Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 16 July 2005

Notes to Self: These are self-explanatory; the page is also used as an archive of significant posts or edits.

Archived pages: Previous discussions may be found in the archives. These may not be altered.

• Archive 1: June-July 2005. W. Mark Felt - FA nomination; Schiavo - subtle inaccuracies; Schiavo Mediation; "The unintended humor of Wiki editing;" User:Whitehorse1's timestamp; User:Cyberjunkie re accidental deletion; Schiavo "related articles" template.

Misplaced Pages

Welcome page.

Useful pages

• Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style
• Misplaced Pages:How_to_edit_a_page
• Misplaced Pages:Be bold
• Misplaced Pages:Image_markup
• Misplaced Pages:Cite_your_sources
• Misplaced Pages:Footnote2
• Misplaced Pages:How_to_write_a_Wikipedia_article_on_Mathematics
• Misplaced Pages:How_to_archive_a_talk_page
• Misplaced Pages:Barnstars_on_Wikipedia
• Help:Template

• Misplaced Pages:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
• Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment
• Misplaced Pages:NPOV_dispute
• WP:NPOV
• Misplaced Pages:POV

~ Neuroscientist 10:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

To dos

• Persistent Vegetative State
• Vegetative state
• Coma
• Brain death
• Intracranial pressure
• Stroke
• Multiple sclerosis (pretty good)
• Epilepsy / Seizures
• Brain tumors
• Parkinson's disease
• Alzheimer's disease

• EU Constitution

Reference style

Harvard
Annas, G.J. (1997a), 'New drugs for acute respiratory distress syndrome', New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 337, no. 6, pp. 435-439.

Maid, B.M. (2003), 'No magic answer', in M. Watts (ed.), Technology: taking the distance out of learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Vancouver
1. Annas GJ. New drugs for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:435-9.

2. Feinberg TE, Farah MJ, editors. Behavioural neurology and neuropsychology. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.

3. Anderson JC. Current status of chorion villus biopsy. In: Tudenhope D, Chenoweth J, editors. Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the Australian Perinatal Society; 1986: Brisbane, Queensland: Australian Perinatal Society; 1987. p. 190-6.

Wikipedians

Schiavo

• Duckecho
• ghost
• Proto
• Fox1
• FuelWagon
• Viriditas
• Ann Heneghan
• Patrick Sweeney
• NCdave
• Jon Gwynne
• Gordon Watts

Medicine

• JFD Wolff - da man.
• Other MDs
• Renato Sabbatini

Mod

• Ed Poor

Cheshire, MCS, and patient autonomy

I just finished reading Cheshire's affidavit. I had glanced through it once before, but I now had some time to pore over it in depth. I am troubled. I'm not troubled by was a mistake made—was a sentient being mistakenly put to death. I don't have the training or experience to make such a judgement in even the remotest sense. My personal beliefs seem to be congruent with yours—at least seven good doctors with rich CVs concluded she was in a PVS. I cannot imagine that they were wrong. No, what troubles me is the question Cheshire raises that I would label the ethical equivalent of Catch-22 and I would describe thusly: if Terri (and any other PVS patient) is truly in a PVS then there is no question that she should be afforded the opportunity for a dignified and ethically correct death (given that was her wish—a separate argument that I'm satisfied was concluded). However, if she were across that extremely hazy line (as I see it) of minimally conscious state, where she may experience pain, and she may have awareness of her circumstances, the ethical position of Cheshire mandates a continuation of the life prolonging intervention even though her wishes have not changed (I'm speaking to the ethical question here—we'll have to leave the statutory one alone for this discussion). And under those circumstances of potential yet limited cognition, she might at some level be aware not only of her circumstances but that her wishes weren't being honored. Now I'm aware of the slippery ethical slope that some might argue to avoid at all costs (how far into the MCS zone do we make exceptions, for example), but it still troubles me. I know you respect Cheshire, but it really strikes me that he permitted some personal agenda to add some nuance to either his observations or conclusions or both. Anyway, am I missing something?

