Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:25, 19 April 2008

If you're here to leave a message about an article I've deleted, please check the deletion summary. If it contains the words "Expired PROD", then the article was deleted via the proposed deletion process. This means that another user (not me) tagged the article for deletion. If there was no objection within a 5-day period and the rationale appeared sound, then I deleted the article. If you think the deletion was mistaken and the article meets the notability criteria, then please leave me a note here and I'll restore the article for a formal discussion at articles for deletion.

Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–present (Date ranges are approximate)

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)

Editors complaints against admins

MastCell, I respect your jurisprudence and at times the complaints against admins are far fatched by desgrunted users for what ever intaraction they have had with an admin pushing their POV a bit too strong, but some greviances have merit and need to be respected and addressed. An admin hold sysop tools and enforsment capability so that may seem threatening on its own. But admins are given those tools by the community in trust and they are upheld to higher standards than regular users. When an admin continuesly targets a user and keeps pushing the same message without trying to establish consensus is abusive. We are not hear to take sides but we need to address all sides. One admin does not deside an outcome but the community desides what needs to be done. If they have a complaint against a user they should lunch it and step back and let the community do its work, not canvas for their POV. I hope my conserns could be addressed and the regular editors being they are established editors or anon would feel more comfortable editing Misplaced Pages. They do not need The Hammer of Justice hanging over their head. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in general terms. Is this in reference to a specific comment or action of mine? MastCell  00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for specifics. No one is perfect and we try to do the best to promote NPOV and uphold Misplaced Pages:WikiCommonSense Igor Berger (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not perfect. It would probably be helpful, in the interest of introspection and self-improvement, to know what specific action of mine led you to bring this up, but if you'd rather leave it as a general comment that's fine. MastCell  00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not your actions I am conserned with, but other people around you. You may need to show your wisdom onto both sides. Igor Berger (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. MastCell  00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I think we should write an essay on those..:) Misplaced Pages conspiracies Igor Berger (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Life extension

Hi, I am Attila Csordas, mitochondrial and stem cell scientist and life extension supporter. My blog Pimm - Partial Immortalization is about stem cells and mitochondria, regenerative medicine, biotechnology, indefinite life extension, science hacks and bioDIY. It has been linked for a long time as an external link in the Life extension Misplaced Pages entry, but yesterday I realized that it is not there anymore so I put it back. I would like to ask why did you delete it again? I think the content of Pimm is heavily related to current life extension technologies, ideas and persons through the concept of systemic regenerative medicine which was currently highlighted in the Economist, for instance. I suggest scanning through the posts tagged with life extension and then make a decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.57.224 (talk • contribs)

Chiropractic problems

You're listed in Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation #Administrators as someone to contact for assistance about problems with Chiropractic, which as you no doubt know is a controversial article, with chiropractic partisans and critics often disagreeing.

I've recently observed problems with EBDCM, an editor there who strongly defends chiropractic, is listed at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation #Notifications as being notified of the article probation for Chiropractic, and was part of a revert war that got the page protected today. I didn't frequent Chiropractic until recently, but when I joined I noticed that EBDCM was uncivil and indulged in personal attacks on Talk:Chiropractic at a high rate.

I have tried to ignore the behavior, but the disruption it causes is extraordinary in my experience. Plus, one other strange thing happened: EBDCM suggested that I add what I consider questionable material to a medical article as a sign of "good faith collaboration" in Chiropractic. This suggestion was made here:

"http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm Now, you said above that you've made mistakes and I would opine that you would be making a big one by not reviewing and including this in the most appropriate article, you know, as a sign of NPOV editing and a sign of good faith."

and repeated here:

"So, I'll ask Eubulides again: as a sign of good faith collaboration, will you include the references I provided you and address the safety issue (or lack thereof) in the medicine article?"

I am not accustomed to being asked to edit other articles in a questionable way "as a sign of good faith".

Most of EBDCM's incivility is used in strong language directed at other people's comments or edits, but a good deal of it is clearly personal attacks. Here are some samples (all taken from the last three days).

• "Liar."

• "Note how MDs and medical students are not well prepared for the specialization of musculoskeletal medicine. This, in part, explains your difficulty with your edits here; fish out of water perhaps?"

• "Eubulides paternalistic and arrogant and condecending tone is not winning him any favours and further damages his credibility, which, IMO, is shot now."

• "I feel that Dr. Eubulides does not have a firm grasp on this subtlety which is nicely illustrated in Anon's point."

• "I would figure that our self declared "expert" in research and writing med articles (which this is not) would know better.... you are lying when you suggest this"

• "You don't seem to get this, Dr. Eubulides. Your intent here is questionable, and a majority of editors disagree with you and yet you always, always, always push, push, push."

• "Also, again, you are being intellectually dishonest and referring to google scholar as some kind of barometer as to what is acceptable."

• "You are so intellectually dishonest I'm having I really don't know if I can work with you if you do not start to improve your understanding of the issues."

• "You know absolutely NOTHING about chiropractic which is why your edits suck. You lack insight and sensitivity to this topic and article, because you're an MD and do not understand chiropractic culture, chiropractic philosophy, chiropractic styles of practice and chiropractic research."

• "It's because you don't know jack about the art and science of manipulation and you have to listen to quack guru."

• "Eubulides parades around here with his medical hat lecturing evidence-based DCs about the profession through his warped lens"

What's the best way to proceed? Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. That does not look good. Give me a bit of time to look into it - work's pretty heavy today but I promise to do so. If you'd like a faster response I'd be fine with you also contacting the other admins listed on the probation page - that is, I wouldn't consider it admin-shopping - but I promise to look into this today when I have enough time to give it the attention it needs. MastCell  17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush. But if you'd rather have some admin look at it because you're busy, that's fine; please just suggest one or forward the info to them. Eubulides (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to respond. The "attacks" I made were made at the edits in question and not necessarily yourself, nonetheless, other editors have agreed with me that in absence of consensus, in fact, in absence of much support for your points, there was a lack of compromise in your edits and you seemingly refuse to acknowledge important points made by other editors. Furthermore, by "teaming up" with Quack Guru it has shown, in my opinion, a lack of judgment which was characterized by a fear mongering tone of the safety section, which was agreed by myself, DigitalC and Levine2112.

Obviously I was not asking you to include the website per say, but rather the citations listed within that website that come from good journals, such as JAMA, for example. I also found it a double standard that while the medicine article does NOT have a safety section, you came to chiropractic, teamed up with quack guru and made the section an Ernst mouthpiece. This, IMO, was questionable and I asked you simply to apply the same standards as you are insisting on chiropractic safety. Also, many editors have considered your edit to be one of fear mongering which you have never addressed.

This is because since you have begun editing on chiropractic, you have generated much controversy with your style of editing including demands that chiropractic philosophy be completely rewritten and then you provided a draft which was woefully inadequate in content and then began debating with several experienced editors as to what consisted of chiropractic philosophy. After weeks of debating whether or not prevention was part of chiropractic philosophy I began to notice a trend in your editing style which tended to highly mostly negative information in language and tone that could easily be perceived as inflammatory. Hence, I asked you to please show the same determination and standards in editing medical articles (which, according to your history you have done extensively) but you had refused to engage in any meaningful conversation. This, IMO, was just one example of a double standard in editing which I found particularly galling.

After nearly a month of suggesting to you that some edits you were making were less than forthright, and misrepresenting the words of editors who opposed your edit, and then we you have blantantly suggested there was a consensus for your edit (when 4 editors were opposed as compared to 2 in favour, i.e. yourself and quack guru) the language escalated. But that was after several weeks of using mild language and continued inappropriate spins of facts or words from either the literature or words of other editors.

The papers referenced did in fact say that the average physician and medical student was inadequate in musculoskeletal medicine. It also suggests, in part, why you are having trouble in finding agreement with physical medicine practitioners who know their art and science better, including the finer details and salient points which I have alluded to many, many times in your edits.

After nearly a month of experience in editing with you, this is how myself and other editors (who do not want to be outed) feel. You constantly tell us and decide almost unilaterally what is a good source and what is not (anything that contradicts your view seems not to be “good enough” ) do not acknowledge some important concerns raised by other editors, have a predisposition for including controversial edits in the main article prior to achieving consensus (some of us work and cannot respond the same day, at times) amongst many other things that is listed in the talk history from early feb until now.

Again, anonymous had raised a point that myself, Levine and DigitalC made which may be a communication issue; however when 4 separate editors raise the same point through various conversations, it leads me to believe that indeed, there is not a grasp on the subtleties of language and tone being made. After several repeated “offenses” of the same problem with respect to your edits I feel that the above comment is more than justified.

Anyone who follows your entire history on the chiropractic talk page will see that instead of collaborating and achieving consensus you do not stop pushing your point through despite despite objections from majority of editors.

After all my experience with you on editing, especially after the philosophy debacle (an MD telling experienced editors (and a DC nonetheless) like Dematt (and others) what is and what is not chiropractic philosophy was not, IMO, a good first impression with many regular editors at chiropractic. Many of us have tried to explain to you the complexities of the issues involved, even from an insiders perspective, but you do not seem to comprehend what we are trying to communicate to you.

DigitalC agrees with me on this as well; citing google scholar as evidence that Ernst deserves 25-50% of text because it appears high on google scholar is not a valid way of approaching this.

After nearly 2 weeks of many editors mentioning that your and quack guru's safety (1,2,3) was highly suspect and your continued insistence to quote and devote large sections of Ernst which has been soundly rebutted by many physical medicine professionals in various journals AND with the recent WHO TaskForce on neck pain which soundly refutes Ernst's claims with a very comprehensive analysis of VBA and chiropractic care, I found your editing and wording more than disingenious, particularly when you chide us what studies are acceptable and which aren't.

Did you or did you not collaborate with quack guru on a safety article that he had written on his sandbox and then try to push a severe POV that was decidedly fear mongering to replace the current text which has a much more neutral tone, better language and writing style and appropriate references (before quack guru inserted 10+ out of nowhere)?

