User talk:JzG/Archive 144

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

→

Archive 150

predatory journal? in Mediator

Hi! I just rolled back your removal of the Daniels et al ref from Mediator. I'm a newbie, so I am now questioning whether I've done the right thing. You removed the reference without removing the statement that it supported. I've collaborated with experienced editors on mediator, and they didn't object to the reference. Daniels et al is cited by the Nature review article that you left in place. I don't understand why, if citing Daniels et al is OK for a Nature review, and if all I did was give credit to the original author in addtion to the review article (which, as far as I can see is written by people unaffiliated with the primary research paper), the inclusion of Daniels et al is inappropriate for wp. Seriously, I'm a newbie. I don't understand all the intricacies of wp policies. I don't understand why your user name is in red, and why your userpage appears to be blocked, and why you objected to Daniels et al. I don't want to get into an edit war. If you remove Daniels et al again, I won't roll it back. But, I do hope you'll explain this to me better. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've spent way too much time looking into this journal. I don't understand why it is called predatory. I tried to follow links that you gave above, but failed. Undoubtedly, my bad. But, I found that the journal is not referenced in medline. If that journal is as reputable as the daily mail, the entire statement attributed to it and the review should go, since the only thing supporting the statement is the citation to the journal in the review. So, again, to summarize my confusions, if you have time,

• Why is your username in red? That initially set my mind to think that the removal was vandalism.
• Why do you have stuff at the top of this talk page, like the "Oh no, Not this shit again" instead of on your userpage?
• Why is the journal viewed as predatory?
• Assuming that the journal is predatory (which I tend to believe since it isn't on medline, even though I don't understand exactly what is meant by a predatory journal), why was it good enough for a nature review? (I guess that is a rhetorical question)
• Do you suggest that I remove all the statement that is only supported by the predatory journal, "washed" through the nature review? If you think I should, I will, and explain why on the article's talk page. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (BTW, I think I'm going to use that Oh No image liberally in my editing.)

Read the article on predatory open access publishing and the article on OMICS, you will see that this is not just a predatory publisher, it is pretty much the canonical one. It is not a surprise that some onward citations exist, their business model is centred on creating an impression of legitimacy.

As for the other stuff, having a relinked userpage brings you closer tot he experience of the average newbie, for example with RC patrollers who reflexively revert stuff. I am not the only admin who does this. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Armands Strazds deletion

Greetings. You mentioned "self-promotion" in the deletion. "Surandira" did say "No.." to "David Eppstein's" direct question (and mine) regarding COI. I did feel that anything beyond "no" fell under the rubric of "He doth protest too much," but didn't want to put my oar in to that effect, in part because "EEng" is so contentious. If you want to and feel at liberty to do so, did you notice that exchange, and did you consider that the denial did protest too much? Regards Tapered (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The original deleted version was created by user Strazds, which makes it even more implausible. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. If you do a google image search, quite a bit turns up. I see picture of him at symposiums, doing this and that. Given the behavior here, call it evasive narcissism, I'd watch my back assiduously in any interaction with him, especially tangible. Tapered (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Contentious? Contentious? Who says I'm contentious? Who? Prove it! Why, if I get my hands on you, I'll... EEng 13:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

thocp.net SEO

Pretty strong evidence of SEO at thocp.net:

1. SEO links were added to Timeline of Microsoft by editor in Vipul's ring, Simfish, in late January [1]
2. Beginning in February, site's pagerank skyrocketed and site visitors went up to 300% of their October-November levels: [2]
3. Site has embedded SEO links in tiny text; look at bottom of page [3] for example and see garbage SEO text and link to passguide.com ("Passguide continued success is the result of phenomenal word-of-mouth and friendly referrals" LOL).

...Continued at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Corporation timelines ... Bri (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to add thecop.net to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? Those timeline articles are still useful without the abusive spamlinks. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of long-standing articles without review

Would you please explain why you G11-speedy-deleted several articles about timelines of social media sites? I'm referring to Timeline of Twitter, Timeline of Instagram, Timeline of Pinterest, Timeline of Snapchat, Timeline of LinkedIn.