Attention other readers: NS and I haven't the luxury of private email exchanges at this time. I am not interested in other's commentary, observations, arguments, or other interaction to my post to NS and I presume neither is he. Please stay out of it. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Duck, excellent questions and thoughts. I'll reply at some point tonight - I'm just going to put this under a separate section if you don't mind, and leave the above to Mr. Watts and anyone else who might have something to say re the earlier post (yes, I'm the nit-picky, organized type). For now I'll leave you with the tantalizing thought that no, you're not missing anything.~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

While I was away doing some remodeling another thought came to mind (I call those lawn mower conversations—which reminds me, I've been meaning to memorialize that concept in an essay for posting on my website), I would almost characterize Cheshire's (and others of his apparent ethical inclination) position as subverting the wishes of the patient for the maintenance of his own personal views. Incidentally, I would also characterize the Schindlers the same way. Although I believe they may fundamentally be nice people, I'm quite harsh in my assessment of both their handling of this case and their expressed views of it. More on that, someday, privately. (I'm nit-picky the same way—witness what I did with the Legal disputes section today.) Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

Comments from A ghost

NS, thank you for your kind words on both Templates for deletion and Intelligent design. On one thing, Uncle Ed and I agree unconditionally: We (the editors) should be more kind to each other. And that gets hard with the unending hurricane that is Misplaced Pages. But when we can rise above that, it is truely breathtaking to see.--ghost 5 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

...And not all the editors play well with others. - I thought you'd like that. ;-) --ghost 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah. Perhaps it's inevitable on Schiavo, ghost; the same beliefs and emotions that made it controversial in life make it controversial on Misplaced Pages. In thinking about the editors working on the article, it occurs to me that the only one who might manage a sympathetic ear from all sides is you (i.e., I think you're the only editor who can raise an issue with "opponents" without automatically drawing up their guard). The views of the rest of us rise and fall only on the strength of our reasoning. Where you try to persuade the Other, most of us (on all sides) seem to force the Other (i.e., to see that his view is indefensible). Part of this is predicated on the perception of how open to rational persuasion the Other is. I think it's great there are pedians out there who work hard at their approach (or simply have a talent for it). I would too, but Gordo has forced my hand with the horse droppings, and made it impossible for me not to reveal the power of the Dark Side. ;-)~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Edits (Sources in Schiavo)

Chuckle. I saw you de-capitalized the Eric Zorn link and the Living Wills link. I had looked to do that once a month or so ago, however I remember checking the Zorn link specifically (and probably checked the other, too), and the title of his article is in all caps. Consequently I left our link alone. I am sure strong styilistic and attributional arguments can be made for either. By the way, I couldn't stand Eric Zorn when I was living in Chicagoland and the choices for newspaper reading were the Tribune, the Chicago Enquirer (Sun-Times), or the local rag—Aurora Be Confused (Beacon-News)—which is a Sripps-Howard publication even further right than the Trib. Unfortunately, he got on the correct side of a couple of issues so I occasionally had to swallow a bitter pill whenever he wrote on those issues. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when the folks you love to hate say something you can't? Spoils all the fun. Re the de-capitalization, I ignored it for as long as I could, but the discrepant style eventually proved too grating for my nit-picky sensibilities :)~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Another question (MCS)

Let me know if you're going to start charging me for these. I just read a couple of MCS articles; one, the report from the Aspen Neurobehavioral Consensus Conference, and the other, Bernat's Questions remaining... . I gather that the MCS category has only been around since '96 (both of those articles were apparently published in '02). One of the bleaters on the Talk page (actually a couple of them—they both get their material from the blogosphere) has made what I consider the utterly specious claim that the legal definitions of terminal condition and life prolonging procedure (which included the feeding tube) weren't in the statutes in 1990, thus don't apply to her. It strikes me that we could counter that claim by citing that the MCS diagnosis wasn't available in 1990 and thus doesn't apply to her, either. Any good? I don't do emoticons, but if I did, one would be here. Duckecho (Talk) 7 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

This is to state the blindingly obvious, and of course you know this, but these morons really should be clued in to the fact that the statute "argument" is easily met on its own terms. Schiavo may have entered PVS and gotten her PEG in 1990, when there was no statute; but she was still in PVS and still PEGed in 2005, when there was. So it applies.

Now, turning the MCS argument on them might seem a mischievous way of getting back - and it is - but ironically there is actually some heft to the argument. This is in two parts.