Your tone was construed as condecending and your edits, which seem to be influenced from the POV of a mainstream medical professional outside of manual/physical medicine who has the expertise, both in education and clinical experience regarding the relative risks, in particular of SMT. My comment was refering that your edits make the same "mistakes" of the most feverent critics despite the fact that there is stronger evidence to the contrary. EBDCM (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I am leaving on a fishing trip this weekend, I cannot respond to queries or concerns but will be happy to do so. Also, I am a bit leery of a potential conflict of interest of admin MastCell (MD) who has declared skepticism towards CAM taking on Eublides(MD) concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBDCM (talk • contribs)

I have blocked EBDCM for one week. If problems resume, please file a user conduct requests for comment. Thank you for your patience. The evidence presentation was well organized and convincing. Jehochman 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FFS

Re: ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) - I'm not sure why you have it in for that user, but I've now found two distinct (and not even similar in area) spots where Jersyko went after FFS prior to blocking indefinitely. It looks like Jersyko's just taking out some personal frustration/vendetta and that's completely uncool. M1rth (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't "have it in for him" anymore than I have it in for any user whose contributions look like this. This is a collaborative project; people who are fundamentally unable or unwilling to make any concession to that fact don't do well here. Like I said, I think fresh eyes would be helpful, which is why I didn't answer the unblock request. You could consider posting the block for review on WP:AN or WP:AN/I as well if you feel you'd like more uninvolved input. MastCell  18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks. MastCell  18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice guy, this M1rth. By the way, your user page looks wacky in Firefox, though is quite pleasant in IE. Just an FYI. · jersyko talk 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... you're right, it looks like a dog's breakfast in Firefox. I wonder how I can fix that. MastCell  22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for commenting on my talk page. FWIW, I don't intend to revert again, although I can't help reading its use here as flame bait; knowing that it will backfire in the long run does not make it any less despicable. Avb 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I tend to ignore comments from clearly involved and possibly conflicted editors... trust but verify) Avb 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar problems with the RfC - it's generated a lot of useful feedback and a clear message that Guy's approach needs to change, but it's also passing its sell-by date and degenerating into a series of grudge-bearers trying to find the right stick to poke him with. For all the complaints about "context", that diff is an egregious example of contextomy. The user whom Guy called a "cunt" made what is literally the worst comment I've ever seen one person make towards another on Misplaced Pages. I remember, at the time, being substantially impressed with Guy's restraint. I wouldn't have been as moderate in his shoes. But at the the RfC, it's presented as "Exhibit 3F: Guy called someone a 'cunt'". It's edifying to see that in that particular situation, some people would rather support ParallelUni's right to be treated civilly than Guy's entirely human and relatively moderate response to shockingly inappropriate harassment. But people will either click on it and check out the context, or they've already got their minds made up - removing the diff won't help matters. MastCell  22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

I only watch this article to keep the obvious vandals away (which I might add is all YOUR fault, by getting me involved with Duesberg hypothesis). At any rate, Merechriolus (talk · contribs) is starting a large number of attacks me, you and Baegis (talk · contribs). Someone needs to get him or her under control. Did you remember to throw the socks into the laundry? OrangeMarlin 03:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin J Walker

Thanks for the advice on contesting the deletion of the article on Martin J Walker. It would be helpful to have the deleted article discussion available as part of any review. Where is it? Sam Weller (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam; I've replied on your talk page. MastCell  18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, I've started the process here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Singularity#Martin_Walker_deletion Sam Weller (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_12#Martin_Walker

Sam Weller (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smell of Astroturf in the Morning...

FYI. This is from CSPI's weekly "Integrity in Science Watch" email: "Cheer to Andrew Martin of the New York Times for a story exposing that a new lobbying group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology was organized and partly funded by Monsanto to lobby for state laws prohibiting labels on milk cartons declaring when it is free of synthetic bovine growth hormone. A Consumers Union survey showed 88 percent of Americans want that information on the milk containers." I don't think this is directly relevant to anything you or I are working on here at WP, but I thought you might find it interesting. Yilloslime (t) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell  18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary versus Secondary Sources

Since we are in disagreement as to whether the Fitzgerald Report is a primary or secondary source, I will accept your suggestion that we obtain a third opinion. To that end I have created a section on the Hoxsey talk page summarizing the disagreement so a third party can easily comprehend the question. When you have time, please add your reasons for characterizing the Report as a primary source in the space indicated, and I will do the same. After we have both had a chance to read each other's position and make any adjustments in response to each other, and we are both satisfied that each other's arguments are on topic, I will add the question to the third opinion page.

Note that I have included the complete long list of examples of primary sources. Since you and not I are the one arguing for the "primary source" position, I will not object if you wish to delete those examples that do not support your position. Jweiner (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Nicely done

Thanks! I really appreciate your comment. And I'm almost amazed at how quickly - ten minutes! - you noticed and responded. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? MastCell  03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. :) Sbowers3 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab, and med articles in general

Question for you: Some drug articles (notably natalizumab, at the moment) have summaries stating that they are effective for various off-label uses. I have some concern about this, from a medico-encyclopedic standpoint. I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on this specific issue, and on the issue of how to discuss off-label uses of drugs on Misplaced Pages in general. Thanks so much. Antelan 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I came to MastCell's page because he had come to mine yesterday, and wanted to point out that the most recent conversations about "standardizing safety warnings in pharma" was mis-guided, and for reasons I make clear on the N talk page. But I would remark here that the assertion that "articles (notably natalizumab, at the moment) have summaries stating that they are effective for various off-label uses" seems completely un-true, and also bizarre because there is a patient registry - unfortunately even the PPMS patients, for whom it would surely be their best chance, have zero opportunity to even try it (unles the doc just signs them as RRMS - does it happen?...I wonder)....io-io (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - apparently the FDA site is not the most up-to-date place to get info about FDA drug labels; who would have known? Natalizumab is approved for the treatment of Crohn's. However, I'm still interested in your approach to the issue of discussing off-label use in drug summaries (or drug articles in general, if you feel ambitious). Thanks, Antelan 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the FDA. The thing is, if we didn't cover off-label uses the encyclopedia would be pretty limited - for example, most or all of the medications used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are off-label. Haloperidol has never been FDA-approved for intravenous administration, though the average psych ER uses gallons every week. My feeling is that we should cover drugs in the ways they're studied and used. We should definitely note FDA-approved indications, but we can certainly cover other uses so long as they're supported in the medical literature or by other reliable sources.

That does raise a fascinating question, though. Pharmaceutical companies are forbidden from promoting their medications for off-label uses - remember when Pfizer was busted to the tune of $430 million for promoting gabapentin for restless legs syndrome and so forth ()? So if a representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company promoted one of their medications for an off-label indication on Misplaced Pages, would that be illegal? I don't know the letter of the law, but it's an interesting question. MastCell  05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think the PhRMA question that you've raised is the $800 million dollar question (though I side with Marcia Angell in doubting that figure). Regards, Antelan 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes sense - $100 million to bring a new drug to market, and $700 million worth of logo-inscribed pens and Nerf balls. MastCell  20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish they would use that $100 million more wisely. Gosh, what a waste of 1/8th of their research budget. Antelan 07:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your message on the natalizumab talk page, and frankly I continue to be surprised at what is sent my way. I am not going to engage in prolonging the old discussion there, as it has been round and round for 2 weeks now, and the result - the Wiki itself - is frankly a sham - can you deny that ?

• You have to understand that almost every word I ever wrote on the N page was deleted, with the exception of citations, by person(s) who admit to knowing very little about the subject matter. Have you looked closely at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Natalizumab&diff=197451436&oldid=197370088 ?
• Since then, I only made 3 revisions last weekend, and they were quickly zapped. Official announcements (jointly, by the 2 drug sponsors) of medical presentations, with actual titles of the posters/papers, made to recent major (in fact, the major) MS conferences, were removed because this was considered "drug company material".
• You lecture me extensively to stop making it personal - I never used filthy language and yet the other party was commended for keeping it civil. But where am I making it personal now ??? I just don't see it.

A. I made it clear that I did not object to some PML mention - however 2 of your friends read what I wrote completely different.

B. I ask for comparisons in drus for serious progreesive diseases - FV wants to interpret this as ANY drug for ANY disease.

C. You still insist that PML be in the lead. Fine. I just think that's a POV issue worth checking. I am still not aware of any comparions on Wiki, and these comparisons reflect the de-facto opinions of dozens, maybe hundreds, of editors.

• Is this (A,B,C, above) "Discussion" or is it "Rhetoric", as you accuse me of? It seems that I want to Discuss the real issues of uniformity and relevance, and all I get is evasive "Rhetoric" back. Sorry, that's my perception.
• So while I have to admit I was in the minority once I made the Incident report, in my eyes the page is a farce - just look at it - there is no balance, no focus whatsoever - it almost reads like PML & death is the purpose, the natural prognosis.
• I made plenty of suggestions on the Talk page, and as I said I am already responsible arond 50% of the Citations. Enough is enough. And so the Page is looking for help in a wider context. I am not going to make any edits myself. It may take time, but with Expert review, the page will recover.
• I deliberately chose not a Neutrality Dispute (referring to old discussion, which was circular and evasive) but a Neutrality Check, as this implies a new discussion, not an old one. Therefore, to allow others to weigh in, I would ask that you delete your comments, as they imply that this is a vindictive personal matter. It is not, and I thought this group was finished talking anyway, as no-one answered my very factual posts 2 days ago.
• I will come back and check your talk page, but above is my response, point-by-point so it will be better understood, and carefully considered too....io-io (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I read this? "Did you know that...that WP:WEIGHT is just an excuse used by editors who misunderstand consensus and are analagous to Holocaust deniers?" Ha-Ha, but am of course glad that you uphold WP:WEIGHT in the face of BS.