These were all long-standing articles, and G11 is for unambiguous promotion. I'm curious where this seemingly unilateral decision to remove them came from, and why there was no AFD for community review. Inadvertent slip of an automated tool? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Jzg, please see my comment on this at my user talk. I very much recognize the problem that these articles present, but I think an explicit community consensus is needed on how to handle them, and individual admin actions are not going to help achieve it. As I said there, I personally feel the best cause for the more plausible of this group of articles is a merge; and I also think that in general the best way of handing paid editing might be a new speedy criterion. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remit to User talk:DGG for now. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Strategy

Guy, do you have thoughts on how to proceed next with this stuff? My concerns for one of them are posted at Talk:Timeline of digital preservation. I really don't see a way to make this encyclopedic or even how we will catch all the SEO plants like [4][5] and especially [6] (more on this below). - Bri (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: If it's just a handful of domains being spammed, why not just blacklist them? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We wouldn't know what's being spammed until doing a thorough scrub of all the dozens of of Timeline of xxx articles and the immigration-related articles. We think we have caught some of the spam, but I'm sure not all of it. - Bri (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:David's capacity to mentor

Hey, could you elaborate on what problems you think he has demonstrated?

I noticed a lot of what looked like IDHT on the ANI thread, but never having interacted with him before I've been assuming good faith and offering to help with the mentoring, mostly (1) because I trust MjolnirPants's judgement more than my own gut in this case (his involvement with the case is longer than mine) and (2) as a way to get the ANI thread closed sooner (which has, for other reasons, begun to become very draining for me).

But I trust your judgement about as much as MP's, so I'm very interested in hearing whatever problems you have with David being a mentor. I don't want to wind up having to clean up a mess created by my co-mentor as well as the mentee, and opening another ANI thread a month from now about how my mentee isn't taking my advice because it conflicts with the (bad, if your assertion is correct) advice of my co-mentor.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey you two. I magically know whenever my name is mentioned, so I showed up here to make an ass out of myself. (Joking, of course. I'm a stalker, I admit). I just want to say that I've interacted with David a few times in the past. Curiously, I've been advised by numerous people that he is intractable in his opinions and an outspoken fringe supporter, but my experience has been quite the opposite (on the second count at least; I can't really speak to the first). My first interaction consisted of me convincing him that he was entirely wrong about something, and I have to admit that he was far more gracious than I in that discussion. I'm too lazy to find diffs, but I will if either of you want some. Subsequent interactions have been short and congenial. So I too, am curious about this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking about intractibility, Ctrl+F "disruptive" or "I don't think" on the ANI thread, which makes me kinda want to believe what people have told you at least on that point. The I think much time might have been saved in the case if more diffs were provided in the filing, rather than expecting us to try and figure out exactly what Hijiri88 contends is "disruptive" in the collapsed TLDR tangent also struck me as somewhat ... POINTy? LAWYERish? I dunno how to describe it. But unless I see some specific instances of prior disruption on his part, I have to assume good faith, and (largely thanks to the canvassing, hounding and seemingly random trolling, I'll admit) I don't think there will be a consensus for a TBAN even with my !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Show me diffs, please, it would please me no end to be proven wrong here. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still too lazy to dig up diffs, but this thread shows our discussion. I admit with some shame that I was being more confrontational than necessary, due to having just weathered a long, protracted battle of a discussion with two editors who were insisting that the sources were wrong (seriously, they contended that philosophy textbooks were wrong about philosophy because some martial artist on youtube disagreed with them), or that sources meant the opposite of what they said. Also, in re-familiarizing myself with the discussion, it is clear that it was predominantly the other editor who did the work of convincing David, not myself. But still. He came in with the express intention of defending a position (because it supported an argument he made against you), and left the thread accepting that he had been wrong. That's worth something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wasn't expecting to comment on David again, but for those not familiar with when the disruptive behavior came to a head, there is also the AE case where they were topic banned. I'd also be concerned about them mentoring someone in an area of conflict. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I too was TBANned (by ArbCom), but the disruption that led to said ban was almost two years ago, I haven't violated the ban once, and I plan on appealing soon. The area from which I am banned ("Japanese culture") is also niche enough that some random editor who seems most interested in the alt right, social media, and early Christianity is unlikely to want to discuss it with me. It's a significant hindrance to me since it covers pretty much everything I learned in college, the first thing I think of when I wake up and the last thing I think of before I go to sleep, and most of the Wikipedia articles I read, but this is almost certainly not the case with the potential mentee; I don't think simply being subject to a TBAN is any indication of an inability to mentor (it would be an interesting project to find out how many editors with access to the admin tools are subject to at least one editing restriction of some kind, but that's kinda outside the scope of this discussion).