Firstly, yes, MCS is a recent description. (More precisely, the entity understood today to be MCS is a very recent description). This is not to say that instances of it (or entities similar to it) were not studied and described; Joe Giacino, the big name in MCS (1st author of the paper you're calling the Aspen report) has been doing work in this area since the 1980s, for example. But the first attempt at a careful syndromic description only got published in 2002 (Aspen), and the literature in this area is absolutely tiny. There are a lot of problems with the diagnosis - since you also read the Bernat editorial you are aware of some of the important ones. The issue of the upper boundary for example is important, but with Schiavo it was the lower boundary that mattered. How accurately can behaviors said to be MCS be differentiated from some of the reflex phenomena of PVS? If the line is so fine, really, is there a significantly different neuroanatomic correlate? PVS is neuropathologically enormously heterogeneous - where does MCS fit in to the spectrum? Is there a real pathologic difference that will make a difference with therapies? It must be remembered with Schiavo that even if she was in MCS, she was sitting on the line or very close to the line. Nothing we have now, and nothing we'll have for the next twenty years, would make a mite of a difference to her cognition. We just can't regenerate brains yet.

MCS as it stands is really a research diagnosis, IMO. There is too much that is not understood about it, and the meaningfulness of even defining it (the way it's currently defined), for it to be very useful clinically. I know some rehab specialists will take a different tack, but the questions are there and they're unanswered.

Secondly, and most importantly, there is the ethical issue. Somehow no one seemed to consider this much. Whether or not she was PVS or boderline MCS actually did not matter as much as people seemed to think. The crucial clinical issue was that she was 1. incompetent - permanently incompetent - to make informed decisions about her health and her future, and 2. had permanently and irretrievably lost, if not all the characteristics that we associate with the human experience, virtually all of it.

However, being incompetent does not relieve one of one's rights. The right to bodily autonomy, the right to not have futile medical treatment foisted on you, the right to refuse interventions aimed merely at prolonging death and a meaningless existence. Our society deals with this issue through surrogate decision-making. There are clear and specific requirements for the SDM to fulfill. If Michael and the other 18 folks had given Judge Greer evidence that Schiavo would have wished to exist as a hollow repository of bacteria and liquifying bones for the benefit of parents stuck in a grotesque form of denial, weirdly feeding her body through a tube cut into her stomach, for 15 years after her departure, then nothing short of absolute brain death could have led to the removal of the PEG. But that wasn't the case. Credible evidence showed she would not have wanted this - a decision which is far more likely to be right than wrong, as even pro-Schindlers have to agree (ever noticed how even the staunchest always prefaced their diatribes with, "You know, if I were Terri, I would not want to continue like that, but...)~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 04:33 (UTC)

…for the benefit of parents stuck in a grotesque form of denial, weirdly feeding her body through a tube cut into her stomach… Don't forget the willingness to authorize up to quadruple amputation if necessary. She was their trophy child. I don't know whether it was for pity points or they truly needed the actual protoplasm. On another note, did you see on the Talk page that Cranford sent me a copy of Facts, Lies & Videotapes? It's a PDF of the article in the June Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Duckecho (Talk) 7 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Awesome. As I noted some time ago, he was bringing it out in one of the biomed ethics journals, although I didn't know it was in June - it hasn't been indexed by the Nat Lib of Medicine's Medline, which is odd if it has already been published. Are you sure it wasn't electronic early release? I'll check the journal web site. NB. You might want to reference the paper at various junctures in the article, Duck. Incidentally, I've been thinking about the article, and I've decided we're giving an ahistorical perspective. More soon.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 05:35 (UTC)

It may very well be an electronic release. The JMLE was in the footer of each page, though, but it probably would be electronically, too. It's not yet on the journal website (as of yesterday). The latest edition there is #1 of the current volume. The only concern I have with citing it is the brouhaha that's sure to arise when we do, due to Cranford's alleged POV. He is, after all, one of the blogosphere's biggest villains. Secondly, I don't think it's yet on the web anywhere. In a follow up note to me, Cranford said, "he articles I write, I want to be cited freely." In a private email to both FW and Ghost I suggested we ought to put him together with Matt Conigliaro (with whom I've also exchanged email—you really should consider joining this elite group…) for its inclusion at Abstract Appeal. I'm not sure what you mean by ahistorical perspective, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Regards. Duckecho (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

