User talk:MastCell/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

RFPP for La Salle Institute

I feel your pain! Who are you, Bill Clinton? Oh, all right, I'll live with it. :-) Bearian 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh snap... I've been outed! MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're bored...

Need some help with User talk:Jinxmchue and his tendentious edits to D. James Kennedy. I'm leaving you these messages in my desire not to blow out another coronary artery in fighting POV-warriors. I'm still not recovered from the HIV-pseudoscience articles you pointed me too. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember the profane, abusive email User:Jinxmchue sent me when I blocked him for 3RR a few months back, in which he stated that he was picking up his toys and going to Conservapedia. I might have blocked him for a longer period without email, but I took him at his word that he was leaving so I figured it was moot. I suppose this means he's returned and is still up to his old behavior. Probably best to ask another admin to handle it; I added him to my email killfile after his last vitriolic missive, so if I blocked him he wouldn't be able to appeal to my better judgement. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be your fault if I blow out another artery. It's on your head. Your guilty conscience.  :) Every editor I know is intimately involved with the article. I forgot you had to block his butt once before. Well we might have to move to an AN/I. I hate digging up diffs all the time. I need three screens going!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you're trying to be a good fair admin, but did you see this? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AN/I is the better option in this case anyway. I'm conceivably no longer entirely objective. About Wikiquette alerts, the fact is that 9 times out of 10 the complainant has actually engaged in equivalent or worse incivility, then caught their target saying something ill-tempered and run to WP:WQA with the diff. The people who watch the board realize this, I think. I'm not sure why someone with a userpage that looks like this is shocked when his good faith is questioned... but then, by complaining that no one will assume good faith, he's merely going down the checklist of characteristics of tendentious editors. It's almost eerie how accurate that list is. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great link to the tendentious editor page. Never knew it existed. I love checklists. For example, the pseudoscience one is quite useful at times. OK, I was trying to do this the easy way. Instead, you're going to take blame for my untimely death. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You should try blood electrification. Or maybe the blood type diet. Apparently it's good for what-ails-ya. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK, why aren't those things deleted? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Damn, Mastcell, that's just... harsh. Why are you torturing the funny colored fish? He's already dealing with the textbook TE, you have to rub salt in the wound? shaking head sadly KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting that he consider some of the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About, or perhaps visit mercola.com (just look for the external links in any medically related Wikipedia article!) And if you think those links shouldn't be spammed all over Wikipedia, well, maybe I'll see you at the bank when we cash our checks from Pfizer. Man, it has been a long week. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh... my... Comfies, dear. Is that an appeal for assistance? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really... just venting a bit. But thank you for the concern. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to RfC MastCell. He's just plain evil. I'll bet he's behind Living dinosaurs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

expired PROD

Hi there, I see you served up deletion on Richard Morley (Oregon politician), after its PROD expired. I believe there was some good, sourced info in there, that might be appropriate to merge into a related article. Are you able to pull up the last version and send it to me? Thanks! -Pete 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the last version and moved it into your userspace. I'll leave a note on your talk page as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -Pete 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Carl Lindgren Prod

I was just looking at the cached Google page, and it seems at first glance that he meets the notability guidelines: what were the grounds for the PROD? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At second glance, it looks a bit more dubious, so I'm not contesting the Prod -- just verifying it.--SarekOfVulcan 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The grounds were basically that it was a vanispamcruftisement, though the PROD rationale was phrased in a somewhat derogatory fashion and so I chose not to enshrine it in the deletion summary. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just tried to confirm the Ole Miss Alumni Review profile, and searching for his last name alone brought up nothing.--SarekOfVulcan 21:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a couple minutes?

I was asked if I might be interested in adminship (User_talk:Ronz#RFA.3F) and thought I'd get your opinion. Not that I'm going to try in the foreseeable future, but perhaps I should give it some thought. I know I do a lot of admin-like work, but I also seem to find myself in heated conflicts. It seems like you had to make significant changes to what and how you contributed to Wikipedia when you became an admin... --Ronz 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course this question isn't to me but I would like to respond, I hope that it's ok. I think you would make a wonderful administrator and would recommend you myself. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, after looking at Ronz's talk page, I took a look at Richard H. Brodhead - what a WP:BLP disaster zone. But that's beside the point. I find the admin tools useful, and I'm a pretty heavy user of them (see my logs), but I did find that I began focusing more on administrative stuff (mostly of a janitorial or dispute-resolution nature) at the expense of encyclopedic contributions. When I was a non-admin, I wrote (or at least contributed heavily to) 2 featured articles and quite a few other medical topics. Now, I find that many of my contribs are cleanup, dealing with egregious POV pushing or sockpuppetry, trying to sort disputes, etc. So it's one of those things - but it's certainly had an effect on my editing patterns.

