User talk:MastCell/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Request for assisstance on locked Jeff Jacoby entry

The Jacoby (columnist) entry was locked with a citecheck flag on it. However, the only footnote, a link to the American Arbitration Association, that was in dispute, has been removed, along with the information it was backing up (Jacoby received a 75% reduction in the penalty of his suspension and was reimbursed for lost wages).

Could you either a) Put the paragraph back in there with the disputed footnote or b) Remove the citecheck flag? See the talk page for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.172.113 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 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 Wikipedia. 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^talk 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

False. Also, here = [wp:censor], [wp:point]....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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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 [I can't seem dig up the link], 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 ^Talk 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^talk 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Only during sweeps week. MastCell ^Talk 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 ^Talk 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

You mean you can't get CME credit for watching ER in the UK? MastCell ^Talk 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 ^Talk 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one of my favorite passages on Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 Wikipedia articles. The {{userpage}} tag is usually sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 Wikipedia is not censored. Bryan Hopping ^T 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk:Doctor of Medicine. MastCell ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I asked that he stop with personal attacks yesterday. Antelan^talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, far better to play a Victor! Antelan^talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Alison to confirm. Mangojuice^talk 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 ^talk 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They were an expression of frustration at what I perceive to be some recurring themes on Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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-reⁿ-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 Wikipedia.

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy to move on. But that's me. MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 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 ^Talk 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)

Yup, I had noticed the name change. MastCell ^Talk 03:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should Strider12 resume editing Wikipedia, she shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist her in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sports Chiropractic

This article has recently been nominated for deletion by user Mccready. You comments would be appreciated on the subject to determine the validity and merit of his claims. This is a cross post. Thank you. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian

All of the participants on the article's Talk Page were warned three times by me to cease both uncivil comments and material not relevant to improving the article. When this behavior continued, I left a fourth, final message on the personal Talk Pages of at least three of the participants: DrHenley, Hypnosadist, and AngryChristian. The fact that he responded to this with "hey what is that crazy shit you put on my talk page about?", is not "moderately uncivil", and as it constitutes ignoring four warnings, blocking for a mere 48 hours so that he could cool down, was perfectly appropriate. Furthermore, the idea that my warnings applied only to the Expelled Talk Page, and not to incivility and profanity on personal ones, is, with all due respect, MastCell, ridiculous. WP: Civility does not restrict itself to article Talk Pages. Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion was that the block should be undone for a couple of reasons: first, it appeared that the block was placed because Angry Christian responded rudely to your warning on his talk page. People respond rudely to warnings all the time; in the absence of a direct and signficant personal attack, the better approach is to respond calmly and explain the warning, rather than block. Additionally, blocks for incivility rarely, if ever, have the intended effect. 48 hours is actually a long time for a first block, especially for incivility. "Cool-down" blocks are explicitly deprecated in WP:BLOCK because they don't work, and generally have the opposite effect (as in this case). Of course WP:CIVIL applies to all pages; the question is whether it's appropriate to block someone for a rude response to a warning you've left, and whether such a block will have a useful effect. In general, it's often a good idea to submit these sorts of blocks (e.g. a block for incivility on an established contributor with a clean block log) to AN/I pre-emptively for feedback, particuarly if you'll be offline for awhile. I'm not condoning Angry Christian's comments - he was uncivil. My opinion, as expressed on your talk page and at WP:AN/I, was that a 48-hour block was not the most appropriate response to this particular episode of incivility. Again, that's just my opinion. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Can you chime in with your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm going to decline. I really don't want to get involved in the debate-by-proxy about intelligent design taking place there. Of course I have an opinion on the subject, but Wikipedia's not really the place for it. I'm making an effort to re-evaluate where I spend my on-wiki time. I suspect that the article will consume an inordinate amount of editorial time and generate a lot of ill-will, when the subject itself is not all that vital and will probably be forgotten in a year or two (cf. What the Bleep Do We Know?) But it does keep people busy. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Highly scientific online quizzes

Your user page prompted me to take those two online worldview quizzes. I share your opinion of Sartre, so I wondered what else we share.

The first quiz calls me a "Cultural Creative," with Existentialist way down at only 25%. I'd never heard of a Cultural Creative before, but this page says I am one, too (barely). I thought the first quiz was way off, because it also said I'm 0% Idealist, when I'm actually very idealistic. But the second quiz is even stranger. It calls me a "Divine Command" person, with Existentialist coming in a strong second at 70%. Since those two are pretty much opposites, I think that is very funny! NCdave (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think those personality quizzes are only slightly more scientifically valid than phrenology, though the results can be interesting. Then again, most human beings are at least somewhat contradictory and difficult to pigeonhole - so maybe there's something to the seemingly disparate results. I think "existentialism" means different things to different people - in fact, I've found it's not uncommon for people who describe themselves as existentialists to be unable to articulate what it actually entails. Certainly I'd never characterize myself that way, though I do have a deep respect for the extent of human capability (both positive and negative). MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

INDEFFED IP

Thanks for that. I checked it out at WHOIS & RIPE, and it is his IP until he leaves his current ISP. That's why I indeffed it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done the same in the past, but I've come to appreciate that people do change ISP's, move, etc so it's probably preferable just to set a long but finite block length. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fishing

MastCell, could you please have a word with Orangemarlin and get him/her to cease make personal attacks against me (anti-science). I've had to endure this type of baiting and personal attacks that is hardly civil for over a month now. I'm decided against taking this to ANI figuring that a more constructive approach would be more beneficial to the project. If you are looking for diffs, I can provide them. Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. It's quite unfair to CorticoSpinal and needs to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. It's good to know that the project can count on you being a model example and editor for rational skeptics. CorticoSpinal (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit of you, sir (AIDS Reappraisal)

[1]

• Creates a broken link (the Australian courts issue).

• Destroys the sourced reference to Serge Lang.

• Erases a sourced reference to th 1984 seminal Gallo paper.

I suggest you to read edit summaries before reverting en masse. Please fix the mess and we can talk about other issues later. Thank you.Randroide (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I replaced a link to the Gallo article, and replaced your edit to the Australian court case. As I mentioned in the edit summary, assuming Lang's book is under copyright, linking to a mass reproduction of its text would seem to be linking to a copyright violation and I'm therefore not comfortable with it. In any case, if you want to reference Lang's role in the HIV/AIDS debate, then a much more reliable and reasonable source would be his obituary in the New York Times: [2].

I would suggest that when you make obviously controversial edits which are reverted, that you discuss rather than reinserting them along with a handful of others. Your edits across several articles seem geared towards introducing an AIDS-denialist POV in a manner which I feel is problematic with regard to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:POVFORK. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fast and efficacious response.

Your are failing WP:FAITH with me, sir, and no, Wikipideia is not a propaganda platform nor for AIDS denialism nor for AIDS officialism. I suppose both of us agree on this point, sir.

Plase note that I re-referenced the broken link for the Australian case, an "anti denialist" piece of text. I am not here to support this or that position. I am here simply to set the record straigh. Under WP:FAITH I assume the same attitude on you, and therefore I abstain to make commentaries on the (hypothetical) leaning of your edits.

Thank you very much for the Lang reference. I shall use that ref, and I understand and share your misgivings regarding the copyright status of Challenges at Peter Duesberg page. I failed to notice that issue when I linked that page Randroide (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't quite understand each other. What do you mean when you say that Wikipedia is not a platform for "AIDS officialism"? Wikipedia is an endeavor to represent the current state of human knowledge. That state includes the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Therefore, Wikipedia represents this. If you're construing WP:NPOV to mean that we treat AIDS denialism and "AIDS officialism" equally, then you're deeply misunderstanding the policy. MastCell ^Talk 05:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, sir: IMO you are the one who misunderstands the situation. "Denialists" have the same credentials as "Officialists" and they publish in the same journals. The issue is that they are a small minority

"Wikipedia is an endeavor to represent the current state of human knowledge. That state includes the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS"

I agree with you, sir. And I suppose you will agree with me that "the current state of human knowledge" also includes the minoritary scientific concept that the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS is an wrong/unproven concept Randroide (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Denialists have the same credentials as 'officialists'": Incorrect.
• "They publish in the same journals": Incorrect

I don't think we'll get very far when we proceed from incorrect foundations. Additionally, one cannot accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge by pretending that AIDS denialism is anything other than a fringe view discredited by the scientific community. There is no active scientific debate on this topic, and to pretend otherwise would be both inaccurate and a violation of WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ and search for articles written by famous "denialists". This issue has nothing to do with Flat Earthism. Is more like Global warming controversy.Randroide (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an order of magnitude more Flat-Earthy than global warming denialism. Since you pointed me to PubMed, why don't you show me the most recent peer-reviewed articles espousing an AIDS-denialist viewpoint? Anything in the last 5 years? 10 years? How about any peer-reviewed original research, at any point in time, conducted on HIV/AIDS by an "AIDS denialist"? MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You suggested a very interesting project for the page, sir: To look for and link at the article all the peer-reviewed articles pro and con AIDS reappraising. In fact, months ago I did a similar job at other contentious page:Primal_therapy#Peer-reviewed_journal_reports. Thank you for the idea.

Is there any peer-reviewed article supporting flat-earthism?. Randroide (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

why don't you show me the most recent peer-reviewed articles espousing an AIDS-denialist viewpoint? Anything in the last 5 years? 10 years?

Mission accomplished. The (non-exhaustive, partial) answer...

With a footnote: Is not a search about "denialism", but about "AIDS dissidence", the term I prefer and the one I suggest you to employ with me to avoid fastidious corrections

...to your highly interesting and fruitful question, sir.AIDS_reappraisal#Articles_about_the_controversy_published_in_peer-reviewed_journals. Frankly, doing this job I have seen there are enormous untapped reserves of first class (i.e., published in peer-reviewed journals) information available to write a much better article. Randroide (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion #1: Draw a distinction between a) peer-reviewed research; b) argumentation or debate appearing in peer-reviewed journals; and c) letters to the editor, which are often indexed by PubMed but are not "peer-reviewed". I think you'll find nothing in the first category, some papers in the second category, and most of your PubMed hits will fall into the third category. Incidentally, there appears to be little to nothing in the past 5 years.

