Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 24 February 2007

Archives

1. July 2006 — January 2007
2. Feb 2007 — present

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Another doctor?

Hi, and another welcome. I saw you made some very good contributions to oncology related articles lately. Are you a doctor or a medical student? You might be interested in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Clinical medicine where a lot of the medicine related action happens. --WS 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added you to Category:Physician Wikipedians, I hope are all right with that. --WS 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Praise

Hey there. I just noticed your edits pop up on the recent changes page, and I have to say, this is some very good stuff.

Not only is it good, useful information, it's well-written.

We need more contributors like you. Keep at it! DS 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ABC article

Thanks. It sure wasn't/isn't easy. - RoyBoy 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a scholar and a gentle(person). While indeed sometimes I can get annoyed at things getting inaccurate, after I calm myself it is obvious things were inaccurate to begin with. And only by continuing to bounce opinions and ideas off each other can we arrive at a truly superior article. Quite frankly you are the best person to work with on this article; as we disagree on the conclusion of the ABC issue, but we both see there is enough ambiguity in the evidence for us both to be somewhat wrong. - RoyBoy 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MastCell

Wow, you've certainly made a productive start here this month! You're additions have been great! I've had fun putting up endoscopy images, but the hard part is getting consent from patients for their release. You should join us at WP:CLINMED, the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject, and at WP:GI, WikiProject Gastroenterology where we have fun bouncing article ideas off each other. If you haven't met User:Jfdwolff, he's a fabulous editor and administrator to work with, and laid the foundations for a tonne of the medical articles here. Take care -- Samir धर्म 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi once more, and welcome to WP:CLINMED! Keep the histamine flowing and hope to see you around! PS: If you're interested, we're working on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): have a look!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

K Harris discussion

Thank you for stepping in to the discussion and helping to hopefully diffuse the situation between ThuranX and myself. I don't know what exactly set him off, but by reading his user talk page, I'm starting to understand I'm not the only editor that he does not work well with (even resulting in some warnings against him for incivility to others). I'd like to leave it to you and other editors to work towards a consensus on the Trivia section issue. I will still voice my opinions but will not be responding to ThuranX and I've made as much clear on his user talk page. Thanks again, and have a good day. ju66l3r 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ischemic colitis

Great job! It looks fabulous. I had a couple of things I wanted to add, one of which is a picture that I have but need to get patient consent for its release -- Samir धर्म 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Melanoma edit

I liked your edit of my contribution to the Moh's section under melanoma. Much more fluid now. Cheers. RobDroliver 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article: AML

Kudos on the AML article accolades--well-deserved after your hard work on it. Keep up the quality contributions.

Chavoguero 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

MastCell, thanks for taking the time to make this comment. It means so much more coming from you and I really appreciate your 2 cents;) And yes, your right, we use little CT anymore with MRI available, but most of us don't even order them until they have failed to respond, that is if we don't just send them to the surgeon. Most xrays are to rule out contraindications to spinal manipulation which means two or three views. It's nice to know that someone understands that is a necessary risk to prevent iatrogenic injury. --Dematt 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MastCell -- a fellow Dr Strangelove fan I presume! In any case, if the profanity on the pseudoscience talk page offended you, I apologise, but you're really need to read the archives from three or four days ago to see how we got to that point. Also, Krishna commented to your post here. You may wish to reply (or not). But, if you stick with it for a few days (if you have the time) you might see the dynamic of the page and might even feel tempted to use profanity as well. Also, I echo Dematt's thanks. •Jim62sch• 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

orthomed

My reply yesterday was hot under the coller because I only read the OM article's dif on an old screen and read it as *commenting out* the entire second paragraph that you had formed instead of just the one sentence that you commented out. So my apologies in another hot zone where small communications errors could cause wider misunderstandings.--TheNautilus 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Junkscience"

Thanks for that sterling work on Steven Milloy. (My specialty is Myron Ebell.) In order to do his job, he has to obscure his conflicts of interest, so by their nature it won't be absolutely transparent. However, it shouldn't take many false and uncorrected claims to cast enough doubt on someone's reliability as a source of information for the media never to speak to them again. Unfortunately, they don't seem to work that way.Goatchurch 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back