David's TBAN was put in place last July, he immediately violated it and was blocked for a month, but beyond that his block log is clear. The fact that a ban was placed and within a week he had been blocked for violating it is enough to convince me that JzG might very well be right about his capacity to be a mentor, but I wonder if the disruption might have ceased following the expiration of the block. Seven months is ... well, it's not that long (my block history is checkered at best, but my last block was a year ago), but I'd want to see more recent evidence if shooting down David's mentoring option means the ANI mess drags on longer.

If Endercase were editing in a DS area it would be different. We could just ask AE to ban him, and -- AE being as it is not a "discussion" -- it would be significantly easier to ignore the canvassed editors and the wikistalkers who showed up because they don't like me or you or anyone else.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Shit. I didn't notice until now (again, taking AGF to dangerous levels) but David was blocked for a month in August, and then disappeared until late January. Seven months may be a long time, but two certainly isn't. It's peripheral, but his first edit to the ANI thread accused me of not assuming good faith, which is ironic since if I hadn't been assuming good faith too much, I would have noticed earlier that he had been canvassed, and that his edit history makes his capacity to mentor somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• To be very clear, I have very little opinion on David's ability to mentor another editor, though it does seem to be working thus far, as the mentored editor has offered me a quite profuse apology (more profuse than necessary, IMHO). Which is not to say that he's not grooming a new civil POV pusher, of course. As I said, I have had limited positive interaction with him, yet heard a number of negative things about him from editors whose judgement I trust (including you, Guy). Also, though I'm aware that there's a good chance he has or will see this regardless of whether we ping him or not, I'm a little uncomfortable discussing someone 'behind their back', so I think I'm going to bow out for now. I've already said my piece, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry about stubby fingered mis-click, and the fact I got distracted till now. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

FairTax

You should discuss these things on the talk page and site examples before tossing up such tags and removing references. Various points of view are fine, so long as they're all represented fairly and with due weight. This topic is primarily academic, which is why there are many references to think tanks. Those are the groups that have published papers on it. I'm fine with making changes, but you seem pretty heavy handed here. Morphh ^(talk) 19:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, I should clean up refspamming. That article is horrible, it is bloated with primary sourced material from free market think tanks and contains pretty much no mention of the fact that it's a regressive tax that would shift the tax burden down the income scale, and virtually no scholarly discussion of the idea. It reads like a tea party fansheet. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If you feel there is something left out, please let's discuss it. The regression is discussed in the lead and in the section "Distribution of tax burden" as is the opinion that it's progressive. I was fine with removing the prior reference, but you removed the citation without removing the ref tags. We're to represent the various viewpoints, which include those published studies done by the think tanks, regardless if their free market or not. It's not excluding anything that I know of, but if it is, please bring it up. Morphh ^(talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There is something left out: reliable independent third-party scholarly review, to balance the libertarian free market fundamentalist think tanks. But that's not the problem I am fixing, the problem I am fixing is widespread refspamming. This is only one affected article. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