But, far more seriously, the people who do not understand the gravity of the situation should not be sabotaging my very legitimate POV-check and call for Expert review - the page deserves that....io-io (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of Godwin's law? More relevantly, the POV tags generally remain until a consensus holds that the POV is actually neutral. I think you've raised some good points about structure, but I don't think that the structure itself is compromising the neutral POV of the article; rather, it's compromising the writing style. Antelan 00:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan.....that was not my quote, and you should understand that it is not about the analogy, but about WP:WEIGHT. As for "compromising the writing style" of the Wiki, scarcely a word of mine is there, just my citations. Also, could you point out to me an edit where I tried to "sweep PML under the rug" as you say - ANY such edit? If you cannot, kindly delete your comments from my POV-check notice - thank you....io-io (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

← Io io - I take the quality of medical information on Misplaced Pages very seriously - in fact, the reason I got started here was that I'd spoken to a handful of patients who'd obtained what turned out to be very poor medical information from Misplaced Pages. I am sensitive to the need to avoid "scare-mongering" - I don't know what else I can say to convince you of this. Like I said, the article can be improved further. But this is a collaborative project - as hard as it is to see one's contributions, or viewpoint, excised from an article, it happens. All I'm saying is that the people you're working with are reasonable people. None of them are pharmanoiacs. I will always welcome outside review, particularly by experts, so I don't have any problem with your request there. I'm just asking that you stick with the first half of your presentation - the specific issues and content that you'd like to see change - and drop the second part, where it sounds kind of like you're accusing the other editors on the page of purposely creating a "sham" which sensationalizes the PML risk. We can do this. MastCell  04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to respond, as it means engaging the "personalities" issues that you write about, and covering old ground which can be read in the original discussion. Do not worry about the "sounds like" part. As for the page, it can only improve now. On the Talk page, I leap-frogged my POV-check and call-for-Expert-Review over yesterday's comments; did not delete anything...io-io (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WHITE FLAG - because after today's exchange, I understand Wiki a bit better now, or rather who it is made up of - you may be the best chance to save the page - I started 2 new sections on the talk page, with titles I thought that would appeal to Wiki standards on NPOV review and/or to science...........but they immediately degenerated, one to funny sarcasm, the other to black comedy, or really the exact same thing......(and I was ready to say things by reply, but I knew that Antelan would pop up to flash Godwin's law in my face)...its like Iraq now...in a sense, both sides have won, but there is no end in sight....io-io (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman redux

Hi MastCell -- it may be a good idea to re-do the semiprotection of Dana Ullman (cf. our earlier discussion). Some similar repeats of sorta defensible yet borderline, game-y edits by IP's. The subject has a new book out, so he's attracting some attention; given the history of sock puppets and TOR proxies on that page, I would suggest extending the semi-protection for a good long while. I can comment further on the dynamic I perceive there if you like. regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, more TOR nodes active. Given the sensitivity of the article and BLP issues, I've extended the semiprotection for another month. If there's any dynamic you think I should be aware of, feel free to email me. MastCell  05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that Dana Ullman was a real person. I just thought she (apparently a he) was an annoying anti-science POV type. Little did I know that he was so notable!!!!! Could you warn me in the future? LOL. OrangeMarlin 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi MastCell, Over the last few weeks I've been reading a great deal of material in Misplaced Pages. I doubt you need to hear this, but I just want to say how much I appreciate your posts, always speaking with a voice of calm sanity and irrefutable logic even in the midst of chaos. Again and again, when I come across a well-stated and insightful comment, I'll find your name attached to it. I'm not keen on the whole barnstar thing, and wouldn't know how to give you one even if I were, but just wanted to tell you that. Carry on, Woonpton (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - they're appreciated. If I could offer a word of advice, it's often quite pleasant to find an interesting but underdeveloped non-controversial article and work on it in peace and quiet - the constant bickering around here gets old pretty fast. I do intend to take my own advice one of these days :) Good luck. MastCell  20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Userfication or email request

Please restore a copy of Template:Canvassing to my userspace or email it to me. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done; the template is now at User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Canvassing, and the documentation at User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Canvassing/doc. MastCell  20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You

You filthy commie. What's next, fluoridating children's ice cream? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just thought that User:Sword and Shield was an odd choice, speaking to either an interest in Soviet symbolism or a little too much D&D (not that the two are mutually exclusive). I leave decisions about what to fluoridate up to my superiors on the Trilateral Commission. By the way, I would have found "your behavior reeks of filthy Communism" much more civil than "you filthy Communist". :) MastCell  08:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Hi MastCell,

Unfortunately I appear to be the target of a smear campaign from an anonymous user who is seemingly trying to capitalize on my block. Would this stuff here be some kind of breach of[REDACTED] etiquette, and if so, how do I go about resolving this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Eubulides#EBDCM http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jehochman#EBDCM

Thanks, MC. EBDCM (talk). —Preceding comment was added at 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would advise ignoring it. That sort of admin-shopping is usually pretty transparent, and I see Jehochman also told him to knock it off. If it continues after that warning, then we can do something about it. MastCell  20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Null edit

Considering that OrangeMarlin kept characterizing my comments as personal attacks and yet failed to identify anything (if anything) I had done to precipitate the personal attack, I thought that - to protect myself at the (hopefully unnecessary) future presentation future report where his bizarre and inappropriate behavior (should it present itself again) can be addressed in context. Asking an admin to block me based on nonexistent attacks is a provocative act; I am entitled to protect myself, and my null edit in no way was uncivil in its tone or wording. Unusual, yes. Lack of good faith on Orange's future behavior? Also yes. Uncivil? I don't see that. - Arcayne () 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing an archived argument on another user's talk page by means of a dummy edit isn't going to make you look better if this comes up again. It's going to make you look worse. Charges presented without evidence won't stick in any case. Your dummy-edit rejoinder won't impact that; it just makes it look like you need the last word. MastCell  18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I saw my null edit as a summarizing of the problem, not a need to have the last word. I felt it important in case OM makes a statement alluding to my causing other editors to leave the project, or making personal attacks, thus poisoning the well with editors who have never had contact with me but - because of those comments - are far less willing to extend (or consider my edits to be of) good faith. As I was very surprised at the accusations, I was unsure how to proceed. And, since (s)he was unwilling to explain the basis of these accusations, I felt I needed to do something to protect myself from a future instance of this behavior. Had you been placed in this exact position, how would you have reacted? That isn't really rhetorical; up until this outburst from OM, I thought him/her to be an excellent editor, and considering their knowledge base, I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to get back-doored somehow. - Arcayne () 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

When I first started out here, I was in a dispute with another editor in which I was accused of a number of things. She continually removed my (civil) response, leaving the accusations on her talk page intact, which was extraordinarily frustrating. But in the end, I just let that particular issue go. The options were either to keep fighting to get my defense/rebuttal in, which would probably have led to me being blocked for edit-warring, or to just move on. When things came to dispute resolution later on, it wasn't an issue. So in your position, I think the wisest course of action is to bite your tongue, though I do recognize how frustrating that can be. MastCell  21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me the benefit of your experience. Even though i am still unsure what I did that was so attack-y (unless dissent is an attack), OrangeMarlin is clearly not going to tell me what it was, so I can simply stop asking. Your advice is taken to heart, and I will follow its lesson. :) - Arcayne () 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> You were comparing me to a sockpuppet?????!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!??????? I love individuals who go out there way to find a sympathetic administrator. I know what Arcayne has done, I'll reserve it for future use if he continues engaging me in warfare. If you want his uncivil edits (and I don't want to engage in this, but since you decided that I was no different than a sockpuppet, I thought I should respond):

My problem

Grow up a little please. Anger and dismissiveness.

Once again, grow up a little.

I archived the conversation, because I was really done with it. I'd be done with it now, but I watch your page. OrangeMarlin 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comparing you to a sockpuppet. I'm using an example from my own experience to illustrate why it's better to let disputes go rather than perpetuate them. It's not a comment on you as an editor in any way. If it came across that way (which perhaps it does, reading it over), then I apologize, because that was not the intent. Obviously I don't consider you in any way equivalent to Cindery. Perhaps I shouldn't have gotten involved; the goal was to get Arcayne to move on to more productive pastures and leave you alone. MastCell  23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And the more important part of the lesson, that sometimes, just walking away from the situation is the best solution. That all you got from his sharing a story of how to deal with frustration that an oblique, unintended comparison to another user who turned out to be a sockpuppet, and you get all offended. Perhaps you now want to ask an admin to block Mastcell for personally attacking you. Perhaps you should instead learn to be less defensive. Mastcell didn't do anything wrong, and neither did I. That two unrelated folk have now offended you in as many days, maybe the problem isn't us.

Each of the diffs you provide are all responses to you saying I am chasing folk away and making personal attacks. Two of them, asking you to show a bit more AGF was made on your user talk page and not in the article discussion, where it would have been less than appropriate to draw attention to your bad behavior. None of them actually deal with an actual personal attack, which you keep alluding to. Are you talking about something on another page, or some past interaction with you that I don't recall?

Either way, I am following Mastcell's good advice on the matter. You might want to pay it heed as well. - Arcayne () 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AML

Dude, I had some time on my hands so instead of doing something really useful I fixed up all the reference on acute myeloid leukemia. I also took the liberty of reorganising the paragraphs according to WP:MEDMOS. Could you have a quick scan to make sure I didn't break anything, and would you have an ISBN for this reference: "Aoki K, Kurihars M, Hayakawa N, et al (1992). Death Rates for Malignant Neoplasms for Selected Sites by Sex and Five-Year Age Group in 33 Countries 1953–57 to 1983–87. Nagoya, Japan: University of Nagoya Press, International Union Against Cancer." JFW | T@lk 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw you were working on that. It's really unconscionable how out-of-date I've let that article become. I've been meaning to go back and add something about newer approaches (FLT3 inhibitor trials, tipifarnib, and so forth) as well as efforts to stratify the large number of patients with "normal" cytogenetics, based on FLT3 internal tandem duplications, CBP and nucleophosmin mutations, etc. But it hasn't happened yet. I will look at the ref conversions and look for the ISBN. MastCell  21:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Weinberg Group

I just created Weinberg Group. It's largely a cleaned up cut-and-paste from here (covered under GNU of course), though there is some info in the original which I did not bring over. Anyways, I invite you to take a look, improve it, etc. Yilloslime (t) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Disputed_status

I would like your input on removing the Disputed banner. I'm planning to resubmit for GA review in mid-April. - RoyBoy 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How does this "featured article" thing work again? :) MastCell  03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Something about drinking heavily and then putting random tags on articles. OrangeMarlin 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, drinking heavily was my line !! MastCell, it works much slower than FAC, and as long as there is progress being made, Marskell and Joelr31 leave them open. The first phase, typically about two weeks buy maybe longer, is for identifying issues and (hopefully) addressing them. If issues aren't addressed within a few weeks or so, then the article moves to FARC, where editors can opine whether to delist or not. But even then, if work is ongoing, it's not delisted until/unless it's really stalled. Most typically, articles are delisted simply if no one works on them and issues aren't addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC, eh? Sounds dangerous. MastCell  22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dammit MC. I just snorted my beer, and shorted out my monitor. You owe me.OrangeMarlin 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request to amend Ferrylodge RfArb case

Hi - in response to your comment here, Ferrylodge's sanction has been interpreted to apply only to articles. While I understand the reasons for construing it thus, I wanted to formally request that his sanction be amended to apply to any page (in any namespace) related to abortion or pregnancy which he disrupts. That may not have been clear in my initial request. This is based on my observation that he has been a disruptive presence in article talkspace; I linked a brief summary of evidence to this effect, and I can provide a more detailed and exhaustive summary of the reasons why I think this expansion would be a good idea if you or the other Arbs think it would be useful. It's a relatively small change, and would apply prospectively - that is, if he doesn't disrupt the article talk pages, there will be no effect - but having seen him test the limits of tolerance and his sanctions repeatedly I'd like to ask you and the rest of the Committee to amend the wording of his sanction to apply to abortion/pregnancy-related topics across all namespaces. MastCell  19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the "any page" proposal attracted opposition back then, there's going to need to be evidence adduced demonstrating why we should take a different direction now; at the moment I'm inclined to trust GRBerry's assessment in closing that arbitration enforcement request, that there doesn't appear to be anything warranting such a change at this time. Furthermore, none of the arbitrators who were active on the case have yet indicated that they think the situation has changed in any way that would necessitate stronger sanctions, so at least for the moment we're not going to be taking any further action. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks for your response. MastCell  03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Going WP:ROUGE on us?