Thanks for the note. Let me know if your could use any specific help. -Severa (!!!) 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

And the same to you! Thanks for the tip. Also, I saw on An/I this "One of my comments, in a moment of weakness, was an uncivil response to this sort of thing." Welcome to the human race. At least you were articulate. Also, have you ever wondered if[REDACTED] is addictive? oy vey mariaJance 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given some documentation why I am dissatisfied with IR's 2nd AN/I filed and its disruptive impact on everybody else.--I'clast 13:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's anything in the diffs that are actually of concern to anyone, please let me know. I'm happy to explain what I did, why I did it, what if anything I'd do different now, etc. Mostly, I just see them as I'clast being unhappy with me when I don't agree with him or others. --Ronz 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Splattered Consensus

I never thought an AfD would fly, having assumed GW skeptics would come streaming out of the woodwork to defend it. Kudos. (PS. I see you're a Dr Strangelove fan as well... ) Raymond Arritt 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't nominate out of spite... it's just that a) it really wasn't notable enough, b) it was the source of an ungodly amount of argument, given its non-notability, and c) even for the best of books it's really hard to write a good article without turning it into a book report. I feel kind of bad, because I think a lot of work and emotion was put into the article, but in the end it really wasn't appropriate for Misplaced Pages - and it was just serving as a nexus for pro-/anti-global warming debate that was unproductive. Yes, I am a fan of Dr. Strangelove — although it seems almost quaint in light of recent events to think that, at one point, the concern was that military would foment a war despite the restraint of the civilian authorities... MastCell 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

QW

Word? What am I missing? --Dematt 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a slang expression popular in my youth, meaning that I agree with your comments 100%. I should have expressed that more clearly. MastCell 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! It's now going to be one of my favorites:) I like it! I'm going to use it on my kids and see what look they give me;) --Dematt 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit dated. You could try, "Yo, respeck!" to express agreement... MastCell 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish you could have seen the look I just got! --Dematt 17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

At times you may have difficulty identifying why I suddenly "telegraph impatience" with some other editors. This is an introduction to sometinmes why. Such issues are not always immediately or fully addressable. More pieces here, I have been avoiding personal disclosures for as long as possible.--I'clast 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Thanks for reinstating those state refs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health&diff=next&oldid=108201776

I was constantly having edit conflicts with you, and when I figured there was a pause I added all my changes and I thought I preserved all of yours but I missed those. -- Fyslee's (First law) 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem... sorry for stepping on your toes there. MastCell 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict - specifically WP:Vandal

In the HIV test talk page you stated that I incorrectly cited something as vandalism - along with doing a few other things. I'd just like to point out that it was actually correct- and you have to actually read what I said to understand it. I said if he continued to revert (and in doing so violating WP:MOS) without making comments on the talk page - that's vandalism. And it is (MastCell - yes I can write your name accusingly in parenthesis too). And I quote (from the part on sneaky vandalism), "hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." I mean there are 2 possibilities, A) you misread what I put or B) you actually think that that's a content dispute - which obviously given the quote - is not. If you don't understand any part of the policy, you might want to ask questions at the Villiage pump - if you can't find it, please look on the talk page, where you (apparently incorrectly) gave me the link because you thought I was mistaken. And for future reference as you can probably tell by now - it really sucks to read a patronizing letter like this one/the one you put on the talk page - so I suggest not doing it ... because if you end up being wrong it looks really bad.Daniel()Folsom |_C| 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended - it wasn't my intent to be patronizing or difficult. But there really is a tendency, when involved in a nascent edit war, to accuse the other editor of "vandalism". It happens all the time. But you and Nunh-huh clearly had a content dispute about what should be in the lead paragraph. Neither of you is trying to "hinder improvement of the article" - you just have very different ideas about how to improve it. This falls under WP:VANDAL#What vandalism is not, specifically under "Stubborness". Your name in parentheses was not intended to be "accusatory" - Nunh-huh snuck a comment in before mine (hence the edit conflict), so I put your name in to make clear to whom my comments were addressed. Again, I'm sorry you were offended - that wasn't my intention, and I apologize, but I did read your post, and the edits in question were not vandalism. My other comments, about needing to be careful not to break refs when removing sourced content and about NPOV/undue weight stand, although I wish that I had phrased them in such a way as not to come off patronizing. MastCell 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But the edits in question weren't what I called vandalism - I said, "frankly purposely disregarding the Manual of Style by reverting edits could be considered vandalism" (I believe in the paragraph that that quote was in I was telling him that if he really thinks that sentence should be on there he should come to the talk page rather than revert on the drop of a hat so to speak) - which is right per the policy I pointed out. But hey - I mean as long as the current version of the article is fine with you then I guess that's all there is too discuss.Daniel()Folsom |_C| 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. MastCell 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