• United States Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I commented at the article talk page. Jrheller1 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

archiving on Talk:Cold fusion

• BSmith821 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Whats up with the 'cleanup' where you archived BSmith821's comment that he made only 2 days ago. I know his comments were pretty ridiculous, but don't you see how this is biting the newbies? I removed his additions previously and asked him to consult the talk page. How do you think he is going to react after this? InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A YouTube video promting cold fusion is not a wise way to start a discussion on Wikipedia rewriting the article to reflect the "fact" that the world now accepts cold fusion is real. Check the user's talk page, he's also spruiking the e-cat and a Lamarckian. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Liberty Fund link warning

I just tried to access libertyfund.org, and my web browser (Google Chrome, Mac version) wouldn't let me. Is it just my connection or is something else going on? (Warning: I am only as computer-literate as is required by being an English Literature major who still remembers typewriters.) --Calton | Talk 12:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

removing users comments

I have no idea if it is acceptable for an involved admin (or one who has admin privileges) to remove comments they think are disruptive from pages they are involved in. I do know it is unacceptable to remove a users comments as you did here [7], as mine was advice to the user, not nonsense. I assume this was a mistake on your part and you will revert.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven I advised the user to make a less polemical statement and to add some sources, but I am somewhat disturbed by his edits at Edmund Storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - that's two biographies of scientists with non-mainstream views that he's defending with unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was not talking about him, hence my comment about it being a mistake. Maybe people need to actually read what was deleted and they might get an ideas as to hat I am referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I did understand, what I should have done was move it to the talk page. I'll leave it to you to decide what to do. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No what you should have done is not made an inflammatory edit summery implying my removed material was nonsense, and maybe had the courtesy to inform me why you were deleting it. Maybe also actually discussing here what (you knew) I was referring to, rather then a another users contributions.

You still could make it clear your claim that you were just removing nonsense was in error, and that my advice to him was not nonsense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith, as I do here. Because, you know, this is an editor who's spruiking some bullshit right now and we should really be pushing back on that, but it's likely to be inexperience. Edit summaries are not a great place for nuanced conversation, and "inflammatory" is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, nobody died, and the important thing is to work with the user to explain the problem without leaving big huge rants about the injustice of the world all over aafd debates, or at least that's my view. Sorry you interpreted it in a way that was not what I meant, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, do you think that referring to his edits as "nonsense" or "bullshit" are a great way of explaining the problem, because I do not and think all it will do is make him feel more injustice and put upon. Oh and by the way, I did assume good faith, I assumed it was an accident, that you had not interned to imply what you did.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I say, edit summaries are not good at nuance. You'll see I left a much more detailed explanation on his talk page. That's what's important - newbies very often have no idea how to even see edit summaries anyway. And yes, sometimes I am an idiot in a hurry. Mea culpa. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My last comment on this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"New Yorker" article relevant to your interests

“PAGING DR. FRAUD”: THE FAKE PUBLISHERS THAT ARE RUINING SCIENCE By Alan Burdick March 22, 2017 --Calton | Talk 12:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Problematic mass alleged REFSPAM removals

Hi, Jzg: You appear to have removed many references to mruniversity.com as WP:REFSPAM. Marginal University Marginal Revolution is a reputable economics blog and mruniversity.com has their video segments. They don't qualify as REFSPAM. In the case of, say, Tullock paradox, your edit removed a lot of useful and important text from an already fairly weak article. It made the concept harder to understand and materially diminished the article.

I haven't reviewed all the other cases, but I fear many are the same. Can you please stop this removal and discuss, and ideally restore your edits? I assume you used an automated tool. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC). corrected University->Revolution in the above, ex post facto jhawkinson (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Marginal University may be a reputable blog, but it's still a libertarian activist blog calling itself a university. See WP:RS. And this was part of a large scale link-spamming campaign by a paid editing ring with links to libertarian activists. If the material at Marginal "University" is reliable, then it should be trivial to source it to a publication that meets our standards - a book, or a scholarly journal. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Connected contributor