Careful, or "they" will put you in their crosshairs along with Guy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me, as every admin who checked concurred that I was too lenient in blocking for a week. Apparently, I was! An IP took up the battle at the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's article, the source of the original edit war - and I should have realized that it was likely to be Taiketsu pushing his agenda. Sad thing is, I actually agree with his intent, as the grammar is pretty hinky - but this isn't how things get done. Good extension. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think run-on sentences are the lesser of two evils in this particular case. :) MastCell  20:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hi MastCell, I'm concerned about the recent accusations about me using a sockpuppet and edit warring which I have not done. I appear to the target of a well-orchestrated smear campaign and Fyslee is pretty much calling me a liar insinuating that " was used by EBDCM". Earlier this week another user, anon, tried to admin shop to get me blocked for changing his edits on chiropractic (which were not even cited!). I have been called "anti-scientific" by OrangeMarlin and appear to be getting stalked by a variety of individuals ranging from Arthur Rubin to Quack Guru. This "conspiracy" is really just trying to get me kicked off chiropractic for good, because I've debunked some long held myths and want to present a professional article that is NPOV to all parties. Given that Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, Quack Guru and potentially OrangeMarlin are chiropractic skeptics; I find it distressing how these experienced users have essentially ganged up on me and are making claims that I have broken various Misplaced Pages policies. I have not engaged in any personal attacks or incivility; but I feel like I am being harrassed now and that there is a major canvassing for votes to get me blocked. Also, some of the editors listed above have claimed that they reverted my edits because it was "vandalism" when it really was a good addition to the article that met V:RS standards (and beyond). I don't know what to do now and trust in your objective assessmnents and would appreciate some guidance here. EBDCM (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You do need to listen to me when I point out Socks. OrangeMarlin 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. I hate when those who follow scientific reasoning are called "skeptics." I'm not a skeptic, I just follow rational and logical thought processes utilizing scientific method. Also, when I read 400 peer-reviewed journal articles from people much smarter than me say that the Shroud of Turin is about 500 years old, and I review the data, and I don't see any glaring holes, I'm not a skeptic of the Shroud of Turin, I just know there's no evidence supporting the age claimed by fanatics. Those who reject science are the skeptics. They're skeptical of rational and logical analyses, and rely upon magic. Or aliens from Area 52. Maybe both. OrangeMarlin 08:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Well.. This is what I get for not checking a block log before spending 10 minutes filling out a 3RR report. Seriously, it wasn't like it was a bang-bang thing, you blocked him almost an hour before I even started filling out the report. Heh. Thanks for the block. --Bobblehead 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you had to waste your time. 3RR reports take forever to fill out, then the admin has to scrutinize them carefully since I've seen quite a few misleading ones... so if I witness a clear violation I'll sometimes just act on it. This was a pretty clear one, letter and spirit. Hopefully he'll come back with a more constructive approach. MastCell  18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why the pipe article was dead....

Here's the recreated fork by "Huwjarce" Plastic_pipes_fittings_&_valves. I'm going to CSD it, but I'd like to get it salted, and the account blocked. MSJapan (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else deleted it already. I'll go ahead and salt and block. MastCell  21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Need a favor

noticed that you just made an edit and are probably online, can you do an admin deletion of a revision (per here and here) until it gets oversighted? R. Baley (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I managed to do it without breaking Misplaced Pages. You'll need to specify what should be oversighted - you can just tell them to oversight all 4 deleted diffs and that should cover it. I blocked the IP for 6 months as it appears quite static and this is not the first problem with it. MastCell  23:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, it has only been times like this that I have occasionally wished I were an admin. To follow up: in my request, I just mentioned the original post, should I send a 2nd request to cover the subsequent revisions? R. Baley (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, they'll work it out, I think. MastCell  03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo

response to the AAPS reference and the fact that 15 psychiatrists are pushing for more research regarding abortion and mental health...

You are right, the AAPS is not a reliable source. I included it in the article (prematurely) because I am aware that only 15 psychiatrists are pushing the issue, and have made the call for more research. I'm looking for better references to this fact that I know from off-online sources. For a very long time, the RCP has held the exact opposite stance: http://www.popline.org/docs/0138/720406.html (which means nothing in and of itself, but in this context it makes sense: http://www.popline.org/docs/720406 - In short, mental illness has decreased for women in the UK once abortion became more readily available).

It is also worth noting that the Times is the most conservative paper in the U.K... It's kind of the Fox News of print journalism there. They completely editorialized the part where, ""women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions." The actual press release says, “In view of the controversy on the risk to mental health of induced abortion we recommend that the Royal College of Psychiatrists update their 1994 report on this issue” (by undergoing a systematic review of the literature).

I certainly got a little ahead of myself (or at least my sources). I suppose I'm just tired of dealing with the article, and am getting punchy because of the constant POV pushing by Strider, and the constant personal attacks by NCdave... That's not an excuse, but it is perhaps understandable. I'll delete that sentence--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

SPOV

DUDE!!!!!!! You're a real scientist (unlike me, who smoked pot to get through Biochemistry lectures--oops don't tell the Navy that), and you should know better than to espouse any thought that science has a POV. It doesn't. And frankly, if Martin supports it, you know you should leave that idea down there with Homeopathy and Blood electrification. And Cold Fusion too. OrangeMarlin 07:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientist? Hmm. What I do is scientifically based, but most days I don't feel like a scientist. More like a combination of a detective, psychotherapist, social worker, artisan, technician, number cruncher, and politician/used-car salesman.

Science is a way of looking at the world, marked by empiricism and hypothetico-deductive reasoning, with the goal of developing an objective, reproducible, and predictive understanding of the natural world. There are, of course, other ways of looking at the natural world. A scientist would conclude that life began 4 billion years ago, based on available empirical evidence, while a creationist might conclude that life was created over the course of 7 days, around 4000 BC, on the basis of the literal truth of the Bible. I subscribe to one of those ways of looking at the world and not the other, but they can both be described as points of view. More succinctly, the idea that a concept can and must be empirically tested to determine its truth is a scientific point of view. Many areas of human experience and belief cannot be understood from a strictly scientific point of view - or rather, they can, but only in a very limited way. Is this starting to remind you of Biochemistry class? :)

Martin can do what he wants. My experience leads me to believe he's usually playing an angle in service of what he believes to be the good of the encyclopedia, but that's his concern. I really am just interested in seeing what's been discussed in the past, because I think it would be illuminating. MastCell  08:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But, the creationist has a faith in what he believes happened. It's untestable, it cannot be falsified, and it is not scientific. And yes, I think there are many many many fields of study that do not require science. History (to a certain point) requires a lot of guesswork, but even historians use a certain amount of reasoning. Politics is another. I could go on. But Science doesn't utilize a POV. It is logical and rational. OrangeMarlin 08:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The scientific point of view holds that experimental investigation of falsifiable hypotheses is the route to a meaningful and useful understanding of the natural world. It is a point of view to which I subscribe, but for better or worse it isn't universal. Ultimately, science is a human endeavor, meaning it's logical and rational only insofar as people are logical and rational. MastCell  05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

anti-Semitism, or oversensitivity?

Hi, Sometimes I am afraid I am over-sensitive. The Race and Intelligence article is obviously controversial and I have been highly critical of user:Jagz who I believe has been pushing for inclusion of a fringe, racialist (if not racist) POV in the article - this is just context, not the issue. The issue is, today he made this edit, creating a new section and providing no explanation or context: . If it is directed at me, I wonder if it is anti-Semitic.

I may be overreacting - it may just be one of several disruptive edits he has made, which I should not take personally, and I have left a note at AN/I concerning disruptive edits. But the possible anti-Semitism nags at me. I know that in general you take these matters seriously and that in this particular case you have objectivity I lack and if you think I am overreacting, well, I would respect and value your judgement. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming to this a bit late, but I left a message over on User talk:Orangemarlin, where I actually saw this first. It looks like you're getting some outside input, which will be helpful. It's not clear to me (without more context) whether Jagz's post was directed at you, or whether it's just part of his repeated citations of and attempts to insert fringe racialist/racist material into the article. Either way, I'm happy to keep an eye on the article and the editor, though I value my sanity too much to participate in editing it. :) Good luck. MastCell  22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

MC, I'm very sensitive to anti-Semitic or any racist rants, because it always goes through my mind at what point did Hitler start. Did he just rant a few times, then people listened, then he murdered 6 million of my people, and untold millions of others? I always worry that if you don't hold the line, then someone will cross over it, ignoring every subsequent line you draw. But that's a cultural feeling from too many relatives recounting stories of the Holocaust to me since I was a child, and I grew up in a very non-religious family. But the article itself is nothing more than the crap we read in Homeopathy, Creation science, Intelligent design or Duesberg hypothesis. Take fake science and try to make it sound serious and accepted. It violates NPOV, as much as in any medical or science article that we both have edited. I know you want to be sane, but you could help. OrangeMarlin 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be most useful by observing editorial conduct. I'll watchlist the article. MastCell  05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your quotes

Wow, you are really an erudite person! Do you memorize all these verbose quotes on your user page? Some of those are really witty. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, some of them are pretty deeply ingrained (like the Dead Milkmen, Dr. Strangelove, or Life and Fate), but for the most part I'm an underliner. In my youth I thought that people who highlighted, underlined, and dogeared their books as they read were odd. Now it's a habit. I have a library full of books I've marked up as I read them, so it's pretty easy to chase down a passage or quote I liked to refresh my memory. Half the time, re-reading the book I can't for the life of me remember what appealed to me about the quote the first time I read and underlined it, but that's getting old for you. MastCell  05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ferguson at AMH

I see that you removed much of Strider12's material about Ferguson. I do think the section was rather long and it was appropriate to trim a lot out. I don't quibble with what you removed. What I wonder is what did I miss? Your edit summary said "unverified claims". I'm pretty sure that I checked each of the references to verify that the text matched the source. (I'm doing that with most of the article, not just that section.) I noted that one ref was not available online and one ref was missing the data, but I thought that all of the other refs did verify the text. So I'm just wondering what I missed regarding unverified claims. Again, I don't object to the deletion or to possible problems with WP:SYN. I'm just wondering what I missed, so I'll look more closely next time. Sbowers3 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues. The section read that "The team was led by Professor David Fergusson, a self-described 'pro-choice atheist,' complained the to press that they had run into political bias at journals which did not want to publish their results." The source didn't indicate that he complained of political bias, only that they'd had to submit their paper to several journals to get it published, possibly because the issue is "very hot". That's a bit different. It goes on to say that the "team particularly objected to the APA's 2005 position paper." They didn't "particularly object" to it - that's editorial spin, as usual. Fergusson's results conflict with the APA's findings, and they dispassionately explain why that conflict might exist. The paragraph concludes by saying that the APA convened a new panel "following criticism of its position by the New Zealand team", which is also incorrect - the new panel was convened in response to new data, including Fergusson's study, not because of direct criticism by Fergusson (or at least that's what I read the sources as saying).