Suggestion #2: Draw a distinction between widely respected or reputable medical journals and, say, Medical Hypotheses. Not all PubMed-indexed journals are equivalent. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall follow your reasonable suggestions, sir. I failed to do so due to my lack of knowledge on the opportune distinctions you (and other User at the tal page) draw. Gosh, how much I am learning doing this. Now, I have to go to work and I must leave Wikipedia. Please take a look at the section, just in case I commited any other preposterous error as calling "peer-reviewed" what is not. Could you please give me (a good link would be enough) more information about where could I learn more about the distinctions you pointed?. Thank you very much.

P.S.:What about cutting and pasting these discussions at Talk:AIDS_reappraisal? Randroide (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain me this diff of yours?

Excuse me, sir, but in this edit [3] you are simultaneously:

* Claiming that a (you are referring to a "denialist") wiki should not be linked.

* Making a point based on a (lets call it "officialist") wiki, i.e., http://www.aidstruth.org/

Please explain me what I am missing here, because im my book one can not eat his/her cake and eat it too.

Anyway, the mentioned link should go out due to its flagrant violation of WP:LIVING. Please take a look at this rather incredible subsection of the page:

http://www.aidstruth.org/aids-denialists.php

This is a very serious issue,sir: Extremely serious accusations, gossip, alleged private emails and personal innuendo of the worst kind on public living persons in a wiki with nothing else than their say-so, and we are linking this website from a Wikipedia page.

All the content supported only by this site should go, IMHO. Contents supported by other (proper) sources should be linked to the proper sources and preserved, of course.

Thank you for your attention.Randroide (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on several grounds. First of all, I see no "gossip, alleged private emails, or personal innuendo on living persons" in the AIDS reappraisal article, whether sourced to aidstruth.org or elsewhere. Aidstruth.org was praised in article in Science, one of the handful of leading scientific journals in the world (PMID 17569834). Material from the site was also cited by the Australian judge in the Andre Chad Parenzee case. The reliability of the site is far greater than that of any of the denialist websites to which we source all sorts of things in the article; see also WP:PARITY. Please also point out which aspects of the AIDS reappraisal article you believe violate WP:BLP, as I am sensitive to such issues (preferably on the article talk page rather than here). MastCell ^Talk 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Aidstruth.org

• I provided you (vide supra in my previous post) the link to the WP:BLP-sensitive material at aidstruth.org. Please follow it. I can not even paste here what´s wrong there, because WP:BLP rules forbid that. From now, if you fail to take action, it´s your responsability, sir.

• What about the issue of aidstruth.org. being a Wiki?. You failed to answer my previous question.

I learned at Wikipedia:V#Sources that only open wikis are vettoed as sources. Aidstruth.org is a closed wiki. Sorry for the inconvenience caused by my ignorance. Randroide (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, thank you very much for the WP:PARITY. I ignored such policy exists, and I must change my mind about a lot of things I (wrongly) suppoused about what is proper and what not in Wikipedia. I shall study that policy with enormous interest. Randroide (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on Mastcell, it's not everyday something calls your "sir". Personally I think of you as "Sir", but that's just me :-) Shot info (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• What about the issue of AIDStruth.org being a wiki?" Incorrect; it's not a wiki.
• I cannot post it here: Please identify the specific parts of AIDS reappraisal article which you feel violate WP:BLP - preferably on the article talk page. If you are not willing to do this, I don't see how we can resolve the issue. You may also wish to seek outside input from the BLP noticeboard; if you decide to do so, I just ask that you notify me. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a wiki, indeed (just look at the sofware). Anyway: I learned at Wikipedia:V#Sources that only open wikis are vettoed as sources. Aidstruth.org is a closed one, so I apologize for the inconvenience caused by my ignorance on this point. I must confess I am learning a lot about WP policies and procedures working at AIDS reappraisal. Thank you for your feedback.

I am not aware of any BLP issues at AIDS reappraisal, but I think that websites failing BLP policies (and Aidstruth.org certainly fails) can not be linked at all. Plase correct me if I am wrong.Randroide (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Hi there. I wonder if you'd mind looking into today's edits to this article. History: the article started off as an advert. After a short edit war with a fellow WP:MED editor (since retired) I had a go at rewriting it as NPOV as I could stomach. That was 2 years ago. Since then, I've watched it. Every now again, some fan or member of staff comes along and deletes the criticism. I'd appreciate another pair of hands since I don't want it to look like I WP:OWN the article because most edits get reverted. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz

Hi MastCell, sorry to bug you wit this but I've just warned user:Jagz for personal attacks on Talk:Race and intelligence[4]. I had already warned them twice this month for failing to assume good faith on that same page and with the same editor[5][6]. Hence the level 4 npa tag. Would you mind reviewing my warning just to make sure it was fair.

This user has a long history of uncivil and tendentious behaviour on that article, as can be seen by going through Talk:Race and intelligence and its recent archives. There was also an ANI posting that highlights some of his behaviour (see it here). Notably he has engaged in a long running campaign against User:Slrubenstein and User:Ramdrake. He has also ABFed about ,and border line personally attacked, User:Tim Vickers[7] and User:Mathsci[8] (this diff is in response to this comment by Mathsci[9]). These diffs may appear like one off attacks on these editors - they are not - further evidence of Jagz continual disruptive behaviour can be provided if necessary, but at this moment in time I think it would be helpful for an uninvolved sysop to review the final warning I issued to Jagz--Cailil ^talk 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him in the past about conduct[10] and edit warring.[11] He's got to know by now that stuff like this is unacceptable. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually User:Ramdrake who is edit warring, and User:Slrubenstein who constantly calls User:Jagz a troll and acts in an incivil manner. The examples of User:Jagz being incivil and not assuming good faith are flimsy and hypocritical. At best they're hand picked borderline attacks taken from over a hundred civil talk page edits by this user.

It should be noted that these users seems to be engaged in a smear campaign against User:Jagz, and that it happens to be four editors who have a POV argument with Jagz on the R&I article who are complaining. I would suggest handing this matter to an unbiased admin who has the time to look into it carefully. --Zero g (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, it's not Jagz not respecting consensus on the talk page and constantly trying to ask the other parent for a different answer, it's four different editors having the same POV argument with Jagz, right? Thanks for clearing that up.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am an unbiased admin. I have never edited the R&I article. My only participation in the article's talk page was to warn Jagz and to fix a malformed RfC template. Your contention that I have a "POV argument with Jagz on the R&I article" has no basis and should be withdrawn. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, very very wrong Zero g. My only interactions with Jagz have been when his behaviour has drawn attention to him. I have no content issue with Jagz nor does Raymond Arritt. And like Raymond I have never edited that article. I would advise you, Zero g, in the strongest possible terms to strike and withdraw your ad hominem remarks. You are in breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EQ and WP:AGF. I have contacted MastCell for an outside review of my warning becuase I have absolute faith in his independence and integrity. I am sure he will use his own judgment in this situation and I would request that he be allowed to do so in peace - if I'm wrong he will tell me--Cailil ^talk 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the warning is appropriate. I will be the first to admit that I've not looked at the 67 talk-page archives in-depth, but a look at recent events suggests that there is a significant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue here. I would suggest compiling examples of the problem for a user-conduct RfC - while the diff-gathering process is painful, especially for an issue as difficult to summarize as tendentious editing, I think it would be worthwhile to see the basis of the conflict laid out. It's difficult for an outsider to get the whole picture by skimming the last archive or two of the talk page. Again, though, my sense is that the warning was appropriate and that Jagz' approach to the article is not facilitating progress. I also have a lot of respect for Raymond's judgement and would tend to concur with him in this case. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review MastCell. I do agree that the issue is that Jagz is not hearing what has been said to him a number of times. Thanks again--Cailil ^talk 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above, would you mind having a look at these posts to my talk space from Jagz[12][13]. There is also a matter of this[14] posted on Talk:Dysgenics in reply to Ramdrake and Alun. All of these contribs were made by Jagz after being issued with the final warning. Once again I would stress that I have no content issue with Jagz - I have no involvement in the writing of any article he is in dispute on. My only interactions with this user are based solely on his conduct towards users he is in dispute with and with the matter of his attempts to ask teh other parent--Cailil ^talk 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this until just now. He's skirting the line - definitely being impolite and stubborn, and impeding collaborative editing, but adminstrative actions like blocks are pretty blunt tools to deal with this sort of (relatively) civil POV-pushing and tendentiousness. As painful as the process is, I think it's probably necessary for those involved in the dispute to open a user-conduct RfC regarding Jagz. I think if the pattern is made clear, it will be easier to assess and deal with the problem and I think the community will back action. MastCell ^Talk 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UserPage

MastCell, perhaps it's just my browser but your userpage looks all messed up. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been told that it looks like a dog's breakfast on Firefox. It looks OK on Internet Explorer. I should really figure out how to fix it, but my technical skills are mediocre at best. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are correct. :) Dog Food it is! Just as long as you were aware of it -- at first I checked to make sure it wasn't vandalized. Not that I'm the most competent with the more advanced wiki formatting, if I have a moment, I'll try to figure it out for you. Unless one of the other more talented editors beat me to it. :) Tiggerjay (talk)

AIDS, once again

Can you take a look at this article. Tim Vickers and I have spent some time today looking at the article and trying to get it cleaned up, but it's a huge mess. One section I know that might interest you is AIDS#Alternative hypotheses. Are we giving undue weight to this crap in the article? What's your thought? Anyways, if you have a few minutes, can you help out with your fine medical mind, which was developed under the fine mentoring of Dr. Gregory House. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that House would be a bit more astringent in his treatment of AIDS denialism. Nonetheless, I think a small paragraph with a link to the main article is appropriate. Regarding WP:WEIGHT, AIDS denialism had very little scientific weight to begin with, and now has the same amount of support in the scientific community as Flat Earthism. The weight of AIDS denialism comes from its political impact; Thabo Mbeki was up one night surfing teh Internets and came across Duesberg et al., and the result is an ongoing public health disaster. The country with one of the highest burdens of HIV/AIDS in the world has had a horrifyingly lackadaisical approach to dealing with the epidemic as a result of a political embrace of AIDS denialism. That's WP:WEIGHTy, and should probably be the focus of the main AIDS reappraisal article as well, but AIDS-denialist editors tend to want to use the article to hold a scientific "debate" as if this were the blogosphere... but I digress. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring Comments

I didn't restore any comments on any user's page. Could you please explain your comment as to such on my talk page? Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, but I'm leaving it here for politeness.