Fox1 on Schiavo article

Bottom line, this article is destined be a mediocre battleground piece with visibly substandard construction until such time as the editors are allowed to write concise prose in a structured framework that makes sense, instead of each and every sentence being obfuscated by its own weight in weasel words, insinuations, rebuttals to anticipated inferrals, and seven other kinds of unneccesary additions designed for a fictional reader whose first and only exposure to this issue will be this article. It's worth noting that even if this person exists, this article is still not being written for them, but for a highly impressionable mental construct of this fictional individual who, if not sheperded carefully by certain editors, may come away with "the wrong idea" (horrors!). Holy Cthulu, describing conduct on this $*%& is like writing science fiction. Fox1 6 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Molehills → Mountains

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was getting it. Duckecho (Talk) 23:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It may be useful to simply cut and paste the following at the 3RR page, in the exceedingly unlikely event that Slim Virgin does not see through Watts.

• Page edit by Duck: 03:52, 10 July 2005. This was an edit, in which a change that was thought to be useful was introduced for the first time.
• Gordon disagrees, says numbers are too small, and reverts Duck's edit to a previous version: 05:57, July 10, 2005

• Duck reverts Gordon for the first time: 12:50, 10 July 2005
• Gordon reverts Duck for the second time: 13:56, July 10, 2005
• Duck reverts Gordon for the second time: 14:15, 10 July 2005
• Gordon reverts Duck for the third time: 14:54, July 10, 2005
• Duck reverts Gordon for the third and last time: 15:00, 10 July 2005

~ Neuroscientist | T | C 01:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted essentially the same argument on the 3RR page, but nowhere near as concisely and succintly as you. See below. I suspect someone's off their meds. Duckecho (Talk) 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Skewed and glued. Thanks. Duckecho (Talk) 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In re   In tro

I guess I'm a little confused. I thought I was headed in the right direction, particularly with regard to size, by getting it down to <240 characters. That seems to be just about the lower limit that I can see, yet still be able to convey ticklers of the salient points, which I believe the function of the intro to be. I know that was certainly a goal of both of us, and irrespective of the defensive posture FuelWagon maintains, his long term goal, as well.

Your edit (and please take this with the least of offense as it is not my intent to give same) seems to expand in areas I didn't think were beneficial, and in fact in one respect (although it has an elegant side effect) is downright repetitive.

Now (and please excuse my obvious ego, but I'm nearly 60 and I've learned a few things about myself over the years), although I have some college writing experience, admittedly it was more battle with the professor over my own developed style than learn things to make my writing better that I already knew instinctively—I have a native skill. My point is I'm not classically trained at technical writing as you are. And although I know I write eminently readable stuff, I have to yield to a large extent to those so trained.

Not the least of my difficulties is the sense of parochialism in having crafted two significant edits that, while receiving general acclaim (and I'm not fishing for compliments), yet still apparently fall short of the mark—a mark I had felt I came pretty near hitting. But, as I said, I'm man enough to recognize when to swallow the pill and continue to work with other capable writers toward a common goal (yada, yada, yada).

My thoughts (in future discussions could we number them 1 through whatever including the lead sentence, even though we're done with it?):

• It appears we're in agreement in the lead sentence. I think we can put that to bed.
• #1 is okay, although I've been forced to dig in my heels on certain verbiage, and it's hard to let go of it. That's why I worded my second paragraph 1 the way I did. The only thing I thought needed work was the evolved into which I inferred from something you wrote, yet wasn't able to correspond with you to massage it.
• #2 to me just seems bloated beyond what it needs to be. Bob & Mary and Michael can be easily excised, I believe, because their identities are readily found in the very first part of the main article. I kept asking myself when I was hacking away, "how does this sell Terri's story?" Bob & Mary and Michael don't—'rents and DH do (Darling Husband, if you're not up on women's groups netspeak—I have a 31 year old, 'net savvy daughter). I do like some form of acrimony in there. But otherwise, I feel it rambles rather than hammering facts into hooks.
• #3 I intensely dislike one sentence paragraphs. It seems to me we should either find a way to meld it into another paragraph, expand it (bloat—ugh!), or drop it altogether.
• #4 As written is a two subject paragraph. I thought we had a much more powerful closer when we had the case of the litigated feeding tube, the date of its final removal, and the denouement of her expiration.

That ought to keep you busy for, what, five minutes? Regards. Duckecho (Talk) 01:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

They call me Mister Echo

Prepare for onslaught of utterly off topic personal vignette.

