User talk:JzG

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review. The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

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 3 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 6 months, and 6 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

• 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?

---

About me

JzG reacting to yet another drama

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

and stale

Notice of ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your edits of Cogmed article

Any explanations why did you remove 80% of article incl. history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? This is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every psychologist and mental health professional in US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. There is over 45 independent research studies from top universities and research labs supporting benefits of Cogmed training. There are only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are disproportionally inflated in popular media as, being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma. As a psychotherapist, I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes: it was poorly sourced promotional content. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Research is a promotional content???Wiki-shield (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In this context, very much so. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you are butchering Cogmed article again... What is your problem there??? You repeatedly removed properly sourced material regarding 54 independent research studies supporting Cogmed training benefits claiming that this is a promotional text... Since when mentioning supporting research by Harvard, John Hopkins, UCD, etc. is a promotion? The sentence you removed was as neutral as possible. I read WP:MEDRS and it doesn't apply in this context. Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV i.e. the article should reflect the facts rather than personal opinions. And the fact here is that Cogmed is supported by 15 years of extensive research from top universities in the world, only a couple of researchers object it. As a result of your edits it now reads like there is only a negative study about Cogmed, which clearly contradicts WP:NPOV. Wiki-shield (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer a topic ban or a site ban? Either is available, depending on how you continue to pursue your rather obvious agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemonics help

The Chemonics PR people are back spinning and I'm a noob. Any chance you can help out? Thanks! Jon335 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If it carries on, please request semi-protection. 08:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:LearningRx

List the references on the talkpage you think are not acceptable. Because in the state that it is, the article will be unfairly voted to be deleted. And while you're at it, tag the content you feel is un-encyclopediac so others will be drawn into the discussion.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I tagged the article so other editors may see it and improve it. The previous edits had too much content lost. We should specifically identify and target these primary sources instead of deleting so much content. But before that we should reach cosnenesus which part needs deletions otherwise we'll end up edit warring over this, which I don't want.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You mustn't restore challenged material unless it is reliably sourced. That's the rules. What's your connection with the subject? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar, I thought you are a sock for Lumosity (based on your self admission), but it looks like you are too concerned about LearningRx. That explains things, unlike LearningRx which is a "Herbalife" of brain training, Lumosity is doing quite well and could afford to hire some rotten Wikipedia admin to promote it... Wiki-shield (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Who, exactly, are you accusing of taking money from Luminosity? I need to eb absolutely clear on this, because if it's me I will have to ask another admin to block you, but if it's another admin I can block you myself. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting... You better read Taeyebaar's statement and my response re Lumosity instead of threatening me here. You seem to be a bit too quick with your actions...

• I have no connection to the subject. If you checked the citations, one was critical of the program by a psychologist. And I have done the same for other brain training programs to keep them balanced. I still don't get your issue with the refs and don't know where else it was challenged, and no they were not primary at all. I have no idea what this "wiki-shield" is on about.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sham surgery

Hi, Guy, this is fascinating, but surely that study, or a very similar one, was published well before 2013? I remember reading about it, at a time when I was having a lot of knee pain and was considering that procedure, which would put it in the early 2000s. Sham surgery might not be really ethical, I'm not sure. But it was incredibly eye-opening for me, so I have to be glad somebody had the boldness to conceive the possibility of studying surgery placebo effects. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

You're probably right, I am reasonably sure I'd heard of it before this study as well, but I did not know if that was form pre-publication reports. I was disappointed, I have a bum knee... Guy (Help!) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Stumbled across this discussion; with a similar topic, you might find this article interesting: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills 108.181.201.237 (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so there was a 2002 study. That fits very well with my recollection. It got a lot of attention at the time — I'm pretty sure it was reported on the news where I live, even. Thank you, 108. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC).

SCAM

It's clever, and using it may be cathartic, but I strongly suspect it doesn't help in winning people toward your view (which usually is my view, and my motivation for writing this). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I know, I know. It's a reaction on my part to the idea of "integrative medicine"> Where are the "integrative engineers" who use spaghetti for cables on bridges because organic? Where are the "integrative bakers" who make holistic use of the entire solanoideae family? We seem to be living through peak "other ways of knowing". Guy (Help!) 20:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I make my living by studying "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. A friend of mine is a climate scientist, worked at JPL for a while but had to go back to Nederlands after the "Laa Laa I'm Not Listening Act" or whateverthefuck. I think these guys want to die rich and take the planet with them. When I rule the world, I will make everybody at Fox News work in disaster relief until they get it. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to google. Well, it isn't Obama or Eastwood, so it must be global warming? -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Eastwood? Oh, that's a hoot. "I know what you're thinking. 'Will sea level go up by two meters or only a half?' Well, to tell you the truth, there's enough difference in estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity that I'm not quite sure myself. But seeing as business-as-usual will bring us to CO2 concentration around 900 ppm by the end of the century, and the Antarctic ice cap has never existed with a concentration above 750 ppm, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You win 1 (one) internet. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicely put. But... the man himself has now found biblical evidence that CC is real; don't you think your Clint's being a bit arrogant? . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice thing about the life of an avionics engineer: so long as the planes don't crash, there's a de facto assumption that my theories about how to design user interfaces for pilots are good.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder how many devotees of chiropractic would fly in a plane serviced by people with a complete alternate theory of how jet engines work. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peter Wilmshurst

Hello! Your submission of Peter Wilmshurst 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Please have a look at this case--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Imagine that: a sockpuppet. Who predicted that? Guy (Help!) 08:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cogmed

Mind taking a look now at Cogmed and letting me know what you think? I believe there is still enough of a story there for others to further expand (positive, negative, and neutral). As I said at my talk, I have serious doubts about their program (I wouldn't let me grandchildren near this group). Hopefully, our article reflects the considerable academic skepticism whilst still presenting what the company at least claims to do. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WUWT edit

Re this edit There's no evidence that skepticism is "widely characterised as [[climate change denial]" In the talk section, there is one source which makes this claim, but one source does not in any way translate into "widely". Please self-revert.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, is it now considered acceptable for an established editor, which zero edits to an article, to jump in an make a contentious edit while an edit war is in progress, without even attempting to see if there is consensus? You are simply fueling the fire, not helping to solve the problem. If you want to make an NPOV edit while the debate is in progress, why not remove both skepticism and denialism, leaving it described neutrally as a blog dedicated to climate issues, and the editors can then work to a consensus about what the reliable sources say?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, perhaps you're misreading the edited text, which says that WUWT promotes a " 'skeptical view' of climate change, widely characterised as climate change denial: the sources already cited support that statement. Neutrality, in particular weight and WP:PSCI, requires that we show what these reliable sources say. Your proposal violates policy. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that climate "skepticism" is legitimate skepticism. We bend over so far backwards to pander to these idiots that if we're not careful we will end up with our heads up our own arses. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, we are not here to pretend that shills for big oil and the useful idiots who enable them, are a legitimate part of scientific debate. The scientific debate is in the published literature, and the consensus is robust: the "skeptics" are in denial about this, we should and must call it what it is. And yes, long-term editors are allowed to come to articles with entrenched opinions and try to break the deadlock. In fact, it's encouraged, especially where there is a hard core of editors promoting fringe views. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Rhumidian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of questionable diagnostic tests, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Rhumidian (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert =

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, 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.

Template:Z33 Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)