First of all, how did you get involved in this? I'm sorry, but this is an discussion between another editor and myself, how is it that you have now entered the fray? Secondly, you first accused me of reverting comments on someone's talk page, would you please address this accusation? Thirdly, the editor in question *continues* to make comments on *my* talk page. I have nothing to do with what he does on his talk page, erasing comments and so forth, but I will continue to respond to him — on his talk page — if you continues to contribute to mine.

Also, I am well aware of the policy on 3RR. How is it that you are now embroiled in *this* discussion?

Please explain how it is that you are now involved in this. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest that every time someone asks you to reconsider what you're doing in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, a reactive and suspicious demand to know where they came from may not be the best approach. Nonetheless: ScienceApologist's talk page is on my watchlist. I saw a bunch of reverts pop up there, so I took a look. You are of course welcome to remove ScienceApologist's comments (or mine) from your talk page; while archiving is preferable, you would be well within your rights. If you find ScienceApologist constantly badgering you on your talk page after you've removed his posts, then let me know and I'll ask him to stop. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, but I'm still not sure what you are accusing me of? ScienceApologist wrote on my talk page *first* and continued to write on my talk page, with me responding to his comments (on my page) each time. How is it I have broken any "guidelines"? In point of fact, it is *he* who began this, not me. He also said he had begun "monitoring" me, and threatened to erase my every edit. This was before I said a word to him.

So, once again, I will ask, *why* you have become involved in this discussion between ScienceApologist and myself? I simply don't understand why you have become involved in this? He and I are most capable of working this out ourselves, and your presence is inappropriate and (in my opinion) disruptive and has an escalating effect on the situation. So, I'm asking politely, please refrain from continued involvement in our discussion. I'm asking with all civility. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, and my continued participation is limited to responding to your ongoing and somewhat aggressive questioning. I'm only suggesting that you not continue to post increasingly irate notes on the talk page of a user who keeps removing your posts; I'm not interested in figuring out who "started it". All of my additional input after my initial note to you has been in response to fairly aggressive direct questions from you, so I don't see what "continued involvement" you're referring to. A word of advice: this is an open wiki, and many admins, when they observe potentially problematic behavior, will try to contact the editor in question. If you want to have a conversation with ScienceApologist without anyone else looking in or commenting, then I would suggest email.

In any case, I have little to say beyond asking you to stop posting to a user-talk page where your comments are being removed. I've answered your questions, and I am more than happy to leave you to work it out. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are wrong, misguided and are avoiding my question. I am not "aggressively" questioning you, lets please avoid throwing up straw men. Once *again* ScienceApologist has commented on my page, this time telling me "to do so at your own peril". I have said this now two time, and you continue to ignore my comment, he is *continuing* to comment on my page, how is it incorrect for me to respond on *his* page? You simply have not answered this.

As a matter-of-fact, lets simply take that point by itself, how is me answering his comments on *my* page (by him) wrong on his page? Supertheman (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Supertheman, all MastCell was saying that if someone removes your comments from his or her talkpage, you should not restore them per WP:DRC and common sense. Granted, this edit of yours is not an exact revert of your previous post which SA removed, but the concept still applies. That's all he's saying. SA left comments on your talkpage, and you are within your rights to delete them if you want, or to respond to them as you did. And you were also within your rights to initiate discussion with him on his talkpage, but once he deleted your comments you should have let it go.

And whether it was your intent or not, most people would reasonably interpret comments like this one ("So, once again, I will ask, *why* you have become involved in this discussion between ScienceApologist and myself? I simply don't understand why you have become involved in this?") as "aggressive questioning." As MastCell explained above, part of wikipediaing is having your talkpage posts read and commented on by random, uninvolved users, as I am doing here. If your are uncomfortable with that, then you shouldn't have your discussions "in public." Yilloslime (t) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "comment[ing] on" someone else's comments and becoming embroiled in the debate. Granted, I agree, anyone may become involved in a discussion if one wishes, as one may kick cats and yell at children if one wishes, but how *edifying* and constructive is that. This was an issue between ScienceApologist and myself, and it simply wasn't necessary for anyone else to get involved.

My comments on ScienceApologist's page were in *response* to his comments on mine. I wasn't "reverting" edits, and your example of such makes my point (thank you).

Lets be frank. There is a cabal of editors that are watching certain pages for any edits they deem unworthy. All one need to do to see this connection is visit the talk page of one, the others are there to be found. I have pointed out the discrimination that is going on right now, in that the Global Warming page has no controversy section (and would anyone not agree that it is controversial), yet the Intelligent Design page has a *huge* controversy section. The Wikipedia guidelines discourage controversy sections, yet it remains. My efforts to correct this error are met with meanspirited comments and quick and unfounded edits. I'm sure you can imagine how upsetting that is. One editor storms into my talk page, makes threats and promises to "monitor" me, and I respond to his comments. He erases them each time, yet keeps commenting on my talk page fast and furiously. Suddenly, several other editors come to his aid when this is certainly *not* needed.

I understand what is permissible, what I'm speaking of is what is civil and edifying. I asked him not to comment on my page if he was going to erase mine on his, and he kept right on doing it. Why are both of you supporting such behavior? Sad. Supertheman (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If SA had repeatedly restored comments that you had deleted from your talkpage he'd have received the same warnings that you have. Yilloslime (t) 01:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness, this is getting *old*. I did not restore ANY comments on his page. I simply responded on his page to EACH comment he made on MINE. When will anyone hear that. [Earplugs.... OUT] ;-) Goodness there are a cadre of folks here that are just busting to get involved in this! Warms the cockles of my heart to see such close friends protect one another. Sad that no one has pointed out the hypocrisy of ScienceApologist in erasing my comments on his page, while veraciously commenting on mine.

Whew, I'm over this. I said what I said. I stand by it. I don't need incorrect warnings from any of your group of friends. Lets leave it to die on the floor, shall we? Supertheman (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might want to go take a look at my talk page, once again ScienceAplogist has started *yet another* topic on my talk page and this time called me an advocate of lies. User_talk:Supertheman#Warning_regarding_the_advocacy_of_lies

I wonder if all you folks who have been chiding me for my civility will have anything to say about his. ah... yeah, right. Supertheman (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much point in continuing this, since we're obviously talking past each other and I don't sense a lot of potential for productive discussion. I am not "embroiled" in any debate, though I sense a concerted effort to embroil me. I have nothing further to say about you or ScienceApologist at this point. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No warnings and chiding for ScienceApologist? That's what I thought. <grin> Why don't we make an agreement between gentlepersons. You stay off my talk page, I'll stay off yours. Deal?Supertheman (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PS the HTML code on your user page is obscuring the boxes on the right. Just trying to help. I like some of your boxes, by the way.Supertheman (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It works on Internet Explorer, but not Firefox. Or so I've been told. I lack the technical know-how to fix it. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Huh. Well, I'll take a look at it and see if I can find what's wrong. I'll drop it to a sandbox and try to fix it for viewing in both browsers. Less and less folk are using Explorer nowadays, so it would be good to have it work in others, I would think. If you don't want me to look at it, just say. Supertheman (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI Orangemarlin, QuackGuru, Mccready

I'm sorry it had come to this, MastCell. I had not heard from you and OM has unfortunately, in my opinion, crossed a professional, ethical and moral line. You are a good admin, I look up to you (so obvious, no? MastCell <---> CorticoSpinal (even the capitalization of the S!)) but we've come to a tipping point here. Chiropractic skeptics are equating the profession as fringe just like Flat Earth and Aids denialism. Do you agree? Can we have an ArbCom hearing on this? I have many good suggestions to stabilize the CAM sections (i.e. semi-protect ALL CAM pages that are subject to edit wars so anons cannot edit, which are frequently used as socks anyways!). That's another topic. Looking forward to your reply. No hard feelings, I hope. I have great respect for you, madam Cell ;)

Madam? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I been misinformed that MastCell is XX and didn't get the stubborn and testosterone Y chromosome like us? CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Never been karyotyped. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal

Sigh, too. Look, I work on real articles, get FA's, GA's, and build the project. CS is merely an anti-science POV-warrior, SPA whose only contributions appear to be constant whining at AN/I, getting himself blocked, and occasionally making edits to a chiropractic articles. Why do you encourage his behavior? He really has no use in the project, unless we think his POV-warrior attitude is necessary. If you can show me one positive contribution he has made to the project, just one (and I don't mean an edit, I mean something tangible), I'll never mention him again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that OM has continued to portray me as an anti-scientific POV warrior. I just happen to bring a different POV on physical medicine. I'm an evidence based medicine chiropractor. I bring strong sources to the table and make informative contributions. Look here for example, objective pre-manipulative testing with a velocimeter. I stand by my contributions, and as soon as I edit productively without skeptics like OM disrupting my flow, I can make good progress elsewhere like spinal manipulation and back pain. First, I'm working very hard with many good editors to make Chiropractic FA status (yes, it's possible!). Perhaps OM should desist from making more personal attacks and respect my contributions. I'm not bringing crap sources to the table and I'm increasingly Wikipedia's scientific content and reliability, period. To argue otherwise can easily be proven to be patently false. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest to both of you that this isn't productive. I can look into this further, but to be honest it seems like a big task and I'm pretty busy in real life at the moment. It will probably be a while, but in the meantime, I'd suggest giving each other a fairly wide berth if possible. Sorry I can't be more helpful at this point. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bisphenol A, Passive Smoking, and Weinberg Group

Potentially of interest to you... From this Washington Post front page article:

"Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it's the same model," said David Michaels, who was a federal regulator in the Clinton administration. "If you fight the science, you're able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as well. As in this case [bisphenol A], eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of chemicals, you've greatly increased your product."