In general, there has been a suggestion, which I think is a good one, to move away from detailed summaries of individual studies toward a more comprehensive and readable narrative of the issue. Reinserting Fogel and Fergusson yet again are a step in the opposite direction while discussion is ongoing; to make matters worse, there has been absolutely no attempt to persuade or gain consensus on Fogel. Strider12 just reinserts it once a day, then accuses me of "disruption" and adds me to her "disruption log" when I object and remove it. I listed a series of concrete objections, to which she responded with the usual set of accusations and BS that I've been hearing repetitively for 5 months now. I'm at a point where I find it largely impossible to work with her, as a result of her tactics, so perhaps that plays a role as well. MastCell  16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In reverse order, I think you know that I agree with moving away from a list of studies to a narrative, so it would be a good idea to ask everyone to not make any substantial edits until we decide on a new structure. I will talk to Strider12 and try to get her on board for a reorg.

On the first point about "political bias" I have to plead guilty to reading between the lines. I read the reference where Ferguson said that they had difficulty getting published probably because it is a hot issue and I read that as "political bias". I'm usually pretty good at making sure that the text is supported by the citation. On the "particularly objected", I don't know. I read in the paper, "In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded ..." I noticed that Ferguson itself used the word "particular" as did Strider12's text. Okay, I'll grant that the paper didn't use "objected". On the "convened a new panel following", if "following" is interpreted as "subsequent to" then it is accurate but because "following" can mean "as a result of" her wording was injudicious. I can understand how you objected to all three points but I don't think I was sloppy about missing them. (That's what I wondered, not something that you implied. I like to be more critical of myself than others might be.) Sbowers3 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were being sloppy. I appreciate your attention to detail. MastCell  18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) I just thought of something that might help a little. Earlier today, you and I had an edit conflict at David Reardon. You beat me by a few seconds in changing something that Strider12 added. Every time that the two of you go back and forth it likely aggravates what is already a difficult relationship between her and you (not just you). It might help if you held fire for a little longer to see if I make some of the changes that you want to make. When I change her material it won't aggravate a bad relationship. Just a thought. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've already limited myself to voluntary 1RR on abortion and mental health for just those reasons, as well as for my own sanity. I will keep that in mind - sorry for the edit conflict. MastCell  19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic

Look, I know you're probably annoyed with this whole subject (at least, you should be) but I don't know what to do here. On the one hand, this is an issue I feel strongly about, which to me suggests that I should just stop getting involved. On the other hand, it's an issue that I feel strongly about, and I feel that Misplaced Pages is being used to drive, rather than reflect, culture, which makes it hard for me to do that. Basically I'm hoping you can give me some advice on what to do here. If you have a suggestion on appropriate things to do, I'll listen. If you say just drop it, I'll cool off for at least a month before thinking about it again. Sorry to burden you with this; feel free to punt if you don't want it. Antelan 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How about I take a picture?

How about I add some pictures of my Rhumart machine from Dr. Drolet? --CyclePat (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Images are always good. Still, I'm a little concerned with the article turning into an ad for the Rhumart machine, given the text that's being added and the sources being cited. Could you address that at Talk:Electromagnetic therapy? MastCell  03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I have been known to sometimes write to much in my essays and work. I believe your edits are quite fair and that the present status of the article is fair. I've also answered your question at electromagnetic therapy talk. Perhaps a cautionary note could or should also be added at the end of the reference? --CyclePat (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrino theory 1RR rule is not achieving the hoped-for result

Hello MastCell. The file history since March 14 on Hydrino theory suggests that TStolper1W (talk · contribs) just reverts to his preferred version once a day, thus faithfully observing the 1RR. Stolper has not posted anything at Talk:Hydrino theory in all that time, though there are a couple of recent comments at User talk:TStolper1W. The hoped-for discussion and negotiation is not occurring. An edit war is still in progress, though not fast enough to trigger 3RR. Is it time to consider a full article ban for Stolper? EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

sennen goroshi

thanks for the comment. I should have dropped the whole issue. However I am seriously annoyed with the whole thing, Im sure I should have stayed away from certain articles, that were nothing to do with me, but the double standards in edits and the way some editors game[REDACTED] without even getting close to a block annoys me. I should take a moment to reflect, I am unlikely to make productive edits while I am in a angry mood. see ya Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Which tends to beg the question of just how long those "angry moods" tend to last. See my comment, posted a few days ago, here. - Arcayne () 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electro-magnetic therapeutic system

I have apparently contradicted most, if not all of your statement at this deletion process. In particular I believe I have found 3rd party sources (some of which have even been peer-reviewed). Would you please reconsider your vote. thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good by me

Your idea is good by me. I tend to see AN/ANI -> COIN, so once you had a remedy there, it superseded my suggestion. MBisanz 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I though for a second you where saying "Goodbye me"! --CyclePat (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're an MD??

I didn't know that. I thought you were an outfielder for the Seattle Mariners. Damn. OrangeMarlin 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally thought he edited more like a male model... meh, how wrong can one get :-) Shot info (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe all of the above, or would that be overdoing it a bit? MastCell  23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL - Wouldn't it be nice to have your own article though :-) Shot info (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says I don't have my own article? If I did, I'd certainly never go near it. :) MastCell  01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're a male model too? I'm really impressed. So you edit here to find internet girlfriends? OrangeMarlin 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a particularly good investment of time. Besides, I'm not that kind of model. I mostly do "before" work in those before-and-after ads. It's a living. MastCell  22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering who was foolish enough to volunteer for that. When I was in med school, I scored extra money subjecting myself to psychiatry residents testing. I chose the blue pill unfortunately. OrangeMarlin 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd never have guessed. :) MastCell  22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Harumph. It's better than one of my classmates who was caught selling cocaine inhalers from the ER. OrangeMarlin 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cocaine inhalers"? These days we'd refer to them as "patients with chemical dependency issues", and we definitely wouldn't sell them from the ER, no matter how many might be up on the board. MastCell  22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI>I must have implied that he actually had permission to sell them. Remember, I was there in the 70's when the pharmacy wasn't locked, there was no computers, and he "obtained" them for sale on the street. Remember, when I was in medical school, we used blood letting and leeches. We didn't have no new-fangled equipment that you have.OrangeMarlin 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness for modern technology. Now we just give them Hickmans so they can inject their cheeked Demerol via the port. Antelan 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just give 'em two aspirin and discharge. OrangeMarlin 23:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

There is currently a RfC going on that you might be interested in. -Jéské 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

re: frustrated

I asked Strider12 to stop editing AMH for a while, and I think it would be a good idea for you also to stop temporarily. Andrew c has reverted to the status at the start of the day. I also will revert to that state until I have had time to make a suggestion over at Talk:Abortion and mental health. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to do so. I should tell you that I'm at the point where I'm going to go ahead with a request for arbitration, though - I've reached the point where I've tried everything else I can think of and I'm starting to feel like I'm wasting a huge amount of my time here. MastCell  22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would recommend that you take a break from editing there right now and try and work things out on the talk page. If the edit waring continues I the page is going to get full prot'd, I do not think it is needed right now as the edit waring is really only with two users and I trust that you will attempt to work it out. Tiptoety 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that's not the case - it's one user repeatedly inserting disputed edits without discussion or even a token attempt to gain consensus. I did break my self-imposed 1RR on the article and revert it twice, which I probably shouldn't have done, but the subsequent happenings on the article and talk page should clarify the issue. This particular user has already single-handedly driven the article into protection multiple times, and I think another protection would be a mistake. Anyhow, I'm not going to edit it further at this point - it's too exhausting, and I think the time would more productively be spent addressing the issues which make the article effectively uneditable. MastCell  02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like you are handling the situation well, and like I said before protection is not needed at this point in time. Best of luck! Tiptoety 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask for Help

Hi MastCell,
I'm asking you for having a look on this list. The contribs are all diagrams in articles containing mostly false figures compared to the figures in the article (i.e. for Germany (which I corrected), but also for Netherlands, Spain a.m.o.). When false, the number of Irreligous people is increased. Looking into the block log, I found that you've had to do with this before. I'm not too experienced in the English Misplaced Pages. Could you give me a hint what to do? Thanks very much, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert them - its unsourced. And in many cases directly in contradiction to the text of the articles. Unless someone can point at official census figures they are at best estimates that someone compiled. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I just did. Joachim Weckermann (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab again

Io-io has placed a POV tag on natalizumab again. Any interest in addressing it? Should it just be reverted, since the community has already put so much discussion into the topic and had a (unanimous-1) response? Antelan 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

False. Also, here = , ....io_editor (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright

A couple of editors with whom you are already familiar are editing the above page and refusing to try and reach any consensus. The cites they make are often not supported by the source and I believe they are involved in edit warring, of which I might have been guilty. I'm sober now, and I would like for the content disputes to be taken up un the talk page. Maybe you could venture an opinion?Die4Dixie (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Just saw this on Baegis' user page. I like it. Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AWISSENET