Thank you for doing the right thing. Just to be sure, you are aware this article was already nominated before but unfortunately survived? Did not want to nominate myself since I started it last time. Cheers! Nomen Nescio 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that AfD. I think the idea was interesting (keep as a prominent health fraud), but in hindsight it was probably predictable that a POV warrior like User:Heelop would show up to bowdlerize the page. It's not even a notable health fraud, really - and thankfully WP:FRINGE exists to establish notability criteria, which the article/topic clearly fails. MastCell 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Already added my 2 cents, guess! Anyway, have no objection to it per se, if it is possible to keep it as it is now, clearly stating it is nonsense. However history shows us that editors quickly forget and that's when the less scrupulous appear and rewrite it to become an advertisement. So, all 'n all, good nom! Nomen Nescio 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the previous AfD closed with "let's keep the article to warn people it's a scam". That sounds good in theory, but the problem is that the article falls off the radar screen - and then a single-purpose account shows up to whitewash it into a promotional article. Next the article is scraped onto Answers.com and such places, and instead of a scam warning, it becomes an advertisement. The article needs to go, for that reason and for notability. MastCell 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead horse

Yep. Thanks for the laugh. --Ronz 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I aim to please. The remarkable thing is that, even though I really think it's the proverbial dead horse, I couldn't let that "peer-reviewed analysis" claim sneak by... perhaps it's time for a vacation. MastCell 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the phrase "beating a zombie horse"?  ;^) --Ronz 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or "beating an undead horse"? We're getting there. MastCell 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt resist using ex-horse this time around. --Ronz 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wow: If you're defending yourself against..." LOL. It's almost like Ilena's account has been taken over by someone with no interest whatsoever in defending her. Almost every edit she makes could be used as evidence against her. And then her friend Levine comes to the rescue with more of the same. This is really getting sad. --Ronz 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoxsey therapy

You're right: WP:LEAD says notable criticism should be mentioned in the lead. --Coppertwig 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

+ reply

Don't get too worked up or angry -I'm not trying to offend or provoke you, but I wanted to let you know I did reply to your post: This is the most current diff of that reply. I am pointing it out, as I said, not to offend you, but just in case you missed a needle in a haystack. (While I've made many edits today -about 13 -on the notice board, many of them were minor edits, and some of them quite small -and certainly a small word-count in comparison to the total word-count of posts by other editors.) No offense meant, but if you're going to complain that my posts are too long (and your complaint/implication is an obvious lie, as shown by these numbers) -when in fact my comments comprise only a small portion of the total, then I shall reserve (and exercise) the right to refute this incorrect claim. In any case, have a nice day.--GordonWatts 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have been more clear - it wasn't the length per se that I objected to, although that was a part of it. It's that the talk page guidelines specifically caution against using the article talk space as a forum for discussing the subject. Everyone is guilty of this at some point, to some extent, but my reading of the talk pages and your posts (and I did read them) suggests that you've had particular difficulty limiting your use of the talk page to discuss article improvements. My sense is that you've used the talk page as an additional forum to argue and discuss an issue about which you obviously have strong feelings, and it's reached a point that it's disruptive. It's not the word count alone, which is why I think the numbers game is beside the point. Again, that's just my opinion - I've been wrong before, maybe I'm wrong now, and in any case I'm just one person without any special weight or power. Sorry for not being clearer in my earlier comments. MastCell 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)