Yilloslime (t) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 (talk · contribs)

I noticed that this user has been blocked but there is no block message on his page. He is unsure why he has been blocked and why his email functions have been blocked as well. Could you please look into it when you have a moment? Thanks, MastCell! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

His block log explains it.[15] Looks like it's something above my (and MastCell's) pay grade, as they say in the military. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what it's about, though I have a few guesses. I suspect that with the recent departure of a much-beloved Wikipedian, tolerance for anything resembling "outing" is at an all-time low. In any case, as Raymond says, the best approach may be either for Anthon01 to email ArbCom (I left the mailing list email on his talk page), or for you to ask David Gerard directly for more info. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw this unfold, and the block was because of using a "vanished user" name on Arb, his user pages and other locations and reverted the name back when other editors removed the name. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here, MastCell and others! It still is weird that there is no "block template" on his page, right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatwas talked about too and I think it was supposed to be done, sorry don't have the diff, but it seems it never was gotten to. Maybe a reminder to the blocking administrator is helpful. Sorry I don't know anything more about this though. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UserTachyonbursts

That's it? He makes personal attacks, removes citations, threatens he'll report me for supposedly going against consensus, ridicules other editors and all you do is tell him something he already knows? No offense, but your "resolution" seems a bit weak to me. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Tendentiousness which barely skirts the letter of the law is poorly dealt with under Wikipedia's existing systems. I personally did not see enough to block him straightaway, particularly as the ArbCom remedy provides for a formal warning first. Now he's been warned. If his behavior continues, then I'll block him. You may find another admin with an itchier trigger finger, and I wouldn't oppose a block, but my inclination is to proceed this way. By giving him a last chance to shape up, there will be less drama than if he were blocked outright. Or so I would hope. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point. If he acts up, though, where should I complain? (ANI or ARBCOM?) Also, should he move onto some other article or can he continue focusing on this one topic? -- VegitaU (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You can let me know, or go to the Arbitration enforcement board, or to WP:AN/I. The first two may be most effective. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, to let you know: it seems your warning hasn't made the slightest bit of difference in his behavior. He's going on as he has. See here for the related discussion. I gave him a arbitration warning on his talk page, but I wanted to let you know as well. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Raymond Arritt has topic-banned him for a month, which I think is entirely appropriate. Thanks for your patience. MastCell ^Talk 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quiz

Where did you get that worldview quiz and how did you post it on Wikipedia? I'm curious, can I take it too? Chimeric Glider (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Repairing Your User Page

I worked with the code on your user page and came up with something that looks pretty good in all three popular browsers: Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari (for the Mac).

I made a sandbox page off of my talk page for this purpose, because I didn't want to do any editing on your user page without you first seeing it and approving of the changes. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supertheman/Sandbox

If you like what I did, you can either copy and paste the changes yourself, or just let me know and I'll pop in and do it for you.

The only anomaly is in Safari, if the page gets *super* thin, it still bleeds over a bit, but other than that it's a winner.

I hope that helps, just let me know if you like it and whether you'd like me to make the changes to user page. Supertheman (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that - I appreciate it. Let me take a look in a few browsers. I went ahead and cut-and-pasted it to my userspace here: User:MastCell/Alternate userpage, so if you want to delete it from your userspace I can do it or you can tag it with {{db-userreq}}. Of course, you're welcome to hang onto it for future reference if you like. Thanks for working on it - I'll cite you when I move it to my main userpage. MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad i could help, I just erased it from my sandbox and saved it in case *I* need it someday (haha). I've actually done even more research to figure out that pesky Safari thing. I know we Mac users are the minority, but it doesn't hurt to make it look nice for everyone, I think. If I do get it sussed out, I'll let you know. Supertheman ^(talk) 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to complain, and I rarely do (hah), but MC's user page looks terrible on Safari. I'm using 3.1 on an intel iMac. I just thought that MC was incompetent in designing his page. There are blue bars that go right across the page and cover up his userboxes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the new user page with Safari on my Mac and it looks fine. Maybe you were talking about the page before it was fixed. Supertheman ^(talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Monstrous spider

Hello! :) In August, Monstrous spider was apparently proposed for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Done. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again - you're awesome. :) BOZ (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal

Since you're one of the local experts on this, why isn't the article called AID denialism? Reappraisal sounds like a bunch of virologists are thinking that bad beer is causing AIDS, instead of say, HIV transmission. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad beer probably does cause HIV transmission, now that you mention it. Antelan^talk 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence, I don't drink bad beer. It's Duvels for me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumor has it that good beer wards off Mallory-Weiss tears, too. Well done, sir. Antelan^talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd make a terrible Gregory House; I never heard of this syndrome. Ever. By the way, MastCell wasn't looking but I convinced an admin, of minor usefulness, to change the name of the article.  :) Raymond drinks the cheap stuff.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz

Was proposed for deletion. I've since added a lot of material substantiating (I think) Horowitz's notability. I happen to wish there were fewer people in the world who are notable in the ways Horowitz is, but that's neither here nor there. Would you please review and decide? And if you decide to KEEP, I'd also appreciate any quick suggestions you might have for improvement -- I'm not very experienced at writing articles, and I had to write most of this one. For that matter, I'm not well-versed in article deletion protocols, so if this is NOT the way one appeals for clemency, I'd like to know how. The materials I've read about the process don't make it very obvious. A flowchart would be nice .... Yakushima (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - sorry for the late response. It looks like there is a reasonable amount of sourced info on Horowitz of which I was not aware when I nominated the article for deletion. I was not aware that Jeremiah Wright had cited him - though a bit recentist, it's notability nonetheless. I think the article has expanded and improved. The AfD will be closed as "keep", though another admin will do it - it would be wrong for me to close an AfD which I nominated or participated in. I'll look back at the article in a week or so to see where it is. The only thing I'd say is to be careful about sourcing, since he is a living person - see WP:BLP. We need to be very careful about reporting negative or potentially harmful things unless they're well-sourced. Anyhow, thanks for your work on the article and I'll look back in a little while. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS

I couldn't find anything in normal movie review sites about the documentary. I had to have it deleted, it seemed almost an advertising for the film. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same; I tagged it for notability and was going to give it a week or two, since the article is pretty new. However, there doesn't seem to be much out there, so I can't argue with the AfD. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude bills himself as "America's leading Health and Nutrition Expert."[16] Somehow I'm not buying. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on Gary Null, he "accuses the medical community of suppressing alternative cancer treatments to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train." Which is a bit unfair, coming from the solid-gold fad-diet-and-snake-oil train. This was, naturally, in a "series of articles on cancer research, new therapies, and political influence" which Null authored for the peer-reviewed journal Penthouse (ISI impact factor surprisingly high). MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Penthouse? I read it all the time. Fine anatomy journal. The CAM's make it sound like the nasty pharmaceutical companies rule the world. Tell GNC stockholders that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can you semi-protect my user and talk pages for a few days. I'm being hit by a bunch of TOR vandals. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. You were probably watching House to improve your medical skills, and someone else had to do it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Organised attempt to change POV of AIDS articles

Thought you might like to be made aware of this discussion on the "AIDS Myth Exposed" forum. Trezatium (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling something was up, though I don't read those message groups. The article had lain dormant for some time when a sudden influx of interest appeared. It's happened once or twice before, and it seemed reasonable to assume that there's a coordinated effort to push the fringe POV on those articles at work. Of course, it's always nice to see it in writing. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, I decided to be bold and change everything to denialist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories renamed AIDS origins theories

Hi MastCell - User:Tkhorse has renamed (or efffectively so) AIDS conspiracy theories as AIDS origins theories. This has at least shown me that "AIDS conspiracy theories" is not the worst possible title for this article. I support a return to the "conspiracy" title. SmithBlue (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "conspiracy" title isn't the best (I think "alternative AIDS origin hypotheses" might be best), but AIDS origins theories is completely off - they're not "theories" in the scientific sense, and they are explicitly alternative theories. Anyhow, I'll comment at the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should have named it AIDS denialist hypotheses. That's what it is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite right. While both are implausible, there's a difference between saying that HIV is harmless, and saying that it's deadly but was concocted by the government as a biological weapon. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so damn logical?  ;) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having dumped work on you. One problem is that now the question will eventually be asked, "Alternative to what?". And frankly the bushmeat hypothesis seems less researched than OPV. So we might reply "theories that have been explored in scientific papers"? But without any well evidenced scientific theory that seems light-weight. What do others think of possible titles or defenses? SmithBlue (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One question that must be answered is how do we respond to ever fringe theory out there. Scientists honestly don't study whether drinking cheap beer causes AIDS, they determine the causative agent. So the response always is "there's no reliable sources because scientists refuse to study this." It's the proving of the negative issue that kills us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem has already been solved in theory, though not in practice. Require solid, independent secondary sources covering a topic. Any reputable independent secondary source covering a fringe topic will note its fringe status explicitly - problem solved. The problem comes when a self-published promotional, partisan, or frankly deranged website claiming something is accepted as evidence of notability. Then a topic cannot be contextualized appropriately without resort to "original research". I think if we actually applied our notability guidelines and excluded fringe theories which have not been the topic of serious independent coverage, there would be no problem. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Hey, sorry to disturb you over what seems to be a trifle, but you might have noticed that Uncyclopedia was recently nominated for Good Article deletion stats. At the top of the Wiki, it says where improvement is needed, copy editing and that kind of stuff. I went to edit the page, pick a few pieces up, and found my edit reverted. After looking at the history, I found that OtterAtHome and TenPoundHammer have been reverting every attempt to improve the quality of the edit, using descriptions such as "RV good faith edit". As a note of interist, OtterAtHome also was the one who ominated the quality of article reduction. I normally am not one to go whining to higher authority, but I really think Admin intervention is needed around here, STAT. Javascap (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I can help - I don't know anything about Uncyclopedia or the dispute here. I'll try to look into it. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really rather simple, Tenpoundhammer nominates article for a reduction from "Good" article stats, posts some things that need improvement, then reverts every edit to improve it, along with Otterathome. In other words, I honestly believe they are illegitimitally trying to reduce the rating of an otherwise good article because of their own Bias. I am not a verten Wikipedia editor, but something seems wrong about this affair. Javascap (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RSMT

File:Meatpuppet.gif

This user is a member of RSMT - the "rational skepticism meatpuppet team".[17]

A UBox for you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm honored to be a meatpuppet in such august company. I was worried I hadn't unjustly suppressed enough innocent editors to qualify, but it looks like I'm doing fine. Just tell me what to do. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just keep up the good work, and always persecute the same people that the rest of us persecute. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can handle that... wait, what was the middle part again? MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

More beer. I'm fairly sure it was More beer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dancesport

Hi MastCell, I noticed that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_and_Ballroom_Dance_Association article was deleted. Since I had to not logged in my account for some time, I did not notice the deletion tag that was added. However I wonder why the article was tagged with proposed deletion process. The reason states "Only has 30 Google hits" since google search did not produced a significant number of hits. The fact is that the article refers to a dance activity called "Dancesport", which was recently recognized by the International Olympic Committee as a sport, and has been pushed vigorously for inclusion as a medal sport, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancesport This area is a very active area in the dancesport industry, however small this industry is in the United States. But it is expected to evolve during the next few years as the International Olympic Committee decides on how to integrate these kinds of dances into the World Olympics.

