User talk:JzG

Nikki Samonas

Hello JzG, the Samonas article was recently deleted (G5) due to being created by a sockpuppet. I passed it through AfC and several editors (including myself) edited it to improve PROMO tone and formatting. Is there anyway to request to bring the page back, because I do believe the subject meets notability requirements. Thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Le sigh. This is one of those times when good people end up giving spammers what they want, is it? Guy (Help!) 15:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like that might be the case :( At least in this case, the spammer was editing about a subject that seems likely to meet notability requirements. Hopefully, with the article standing, it won't be edited by people with COI. If there is an ongoing problem, page protection might be needed. How can the article be brought back? Thsmi002 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, is there a way to request for this article to be brought back? It would be quicker than having to rewrite it from scratch. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Omics

Saw your reply, over the archived thread and after some thoughts, concur with you in near-entirety. And, I too have a great regard for your work in these spheres and overall:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The dufflebag RfD closure

Hi, would you undo your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_11#The_dufflebag and relist the discussion, please? RfD discussions typically run for 7 days before being closed. feminist (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSD#R3 - an implausible typo, as the first comment established. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

CLIO?

re [1] -- what's a CLIO edit? And who's dissenting about Harrison's 20E which says "There is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture"? (Alexbrn, AlmostFrancis and I all agreed on it)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have burn scars on my hands and type inaccurately. It means COI, as you well know. I see no consensus on talk, so go check and if there is, someone will add it to the article. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't know about your difficulty typing. 3 for and none against an uncontroversial edit, sounds fine to me -- or are you saying I need to request such an edit rather than make it myself? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what other editors have agreed. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We've agreed that Harrison's 20E is in, but not on whether the Cochrane's are out, right? See my ES and talk page section here, under green box. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No, not the way you did it. Explicitly not. Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. No Harrison's.... unless we get rid of the Cochrane.... which you once insisted on keeping to the exclusion of Harrison's (19E, 2015). A most uncompromising stance. I apologize if I've violated the spirit of WP by trying to... find a compromise.... that at least included the most recent source we both like. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What I object to is forcing a non-agreed edit based on a misrepresentation of what other editors have agreed. With lashings of snark. Alexbrn (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Come on Alex, one could be forgiven for interpreting your and AlmostFrancis's comments as both approving of Harrison's and disapproving of Cochrane. And then forcing a non-agreed edit making a slightly bold edit to include the former pending the agreement on the latter. An edit including such a source should be modified, not reverted (and certainly not reverted by a self-appointed COI arbiter -- absent an official finding at WP:COIN, Guy doesn't get to do that any more than he gets to unilaterally decide someone has a topic ban). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)