User talk:JzG/Archive 77

Third opinion
Would you, or your talk page watchers, care to venture an opinion? Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * that
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * User talk:Uncle G


 * Nasty. I think ti would be fair to include more context, there's some evidence that he thought that what he was doing was in the public interest. To describe him as Hullabaloo Wolfowitz did in the edit summary is simply unacceptable, and I have dealt some Clue in that direction, so let's see if it sticks. If anyone can establish the context in a neutrally worded way then it's you, that is definitely what you do best. I suggest you write a suggested tweak, drop in an editprotected and ping me by email to review it. I don't check my talk page as often as I used to but I am still haunting the series of tubes so am happy to come along and help if needed. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out that one of the editors in the dispute,, is a published author, and my "Are none of you writers?" question hit a nerve. She expressed a desire to work up a few paragraphs.  I've given some advice at User talk:AkaSylvia.  If you could review what she comes up with, that would be very good.  Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't been notified, Talk:Cliff Stanford could do with your eye being cast over it. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External disputes imported into Wikipedia
I've lost track. Where did we end up with the imported dispute between these two (amongst others)? Because, four years one month later, they're still at it &mdash; this time with an article that neither of them actually want us to push our delete buttons on. And in the meantime attraction to transgender people, only just renamed from transfan, is still little more than a dictionary of slang names. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is really rather depressing. In the end I think we'll have to end up topic-banning the pair of them, though IMO Cantor is more of a problem than Jokestress that is mainly down to my personal view of his theories, which I instinctively dislike, and there's no way I can think of to objectively weigh which of them is more of a problem to contact in that area since neither of them is able to check their bias at the door. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG seems to agree with you on where we'll end up. I'm interested in knowing, however, whether there are any bans, sanctions, restrictions or other agreements currently active.  And as I said, I've lost track.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState
On 6 February 2009 User:SmashTheState was blocked indefinitely.

On 7 February 2009 user User:SmashTheState unblocked in order to participate in an AfD.

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASmashTheState )

Note that User talk:Gladys j cortez is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Given his behavior since then,, this might be worth revisiting.

Also see:

Sockpuppet investigations/SmashTheState

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Guy: Well done. Good to see you back to active adminning again. 05:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like admin User:WereSpielChequers has undone your block without discussing it with you first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User:WereSpielChequers undid his undoing with the edit comment "Apologies for overcomplicating the block record - my previous unblock was based on the Check User clearing the sockpuppetry charge, but others have pointed out that the editor needs to agree to be civil before an unblock would be appropriate." Looks like he just went through the traditional WP:NOTTHEM appeal decline (why do they always do that? The instructions are crystal clear. I suppose that the same sort of person who gets blocked is the same sort of person who won't listen when told that a WP:NOTTHEM appeal will be declined. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No harm no foul. The right result prevails, and we're in before the WP:DEADLINE. I don't have a problem with defaulting to not blocked where there is ambiguity, I think that WereSpielCheckers missed the ambiguity - and self-corrected the error. All good. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Category removal?
I'm wondering why you removed Category:Whole medical systems from Anthroposophical medicine? hgilbert (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The category was virtually empty and all members were also members of Category:Alternative medical systems. There is discussion on the category talk page. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, what's the source for its categorisation? NCCAM says: "whole medical systems, which are complete systems of theory and practice that have evolved over time in different cultures and apart from conventional or Western medicine, may be considered CAM. Examples of ancient whole medical systems include Ayurvedic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. More modern systems that have developed in the past few centuries include homeopathy and naturopathy." Anthroposophy is neither ancient nor complete, though I suppose it was cut from whole cloth by Steiner so might qualify on that basis. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question; citations were lacking. I've now included a few supportive citations on the Whole medical systems page. I'm also restoring, and I hope you approve based on these citations, the categorization of AM within WMS. There are more references I can provide if you feel that the two journal articles are insufficient. hgilbert (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, p[rimary sources. NCCAM does not describe it as such. IMO it's just one more flavour of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanislaw Burzynski
Can you kindly point me to the AFD in question? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I already linked it? Guy (Help!) 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't ask if you did. See the diff I gave.TMCk (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find I did :o) Guy (Help!) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Now I wonder why you redirected it to the clinic. The outcome of the AFD of Burzynski Clinic was "redirect to Stanisław Burzyński", not the other way around.TMCk (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, but in the end there's only one subject and having it as a WP:BLP really is a potential nightmare, hence my choice of title. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)