So I expect that it's popularity/notability will increase significantly over time when the article will be updated. Moreover I think it is an article well suited for this category as many similar organizations are developing across the country in preparation for the olympics, shall they cast a positive decision in 2012. Will it be possible to restore it now at least for a formal discussion because the reasons for deletion are quite vague? Thanks for looking into this. Sambahips (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go ahead and restore it. My gut feeling is that while dancesport may be notable, it's not necessarily transitive that the Association is as well... but I'll leave that decision to other editors. Certainly as more sources become available, the issue will become moot. Anyhow, I'll go ahead and restore the article. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page. I've been in contact with the organization for the main reason of obtaining all of their weblinks that substantiate the copy that I'm writing. At the moment, their IT department is overhauling their content management system and as such the links to the exact articles are not available yet. I expect this to resolve sometime before this quarter ends. My intention is to build a notable wikipedia article. Again, I appreciate you restoring the article. Sambahips (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

uncited material

I hope you leave warnings for every single contributer whoever put in uncited statements. It sure seems as though you are singling me out. Why...I have no idea. What is the point if the fact tag if the person who put it there is doing something wrong. Please stop harrassing me. Freemasonx (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to respect WP:V actually isn't harassment. You're continually inserting material which is not only unsourced but incorrect, and ignoring or removing any requests to respect Wikipedia's policies. If you continue, you'll end up blocked from editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cholangiocarcinoma

Hi Mastcell,

i translated the article Cholangiocarcinoma into german and have a question. The citation 5 consists only of the Name Feldman. I guess, that this is a Textbook by Mark Feldman. Would you please be so kind to make a correction of this citation? Thanks.

Sincerely yours Andy -- Andreas Werle (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now - thanks for the notice. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Onion Juice Therapy

I just wanted to let you know that I thought your points on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion Juice Therapy were well-reasoned, and I appreciate your taking the time to convince me. -kotra (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tucker Max article

Hi. A few days ago I requested semi-protection for the article Tucker Max due to an IP address repeatedly inserting an NPOV section, and you blocked the IP address instead. Shortly aftewards, the article was reverted by an account User:Bill.matthews. I checked its contribution history [18] and it appears to be an account used soley in edit warring, most of its edits being reverts. I don't know what to do about this - can you deal with it, or tell me what I need to do? McJeff (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Next edit which reinserts the poorly sourced material, I'll protect the page and warn those involved. I think the reverts you're mentioning, by Bill.matthews (talk · contribs), are mostly vandalism reverts that he's made on recent changes patrol, but I haven't looked at each one in depth. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You deleted a sourced piece of information, sir

[19]

Could you please comment?: Talk:AIDS_denialism#.28just.29_Another_deletion_of_sourced_data_by_User:MastCell Randroide (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hows'about I comment on the talk page? I do watch it, so if you leave a note there I'll see it. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understood my point here

I know the difference between a real meta-analysis and fake ones, in that high quality versions are almost always peer-reviewed and almost always are published in high quality journals. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I was just amplifying on your point. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK)

Hi MastCell, I believe that the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK) was a mistake. The votes for “merge and delete” were inappropriate (see WP:MAD). Even if it is the case that no material in Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK) needed to be merged, I believe the page was at least used as a working page while related material about the racism controversy was refined at Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). Therefore the deletion represents a violation of the [[GFDL}]. I suggest that the appropriate remedy is to undelete Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK) and its talk page, with full history intact, and to redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a GFDL issue here. Nonetheless, I'm happy to restore it as a redirect. There's nothing of value on the talk page, so my inclination is to leave it deleted. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Thank you (for humouring me?). There’s conceivably a GFDL issue, as the two articles are edited in parallel, and material may have moved back and forth. I think we should err on the side of being overly cautious in upholding the GFDL, or else how can we complain when downstream users of Wikipedia do not. I am happy to accept your word that there is nothing of value on the talk page. I’d prefer it to be available for perusal, but only if it contains something of value. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I don't feel strongly; maybe I ought to just go ahead and restore the talk page as well. I know it can be frustrating not to be able to see deleted material for onself, so I'll go ahead and restore it. MastCell ^Talk 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

~death spiral of argumentative silliness~

This is my new favourite phrase. Thank you for summing it up so well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:DSOAS is in order? :) MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

User talk:MastCell Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. You may find it somewhat reassuring that at least half of those 540 edits to James Blunt are from IPs and other random editors who share your taste in music. Some day I’ll tell the story of why I work on his articles; it’s a labour of love, but not for Blunt. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - to be honest, I didn't look too closely at the edits themselves, just the edit counter. Anyhow, congrats and keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A favor

Mastcell,

I have to drop off the face of the planet for a few weeks. Would you mind keeping an eye on my talk page, and if someone can't read my wikibreak notice, and they leave a message, either help them or direct them to the right place?

Wish me luck with my wikibreak (I know you've found it hard on occasion too); I've tried this before and failed, but if I don't stop cold turkey this time, I think my real life is going to suffer significantly. --barneca (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, your talk page is already on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye out. You could always go rouge and full-protect it yourself... come on, self-destruction seems to be the admin trend of the moment. :) Anyhow, good luck with the break. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassurance

I do know what a t-test is, just in case you were wondering... Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured you probably did, but I didn't want to interfere with the Socratic method... :) MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cynicism

The worst bit is I quite like yoga, too...! Nmg20 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist." Can't remember who said that, so I'll take credit for it. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to offer an alternate version: a cynic is a frustrated idealist. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude

How are you doing. Listen, I'm just working on Wilson's disease, and none of my sources explain why some have intravascular haemolysis. Does that mean that nobody knows, or does that mean that I can't figure it out and that you can provide me with the answer? JFW | T@lk 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Down here on my level ... :-) ... don't forget Wilson's in differential diagnosis for Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MastCell is referred to as dude? Cool. And I thought JDF was a proper Englishman. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since everybody's on the same page now (Mastcell's :-), why doesn't someone go review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subcutaneous emphysema ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<ec>:::BTW, just watch House to get everything you need to know about Wilson's disease. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

← How dare you work on content when there's so much wikidrama afoot. Wilson's disease is also in the differential for just about any "mystery patient" on a televised medical drama. I think they have about a case a year on ER and at least that many on House. Coombs-negative hemolytic anemia occurs commonly when Wilson's disease presents specifically as fulminant hepatic failure ("Wilsonian crisis"). The mechanism is thought to be as follows: with fulminant hepatic failure and massive hepatocyte necrosis, copper ions are released into the blood in large quantities, overwhelming the ability of ceruloplasmin to bind them. The free copper ions interfere with red-cell metabolic pathways and result in cell death and hemolysis (see, for example, PMID 9595013). It's bad news. You can try emergent plasmapheresis to remove the excess free copper, and there are case reports of its success, but at best it's only a bridge to liver transplantation. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-drama is fun for about 22.47 minutes, at most. Subcutaneous emphysema needs a rewrite IMHO. If we're demoting AIDS to GA status, then this article needs to be cleaned up a lot. BTW, dude, you know more about Wilson's disease, and that's scary. You must be in medical school or something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Me? I'm a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the Northeastern US. My doctoral thesis attempted to describe the prophet Jeremiah's more bizarre behavior as a neuropsychiatric manifestation of Wilson's disease. At one point, the aggadah describes Jeremiah's eyes as "rings of fire"—clear evidence of advanced Kayser-Fleischer rings. Does that answer your question? :) MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew it. You have a random medical word generator, just to impress the rest of us. Nice.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Americanisms when dealing with Americans, much like I would expect to be called "old chap" when approached with a random question. And I have never watched House - medicine is interesting enough without a Brit trying to impersonate a Yankee git (hence my continuous edit war on nephrology). And I'm only doing Wilson's because I'm a bit scared of hacking into hemochromatosis yet. In any case, I like liver, both chopped with onions on Friday night and professionally :-). JFW | T@lk 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you like the hand-waving about "red-cell metabolic pathways"? Still, that appears to be the mechanism, as best anyone understands it. Have you ever seen a case of Wilson's? They're hard to come by, outside of TV-land. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the feeling one of my patients had Wilson's (young female, previous diagnosis of "NASH" but not obese etc, and a funny tic), but we never had a chance to complete her workup. Got a transplant later. My supervisor at the time proudly annouced that he had two Wilsonians on their books. I agree that it is very common the non-clinical setting such as in postgraduate exams (pretty much like PNH, PSP and coccidioidomycosis). JFW | T@lk 10:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys check the extirpated liver for copper content after the transplant? I can't say I've ever seen a case of Wilson's, though I remember doing detailed opthalmologic exams on everyone during my inpatient psychiatric rotation as a med student. I was more naive then. PNH isn't actually that uncommon (or maybe I have a skewed perspective), and it's a good Boards question since it can present as aplastic anemia, Budd-Chiari, etc. It's probably underdiagnosed. Cocci isn't that uncommon in the States, but I guess you don't see a whole lot in the UK. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Transplant happened in the patient's country of origin, far far away... Would have loved to find out now. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

more of the same

Hi MastCell, I'm sorry to bug you with this but the situation with Jagz is becoming highly disruptive. See this further incivility at Talk:Race and intelligence [20] and the general behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics (people)[21][22][23][24]. The final warning I issued has been totally ignored. Moreover User:Dreadstar warned Jagz about this yesterday[25]. This is Jagz's response to the warning[26]. Please note that Jagz's comment to Slrubenstein‎ was made 17 and half hours after Dreadstar's warning.
Jagz has continued to disrupt the project and to act uncivilly - ignoring warnings issued by multiple editors over the course of months.
I think the situation at the AFD demonstrates how disruptive to the project this behavioural pattern has become. His keep vote even dismisses consensus at Talk:Dysgenics and the site processes (RfC) involved in building it--Cailil ^talk 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Do you think it's worth an RfC (or has one already taken place)? MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. Well, from what I've seen in this AfD I think any RfC-style process would be made unworkable by tit for tat comments and from interventions of single-purpose accounts who are probably being sent from off-wiki. At this point I think it's time to go to the community with a case for topic level sanctions based on WP:DE, WP:FRINGE and WP:POINT and the prior arbcom decisions on povpushing of fringe theories on wikipedia.

