand. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A gift for you to cherish forever!

The awesome COWSTAR...usually awarded to those who have had to put up with a huge amount of "stuff".--MONGO 18:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

See any problem here?

Hi Guy - Am I the only one who thinks that there's a problem when stuff like this needs to be pointed out to a veteran editor? IIRC, you were frustrated with similar stuff as well. Dunno what can be done, just wondering if you see any problem. Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Middle 8: I have a real issue with QuackGuru's style. I mean, I am rude, aggressive, obnoxious and determined, but QG leaves me in the dust for all those things. Plus, he has a tendency towards owning articles, he really doesn't collaborate well at all. I am a skeptic (see my blog), I still have a big problem with what QG writes and he appears to think that any edit not skeptical in exactly the terms he would like, is supportive of quackery. So, it's difficult. I think the time to start collecting diffs again may be approaching. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good -- I'm not nuts, or at least no less nuts than you. ;-) I'm past my daily WP time-dedication-limit so more later, and I will check out that blog. BTW, believe it or not, there are some good reviews that actually cite data that acupoints are biomedically distinct from non-acupoints... though that doesn't mean they work any better. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Qi does not exist, meridians do not exist, some acupoints may accidentally be over nerve ganglia or whatever, but that is more likely to be coincidence than anything else because the principles on which they were selected, are simply wrong. The enemy in studying these things is always confirmation bias. To convince the reality-based community, you'd need to come up with some anatomical or physiological feature which consistently differs between all acupoints and other parts of the body. As far as I can tell from my reading around this, the only question that is still scientifically open, is whether needling itself has any objective effect. I think the evidence is converging on "no" but it's not impossible. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the control group would be for non-acupuncture points, but I do know that of the 400-odd points typically taught, only about 50 are used routinely, so that would be the place to look for some sort of difference (in terms of non-local activity, like P6 for nausea). The earliest evidence of acupoints precedes meridians; meridians were apparently superimposed onto them, and it's very likely that more points were later added along the meridians, so that's how one would get a mix of real and bogus points. (Similarly with some herbal treatments preceding the emergence of detailed TCM patterns.) Anyway, if good MEDRS's are covering this stuff then it's noteworthy, but I'll have to look at them. It wouldn't be that weird for there to be some objective correlation; if acupoints are more effective than non-acupoints, then they must have a mechanism. But it's also possible that needling only works locally.

As for qi: it's such a broad idea in Chinese culture that it can mean all kinds of things, and in certain cases if one reads in context, they're pretty clearly getting at something specific, something intersubjectively verifiable, in terms of disease or bodily function.

Your statement that "the principles on which they were selected are simply wrong" would apply to homeopathic medicines for sure, but with TCM, where there are very likely to be some treatments that came before the "theory", it's not that simple. Theory evolved along with treatment, resulting in (on the one hand) some treatments being contaminated by made-up ideas, and (on the other) ideas that can be translated into useful outcomes. It's complicated; "fraught with pseudoscience", as Nature said. But also potentially fraught with useful stuff: I'm really not sure about point specificity in acu (though I can think of a study or two I'd like to still see done), but I'm pretty sure there's a lot going on with the herbs (I've seen too many severe, non-self-limiting diseases resolve to be ready to write them off), and I disagree with Nature on the worthwhile-ness of studying them, and you and I probably disagree on that as well. We don't seem to disagree much about being reality-based. I saw a great signature line on Daily Kos: "What do we want?" "Evidence-based change!" "When do we want it?" "After peer review!" --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that originates with xkcd or some such, but yes. However: the idea of "life force", humours, and balancing yin and yang, runs deep in TCM. These concepts are refuted. There is no "life force" which can be out of balance, there are no meridians along which it flows. I know some believers have conducted research aimed at finding some difference between acupoints and other points, but this is arse-backwards, what they need to do is find the difference without cues - without being told where to look. There is some merit in herbal medicines, but the problem there is that you can never accurately establish the dose, so it's going to be less clinically controllable than an isolated version of the same chemical. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure humours don't exist, but as DVMt just mentioned at Talk:Acu, you can get good result with a wrong theory. That's especially true if the wrong theory developed around empirical observations. Somebody, somewhere, found that ephedra tea is a decongestant; somebody else described a common cold as "wind-cold invasion", for which ephedra became part of the treatment. You'll get no argument from me on the merits of pharmaceutical research (done some), but I still think the synergy of TCM herbal mixtures is worth a closer look. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Except that Japanese and Chinese acupuncture have different acupoints and meridians, and indeed different acupuncturists use different versions. You could settle this really easily if there was any actual anatomy but there isn't. So we're just left with the question of whether needling itself actually does anything, and my reading of current data is that it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether needling has a local effect. It would be easy enough to test: stick needles around the sore area or stick them someplace else, or look at whether needling "trigger points" works (although there are obvious blinding issues to overcome with both). I'd also like to see good trials (or reviews of same) looking exclusively at the dozen or so most commonly-used distal points besides P6, which according to Cochrane and most other reviews works about as well as antiemetic drugs, although the latter may not work especially well: Ernst and Cochrane's reviewers don't necessarily agree on that point. It would take pretty strong evidence to convince reality-based observers that P6 really has a specific effect, because there's no known mechanism. I guess an effect can be statistically significant but not clinically relevant, but if it's that small, come on, is it really likely to be real? Unblinding either patients or needlers tends to create false positives, and acu-advocates tend to ignore that, and instead play up the false negatives that would arise from certain study designs. So my curiosity about famous distal points may be a residue of fondness for acu.