"(I can't believe I'm calling a gentleman almost twice my age that. I have an urge to begin each correspondence with you henceforth with, "Mr. Duckecho, sir, if you please...")" What's this gentleman crap? I figured you to be younger than me, but not my kids' age!! Actually, I am quite uncomfortable with being called Mr. anything. When I was younger it became my observation that my father was someone who commanded respect from all he met. Nothing he overtly said or did; people just naturally treated him with deference.

I recall when he and I would go out to the golf club and pick up another couple of guys for a foursome we would all introduce ourselves, "hi, I'm Les; I'm Bill; I'm Fred; I'm Duck." For the rest of the round, invariably it would be Bill, Fred, Duck, and Mr. Echo (Dad, for me, obviously). It almost embarrassed me because I felt we were in a decidedly casual social setting and that he should make an extra effort at setting the others at ease by reminding them of Les at their first transgression. He said he had never noticed.

Now, he was a school principal and worked in an environment wherein everyone was Mr. This and Mrs. or Miss That (back in the day, there was no Ms.). And one of his pasttimes was as a Boy Scout leader, where naturally all the Scouts would address him as Mr. Echo. So I could see him being so accustomed to it.

As for me, I got interested in amateur radio as a teen and once licensed was on an immediate first name basis with everyone, 8 to 80, as is the custom. Then I went to work for the FAA and everyone there was on a first name basis. The facility chief was someone who had probably been your radar man only a couple of years earlier. It was impossible to give up that informality just because the paycheck got bigger. So, I've been on a first name basis, both gotten and given, virtually all of my adult life. The first time I was actually addressed as Mr. Echo, even though it was by a youngster, I actually, physically cringed. Years later, it's still not something I seek nor am comfortable with.

Your environment is entirely different and I am aware that physicians are extremely proprietary about their titles (remember I mentioned SWMBO's background). I would have to guess that your experience might be almost the opposite of mine, in that I'll bet there are informal settings with other physicians, but outside the work environment, wherein it's not necessarily easy to use first names.

So, please, it's Duck (or Duckecho). And sometime if you ever do want to exchange email, you'll learn what Les' son's name really is. Didn't know you were going to get an essay, did you? Duckecho (Talk) 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. No, I didn't. FAA, eh? Immensely Cool. I'm not proprietary about receiving the Dr. bit, although I've always had a habit of addressing my professors with the title. Around colleagues my age we're all on first names. I have a natural deference toward those older to me - probably my upbringing. All my elderly patients are Mr.___ or sir, or M(r)s.___ or Ma'am (unless they absolutely insist on first names). They never do. :) (They will also never address me without Dr. ____, even when we know each other very well). It's the generation. I do know one erudite wit who's peeved I have scientist in my handle though. I must be doing something right.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 05:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you think the casual mention of FAA is cool, let me give you the actual CV: I did 30 years as an air traffic controller. I spent the first five years in the Jacksonville ARTCC (FL), and the last 25 in Chicago—mostly ARTCC, but I had some time at ORD, too. And to put things about the ARTCC in perspective, 75% of the operations at the Center (ARTCC) involve inbounds to and outbounds from ORD. I've been retired since I was 51. That explains how I'm able to be here so much.

Are you a pilot, by any chance? One of the classic stereotypes in aviation is a doctor in a Bonanza. Duckecho (Talk) 15:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

51! Holy cow. I expect to have to be going at it even at 65. No, not a pilot, sorry, no bonanza. MudPhud. Currently on lab rotation, with a computer that's always on next to my bench. Which should explain something.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 15:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, a month before my 52nd. But I hired in just after my 22nd. Where were you when you were 22? First year med? Your actual career didn't even start until, by comparison, I'd already had a year or more as a full performance lever (journeyman) controller (I'm sure all of the post grad, internship, residency, etc. is a career by itself—this sounds condescending as I reread it—I don't mean it that way—I'm just trying to illustrate that starting a career at 22 and ending it at 52 isn't substantially different than a career that starts at 30 and ends at 60…or so). By 30 years (okay, 29+) I'd had enough. I'd seen it all and done it all. I had worked terminal traffic (the most challenging) for over twenty years. I'd had staff assignments, I was a supervisor, there just weren't any challenges left and work was interfering far too much with other things I wanted to do, such as woodworking, ham radio, computers, etc. It truly is a young person's game and I could feel that I'd lost a step although since there were no more surprises for, experience got me through what speed wouldn't. We had an early retirement program, for which I qualified at 47. I figure 30 years is nothing to apologize for and I'd had an epiphany about four years before I left that reassured me I wouldn't miss it, and I don't. It's the world's greatest video game. I wouldn't have missed it for anything. (by the way, take a look at the intro edit made just a few minutes ago. It'll make you want to cry.) Duckecho (Talk) 16:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