On the matter of meat-puppetry I have evidence that there was a call for meat-puppets about Race and intelligence on the Stormfront back on January 22 2008 (about the time when all of this stuff with Jagz really started to kick off) - I can post a link if that's allowed (I'm assuming I can't becuase of WP:PROBLEMLINKS but I may be wrong). I don't think this call was made by Jagz but it was made by somebody involved in the same povpush.

There would be no harm in letting Dreadstar know about this report and the previous one I made to you a number of weeks ago, I can drop them a line if you like--Cailil ^talk 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine; more eyes are always good. If Dreadstar has already had some experience with this editor, then I'd be all the more interested to hear what he has to suggest. My quick reaction is that Jagz has apparently done constructive work elsewhere (e.g. Scouting), and a finite topic ban from R&I might be the way to go, but I will need to do more in-depth review before going ahead with that. My preference would be to work out an appropriate solution and implement it, and then submit it for review and discussion at WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated on the R&I article Talk page, I am not going to make any more edits to that article for the rest of the year. When the article was unlocked on February 1, I made a lot of progress on that article and it continued until Ramdrake recovered from a health issue and started obstructing progress again, and he did it with the backing of Slrubenstein. Slrubenstein has been hanging out on that article for over 6 years. If you want to do something useful to help Wikipedia I would suggest that you review the obstructive editing behavior of Ramdrake across a number of articles and also how his buddies like Slrubenstein and Wobble work with him. --Jagz (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see this link [27]. I don't believe that there was any adverse action taken towards Ramdrake as a result. It may just be certain types of articles he has a problem with like the race-related ones, I don't know. --Jagz (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this comment by Ramdrake, "an agenda of covert deprecation", to be possibly indicative of paranoia.[28] --Jagz (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody do something, or must I just sit back and let myself be accused of being mentally deranged??? Sorry for the outburst, I'm doing my best to stay polite.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[29] --Jagz (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually before I forget I saw this quite troubling post [30] - looks like some sort of phising to me and is patently in breach of AGF--Cailil ^talk 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be phishing on Mars. --Jagz (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note on my talk page MastCell. I think your approach would be throughly appropriate in this case. I have one last question - the call for meat-puppets is there anything we can do about things like this?--Cailil ^talk 13:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the gratitude I get for spending all that time helping to improve the R&I article. That's one reason I'm going to find something better to do with my time. Editors beware of the POV administration and enforcement. --Jagz (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well MastCell, as you can see from the below it seems Jagz has not retired from wikipedia or from the dysgenics/race and intelligence issue - as is further evidenced by these posts[31][32][33][34][35].
  It's been a full working week since Jagz added {{retired}} and blanked his user-space, however he's edited WP every day bar the 24th.
  I'd also like to bring this one to your attention. It should be noted that Jagz has recently stricken his first post here but not the second--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved my Talk page comment from Dysgenics (people) to Dysgenics after the Dysgenics (people) article was deleted. It is a comment about diseases in human populations.

I should note that on the R&I Talk page, Slrubenstein called me a troll about 50 times, kept putting up the link WP:DNFTT repeatedly, and adding "do not feed the troll"; and it continued even after adminstrator Moonriddengirl asked him to stop and after I complained about it on AN/I. I have included a diff-link to Alun/Wobble's recent uncivil comment below (it was not in reply to me). They are having a disagreement regarding genetics so it would be good if other Wikipedians with a knowledge of genetics could asist in reviewing the artilce and discussion.[36] --Jagz (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil posts or personal attacks on Talk:Race and intelligence

By User:Wobble [37]--Jagz (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive sophistry on Talk:Race and intelligence

User:Wobble seems to be continuing his long history of adding sophistry to the Talk page for the purpose of supporting his POV. This tends to disrupt progress on the article and causes long, tedious discussions. --Jagz (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Randroide (talk · contribs)

How much longer do we need to put up with his/her edits tendentiousness at AIDS denialism? And check this out? If he thinks FM is going to support his POV, he's going to be in for a shock. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You would deny me my daily dose of quote-mining drama, wikilinks to the same policies using faulty rationales, and the occasional link to sites I would not want my daughter surfing? This long ago surpassed my threshold to move from discussion to reversion with minimal review (they do appear at least to be honest, and might fix a genuine error without violating WP:WEIGHT). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means well, but that only goes so far. Interesting that he cites this ArbCom principle as evidence of "disruptive editing" on my part. Misuse of this particular ArbCom finding is a recurring theme among tendentious problem editors. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12, particularly this section of my evidence. Deja vu all over again. People honestly believe that ArbCom ruled that no "sourced" info can ever be removed under any circumstances. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of the very famous CAM-supporters around here always refer to some mysterious Arbcom ruling about what constitutes pseudoscience. I read it, and it was totally misinterpreted. And then they beat ScienceApologist on the head with it every couple of hours or so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of a noticeboard

It looks like Colonel Warden continues his revenge campaign against me at the Administrators' noticeboard. I have mentioned your role in my reply there. -- Fyslee / talk 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on the WP:AE thread. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

revert request

I left this message for JzG [38], but he may be busy, is it possible for you to revert that page to the last version of JzG on 7 April 2008. There was some edit waring. Colorwave (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a few other editors are on the case. I had noticed a new account hard at work on that page, but I figured I'd watch it for a few days and see how things shook out. I think we've seen enough to notify the new account of the ArbCom case restrictions. I'll keep an eye on the page. BTW, have we met before? MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, JzG's version of 7 April was a consensus of multiple administrators involved and it should remain. New edits and edit warring should be discussed on the talk page first. No, we haven't met, but when I was reading the discussion of that page, I noticed your comments were fair and reasonable.Colorwave (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where I'm going with this...

...but if you have anything to add (or remove), please do. Yilloslime (t) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I added a few more refs and items - feel free to move them around or get rid of them. By the way, I've been thinking for a while about writing an article on the International Society of the Built Environment. I've been collecting sources on my to-do list. Any interest? MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. I don't know much about ISBE, but if you start the article I'll help out where I can (which may not add up to much.) Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

?

May I remove the suspected sock template from the talkpage of sman.grimtuesday's talkpage?The sock case was closed despite my constant requests on the page to run cu.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. Checkuser is generally not run to prove peoples' innocence, for a variety of reasons (see WP:RFCU). But it would be OK to remove the template. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

American Dental Association

Probably could do with your imput into this organisation, you probably have a much better grounding in this sort of subject than I do. Thanks --Shot info (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, can't say I know too much about dentistry, other than that it's lucrative. Then again, it looks like there's an effort to WP:COATRACK it into an anti-fluoridation article, and since my superiors at the Trilateral Commission pay me to suppress The Truth About Fluoridation from Wikipedia, perhaps I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility remedy

Noted your concerns. If you have any ideas, please leave a note at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Civility_remedy. Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user comments

Hi MastCell. Yesterday you deleted a section from Fringe Theories Noticeboard with a note indicating that the material was from Davkal, a banned user. I was surprised to see that the comments have been reinserted this morning, by a different IP, without comment. I regret contributing to this thread at all, as it seems evident to me now that many of the participants in the unproductive discussion (largely anon IPs) are there not to contribute to a reasoned dialogue about sources, but solely to bait Science Apologist and anyone who happens to agree with (valid, IMO) points Science Apologist is making. Could I remove my comments from the thread with the rationale that they seem to be serving as temptation for a banned user, or would that be a problem? Thanks for any help/advice you can give me.Woonpton (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can remove posts or edits that originate from a banned user. That IP is an open proxy anyway, so I've blocked it. I went ahead and semi-protected WP:FTN briefly, to enable the discussion (which may actually be productive) to proceed without the distraction of trolling from that particular banned user. If you see an IP repeating certain arguments obsessively and particularly baiting ScienceApologist, then the pre-test probability that it's Davkal is fairly high. If the IP is an open proxy, then it becomes even higher. He's best ignored, though he does devote extraordinary amounts of his free time to trying to bait SA and get his posts across here. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of User:Foxhunt99

Hi, you recently closed this sockpuppet case against Foxhunt99. He appears to have reregistered at User:Centrallib and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at his edits and see if you agree. He's only got three, his first was to the AFD for Serfdom in Tibet and all subsequent edits were made at Talk:Tibet and Serfdom in Tibet in the same style and to advance the same POV. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is the same user editing anonymously from an IP registered to Vanderbilt University, which matches Foxhunt99's last known IP. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• We are are group of people who started the Serfdom in Tibet project. From now on, we will only use 1 account for this. All of our comments are polite and sourced. I only rv your editing because there were 2 Comments by Bell, however you only delete one of them, it is clearly biased.

hereCentrallib (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is because the other was unsourced and, most importantly, originally added to that article by you, which means it comes from a user with a history of abusing the processes of this encyclopedia to push their own POV. This, in turn, means that any information you added will need to be assessed and (likely) removed if it does not comply with policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Bell's comments was on Bell's book, actually on the same page. You just selectively deleted only 1 of them for your own POV. I hope admin can really look into this see if he is being fair.Centrallib (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen enough. This "new" account is not only evading a block, but continuing the same disruptive behavior which led to the block, not to mention inappropriately canvassing support for their position on an AfD/content dispute. The new sock has been blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP violation in re Paul Farmer

This really bothers me. Paul Farmer said AIDS was "sent" to Haiti? Where did he say that? How did he say it? What did he mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This also really bothers me. Figuring out whether Paul Farmer has entertained anything like conspiracy theories (still ambiguous, tracing a source) or anti-consensus HIV origins theories (highly unlikely) is taking some time. In the meantime, these people went and change the article name to what looks like serious WP:BLP violation, and not just against Paul Farmer. It's a lousy title and I've said so myself. But compared to lousy grammar and an unpopular term (scientific consensus), I think WP:BLP violation qualifies as more of an emergency.

Here's the really weird thing and troubling thing, though: When I changed the name back to the more innocuous and less problematic title, Orangemarlin acts like it's something tantamount to anonymous vandalism. In fact (see the talk page) I discussed the problem with him at some length and he finally urged me (with a "be bold") to revert his name change.