Whoever said that Chinese and Japanese systems have different points and meridians is overdoing the differences just to make a point. I've studied both, and most of the body points are the same; same with Korean and Vietnamese acu, AFAIK; these are all strongly influenced by Chinese acu. Chinese and Japanese acu actually differ mainly in needling style and emphasis on palpation. Not all sources criticizing acupuncture are reliable. Some make the mistake of going after the low-lying fruit (or exaggerating it), or they're just not well-informed about the field. But it's not as if other strong arguments for acu's placebo-hood are lacking. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The existence of differences establishes the arbitrary nature of them, which, in the absence of any anatomy, is additional support for the experimental finding that they don't exist. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I too am experiencing editing problems with QuackGuru's style, especially with collaboration. There is a tendency to OWN the articles, and generally create a hostile editing environment not only at acupuncture which I follow but also pages related to manipulative therapy, such as chiropractic. Considering this is a longstanding, chronic issue with him/her and alt-med articles, and considering a previous ban, his/her behaviour is even more concerning. How many editors, and their expertise, are going to driven away before something is done? Genuine question. Regards. DVMt (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It will take time -- see my reply on my talk page. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Should discussions be moved from User talk:Torgownik to Talk:Russell Targ

It seems to me that some of the discussions on User talk:Torgownik would be more appropriate on Talk:Russell Targ. As an admin would you consider moving them there if you feel this is appropriate? If you don't want to do this yourself but think it is appropriate could you refer it to another admin? - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but only inc collapsed form per WP:NOTFORUM. Certainly Josephson's input is... not helping, to put it mildly. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Boldness, but kindness

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Talk:Soul retrieval.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Naim Dangoor

Hello! Your submission of Naim Dangoor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Note

Re your comment "I made no such invitation.". Well, actually you did because the text of the template you posted (User_talk:LCcritic#Warning) clearly says Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. NE Ent 20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This does not include rhetorical questions, along the lines of another treatise on why all of science is wrong. But this does highlight the issue with template messages; I prefer hand-written messages, but then some people assert that the right shrubbery was not brought and so the user cannot possibly remain blocked. You can't win. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned

See WT:ACN#Motion adopting new Discretionary sanctions procedure. A DS warning that you issued to a user was mentioned as an example. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Appreciate the heads-up, thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Retitle your essay to WP:ACEP Petition

What do you think about changing it? --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Help yourself, I don't own it... Guy (Help!) 08:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bathwater

Hello, please take a look at my comments to User talk:Hasteur#Bathwater. Also, any closing with a ban, warning, admonition, or whatever (with hopes that relationships will improve) would be welcome. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, by now it's a case of play nice or go to your room for all parties. Nobody can be bothered to unpick the arguments any more. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. 36 hours and it should archive. But the shame is that throwing mud onto the wall, where some of it sticks, obscures the real issues and problems. Well, once it closes (by default or otherwise) it will be available as a point of reference when the next bit of turbulence occurs. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of process close