Hi, I noticed that the AWISSENET article was deleted. Since I had to not logged in my account for some time, I did not noticed the deletion tag that was added on 5th of March. However I wonder why the article was tagged with proposed deletion process. The reason states "No assertion of notability" since google search and google news did not produced a significant number of hits (although google returned 62 results by the time of tagging). The fact is that the article refers to a European Research Activity in the area of Ad Hoc & Sensor Networks which is expected to evolve during the next 2 years (it was categorized under FP7 project activities). So I expect that it's popularity/notability will increase over time when the article will be updated. Moreover I think it is an article well suited under the category it was assigned to. Will it be possible to restore it now at least for a formal discussion because the reasons for deletion are not clear enough? Nprigour (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it: AWISSENET. MastCell  22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

See Special:Contributions/Jackcashman, Special:Contributions/Laddlersles, and Special:Contributions/Lespro. Is there something we should be doing about this? --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me look into it. MastCell  19:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and now another Special:Contributions/Michellerstop --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All are socks, confirmed by checkuser and now blocked. MastCell  23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of quote

If "quote does not reflect the substance of the editorial", then why did the author choose it as the lede? Is your dismissal of it a judgment on him, or on me? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph presents the "shocking" fact that the vaccine court found in favor of the Polings, while the rest of the editorial explains why that is, and how damaging the author believes that decision to be. It isn't accurate to quote the first sentence in isolation if your intent is to reflect the content of the editorial as a whole. The author's opinion is probably better expressed by the last sentence of his conclusion: "In the name of trying to help children with autism, the Poling decision has only hurt them." But why cherry-pick a quote at all? It's an external link, and I believe it's freely available; just link it and let the reader look at it. MastCell  15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have been a better strategy to substitute in what you thought was a better quote, than to just delete it. The title of the article doesn't give a clue as to what the article is about. Using a snippet is helpful to the reader to see if its something worth clicking on and reading. Do you have a quote from the article you prefer? I imagine he was very careful in choosing his words for the lede, and that is why the New York times displays the lede in its index, and why Google uses the lede in its snippet view of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an external link. My general preference for external links is to present the title ("Inoculated Against the Facts" is pretty in-your-face, and was presumably chosen quite carefully as well) and leave it there, rather than presenting a quote as well. If the editorial was being used as a cited source in the body of an article, then a relevant quote might be appropriate, but I've not seen external links presented with an associated quote before. I deleted it because I think it's best presented simply as a link, with its already-provocative title - I don't think there's a "better quote" because I don't think there should be a quote at all. MastCell  16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Strider12

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Strider12/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Strider12/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

International Epidemiology Institute?

With an Orwellian name and fishy web address (www.iei.ws), it smells like astroturf, but on the other hand, they are on the right side of passive smoking debate. Any thoughts? Yilloslime (t) 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They likely have some standing in academia, since they were chosen to write an editorial for JNCI. The Institute is located in Rockville, MD, which is home to the FDA. My guess is former government epidemiologists with the NCI/FDA/etc who left the mothership and set up a private consulting shop nearby. But that's just speculation. I agree the name is a bit fishy in a post-Master-Settlement world. MastCell  03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This letter in today's issue of Environmental Health Perspectives is what caught my attention. First Milloy attacks the Cohn study in the WSJ , then this. Could this be yet another arm of the right wing's pro-DDT, anti-Rachel Carson, lets-try-to-discredit-the-environmental-movement-so-we-can-get-richer-ruining-the-environment campaign? A little googling brings up this and also this document showing that IEI and ACSH share a staff member. But then a little pubmeding for Tarone, author of the above EHP letter, brings up this not so industry friendly paper, so maybe my suspicions are wrong. Yilloslime (t) 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing about consultants is that they work for the people who write their paychecks. Changes in the latter variable sometimes explain seemingly inconsistent positions. The interesting thing about the DDT/breast cancer letter is that the most important point was relegated to the final brief paragraph of the response. It's very difficult to reliably compare birth cohorts from 1945 through the present in terms of breast cancer incidence and mortality and tease out a single variable. Exposure to exogenous hormones in the form of oral contraceptives and estrogen replacement has varied dramatically over this time period and likely accounts for some variance in breast cancer rates and mortality. Likewise, aggressive screening leads to more diagnoses of DCIS/in situ disease and less invasive breast cancer. Anyhow, an interesting subject. By the way, take a look at this - it would seem that the tobacco industry is not overjoyed at the prospect of FDA regulation. MastCell  16:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Butting in, by the way, Eubulides (talk · contribs) knows epidemiology and its sources well. He may be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

House?

This means that about every 3rd diagnosis you make is a von Hippel-Lindau or a pheo, right? Antelan 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Only during sweeps week. MastCell  20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But also you'll never make a diagnosis of lupus (always suggested somewhere in most episodes and promptly ruled out as not even worthy of consideration).

PS we're supposed to have an external veneer of undergoing ongoing Appraisals and Re-accreditation with reliance upon Continuing Medical Education, Structured Education Programmes and reading of Evidence Based Medical reports - you're not supposed to let the customers know we merely ensure we get our weekly fix of TV Medical Soaps - next you'll be letting on that our surgical knowledge is gleaned from Gray's Anatomy ! :-) David Ruben 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And nothing is ever a neurological problem. Antelan 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean you can't get CME credit for watching ER in the UK? MastCell  15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if the latest season of ER, but so risky we'll be accused of fraud if we accidentally claim for a previous season being shown on another channel as their "new season" (ie "new" for that station, but not the "newest"). Personally I subscribe to the "truth" of Cardiac Arrest (TV series) and the manual that is The House of God. David Ruben 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one of my favorite passages on Misplaced Pages is from the House of God article: "It is very likely that some details have been exaggerated (such as an orgy in the resuscitation room)." MastCell  22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Resuscitation in the orgy room" could be more credible. Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. MastCell  21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My respect for your taste in TV has increased. My respect for your medical knowledge dropped. It's always the cute resident that figures it out. Geez. OrangeMarlin 18:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, new episodes are starting on 28 April. You should be able to keep up on your differential diagnosis skills. OrangeMarlin 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I always found Green Wing to depict the most accurate and sober reality of hospital...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Perfectblue97/shadow1

Thank you for tagging the above entry. I was unaware that there was a such a tag. I don't recall seeing its use recommended in the MOS or other pages. It would probably have prevented that whole deletion business had it been better advertised.

perfectblue (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem... the issue is that userspace drafts show up in Google searches and so forth, so it's important to tag them to make clear that they're user-created drafts and not Misplaced Pages articles. The {{userpage}} tag is usually sufficient. MastCell  21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Please weigh in here if you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Censor tags

Hopping (talk · contribs) needs to let go. He keeps adding censor tags to Talk:Doctor of Medicine and Talk:Allopathic medicine. He's at 3RR on the first, and 2RR on the second. If I slightly understood why he was doing it, I'd probably just ignore him. But it's annoying. Bring peace to my life.  :) OrangeMarlin 05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) and his crew, User:Nunh-huh and User:Antelan, need to reconsider. They keep removing censor tags to Talk:Doctor of Medicine and Talk:Allopathic medicine. They are at 3RR on the Talk:Doctor of Medicine, and 2RR on the Talk:Allopathic medicine. They claim to be find well-sourced and discussed material offensive, and remove it. I understand that sometimes editors consider material offensive, but Misplaced Pages is not censored. Bryan Hopping 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My crew???? What? And you dare tag me for not even being close to 3RR? Huh? I'm seriously not in the mood. OrangeMarlin 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk:Doctor of Medicine. MastCell  15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting frustrated

MC, I have put up with a lot of crap lately. Attacks by racists. A revenge block of me. But when I want peace, I edit medical articles. This crap is not acceptable to me. If it were only me that was being attacked by this individual, I'd be fine with it. But just look at what others think of this editor. Why do we put up with this shit? OrangeMarlin 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice from an entirely neutral party: stop getting riled up about it. Telling someone to grow up and "I've put up enough", while possibly true, lets the person know that they're getting under your skin. Brush it off or deal with it in a painfully cold fashion; that's the best way to be a total killjoy to jerks. That's the whole reason I started my collection; poking fun at something that people think you'll take seriously does a lot more to end their fun. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather get seriously drunk.  :) If my personality disorder allowed humor like that, I'd do it, but I'm more of the aggressive "crush the hell out 'em" approach. Sigh. OrangeMarlin 01:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'm not suggesting you not crush them. ;) I've learned to extract extreme pleasure from cooly and methodically addressing pests like that; give them no satisfaction by providing them with nothing but a cold, dispassionate response, while you get yours from seeing their joy crushed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a snack? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking EVula's MO. I've got to try it! But MC owes me several liters of fine scotch, before I can try it. OrangeMarlin 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I asked that he stop with personal attacks yesterday. Antelan 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

His personal attacks are out of hand. Why do I get blocked (for about 6 nanoseconds) for beating up a racist, and this fine editor gets to call all of us idiots for not knowing as much as he does? Oh, I'm playing the victim. I hate when people do that.  :) OrangeMarlin 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, far better to play a Victor! Antelan 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He needs to use more swear words to trigger CIVILity. Shot info (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the Navy. Nuff said.  :) OrangeMarlin 05:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks must be like Lay's potato chips

So let me get this straight. he patiently waits long enough (evidently on purpose) for his old socks to be too stale for a checkuser. Months. Then, when his new sock is finally ready to use, he just can't help creating just one more? --barneca (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As Anatole France said, it's human nature to think cleverly but to act foolishly. MastCell  22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I like about you, MastCell, every time I talk to you I feel intellectually humbled. Good for the soul. --barneca (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Aiemeus

Aiemeus (talk · contribs) is claiming that a checkuser has not been performed on his or her account. You are saying that this has been run. I cannot find the checkuser, but I'm perfectly well aware that checkusers are sometimes run and reported on WP:ANI or some other place. Could you please give me more information on this specific case? Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure you're not lying as he claims, I also could not find the CU evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was performed by User:Alison. Without going into detail, as Billy Ego is quite energetic and creative in his efforts to camoflague his socks, she found that Aiemeus and Smockroker were matched to each other. If you'd prefer, you can email her about her findings. I am >99.999% certain they are both Billy Ego, though his known accounts are too stale to examine with checkuser. MastCell  19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Alison to confirm. Mangojuice 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that a checkuser was run and that yes, they were both confirmed to be the same editor - Alison 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Well, I'd leave that up to you to determine. TBH if I would have come across the posting/dispute in general during any of the other dispute phases (such as RfC) I would have dropped it on this page rather than listing it, but ArbCom generally means that someone is very likely to get blocked or topic-banned and my feeling is that Strider may not deserve it. I'm a regular reader of the Report on Lengthy Litigation/arbcom section of signpost -so that's where I'd heard of it.