I think these people should slow down, read, re-read, check sources on what constitutes AIDS denialism and conspiracy theory, (re-)acquaint themselves with WP:BLP, re-read again, and think a little. There are quite a few people mentioned in the article (a flaw in itself--it should be more theory-centric), and thus quite a few mines in the WP:BLP minefield. I don't think this article is the place for sloppy miscategorizations of living persons, given the issues it takes up. What do you think? Yakushima (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Feckless" songs (re: your user page)

Another is "The Rose of England" by Nick Lowe on The Rose of England (album):

For her feckless boy she did weep and wail / Saying, Lord have mercy where did I fail?

--Uncia (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been a long time since I listened to that album. I'll have to go back. Thanks for the suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to include "Leaders of the Free World" by Elbow. Then again, perhaps not. Relevant lyrics are "Passing the gun from father to feckless son" KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll have to check it out, since I'm not familiar with the album. Looks like NME gave it 9 stars, and they never indulge in hyperbole... MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And "Rudie Can't Fail" by "The Clash" -

How you get a rude and reckless?

Don't you be so crude and feckless

You been drinking brew for breakfast

..ah yes, the breakfast of champions. Feckless, indeed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's actually the song that inspired the list. I was listening to London Calling in an... artifically receptive state of mind recently, and I thought it might be interesting to catalog the word's usage in popular music. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh bother, I'm senile today. I actually saw that, then later thought about that Elbow song (which is kindof draggy and depressing to me, you say it got a #9? hrm. ...and then thought of Rudy, and having in the meantime forgotten that it was on the list... bother. You're very courteous not to point out my obvious memory issues tho. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just following the law... :) MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Franz Ferdinand - What You Meant

If we were feckless we'd be fine

Sucking hard on our innocence

But we've been bright in our decline

Been left as blackened filament

Ok, I'm done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm suitably impressed. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, so I've redeemed myself for the previous senility? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A question on Ferrylodge

I am currently involved in a discussion on the editing of the Bobby Jindal page on his issue of abortion with Ferrylodge. I noticed that FerryLodge was broadly banned from editing information about abortion and was wondering if you feel that he is crossing the line in the editting of Bobby Jindal page as it pertains to abortion in this case. He has even accused me bad faith on the discussion page, even though he claims he didn't otherwise. Just seeking your opinion at the moment(either here or my talk page would be fine) as I feel that it is possible that the editing of the Bobby Jindal article may become burdonsome if a consensus with him cannot be reached and he continues to make assumptions of bad faith. Thanks for your time. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to objectively evaluate issues involving Ferrylodge, since I've repeatedly had very challenging interactions with him. You may want to ask for review at WP:AE, which is the noticeboard devoted to enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings. In the past, I've found that they allow quite a bit of leeway for argumentation and/or abuse of talk pages, so unless he is edit-warring or otherwise disrupting in articlespace it may be a waste of time. If you want my 2 cents, from a very brief reading of the article talk page: I think you're pushing to incorporate material that may be true, but is either unverifiable or original synthesis. It might be nice to have a more direct statement from Jindal on his position, but it is what it is, and Wikipedia isn't really a good venue in which to use other sources to "contextualize" what Jindal has said (in fact, that sort of thing is what drives me crazy about Ferrylodge's editing). Probably best to just stick to accurately reporting what he said, without the links to medical dictionaries and the Vatican's website. People will figure it out and draw their own conclusions. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did kind of find it ironic that the same thing he seems to be accusing me of is things that he has done on other pages himself. On the Jindal article, I actually prefer to put what articles report about his stance and taking a column in its full context. To me, leaving what Jindal said, without including the surrounding context that the source felt was needed for the story would, imo, make the wikipedia article incomplete. I am of half a mind to just delete the Jindal reference to Abortion altogether or just leave it as "Bobby Jindal is pro-life and has a 100% voting record with the right to life group". DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Occipital lobe requested

Could you have a look at the very interesting exchange I'm having with 155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs)? This is mostly on my talkpage but also involves the MMSE article, and the image displayed on that article. Most fascinating. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm allergic to lawyers and legalese, but common sense tells me that a drawing of two interlocking pentagons on Wikipedia does not harm the commerical interests of the company which sells the MMSE. We do this sort of thing fairly frequently. But probably best to send it to the relevant noticeboard and get the opinions of people who know more than I about copyright. MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that legal threats are effectively being made, I've reported on WP:ANI in the first instance,[39][40] so let's see why we're having all this hot air. JFW | T@lk 05:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant theft?

I'd like to join the conspiracy to sap and impurify precious bodily fluids, and have unceremoniously borrowed the userbox from your page. If you feel this is in poor taste or otherwise inappropriate, I can promptly remove it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're quite welcome to it. If you work for the FDA, you're already part of any number of insidious government plots against freedom-loving Americans (according to Wikipedia), so what's one more? MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that the FDA is suppressing data that proves Homeopathy cures erectile dysfunction, so that the big pharmaceutical companies can make more money. If you're going to discuss conspiracies, please get it right. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Nar Shaddaa

Hi there. I was just going through deleting broken redirects, and discovered you deleted Nar Shaddaa as an expired prod. This is a fairly notable location in Star Wars, and am pretty shocked that nobody contested the prod. As opposed to simply restoring it myself, I thought asking you to restore it as a contested prod would be more courteous. The reason for the prod was "Asserts no notability through reliable sources", yet there are two print sources the article cites, and I see no indication those are not reliable. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it as a contested WP:PROD. My sense was that the two refs were in-universe, but that's just based on a quick scan of an expired PROD. I'll leave it up to you in terms of what to do. Thanks for letting me know. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

question

If I suspect a COI, but bringing it up at WP:COIN or the talk pages of the relevant user and articles would "out" that user (who edits with username that is not his/her actual name), what is the appropriate course of action? Yilloslime (t) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough one. You could bring it up in general terms; it would also be wise to focus on the specific violations of Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:SOAP, etc), if any, since COI alone is generally not problematic unless combined with lack of adherence to policy or prioritization of outside agendas over policy. Feel free to email me if you'd like. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sudsak

If you continue to have problems with this guy, let me know. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG cabalism! :) Thanks, I think it's under control for now, but I'll keep it in mind. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about this in private on the super-extra-secret SPOV mailing list. Use encryption level ultraviolet and enable randomised TOR node-hopping. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you have an sociological interest in tobacco-industry-flavored denialism on Wikipedia, take a look at Talk:Passive smoking. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be some kind of rule that if somebody uses both bold and italics in a post, it will automatically be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for an unauthorized bot... MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett

Hi. You seem to have a pretty balanced perspective regarding these articles -- they've recently been wiped of basically all criticism and ScienceApologist and QuackGuru refuse to budge. I'm wondering if you could try to reason with them. They are not afraid to edit war (ScienceApologist and I were basically edit-warring over at orthomolecular medicine earlier-today). Also, I noted another sourced "criticism" that was deleted at BLPN that nobody commented on, although it is pretty minor. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I exiled myself from Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett-related articles quite some time ago because they tend to be loci of endless, unproductive, vitriolic combat. I do occasionally comment on issues there when I feel moved, but out of respect for my own sanity I'm not willing to reinvolve myself at this point. The topics are not that important to anyone except for a handful of folks, and after hearing the same fights re-occur a few dozen times I thought I'd spend my on-wiki time elsewhere. I'd recommend it to anyone. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'm pretty sick of Wikipedia at this point; this is the first time I've had to get involved in this wikilawyering (or perhaps more accurately, wikilobbying). We (those editing Quackwatch and other controversial articles) may be fooling ourselves into thinking a partisan page will actually affect anyone's opinion; 9 people out of 10 looking at Quackwatch have a prior love or hate for it anyway. But the whitewashing was not appropriate. Thankfully, a couple people are helping out, especially Jossi. Also, a random question: on the New Pages, what does yellow highlighting mean? ImpIn | (t - c) 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages highlighted in yellow have not been officially "patrolled" yet. When someone looks at a new page, they can click "mark as patrolled" the lower-right corner. This indicates that someone has looked at the page and decided whether it's a speedy-deletion candidate or not. So the yellow pages are ones that no one has looked at yet, while the ones that aren't highlighted have presumably been reviewed. I don't find it especially useful, but there it is. Re: sick of Wikipedia, the best cure is either to just leave for awhile (it's amazing how things will be in exactly the same state when you return), or to move on to another set of articles, preferably non-controversial ones. I try to do that from time to time to stay sane. MastCell ^Talk 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil

I'm not sure Andyvphil (talk · contribs) learned much from his week block. If you take a look at the reverts that got him blocked for edit warring on Barack Obama[41][42][43][44][45] compared to his edits from today,[46][47] it would appear he is not only making similar edits on the page, but he's expanding upon the content that was objectionable to the other editors on the article. If you also check his edit history, you'll see that he made the edits prior to making any attempts at discussion on the article's discussion page.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick correction. I just noticed that Andy was reverting back to a version originally created by Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs)[48] and then adding some additional content in regards to Ayers,[49] but it still appears that Andy is resorting to edit warring instead of discussion to get his preferred version into the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RE Calls for meatpuppets

I'm just asking about the remedies decided upon by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. I have information about calls for meat-puppets in regard to 5 organizations on the web.

1. This is a dead issue but was quite disruptive at the time (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW) (July 2007 and Feb 2008).
2. The previously mentioned efforts by racists to influence Race and Intelligence (Jan 2008) and to influence their own article's entry (May 2008).
3. Related to User:davidrusher a Men's rights activist and blogger who is indef blocked but who has inspired a number of single purpose accounts with a call for meat-puppets (jan/feb 2007).
4. Save Indian Family a male rights group from India who lobbied using meat-puppets to keep their wikipedia page (November 2006).
5. And lastly a group who attempted to promote Vlogging using wikipedia (May 2007).