From time to time I've considered either temporarily resigning the admin bit or just not using the tools for a month or so... the burnout factor from dealing with the sort of BS that you encounter can be pretty high. But that's not to discourage you.

I would say that editors who've been involved in serious controversies have a tough time at RfA. Regardless of the details of the controversy or the appropriateness of their actions, excellent candidates are often sunk by editors with a grudge whom the candidate has pissed off in the past. It will always be easier for a low-profile inoffensive candidate to get through RfA than it will be for someone who's taken part in controversies and has experience in the trenches. Which is back-asswards, but those are the facts of life. So I wouldn't discourage you - I think you'd do a good job, and User:Shalom is a very good judge of editor quality - but I would certainly give some thought to how you would describe conflicts you've been in, and how those would play out. But to answer the question you actually asked, yes, I've found adminship has changed my editing habits. I'm fine with it, but I definitely spend my time doing different things now than before I became an admin. Good luck with whatever you choose to do. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly the info I was hoping you'd share. Thanks for the help at Richard H. Brodhead too! --Ronz 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain Najafi

You wrote: "2 incidences of vandalism in the past few days isn't quite enough to warrant semi-protection, but if it continues to escalate, drop me a line or come back here and we can semi-protect it." The vandalism has happened again, but this time by a new wiki-user Raza Shamsi. So I would try to negotiate the edited matter with him. In case of failure and continued edit-war, I would request you to do something about it. Take care, Syed Fayyaz Abbas 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on whether this is vandalism, or a content dispute. I think you're justified in removing unsourced claims or information, but beyond that I'd encourage, as you said, trying to work it out on the article talk page. If you can't then we can see about protection or some other mechanism to get people talking. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey MastCell. New editor Angela Kennedy (talk · contribs) is not best pleased with having been called a "sockpuppet" on Wikipedia:Neutrality Project. The temporal relationship with Alpinist (who I will rehabilitate tonight) is striking but this is clearly a different editor. Do you think you could manage an apology of sorts? Thanks. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed the exchange on my talkpage. I have agreed to rehabilitate Alpinist, and I'm acting on the presumption that you will agree with this. All this is with the understanding that if he becomes abusive or difficult, the block can be reinstated without further discussion. Are you with me on this? JFW | T@lk 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. I don't really intend to get more involved, mostly because I know little about Simon Wesseley (other than that his page has been targeted in the past for some pretty serious WP:BLP violations) and the climate and tenor of discussion on the article are not particularly enticing. I will leave a note for Angela Kennedy; while I regret upsetting her with the sockpuppet charge, I think there are significant issues with a user with an outside agenda coming here specifically to carry out that agenda, particularly when it takes the form of piling on in favor of a recently blocked user. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for smoking restrictions?

Hi MastCell. I recall recently reading somewhere about public support for (or against) smoking bans--something like X amount of Americans support restrictions on smoking in public places. I don't remember where I read it, though I suspect it was related to the ETS RfM. Do you know what reference I'm talking about? Can you point me in the right direction? If you don't have this right at your fingertips don't worry about it. Yilloslime (t) 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a bunch of surveys of varying quality and relevance out there. I'd probably cite the Surgeon General's 2006 report (which summarizes a number of public-opinion gauges), specifically I think it's in Chapter 10 on page 588 and thereafter. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a prince. Thanks.Yilloslime (t) 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also - I've been looking for this side of the data, as I only have the surveys that support the other side of the argument. Naacats 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy about off-wiki calls for on-wiki POV pushing? Yilloslime (t) 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think those articles will be fully protected in a few days? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Soliciting meatpuppets is pretty strongly frowned upon, as you might imagine. I think this is probably the best avenue to take at this point; I think a ban from smoking-related topics is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WPAG-TV deletion

WPAG-TV article text was taken from an another article on the Wikipedia which is under a GNL and is its permissible. The CorenSearchBot is flaging the article on a Wikipedia mirror. If the Wikipedia is not under a GNL license then there would be no mirror. (If i copy this else to User talk:Coren will it flag me again? Spshu 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad... I'll restore the WPAG-TV article. You can just remove the CorenBot tag if that's the case. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Per this thread, your comments would be welcome at this DRV. -- Jreferee T/C 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock memestream please?