MIA

In re Ghost. I don't know. The last email I got from him was on the 7th. I've written at least one since (and another just now) that should have garnered a response, but didn't. Must be one of those life things you and FW mentioned. Duckecho (Talk) 15:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Just got an email from him. All is well—work has apparently blown up on him. Fighting fires for two, it seems. Duckecho (Talk) 18:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'm pissed. I'm working to wrap my arms around SlimVirgin and Uncle Ed. Please feel free to reach me on my talk page or via email. I'll do what I can.--ghost 20:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Deserving of special mention

I really appreciate the support. Duckecho (Talk) 15:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Horse manure

Although I know you prefer to stay above the fray when possible, I am hoping you'll wade in to sort of trim someone's feathers over their alleged knowledge of PVS and their rewording of your narrative. Duckecho (Talk) 01:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk page

There's no need to apologize. There was nothing wrong with responding on my talk page. The thing is, the exact duplicate comment was made by the user in question to Talk:Terri Schiavo, so I moved your reponse to that section. --Viriditas | Talk 23:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In re "Huh?"

Alas, I must. It's for my own personal sanity, as I'm sure you'll understand. I'm accustomed to a world of some order; of rules and structure, of actions and consequences, of humanity and responsibility. I was operating for too long under the misapprehension that Misplaced Pages was a community and that it functioned responsibly as one. I see now that at best, it can be considered an experiment, however it cannot be taken seriously as any sort of legitimate rererence. Its potential as a collaborative resource is undone by the very structure that invites editorship. Jim Wales has made a fortune from it, and good for him, but it can't be considered a success at what it purports to do.

When POV zealots such as NCDave, open prevaricators such as Gordon Watts (be prepared for a voluminous riposte), closet POV pushers such as Ann Henneghan and Patsw can conspire to derogate a work while considered to be on an equal basis with genuine editors such as Ghost and yourself, and yes, FuelWagon, (irrespective of his unfortunate Talk Page intemperance), all legitimacy vanishes. When vocal, arrogant, intransigent, and unrepentant administrators are permitted regulatory oversight to the very projects in which they participate, the experiment falls apart. When terms such as mediation and peer review become hollow parodies of their real world equivalent the project becomes fatally flawed.

Although I had vowed to myself some 40 hours ago to not even read the Talk page, at the suggestion of one of our collaboraters I read your thorough analysis of the situation. I am in awe of your knowledge, grasp of issues at stake, and forebearance. SlimVirgin's transgressions were utterly eviscerated and yet he/she , instead of recognizing he/she was in a discussion with someone who clearly knows what they are talking about and defering to that superiority of education and experience, advised you to desist in your patronizing tone. What arrogance, and yes, as you so rightly put it, hubris! And yet that is the sort of administrator to whom one is expected to turn for guidance and justice. Talk about the inmates running the asylum.

One day in my work years I was training an experienced journeyman on a new (to him) sector. We were having a conversation about another controller who was clearly on the posterior of the bell curve and he said, "some people have twenty years of experience, others have one year of experience twenty times." That precisely defines SlimVirgin's 12,000 edits. Especially in contrast, I say unabashedly, to my 213.

Sadly, wikipedia is not for me. I am involved in several newsgroups on usenet, in some forums on the web, and of course, my own webpage. I am recognized in those other venues for the qualities I exhibited in my turn at the 'pede, so I don't need to come here to have my abilities, my knowledge, my experience, and my character insulted by an irresponsible administrator who puts up a tag that says "major edit in progress" and then claims it wasn't a major edit, by a demonstrated perjurer who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, by a pedant in Europe who wants to apply British law to a U.S. case, by a slow-witted religious zealot who can't comprehend the difference between cardiac arrest and myocardial infarct…oh, the list goes on an on. Oh, yes, a mediator whose sole contribution to the process was to continually remind the parties that he's never failed—he'll have to modify that claim.