What I'm asking is to whom and what should I send (I have links, screen captures, wikipedia user account names and IP addresses)? Also are some of these too old for review? --Cailil ^talk 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that any area where there's an active on-wiki problem should be addressed. If the articles in question are not subject to disruption or active meatpuppetry at present, then it's probably not worth the trouble. I'd probably pick the most active one and contact an admin. I'm hestitant to take it on since I'm trying to cut back my on-wiki time. You could try User:Moreschi or User:ChrisO, who worked on the CAMERA case... MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice MastCell - will do--Cailil ^talk 21:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Victory Day

Please read again. You missed what the edits actual did and the deletions they did. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I think I got it. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aloha, MastCell

On the request for arbitration, the stuff I put forward is not my "evidence". If the request is opened by the arbitration committee, I will lay out my evidence further. I don't think I'm being dishonest in what I wrote. I simply noted a few requests that some of these people have voted on, and noted that they were the only requests they have voted on, and that there appears to be more to look into here. But the arbitration committee is currently unlikely to accept anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I suppose I'll just wait until a request for comment is opened and present my further evidence there. No hard feelings. Mahalo, MastCell. --Ali'i 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was probably harsher than I intended to be in my statement. I was using the term "evidence" in a general sense, as it appeared you were citing those RfA's to support your statement. I didn't see support for your statement in those RfA's. More generally, as I said in my statement, I think it's going to be impossible to discern any real issues because of the overlay of cabalism charges, etc. I think people in general (not just you, though I guess I viewed your statement as the last straw) are quick to make accusations in the present climate and not as quick to make sure that those accusations are backed by solid evidence. I could have made this argument in a more temperate tone, and I apologize for the remarks about honesty. It's probably more appropriate to say that I think your statement reflects an interpretation of the data with which I disagree fairly strongly, though I think from your track record that your intentions are as good as mine. Anyhow, no hard feelings, I hope. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None at all. And thank you for clarifying at the arbitration page. I completely understand how touchy these areas are (arbitration, charges of cabalism, etc.) and I too was hesitant to even comment there. I simply felt that some things were appearing rather wonky to me, and felt it necessary to at least start to bring the issue to the foreground. And yes, I can totally see how different people could come to different conclusions when looking at the same material. But again, like I said, it seems unlikely to be accepted at this point anyhow, so all is (sort of) well. :-) See you around, MastCell. A hui hou. --Ali'i 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the case will go forward now, but this isn't the kind of thing that's going to die away quietly. Anyhow, I apologize again for the harsh tone of my statement. While I disagree with you on this issue, I've seen you do a fair bit of good work around Wikipedia. I don't doubt your good faith and intentions, and I'm sorry to have targeted you personally. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

I have been reverting edits made by Wikipedians who refuse to discuss their changes on the Talk page first. I see no reason to let them run wild. Your mileage may differ. Flatterworld (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem continues. 'Noroton' appears to think he's the first and last word in all things. Unfortunately, he's only interested in what Ayers did years ago, and continues to dismiss his academic career. I, otoh, see no reason to include the Weatherman group in each and every paragraph and section, complete with as many inflammatory adjectives as possible. We have a Weatherman article. We have separate articles about various members of it. The Bill Ayers is the only article attracting all this ooh! ooh! editing, and it's obviously for political reasons. Wikipedia, afaik, aspires to being a serious encyclopedia - not some cheap 'pop' version including only what would make the cut at the National Enquirer. If we want readers to trust us, we need to be trustworthy. Flatterworld (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is a content issue: how should Wikipedia approach someone like Ayers? I'm inclined to the belief that we should take a big-picture view and realize that after November 2008 much of the current flap will be a footnote. Others may feel that the amount of attention he's receiving in connection to Obama at present make the issue particularly notable. That's a content issue.

The second is more of a meta-issue: how do you go about discussing and arguing for your views? Whatever the atmosphere of the talk page, personal attacks and incivility will not help your case. I was serious earlier about improving the level of discussion on those pages. Your points will be more convincing if you can avoid the temptation to indulge in personal attacks and incivility, besides which, as you can see from the feedback at WP:AN/I, there's no longer much patience for inappropriate conduct on those pages from anyone. Am I making sense? MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability

MastCell, I take it from the discussion on my talk that you are familiar with User Enric Naval. My question is this: am I expected to take Naval seriously at Henry H. Bauer? Adding specific courses at specific schools where Bauer's book was included in a bibliography? Thanks. By the way, Bauer was a dean of an undergrad school within Virginia Tech, not the entire university. If that makes him notable, I'm not going to fight for deletion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with him, though I've run across him a handful of times I suppose. I think the Bauer article is tending toward puffery and WP:PEACOCKery at the moment, but that's probably part of a gradual balancing process. I personally take a pretty hard line on notability, but I can tell you from experience at AfD that Bauer's article is almost certain to be kept. If some of his work is used in textbooks, then he passes WP:PROF (though I see that there's some question as to where Bauer's work is cited). In practice, as I said, I've often seen it argued, successfully, that anyone who's made full professor at a reasonable university automatically meets WP:PROF. All the more so for a dean, even of an undergraduate school, at a major American university, and for a member of the NAS. While I don't agree, I've generally seen that argument carry the day, so I think an AfD is likely to be wasted time and it probably makes more sense to find and insist on good-quality sourcing in the article. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly any member of the National Academy of Sciences is notable, but that's not Bauer's "NAS". Bauer is a member of the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy group that offers membership to anyone who pays a fee and claims to be a scholar: professor, post-doc, administrator, grad student, or simply "independent scholar". This "NAS" opposes measures aimed at hiring or admitting women and members of minority groups. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... learn something new every day. Funny how similar the two acronyms and association names are, isn't it? Well, it does tie in with AAPS and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, I suppose... perhaps our article on the National Association of Scholars should be updated. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

IP

Hi Mastcell, would you be able to have a chat with this IP. I'm disengaging as the banging of the head against the wall is beginning to hurt :-) Shot info (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Protect request

Could I get you to protect my article John Quiggin, which is under attack from trolls, following a blog attack on my contributions to Wikipedia (currently cited in the article). Also since the latest troll has taken the trouble to establish a username, could you warn/ban it. Thanks in advance.JQ (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Kerang123 (talk · contribs) as an account apparently created to violate WP:BLP. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if more brand-new accounts/IP's show up, I'll protect it. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ThanksJQ (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

probably related sock: User:Truthanddare Yilloslime (t) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Phillip Johnson IP

68.4.78.241 is another Irvine, California IP being used with (probably by) Biaswatchdog at Phillip E. Johnson. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week, and given the volume of socks I went ahead with a week of semiprotection as well to calm things down. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

JAGZ

This is one reason i consider him a troll. He is very manipulative and disingenuous. He will pretend to be constructive and then insult someone; he will claim to do one thing and then do another. It is a perfect example of the problem itself! You do not need to apologize, just recognize that this is part of the very pattern of behavior that has led to tremendous frustration at the R&I page and that ultimately lead to someone taking it to AN/I. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Foxhunt99 (2nd)

Please look at this. You closed the earlier case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Foxhunt99. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've closed it. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Arggggggh

After three polite requests to cease and desist from pushing a POV on my page, I've had it. Please see User talk:Orangemarlin#Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Everyone wants me to be nice, so your help in keeping me civil will be greatly appreciated. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest something. You've made clear that you don't want him to post on your talk page. The next time he posts, rather than responding, remove the post with a firm but polite edit summary indicating that you don't wish to continue the conversation on your talk page. Most people will get the message and move on. If not, then let me know. MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An excellent user page, but...

the bars on the left impinge on the user boxes on the right. I was so impressed with your user page, and the hard work that you must have put in it, that I felt compelled to point out this minor blemish. And well, if you don't have the time, I might try to set it right, of course, only with your permission.

PS: I use Mozilla Firefox.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Another user, User:Supertheman, was kind enough to try to fix the problem, and I thought he'd been successful, but maybe the layout I use is just not meant to be portable. I should probably reorganize it into something a bit more universal. Thanks for the feedback, and if you feel like editing it, go ahead (though it might be best to do so in a sandbox page somewhere). MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe, I've been able to fix the page. You can survey it for yourself at my sandbox. Some of the elements of your page, particularly the wikilinks beginning with "[[/some subpage]]" will not display properly in my sandbox, but that won't be a problem when transferred to your page. You can directly copy and paste the contents to your current page. I didn't do it myself as I'd want you to be satisfied with the changes, and after all it's your user page.

By the way, I hardly know any HTML, so what you're getting to see is a result of lot of trial-and-error, and may not be the one of the most appropriate ways to derive the effect produced by the current code.

Yes, you're right about the layout. You can produce the result you wanted in a much simpler and cleaner way by having separate subpages for each section, and then incorporating them on your main page as templates—{{subpage}}. You can see my user page for ideas, of course if you'd be that much bothered by the cosmetic aspects of your otherwise a really beautiful page. But, yes, making the bars not obscure the userboxes wasn't exactly cosmetic according to me.

All the best. Keep up the good work.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 09:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it. Maybe subpages are the way to go. I'll take a look this evening or tomorrow - your help is much appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

June

[50] It is not April. QuackGuru 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that. So you seriously templated a regular, established, good-faith user with {{uw-vandalism1}}, a vandalism template, for what is clearly a content dispute? I just want to be sure I understand, since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DTTR is NOT a guideline or a policy.[51] Editors are not obliged to follow it. QuackGuru 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to play this game? WP:VANDAL is a policy. WP:CIVIL is a policy, and "referring to other editors' good-faith changes as vandalism" is a canonical example of incivility. Rather than argue letter of the law, can you explain how you think templating Dematt with a vandalism template would be helpful, constructive, or advance consensus? Take a look at how Eubulides handled it, and consider that approach instead. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciated your comment. Noroton (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

*Boink*

You've got mail! The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your thoughtful comments - they deserve a reply, but I'm swamped today so give me till this evening. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, if you had time, and after everything else, if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. It looks fairly compelling for a link to all the accounts. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld and civility

In connection with Flatterworld's behavior with other editors, you've left a note on his talk page in the past. More recently, I've had an ongoing problem with Flatterworld and civility on the Talk:Bill Ayers page. I initially responded badly to his comments, but I've come to see that I should have been scrupulously civil to him in response and not tolerated his continued behavior. I now think that's the reaction that's best for the Talk:Barack Obama page and related pages. After his latest uncivil comment, I left a note on his talk page here. I told him I'd leave you this note here. I'm not asking you to do anything in particular, but I hope you'll monitor him and the Talk:Bill Ayers and Talk:Bill Ayers election controversy pages if you have time. Again, I appreciate your efforts, and, frankly, I hate bothering you about this, and I wouldn't have if there wasn't a history here. If you have a better idea for how I should handle this in the future, I'm open to it. Noroton (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look, but it probably won't be before this evening or tomorrow AM due to a heavy workload at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment above mine and I was just about to say the same. There's no hurry here at all -- basically, this was informational, and I don't think it will ever get so big as to be a priority. Take your time. Noroton (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this...

...note that I left for Quiggin: User_talk:John_Quiggin#Great_Editorial Yilloslime (t) 05:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See

[52] for my suggestions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)