You wrote at user:memestream five days ago: "Feel free to unblock, or I will in the AM." MastCell Talk 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone now agrees that no mis-use of the two accounts occured. The only objector has now lifted his objection, following my specific approach to him. When asked why I wish to use two accounts I gave very good reasons explaining how these were specifically permitted by the rules. Now all has gone quiet, and memestream is still blocked, though 'not guilty as charged'. Would you please help me now by unblocking as you said you would. Thanks, --Lindosland 11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The account has been unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision. You should see the BS theories of Evolution being bandied about by his sock, Lindosland. This is a tendentious editor that should move to creation wiki or some such place. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it may better be dealt with by compiling evidence of any misbehavior and bringing it up via WP:RfC or at WP:CSN. There was enough disagreement (though gently voiced) with the block that I felt it probably ought to be overturned for now. I will continue to keep an eye on User:Memestream, though, and I would have little tolerance for further WP:SOCK issues. But for now, I would suggest just keeping an eye on him, and ignoring or even removing posts of his that violate the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, and you know I trust you despite putting Duesberg hypothesis on my user talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83 banned user returned

I thought I would start with you as an Admin as you were involved in the earlier round with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mariam83 vandalism and edit warring. Afraid she is back with her edit warring on the same pages (Maghreb, Maghreb Arab Union, Berbers, Tunisia, Arab World, etc). Protection on these pages needed.(collounsbury 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

I've semi-protected Maghreb, Maghreb Arab Union, Berbers, and Arab World. Didn't see enough on Tunisia to protect it. I've blocked some of the more obvious socks. Are there any other target articles you want me to look at regarding semi-protection? MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe North Africa also (I'm not sure if it is already or not), if you look at the history DrMaik and I had to revert a good number of edits that were absolute precise redos of Mariam83's vandalism (also it appears LGarrel is a sock of hers). Thanks mate, sorry for this (collounsbury 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

I blocked LGarrel as a sock - not enough recent edits to Tunisia to justify semi-protection, for now, though. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mate, our old friend Mariam83 is still baning around. She's now on North Africa, Tunisia and Mauritania. Some old Black people phobic ranting. Could you semi-protect those please? (collounsbury 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I semi-protected Tunisia as the hardest hit, and blocked her most recent IP. The other two articles didn't seem too hard-hit, so I haven't done anything yet. If it gets worse there, let me know and I'll semi-protect them as well. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Well, North Africa seems to be one of her obsessions, so semi-prot on that would be wise (collounsbury 20:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

User:192.249.47.11

Hi MastCell,

I don't think you've been involved with any editting of Rachel Carson lately or possibly even ever, so I hopefully there's no COI in me asking you to consider talking action against 192.249.47.11 (talk · contribs · logs). For the third time in as many days, this user has inserted unsourced and factually inaccurate POV into the article. This IP has made some good contributions in other areas, but none the less, his talk page is filled with warnings. I think a block is in order. Can you help me out? Yilloslime (t) 19:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a shared IP used by various people. The present user is certainly on an anti-Rachel-Carson kick, repeatedly inserting unsourced non-neutral material. I'm going to block the IP for a short time, which should straighten things out. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Yilloslime (t) 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Race and ancient Egypt