Please undo your out of process close on Eugenie Carys de Silva. AfD challenges are supposed to remain open a week, not to be closed by random administrators because they find this or that aspect of the debate objectionable, as you did. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenie Carys de Silva was already clear (with you as the sole valid dissenter), and the zombie armies were being massed. We should always be conservative in biographies, and in this case a bruising war between single purpose accounts and the community, followed no doubt by even more drama, does not serve the best interests of anybody. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

QG again, FWIW

QG was blocked and there was some gnashing of teeth over how such a thing could happen to someone so awesome. Mentioned your previous critiques, FWIW [7], as one of several examples of non-woo-promoting editors who (a) have problems with QG and (b) have actually been on the other side of a content dispute with him -- a group that oddly has virtually no overlap with the "QG rules" posse. Suggested that people with strong opinions do as you've suggested, i.e. keep an eye on things and gather diffs. And on and ennui go. Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't think he understands how vexing his behaviour can be. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think he sometimes does. I've seen him subtly mock editors who endeavor to point out to him things he doesn't acknowledge, dickishly parroting their words. More unfortunately, I don't think most of the editors who support him understand how vexing his behavior can be, since they've never been on the other end of it. Yes, in a way it's awesome that he counters woo-warriors, but his supporters don't grok that his behavior toward such editors is a subset of his general behavior. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Burdett Baronets

Please move Move Sir Thomas Burdett of Dunmore (disambiguation) to Thomas Burdett (disambiguation). I expect to sort out the two baronets tomorrow. Kittybrewster ☎

Fixed by user:Missionedit. Nice to see you passing by, sir. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not file that ANI

Guy, I did not file that ANI. If MarkBernstain filed it I quite do not see why I should have paid for his action. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OK< I accept this. I will fix it. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy, I quite enjoyed your sense of humor. Nevertheless here there is a serious issue. I regret that MarkBernstein took the decision to file an ANI without consulting me first. Indeed, I would have told him that I was on the verge to do so. I do not know if the language that User:Director uses with me is compliant or not to WP rules. The only thing I know if that it hurts me a lot. I need to know from an administrator if it is normal to deal with people ad Director does. If it is normal, clearly I cannot contribute on Wikipedia. I will file an ANI within the next 30 minutes. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You know what hurts me? That you are still engaged in WP:ICANTHEARYOU [8]. I stil think you need to be sanctioned, and severely, for continuously refusing to reply (in any meaningful way) to user posts. Maybe you should correct your behavior, curtail the disruption, and stop with the condescending, arguably-racist, Mussolini-style comments about the Balkans and everyone from there? -- Director (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My talk page is pretty much the worst place for the two of you to have a ding-dong. Trust me on this. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Eugenie Carys de Silva

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eugenie Carys de Silva. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DRV notice

Just a note that I have hauled your closure of Eugenie Carys de Silva to DRV. Thanks. —Tim, Carrite (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB

Re: PresidentistVB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi JzG. You mentioned yesterday that PresidentistVB's style seemed...familiar. He's slid further off the rails over his most recent edits, getting more offensive ("60 hours a slave" for a 2.5 day block? Really?) and more bizarre in his explanations (secret breaching experiments for Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner) and legal theories (blocking him somehow infringes his civil right to comment on talk pages).

Do you have any specific alternate user accounts in mind? The WP:NOTHERE issues are pretty obvious, but I don't know which particular banned user he fits. (And incidentally, with this account he's been pretty transparent about his associated real-life identity—so much so that I'm honestly a bit concerned that this is a joe job to damage the real individual's reputation.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he is a crank. His claims in respect of doing work for the foundation are, as far as I can tell, without merit. Whether he's a returning crank or a one-off crank is probably moot: I don't think he'll be around much longer. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I certainly didn't find his claims plausible or his reasoning sound; I was just wondering if he reminded you of someone we'd seen before. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He does, but not so strongly that I would wield the banhammer, and in fact the real world identity is easy enough to trace that he probably is not, in the end, a returning loon. Guy (Help!) 06:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see

Please see here.Heicth (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Shanker Singham

Hi, I have re-written and updated the page of Shanker Singham to no longer be advertorial. Amarkowitz1 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

False ad hominem attacks

Hi Jzg, your explanation some time ago that I made proposals as a supporter of Sathya Sai Baba to make his sleight of hand tricks seem like miracles is hilariously wrong. Just google my name if you do not believe me. Have a good pentecost if you celebrate it. Andries (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I already realised my error there: I was mixing up my partisans. It remans a fact that you are a partisan and should not be making the edits you do. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)