User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Free Errata Sheet. This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 11 months, and 4 days. This user has been an admin for 18 years, 6 months, and 7 days. This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on X | SceptiGuy on X

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

Hello Guy, thank you for your action on the above article stopping the edit war initiated by Tfd998. The same deletions have now been made under a unregistered IP 24.114.68.254, again without explanation. This could well be a sock of the banned "editor". I have no intention of keep reverting, thereby causing an edit war, but wonder if the article should be protected for a period? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. That's an indef and semi-protection then. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am interested in introduce aspects about the history of the homeopathy, for example, you can see in acupuncture, there are the history of the acupunture. Regards. --Pediainsight (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have more than enough detail on the period before homeopathy was understood to be nonsense. Additional data points for the breadth of the delusion are not needed. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a formality and because it is (AFAIK) a necessity for enforcement of sanctions; I know you know about this:

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Involved editors are not allowed to issue DS notifications. I think you may be on the way to bannination, I certainly hope so. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I don't think thats true, could you point me to where it says only uninvolved editors may notify? (This affects some other areas I am involved in is why I am poking my nose here) Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts says "Any editor" FYIGaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it particularly matters; Guy has participated in AE-related proceedings at some point in the past year.

I'm going to have to remember this quote somewhere for the future: "Wikipedians do not want to cite what the number 1 blog of world writes about them---it is kind of disturbing"[1] NW (Talk) 20:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I've asked at WP:AE that you be warned for misrepresenting scientific consensus re acupuncture's efficacy, as you did here and have numerous other times:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:_JzG (diff)

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your hubris is exceeded only by your chutzpah. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, people expected the level of craziness around here would improve after a few years. After seeing this, it seems pretty clear that nothing has changed or things have worsened - I don't know which it is though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ncmvocalist: I wouldn't say crazy, but it is illogical to assert a consensus when you have only sources that show a significant view -- let alone when those sources are contradicted by equally good sources. This is NPOV 101. I think we are seeing confirmation bias, cf. what Feynman said about it being so easy to fool one's self. Nobody is immune to that, and here we plainly have a situation where editors can't meet the burden of evidence, yet persist in asserting their stance. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep assereting. Meanwhile, anatomy books ocntinue not to include meridians or acupoints. You are in denial, and you are taking the piss. Go away. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If by "go away" you really mean I am unwelcome here, no problemo, but I've never been a dick toward you and am not starting now. I gotta say: you keep conflating TCM ideas with efficacy, but they're not equivalent. There's no reason that acu can't be effective just because there's no literal qi or meridians. The "mechanism" for eclipses used to be that a serpent swallowed the sun or moon, but they could still predict eclipses. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of self-awareness is duly noted. I will be sure to double-check my understanding of the scientific consensus with Edzard next time I see him. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "WTF? WP:DTTR!" too when I got templated, but: [2]. .... You KNOW Ernst??? Golly, I'll be glad to quit worrying about finding sources, knowing that now that you can just ask the dude. :-) We'll need a new template for that: {{GuysaidErnstsaid |date= |topicarea= |consensus=}} --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great idea if only I subscribed to the fallacy of appeal to authority, which I don't. I do, however, have a ready way of finding useful and pertinent information. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It must be fun to know him, he seems like quite a character, a fine mind. The fact that the objects of his ire are not infrequently academics (there's even the word, quackademics) -- as opposed to off-the-grid quacks -- says to me that there's a big slice of mainstream POV that hasn't yet come around. .... But this AE thing is less than useful and I am sorry I brought it up there. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle 8:, what you've described is not what I was referring to as craziness. One example of craziness is that an administrator (who also acts for arbcom) seems to have focused his comment on JzG's "incivility" in-reply to your remarkably inappropriate invocation of discretionary sanctions here, and did not even bother to address concerns of tendentious editing. I have noticed this type of thing happening in earlier years and it was becoming less common, but it is mind-boggling that such a foolish approach is adopted even now. Until the source of the issue which is enabling and promoting this type of approach is found, little can be done. Is it the community, arbcom, Jimbo...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, agree that the obsession with "incivility" is nuts. [3] Why? Why fiddle with process while content burns.... why arguing about stuff when the stakes are so low.... --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a go at editing the Universal Medicine page in my Sandbox as with all the edits that have gone on, it is starting to appear really disjointed. I've introduced further section headings and moved text around, but not deleted anything (hopefully, if I have it was a mistake on my part!). In respect of the requests for no further significant changes on the page, I did not want to apply anything to the page itself. Could you have a look over the draft and see what you think? 79616gr (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nothing major, but in your AE statement, you put "anatomy" where I think you meant "acupuncture" -- 2nd graf after boxed quote from JIM.

BTW, I agree with you entirely. Best, BMK (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]