User talk:MastCell/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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..:) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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." [1]

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?" [2]

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." [3]

"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?" [4]

"Eubulides paternalistic and arrogant and condecending tone is not winning him any favours and further damages his credibility, which, IMO, is shot now." [5]

"I feel that Dr. Eubulides does not have a firm grasp on this subtlety which is nicely illustrated in Anon's point." [6]

"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" [7]

"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." [8]

"Also, again, you are being intellectually dishonest and referring to google scholar as some kind of barometer as to what is acceptable." [9]

"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." [10]

"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." [11]

"It's because you don't know jack about the art and science of manipulation and you have to listen to quack guru." [12]

"Eubulides parades around here with his medical hat lecturing evidence-based DCs about the profession through his warped lens" [13]

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks. MastCell ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

And now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia in general. Thanks so much. Ante lan ^talk 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, Ante lan ^talk 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 ([14])? So if a representative or employee of a pharmaceutical company promoted one of their medications for an off-label indication on Wikipedia, would that be illegal? I don't know the letter of the law, but it's an interesting question. MastCell ^Talk 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, Ante lan ^talk 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 ^Talk 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. Ante lan ^talk 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/w/index.php?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. Ante lan ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi MastCell, Over the last few weeks I've been reading a great deal of material in Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You

You filthy commie.[15] 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 ^Talk 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 wikipedia etiquette, and if so, how do I go about resolving this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eubulides#EBDCM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ^Talk 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 (^{cast a spell}) 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 ^Talk 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 (^{cast a spell}) 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 ^Talk 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 (^{cast a spell}) 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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 (^{cast a spell}) 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 ^Talk 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. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

File:Pr032206a 6.jpg

Members of FARC review the featured status of the AIDS article (not pictured).

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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure. Something about drinking heavily and then putting random tags on articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Orangemarlin and TimVickers are at work to save it form the guerrillas, in case you can help. Pathophysiology and Prognosis are a wreck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 28 April 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Going WP:ROUGE on us?

[16] 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 ^Claims~ Evidence 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think run-on sentences are the lesser of two evils in this particular case. :) MastCell ^Talk 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 "[IP] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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.[17] 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 ^(rants) 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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: [18]. 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be most useful by observing editorial conduct. I'll watchlist the article. MastCell ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 ^Talk 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 wikipedia 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 (^{cast a spell}) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 ^talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd never have guessed. :) MastCell ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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^talk 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just give 'em two aspirin and discharge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

There is currently a RfC going on that you might be interested in. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 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 ^Talk 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^talk 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)