It looks like this was the user connected to the Brain Balance company. Less than ten edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tkaynevirtue He also seems to have removed a link to LearningRx another bogus 'brain training' program, probably to avoid competition. Instead he put in a link to an article on some nonscientific claims. It seems somebody else removed his edits, but no telling if he'll return to restore them.--Taeyebar 22:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Alt-med: bemused

Guy, I have to ask: why do you keep ignoring/denying that Ernst says alt-med includes herbs (including safe and effective ones)? You're intelligent enough:

• Q: "So what areas of alternative medicine are helpful or effective, according to your research?" Ernst: "The best evidence by far emerges from herbal medicine. Some herbs, like St. John’s Wort, are both effective and safe if used properly."[8]
• "St John’s Wort for depression: the biggest success story of alternative medicine"[9]

Honestly, what's up with that? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 19:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am equally bemused as to why you are so determined to promote the SCAM industry trope of pretending that herbalism is part of alternative medicine, thus "proving" that some alternative medicine works. I suggest you ask Prof. Ernst yourself, he is quite approachable. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• You know what we call herbal remedies with extensive research behind them, clear evidence of efficacy and backing by qualified medical professionals? 'Medicine'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death and cf. Guy: Yes, I've read Angell and Fontanarosa and our esteemed comedian who has popularized them. However, efficacy is not the only basis (and indeed not the dominant one) for defining alt-med. Most (MED)RS use mainstream-ness at the basis, and some of then include the kinds of herbs you mention. See sources I cited here, and do a search for "definition of alternatice medicine"; you'll see. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy (reply to "I am equally bemused...", 22:35, 18 March 2017): Promoting "SCAM industry tropes" is not my intention at all, unless you believe that most alt-med definitions are complicit in SCAM promotion, and you're "shooting the messenger" (i.e. me). A fresh example, not yet mentioned at article talk: Taber's Medical Dictionary, which says (a) that alt-med is a synonym for CAM (others say this too) and (b) and defines (C)AM's as being outside the mainstream and (c) includes herbs. [10][11] I checked three other medical dictionaries (Black's, Dorland's, and Stedman's) and they're all similar. I bring these things up because an article that disregards such sources is a crappy article; some readers (by simply googling the definition) will notice that it's slanted and sloppy and will therefore tend to discount it, thereby missing its many valid points, thereby perhaps endangering lives. Good enough?  :-) Besides, re crappy articles, WP:ENC. Just look at it: here it says "Even with the little research done on it, CAM has not been proven to be effective,"²¹⁴ while just above it says "Edzard Ernst characterized the evidence for many alternative techniques as weak, nonexistent, or negative[204] and in 2011 published his estimate that about 7.4% were based on "sound evidence", although he believes that may be an overestimate."²⁰⁵ Both linked refs are to, or are directly based upon, the exact same source: Ernst et. al.'s Desktop Guide to CAM. This situation is likely due to edits adjusting the text to the editor's preferences rather than sticking close to sources, which is IMO how the lede became what it is now.[12] In any case, articles that contradict themselves, or have ledes that don't reflect them, suck.

Look logically at your phrase "the SCAM industry trope of pretending that herbalism is part of alternative medicine, thus "proving" that some alternative medicine works". "Pretending" means deliberately misrepresenting the truth. You're speaking as if "alternative medicine" has a "true" definition. As Taber's and other medical dictionaries et cetera prove, it doesn't. Therefore, talking about alt-meds that work isn't necessarily a deception if one isn't using the "unproven or disproven" definition. I remain bemused as to why you don't acknowledge this.

I've tried to avoid digressing about the topic itself, but FWIW I completely agree that most alt-med therapies suck, especially cancer alt-meds; that said, comp- and int-meds don't suck the same way (endangering lives), nor even do some alt-meds: it doesn't suck (much, anyway) to use St. John's Wort instead of seeing a psychiatrist for a mild case of "the blues". And I'll ask Ernst, but (cf. Taber's and others) he's not the only one who puts herbs under alt-med, so.... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)