Although I'm sure there'll be some dancing in the streets, it'll be by partakers (I can't recognize them as contributors) for whom I care not a whit. I've had some marvelous interactions with some brilliantly gifted editors while here and I'll miss them; but, Scarecrow, I think I'll miss you most of all.

I thought she was a she, yet he took offense at my polite reference to her as "madam" and hasn't issued one correction to you--in any event, SlimVirgin would clearly be a sobriquet a woman would choose, and I can't imagine a male who would come near it—shame on someone who would choose a sexually ambiguous nom de web and then complain when confusion ensues.

Duckecho (Talk) 16:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal remarks

There is a fine line between making personal remarks, and criticizing someone's contributions to Misplaced Pages. I hope you will read Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks. Please be careful not to hurt other editors' feelings with comments like:

• this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.
• the 12,000-edit administrator who doesn’t seem to have learned ... do not be reckless. (cut for discussion by Ed Poor)

We need to focus more an articles, and less on personalitise, don't you think? Uncle Ed 15:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ed,

Thanks for stopping by. I absolutely agree with you that we need to focus more on articles and less on personalities on that page. Some of the comments there have troubled me greatly. In my remarks on the recent unfortunate incident involving SlimVirgin, FuelWagon, Duckecho, Grace Note and a few others, I have made detailed posts on the disputes and facts themselves. Pointing out factual error (made by both sides) in the editing is of course not a personal attack, as I'm sure you'll agree. It is regretable that constructive critique of factual errors has been ignored .

Pointing out that poor judgement may have been excercised over one particular incident is of course not a personal attack, although it may be misconstrued that way. I was very clear in my post that I was addressing my comment to the one incident that occured, and not making a general statement about the judgment of that individual as a person. Please read my original comments - the sentence you quote above is not in context.

Finally, I wish you all the best in your mediation endeavors over the Schiavo article.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 06:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have read wakeenah's comments (diff 18727417), and I also enclose an excerpt from Slim's commonts (diff 18741571):

"Accusing someone of very, very, very poor judgment is a comment about a person, not about their edits."

Please note that I personally feel that we should distinguish between "personal remarks" and "personal attacks". The latter (attacks) is flat-out forbidden at Misplaced Pages. It's established policy. The former (personal remarks) is a proposed policy, which I largely wrote myself. Note that I have not invoked the "personal attacks" code word, and that I am not trying to "build a case".

I just would like contributors at Misplaced Pages to concentrate more on coming up with ideas to improve article text than on anything else. That is why I have dropped by to visit you. Uncle Ed

There is a mistake in the diffs, Ed. I have written a complete response below.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 03:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

A response to Uncle Ed

Ed, I very much appreciate this sentiment:

I just would like contributors at Misplaced Pages to concentrate more on coming up with ideas to improve article text than on anything else.

I agree. Now, I know you must be very busy on Misplaced Pages, but I would appreciate your noting the following:

1. I was not a party to the revert war that involved, at various points and to various degrees, SlimVirgin, FuelWagon, Ann Heneghan, and Duckecho.
2. My position on reverting, and, indeed, on editing Misplaced Pages, may be concisely summed up with the guidelines of the Misplaced Pages Harmonius editing club.

• Be bold (not reckless) in editing,
• If your edits are reverted, discuss them before reverting back,
• Don't revert more than once.

Reversion is a symptom that communication has broken down. The best way to move forward is to stop, move immediately to the Talk page, and talk things out until the dispute is settled. It is not to keep reverting until your 3RR is up — regardless of who you are, in which order you entered the revert war, or how correct you think your particular POV is. ("You" and "your" are here used generically). All the main players in that incident made matters worse by persisting in reverting the page. I would not have done what any of them did — in fact, I didn't (I was online at the tail end of the dispute ).

3. I entered the discussion on the Talk page, two days after the incident. I addressed nearly all my concerns to matters of fact, related to the article and the edits. (BTW, this was the diff I meant to post above, not the quote by Wakeenah. I'm sorry for any confusion this nmay have caused.) In my concluding section, I addressed the way this dispute came about. In my opinion, the editor who initiated a major edit of so controversial an article, which was already in mediation, apparently without reference to the Talk page, had displayed poor judgment in this instance. This is what I said :

My final impressions here are that this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.