I do know this - if I was engaged in a dispute of this nature with you (though that's unlikely since I'm more likely to just "go away" rather than dispute people), and you posted links to my comments on your userpage in an effort to poke fun, I would be pretty upset, particularly since the perception of admins is that you are in a place of considerable power.

My admittedly inexpert analysis of the situation is that Strider is breaking some rules pretty heavily, but is working on understanding wikipolicy. She obviously leans strongly toward a particular argument in the debate but it seems like she's at least trying to follow the rules. I didn't go back past February so I may be missing some context here but her recent edits have included sources that haven't been convincingly repudiated and she's not removing dissenting views. *BUT* - I know I'm no expert on this, which is why I tried to leave my opinion out of anything I posted at the ArbCom listing.

If those links at your DYK page were posted in good faith without any intent to poke fun at or aggravate someone you are in an ongoing disagreement with, then I apologize for misunderstanding them. I think they're relevant to any type of sanctioning that may occur though. CredoFromStart 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They were an expression of frustration at what I perceive to be some recurring themes on Misplaced Pages which are fundamentally harmful to the project of building a useful, respectable encyclopedia. As this particular expression took the form of sarcasm, it was probably inappropriate for my userpage and better kept to myself. Given that, and your objection to them, I've removed them from my userpage. I had considered deleting them, but since you reference them in your ArbCom evidence, I won't do that. MastCell  20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my statement regarding reverts. I may have been too hasty in posting it. I have to log off for a bit for the moment but I'll take a closer look at the page history before I add anything in the same vein. CredoFromStart 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like the two primary folks involved in the edit conflict as you listed in response to my comments are yourself and IronAngelAlice (12 and 13 edits to revert/correct Strider respectively). I'd be interested to hear your response to this posting on my talk page: User_talk:CredoFromStart#strider12_arbitration. I'll admit it's fairly shady looking, since Captain Heartbeef is obviously a sock or else someone who's been an IP for a long time but is "coincidentally" registering a new account, but it certainly presents some evidence that may have relevance. I didn't rush to post it at the ArbCom listing because I'd be interested to hear your side of the story - this sort of thing doesn't usually have only one viewpoint. CredoFromStart 12:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:

• More reverts on my part is also a function of how long I've been active on the article compared to the other editors, which you may want to consider.
• When dubious accusations are made by an obvious sock, it's often worth examining their veracity for oneself before rushing to amplify them. I've responded in more detail on your talk page. MastCell  22:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I did look into them, I read all the postings at AN/I and IAA's talk page, I looked through edit histories, and I waded through that beast of a talk page at the Abortion and mental health article, all the way back to November. I didn't ask any direct questions because I don't think I have any compelling proof to do so. What I did was put myself in strider's shoes and I thought, "If I was Strider, and there was a confirmed sock who has been involved with this admin in the past, and this socker and her admin 'buddy' (and because you and IAA are both opposed to her, she thinks you're buddies)were the primary reverters of my material, then I would be inclined to think that I was being ganged up on and may not respond correctly."

Don't take this to mean I think Striders12's actions are/were defensable. Your evidence is ample, and I believe it is not misrepresenting what is going on - strider is quite obviously breaking a lot of rules.

In response to what you said on my page: I said that Captain Heartbeef was dubious and obviously a sock; that's why I wasn't giving full credence to his claims and asking you on a talk page rather than at the ArbCom page. I'm not aware of a less visible way to ask or I would have done so. I also understand that you didn't violate the letter of any policy, WP:SSP or otherwise (and yes, I did look it up before posting last week).

You're the admin here; you know more about what's appropriate than I do - I'm trying to learn. You're also the more-involved editor on this article, so you know the history of the dispute. The only thing I have going for me is that I don't care about the content of this article. I do care about[REDACTED] losing a solid content-oriented contributor -which Strider may have the "stuff" to become. The reason I posted what I did at ArbCom, and the reason I'm asking you about this sock's accusation is I'd like to be sure that this is a clear-cut case of "Strider12 is acting poorly, without provocation, without reciprocation, and deserves sanctions without anyone else receiving similar sanctions". Otherwise we're just running someone off the farm.

On a more positive note, thanks for responding to me seriously instead of just firing off some policy links and ignoring me. Even if I've been a little bit exasperating. I've learned a lot about what to do in content disputes from looking at your edit history on this topic. When I first saw this dispute I was of the opinion that you were just trying to shut someone else up who you disagreed with, and using your knowledge of policy and your standing as an admin to do so. However, I was mistaken on that, and I've come to appreciate your way of approaching things; I beleive you honestly have NPOV and accuracy as a goal. I may have some minor disagreements with you, but I think you've taught me some things that will be helpful in the future. CredoFromStart 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading a bunch of your other contribs, and started reading some of the stuff about the expert retention. I've changed my mind: You're completely in the right on this one. I'm going to counter my statements at the ArbCom. I hope someone who shares Striders12's views who can work inside the rules comes along for these articles because I think there's some valid content there, but I think I was missing the point - Strider is engaging in the kind of POV warring that we don't need. CredoFromStart 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I apologize for being snippy with you - real-life goings-on combined with the unpleasantness of the ArbCom case probably have me more on edge than I should be - so thank you for not taking it the wrong way and for being patient. By the way, you were right about the DYK thing - while it was somewhat satisfying at the time, it's ultimately a counterproductive use of userspace. You were right to call me on it. Anyhow, there are plenty of things in this dispute that I'd do differently if I could rewind the clock six months, but as always it's a learning experience. MastCell  21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ukrain

Dude, please have a look at Talk:Pancreatic cancer and Ukrain. What do you think? JFW | T@lk 06:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will, but my hands are a bit full - ArbCom case, real-life stuff, folks happy to believe the best of an obvious abusive sock and the worst of me... the usual. I'll get to it, though. MastCell  22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

re: old evidence

Oops. I've been busy and forgot to reply earlier. I have thought about dating other diffs and striking through other old evidence but as you say, NCdave and Strider12 didn't have a lot of diffs.

As to Strider12's recent behavior, actually I've seen nothing in the last six weeks that bothers me - but it's very hard to get me riled up. The Fogel thing I view as more silly than annoying - silly in that it won't accomplish anything. I said as much on her talk page, "Think about it - was there even a ghost of a chance that it would work? Doing something that won't work is worse than useless." At this stage, I think it unlikely that she will again attempt to insert it.

She believes that she is following Misplaced Pages policies - that she is trying to make the article more neutral, and that inserting verifiable, sourced information is the way to do it. What might work is if ArbCom explains to her where she is going wrong - perhaps by misapplying ArbCom rulings, or overlooking policies. She is more likely to listen to someone neutral (ArbCom, myself) or friendly (Ferrylodge made some helpful comments), than to someone she perceives as having the opposite POV (you).

My goal is to produce a decent article. It will be easier for me if I have both you and Strider12 helping me learn about the topic. I think it will be harmful to the project is she is long-term blocked or topic banned.

Do you think the article currently is NPOV? What I have seen is several editors say that it is biased in one direction and nobody says it is biased in the other direction. That suggests that it is non-neutral. The recent comments by a drive-by editor (one whom I haven't seen previously in the history) gave objective reasons for thinking the article is non-neutral. It will be harder to make it neutral if one side is out of action. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is a mess at present. I think Andrew c hit the nail on the head: it's not even a matter of neutral or not - the thing is unreadable. I think the lead is pretty decent and reasonably compliant with WP:NPOV. Beyond that... ugh. The Fogel thing might take on a different meaning if you'd been dealing with Strider12 for the past 6 months. Like I said, it's not like the re-re-re-insertion of the section without discussion was unforgivable in and of itself. It was the straw that broke the camel's back and convinced me that there was absolutely no prospect of constructively working with this editor on Misplaced Pages.

I have to strongly disagree with your last sentence. Experience leads me to believe that neutrality does not depend on achieving the right balance of partisan editors. It depends on removing or otherwise preventing partisan editing. The article will never be neutral, policy-compliant, readable, and encyclopedic while Strider12 is active (barring a major sea change in how she operates). It will actually be much, much easier to improve the article's neutrality if all editors who view the article primarily as a place to argue their personal agenda are out of action. I heard the same argument advanced in a dispute over editing behavior on articles relating to Israeli-Arab relations - the gist was: "You can't sanction X, because he's one of our most effective POV-pushers - if we lose him, we'll fall behind to the other side!"

I can virtually guarantee you that if Strider12 is removed from the article, it will improve rapidly and much more harmoniously - and not because "DENIERS" have defeated a "BELIEVER", but because an editor who insisted, and insists, on viewing the article as a battleground and soapbox will no longer be a factor. Misplaced Pages spends way too much time trying to find the magical combination of efforts that will turn someone like this into a productive, constructive editor. Someone who's here specifically to use Misplaced Pages to advance a single agenda will, in a best case scenario, morph into an editor who manages to follow the letter of rules while gaming their spirit in pursuit of said agenda. Rather than ask the half-dozen volunteers who are editing within policy to find another way to bend over backward, I would suggest it's time to ask the one editor who is completely unable to subordinate her personal agenda to Misplaced Pages policy to move on. But that's me. MastCell  05:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, we can keep the discussion here. You needn't copy to my talk page. This page is automatically on my watchlist because I edited here. (I smiled when my watchlist showed that you mixed up your "deniers" and "believers".)

As I said, it's hard to get me riled up. I think there has never been a straw that broke my camel's back. Perhaps that means I should be more on the alert for things that might bother other people. On talk pages, for instance, nothing bothers me because I can ignore it. Article pages I can't ignore and will correct even small things. I notice that your reply to my comments on old Evidence is entirely about the Talk page, not about Article pages. Looking through the recent article History I see the Fogel back-and-forth and some back-and-forth on Stotland (I didn't go back farther to see if this is a new or repeated edit) but I also see Strider12 edits that you did not revert. I hope that means you thought those edits were acceptable, not that you were too worn down to revert them.