MastCell, I was about to edit the Race and ancient Egypt as you were protecting the article. I really don't think protection is a good idea at this point, since the article's month-long protection has just expired, and it was also protected just before that for close to a month. Much progress has been made in the last couple of days, and consensus was reached on many areas. Please, reconsider -- at this point, I really don't feel that the article would benefit from being protected every three or four days. Thanks, — Zerida 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There appeared to be an edit war in progress. I'm willing to consider unprotecting it, but I don't see how an edit war is going to be productive, and would again rather see more discussion on the talk page, possibly including a content WP:RfC if there are unresolved disputes. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There was indeed clear edit warring occurring and there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on anything. I'm there now and we will hack out a real consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on anything In fact, Taharqa and I reached consensus on quite a few areas as you can see from our discussions on the article's talk page, as well as his. The edit war seems to have happened within the last few hours. What should have been done was to seek consensus on the talk page for any other changes made by new editors. Making major changes to the article then quickly asking for re-protection after two long protection periods had expired was not helpful in my opinion. — Zerida 19:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Two editors does not a consensus make. Moreover, Consensus can change. Fast. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree Mastcell.. Even though it appears that Wikidudeman indeed initiated the edit warring, as me and Zerida clearly worked out a compromise until he insisted on these rash revisions pending discussion, I believe a protection of the article for the time period specified is reasonable. It should encourage people to engage in dialogue.. Thank you..Taharqa 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree... do your best to work it out on the talk page for next couple of days - after all, there is no deadline. If, after that time, Wikidudeman hasn't been able to reach a consensus with you, then his edits won't stick, but you may as well use the time to see if you can work something out. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that protecting the article is not very helpful. The reason is when the article is protected, editors go in to hybernation, and resurface when the article is unprotected, so disputes are not getting resolved with protection. Especially since this article was protected for one month. During that time there was little activity on the talk page. I suggest we give the 3rr rule some time. If the article is unprotected we can get input from all sides and reach a consensus. Now that all the editors have expressed their views, it is a good opportunity to try to make a stable, fair and balanced article. Muntuwandi 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

WTF have I got into here? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking myself the same question a few days ago. Still, it's probably useful to have at least one or two people editing the article who are not devoted to destroying Simon Wessely and all he stands for. MastCell ^Talk 06:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Afd

Hello MastCell! You have closed this AfD and deleted the article. There are this three cycle summaries [1] [2] [3] left. Could you please delete them too. I forgot to include them in the nomination. Sorry for the extra work. Thanks! VirtualDelight 15:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Done. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're bored on a Saturday morning

I'm trying to be a nice boy at Homeopathy. I've not put my usual "who the fuck did that shit" comment in the edit summary. I've not deleted anything, even if it was highly POV, just cleaned up the article. User:Peter Morrell decided to edit war. Can you help out? it's time to force a little scientific reasoning on that article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I will look in soon, but at the moment I'm kind of up to my eyeballs both with work in real life and with on-wiki unpleasantness, so I'm going to have to beg off for now. If there are serious policy violations then I'm happy to look at them, but I think I need to limit myself to a few controversies at a time to stay sane. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Having discussions on talk pages prior to making controversial edits is the best way to avoid edit wars. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, Would this source be considered a reliable source? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... it appears to be an unpublished paper, and I'm very leery of using unpublished papers as sources. At present, it's essentially self-published. I suppose it could be considered if the authors are notable experts in the field in question, though third-party-published sources would definitely be preferable. If the paper is accepted and published somewhere, then the case for it as a reliable source would be much stronger. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It says it's published in The Technology Journal of the Franklin Institute. ALso, Do you have access to this source? It's the source cited in that paper. If I had that publication then I could source it directly opposed to using a 2nd party. Can you E-mail it to me? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading, it says that it was submitted to the Tech Journal of the Franklin Institute. There's a huge difference between an article being submitted, and it passing through peer review and being accepted for publication - trust me. I do have access to Arch Int Med... give me a day or two to look up that article. Usually they're free full-text for everyone. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This source is the one I'm looking for. Do you have the full text? Can you E-mail it? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have online access to Arch Int Med, but they have full-text archives online back to 1998 only. That article is from 1996, so the full text isn't available online, at least as far as I can see from navigating their website. It would probably require going to a medical library to look at a hardcopy and photocopy it. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Igor the otter

Please see this Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented; needless to say I agree with the block. Have I had some interaction with this user in the past that I can't remember? Just curious if there was anything specific you wanted me to note about this editor or this block. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Sock-puppet warnings & Lucy-marie

Please review the comment I have left here concerning Lucy-marie. (SouthernElectric 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Forget it, questions been answered by someone else (SouthernElectric 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Psychiatric abuse