This does not say that that editor has no judgment. It is not a comment on her as a person. It is most certainly not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. It is an observation about a particular set of actions, in one incident. I have had to explain this at some length because in your post on my page (above) you have used someone else's claims about what I said in place of what I actually said and clearly meant.

4.The opinion I expressed is not at all remarkable; in fact it is based on official Wiki policy:

If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, it's a good idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is...

If you are an experienced Wikipedian, you will probably have a good sense of which edits will be accepted, and which should be discussed first...

Also, show respect for the status quo. Avoid making major changes to an article if a vote (or poll) about whether those changes should be made is currently in progress, especially if there is no clear consensus. With that said... and as long as you write thorough edit summaries (and even more thorough explanations in Talk pages), be bold.

5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, thank you for your clarification that "I have not invoked the "personal attacks" code word, and... I am not trying to "build a case"." My best read of what you're trying to indicate to me is that you hope all editors will stick strictly to the points of contention in the article. I wholeheartedly concur with this, and I have given my view in regards matters of fact quite a few times. My comment on the judgment of the editor in question was made only once, in the aftermath of the incident, and was meant to indicate to the editor that perhaps a better way of doing things with so controversial an article was possible. I have had to address this judgment issue more than once simply because it keeps being unfairly misrepresented as a personal comment, which it was not and never meant to be.

6. SlimVirgin is absolutely right that the article needs a lot of work. If she assumes that the regular editors did not also think precisely the same thing, she is mistaken. We were all aware of it, and we were all working hard to keep improving it. And then July 11 happened. I hope we can move on.

Kind regards,~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 03:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Here, here. The good news: We've gotten several high caliber editors to join our ranks recently. (Neuroscientist is one.) The bad news: Pride is getting the better of us all.--ghost 04:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions about Dr Hammesfahr

Hello, Neuroscientist. Thanks for waiting before archiving the "eventually" bit. I appreciate that the page did have to be archived. I'll reply next week, and just refer people to the relevant place in the archives.

I was one of the people who supported the Schindlers in the belief that Dr Hammesfahr was a Nobel Prize nominee. However, that was certainly not the basis for my support, so when I found out in April (from the discussions on the Terri Schiavo talk page, actually!) that this claim was false, I was disappointed, as I believe that misleading people is not a legitimate way of supporting a cause, but it did not in any way lessen my opposition to the removal of Terri's tube.

I see that the PVS diagnosis is still being discussed, and that Hammesfahr's credentials are also coming under scrutiny. While I didn't agree with everything you wrote here , I found that contribution extremely helpful about Dr Hammesfahr. For that reason, I'm asking you, if you have time, to write a little more about him. The Nobel Prize claim may raise questions about his integrity, but I am wondering to what extent it raises questions about his competence as a neurologist. (For example, if someone falsely claims to have a Master of Arts degree in Spanish, it doesn't prove that he hasn't got a BA in Spanish, or that he can't speak Spanish.) What I would particularly like to know is what you mean by saying that he is "not a member in good standing of the American Academy of Neurology". Forgive my ignorance, but I've never heard of the AAN. So my questions are:

• How important is membership of the AAN to one's credibility as a neurologist? I have prestigious qualifications in piano and violin, but I'm not a member of the European Piano Teachers Association or of the European String Teachers Association. I just didn't bother to join. What matters for my job is that I passed the necessary exams for various music degrees and diplomas. Membership of EPTA or ESTA would not increase my salary or get me more students. Obviously, the AAN is of more significance, but I'd appreciate if you could clarify how significant it is. You say that he is a board-certified neurologist. Presumably he has passed the necessary medical exams for that. Is there any reason why he would need to be a member of the AAN as well?

• What do you mean when you say "not a member in good standing"? Does that mean that he's not a member at all? Or does it mean that he's a member in bad standing (if there's such a thing)? If you're a board-certified neurologist but not a member of the AAN, could that mean that you didn't pass the additional exams necessary to join, or that you didn't bother to pay a subscription, or that you disagree with some of their policies and don't want to have anything to do with them, or that they didn't approve of your "unorthodox" views, so they turned down your request for membership? Is it very unusual to be a board-certified neurologist and not to be a member of the AAN?

I'm not really sure where I should post this, but if you have time to address some of these points, you can do it wherever you think it's most suitable. I'll keep watching your talk page, my own, the Terri Schiavo talk page, and the Terri Schiavo mediation talk page. Thanks. Ann Heneghan 22:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)