Perhaps I lean too far toward AGF but I honestly believe that Strider12 is attempting to make the article NPOV, not trying to make it conform to her POV. She believes as do several other editors that it is biased and she is inserting material to balance it out. She leaves in material with the opposite POV. Her draft (her user subpage) includes material on both sides. This comment on the Workshop page demonstrates her NPOV:

You may recall that I pointed you to the literature showing that teens who abort are significantly more likely to finish high school. I did not try to hide that benefit. Also, when you brought up relief after an abortion, I agreed wholeheartedly, that the common finding in the literature that feelings of "relief" are common and should not only be included but should be given prime position in the introduction.

I am planning to make the AMH article my primary Misplaced Pages focus (once the ArbCom case is over). If I am able to help turn it into a decent article when it is inherently a contentious topic, I will find that very satisfying intellectually. I'm actually not that interested in the topic so I am probably the most NPOV editor on that article. My main interest is NPOV and verifiability and it's long been part of my makeup to try to find common ground.

My question to you is would you accept me as a mentor to Strider12 without any topic ban but with a 1RR restriction? I'll keep a closer eye on her edits and will spend more time advising her as to how to be more productive. It will help me to have her contributions and I think I can manage to make it not hurt you or other editors. Sbowers3 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave diffs from the talk page because I think the talk page of a disputed article is where you can see whether an editor is working toward consensus or obstructing it with constant accusations and argumentation. I could have cited the article diffs again as well, with the repeated reinsertion of the disputed text, but I'd already cited those elsewhere. Strider12 has made some good edits, and there are times where I've agreed with her and disagreed with editors whom everyone seems to have decided are my "allies".

I'm sure that Strider12 thinks she's improving the article and making it more neutral. Many disruptive editors do think that; very few actually set out to make a hash of things. I'm sure she's a good person, and if we met in real life we'd probably get along just fine. It's not about that. Some people are just not able to edit constructively within the strictures of this particular environment.

I'd welcome your greater involvement on the article; I think you did a good job with David Reardon. I actually don't have a strong POV on the topic; I think you can probably guess my opinion from the talk pages, but I think it's a controversial and unresolved issue with a strong political overlay. I knew basically nothing about the topic before I started editing it in November '07 or so. Like I said, I think there is a good article in here trying desperately to get out.

As to the idea that Strider12 pointed out to me a study on "positive" effects of abortion, I can't find the diffs but that doesn't jibe with my memory. I believe I mentioned the study, and she told me that I couldn't use it to "chalk one up" for the abortion side, as if that was my intention. But like I said, I can't find the diffs yet so take that for what it's worth.

I appreciate your willingness to work with Strider12 and to try to improve the situation. It reflects very well on you. However, at this point I honestly feel that I've spent way too much time dealing with what is really textbook disruptive and unconstructive editing. I wish I had the energy and reserves of patience to put up with more, but it's been a long 6 months. I'm just not willing to bend over backwards again and again to accomodate this kind of editing, nor do I think it's fair to the other editors of the article. I don't go to ArbCom lightly - in fact, I've never filed a case before - partly because this wasn't my finest hour either and I figured I'd take some lumps, not to mention editors whom I ran afoul of long ago cannot resist the opportunity to get a kick or two in. But I saw no alternative. The status quo was not acceptable, and there was absolutely zero evidence that it was going to change.

If the Committee decides not to ban or topic-ban Strider12, then I will find a way to move forward. But Strider12 has had plenty of opportunities to avoid this, and she's shown zero interest in collaborating or improving her behavior until the threat of an imminent ArbCom ban is hanging over her head. That doesn't inspire me with confidence that she's had an actual change of heart. If you're concerned about the absence of her viewpoint on the article, then I'd suggest exchanging emails with her, which I suspect she would be willing to do. I suspect that you will be much more successful at getting the kind of content Strider12 favors into the article, because you listen and try to work collaboratively. MastCell  21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Hi MastCell, I'd like to see you comment at Vereniging Basisinkomen. Since I have a COI, there is not much more that I can do there. This user user:Migdejong is causing problems for me all over Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{totallydisputed}}

Hi Mastcell. Is there a policy, guideline, or essay that explains what the "appropriate" use of this or related tags is? I've found Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/Disputes but it doesn't give much guidance. Anyways, there must be something out there, I just can't seem to find it. Any assistance would be appreciated. Yilloslime (t) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. You could try posting something at Template talk:Totally-disputed, but I doubt very many people watch the page. Generally, it shouldn't be placed until a good-faith effort has been made to resolve the disputed issue ("good faith" meaning something besides "This article is soooo biased!!!!1!") Once some sort of consensus has been achieved, it should be removed. Problems arise when one editor finds themselves unable to persuade others of their viewpoint, and resorts to perpetually tagging the article to make their point. That's pretty clearly an abuse, though I don't think you'll find it written down anywhere. Is there a specific issue with its use that you're concerned about? MastCell  19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I just realized that the second paragraph of this (right above the TOC) is pretty much what I was looking for. Yilloslime (t) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your question, I'm talking about Bisphenol A. A new editor added and then re-added the tag to the article without bring any specific issues to the table.Yilloslime (t) 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, drive-by tagging is pretty much always frowned upon. I'd suggest removing the tag with a note on the article or user talk page asking for specific NPOV issues. If the editor keeps restoring the tag without actually bringing up any actionable issues, then that can be dealt with. MastCell  18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya thats been my approach. We went back and forth a few times with him applying the tag and leaving vague, non-specific complaints of bias and "fictional material" on the talk page, and me removing the tag, asking for specific instances of POV/misinformation, and advising him to simply fix whatever he's thinks is wrong with the article rather than simply slapping tags on it. Eventually he offered up some specifics, I addressed them by editing the page accordingly, and eventually removed the tag. So far he hasn't been back. His only edits to the article have been to add/re-add the tag, and he's the only editor to add the tag. I'm the only one to remove it, but by my count there are 4 editors who don't think the tag is justified and 2 who do (yet he has claimed there is no consensus to remove the tag.) Anyways, things appear, at least for the moment, to have blown over. The tag is gone, and I think the article is actually in better shape now then it was before this little storm erupted. Yilloslime (t) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

A while back you accused me of canvassing, or informed me that I had been canvassing, on the greenhouse gas talk page, I was attempting to follow the dispute resolution process (something I've given up on with that page), but seem to have broken the rules nevertheless so I'd like to ask your opinion on something. I recently stumbled across the[REDACTED] article on slavery in bdsm, and saw it was considerably lacking, and I've found that generally the whole area is a mess on here, so I've decided to work on it. I've been considering posting on one or more bdsm forums inviting people to contribute, considering that the people on those forums are almost certainly 'pro-bdsm' biased, would that be acceptable or not? Restepc (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference between canvassing and asking for help is usually one of tone. For instance, posting that "this article is biased against X and therefore you all need to help win this edit war" is canvassing. Posting that "The article on X could really benefit from the attention of people with expertise in the area" is usually acceptable. The audience is also an issue, though a forum which does not explicitly espouse one side or the other of a specific content dispute is usually acceptable. I don't know enough about the particular topic or dispute you mention to say for sure whether your proposal is "OK" or not, but I think if you stick to a neutral message, rather than soliciting people of one specific opinion, and just invite knowledgeable folks of all stripes to come work on the article, then I doubt it will be a problem. You might want to recommend that people take their time and look at some of the core policies and pages for beginners before jumping into an active dispute as well. MastCell  18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I've left a few suggestions. MastCell  21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute edit.

I may have been hasty in reverting this edit, but I didn't see any discussion about the change on the Talk page, and I disagree with the guidance you provide. It seems to me that the sentence you added specifically negates the previous sentence, by seeming to imply that removing a tag isn't editwarring, but that adding it is. I generally agree that editwarring is to be discouraged and dispute resolution is to be sought; but dispute resolution seems more likely to be fruitful (i.e. a truer consensus may emerge) if more editors comment on the dispute. Tagging the article encourages this, in my opinion. Further, good-faith dispute resolution cannot occur when one side denies there is a dispute at all. Blackworm (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was being bold which means that I fully expected that it would be reverted if someone disagreed. I'll go to the talk page. Briefly, I think your points are good, and there's probably a better way to phrase what I was trying to say. My point was that I've seen editors who fail to make a point, and basically have a large consensus against their edits, resort to tagging a page indefinitely as a means of expressing that they disagree with the consensus. I think that's an abuse of the tag, but as written the page suggests that one should never remove an NPOV tag. There comes a time when a dispute has been talked to death and a consensus emerges, and continuing to beat the dead horse beyond that point by reinserting dispute tags is to be discouraged. But I take your point - if DR is being actively pursued, then a dispute tag is certainly reasonable. MastCell  21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Related question: The banner at the top of WP:NPOVD describes the page as a "how-to guide." So does it carry the weight of policy, guideline, an essay, etc. I think this should be clarified, so that editors know how much mind to pay it. Yilloslime (t) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it carries any more "official" weight than an essay, but insofar as it codified a reasonable description of good practice it's worthwhile. MastCell  00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about putting an{{essay}} tag on the top? Yilloslime (t) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mannatech

Since I believe you're the evil nutjob who left the link of this article on my user talk, you owe me some help. Grumble grumble.  :( Some COI editor is trying to whitewash a company funded study as proof positive that there potions work. I need a peaceful article. You know butterflies, flowers, peace on earth, chocolate, Harley Davidson. Yes, I edited VRSC. That was peaceful.  :) Anyways, can you go beat up the Mannatech employee messing with the article. OrangeMarlin 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know about this?

There is another user named User:Mastcell. The user doesn't seem like the same person as yiy and unfortunately his account is older than yours by a year although it has been inactive for more than a year. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, every now and then people get confused. I didn't know of User:Mastcell when I chose this name, though he was around long before me. I think the present-day software would have prevented me from choosing "MastCell" because it's so similar, but back in the day it didn't have that level of sophistication. I don't think User:Mastcell is active anymore - it did cause a bit of confusion at my WP:RfA, though. I should probably put a clarification notice at the top of my (and his) userpage. MastCell  02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Lead_rework

The latest edit and revert summary to the article (I agreed with your revert of my band-aid caveat, but not your summary) focused my attention on this subject again. I believe I have accurately summarized/synthesized the scientific consensus with "no significant association between abortion and breast cancer risk" which removes the misleading (regarding evidence) "unsupported"; and gets rid of the first-trimester redundancy. My lead draft also mentions "reject", but in a significantly improved context. I plan to implement this lead in a few days. cc'd on talk. - RoyBoy 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of information

You're aware that User:CorticoSpinal == User:EBDCM, right? Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)