Don't tell me an editor is a single purpose account for the creation of an article when that is not the case.[4] If you have a motivation that is unstated for removing this article, don't state things falsely to get others to agree with you. Provide evidence for your personal accusations, or don't post them, personally attacking editors doesn't help anything if the article really needs deleted, except to give them ammunation against you, namely your ad hominem attacks show you don't have any legit arguments. Either the article is not encyclopedic in nature or it is, regardless of your accusations against the primary editor and creator.KP Botany 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, in that I only looked at the last 500 contribs, virtually all of which were dedicated to pushing a very specific anti-psychiatry POV. As to the rest of your comment, I feel that I stated my motivations for deleting the article very clearly. There's nothing hidden; it's all in my comment. Obviously, I feel these arguments are very legitimate, or I wouldn't make them. If you think my arguments are incorrect or groundless, then explain why, preferably at the AfD, instead of berating me here. The fact that I believe the article requires a complete rewrite if kept, and that a particular editor's contributions to it are counter to basic Wikipedia policies, are positions I stand behind. If your point is that I shouldn't have mentioned them at the AfD, then perhaps you're correct. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or where the hostility is coming from. MastCell ^Talk 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. When you add groundless comments in AfDs you give those arguing to keep a crappy article a basis for arguing. This gets tiresome at AfD, when an article is nominated for deletion for a reason that isn't a reason, and argued that it should be kept based upon an argument against the non-reason, then it's closed as a keep for this non-reason. What is so hard about just using AfD reasons? IF it should be deleted it should be deleted for those reasons alone. There is so much useless chatter on Wikipedia, and the hostility is coming from that: the need to discuss things that never should have been brought up in the first place. Nominate an article based on AfD reasons, establish your case based only upon those reasons, then let the community decide, please. I feel like every AfD is an attempt to appeal to outside reasons and manipulate or stack the cards one way or another. There's so much worthless crap on Wikipedia, and so much that needs work--can't we spend our time on that instead of discussing reasons that aren't reasons for deletion? It's annoying as all get out.

That said, it's clear this article simply cannot be edited due to the extraordinary drive of the POV pushing. This, however, is an extraordinary circumstance for an article, and I would appreciate simple and clean AfDs from everyone, because it does seem there are hidden agendas. I swear there's a secret award society for getting articles deleted somewhere. That is what it seems like. KP Botany 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was such a society, I'm still waiting for my award. :) In all seriousness, I see your point. I did provide what I consider a very compelling rationale for this article's deletion - particularly in light of the unpleasantness engendered by the "Allegations of apartheid" series. I see this as a direct parallel. It's a POV fork, and the notable sourced info should be incorporated into less blatantly agenda-driven articles. As to the SPA charge, you're correct in that I took only the last 500 contribs into account. I don't think that changes the fact that there's a serious WP:SOAP/WP:BATTLE issue with the article's creator and major editor. Should I have left that out of my AfD comment? Probably. I hear what you're saying. But I do think that if the article is kept, then it requires a complete bottom-up rewrite, and I felt it necessary to say so. I could have left out the part about the editor. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we'll call it a draw. I think User:Hoary expects to get the award first. KP Botany 05:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, though. You've said twice to me there's no evidence for WP:SPA. You presumably know that Scientology has an anti-psychiatry slant (as in its CCHR offshoot)? We have an editor who has devoted almost all recent edits to creating a Psychiatric abuse article that is widely viewed as polemical, and adding to a number of related topics (and once you go back beyond the latest 500, it gets into Scientology organisations).

Then when it comes up for AFD, he canvasses Shutterbug (Scientologist), Justanotherguy (deleted, presumably because looking for the next), Justanother (Scientologist ), Steve Dufour (who has made pro-Scientology edits), Braveheartbear (Scientologist), CSI LA (Scientologist) and 72.219.208.75 (don't know about this one).

And you don't think there's sufficient evidence of an agenda?

You may well argue that this is irrelevant - that discussion should focus purely on whether an article in encyclopedic or not. However, I think this is relevant as strong evidence why the article should not be called Psychiatric abuse, because it buys into a specific tenet of a pressure group. Gordonofcartoon 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to many of your arguments, I don't think there's much to be gained by debating this further in this venue. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Thank you for the redirect in the AfD template of Psychiatric abuse, I missed that one, sorry about that Jenny^Len☤ 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I moved the article back to its original title. While I agree that title is hopeless, we need to keep it there during the AfD to avoid serious confusion. Once the AfD is finished, we can discuss moving the article if it is kept. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No biggie Jenny^Len☤ 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Amy Goodman claims of stroke

MastCell, you're familiar with User_talk:66.82.9.54, his abusive behavior and vandalism. He/she is now vandalizing the Amy Goodman page by repeatedly adding the unsupported claim that Amy Goodman had a stroke. Goodman has denied this, and this is a violation of wp:blp, wp:rs, etc., but User_talk:66.82.9.54 keeps reverting it. User_talk:66.82.9.54 also seems to be using Special:Contributions/69.19.14.15. What's the procedure for dealing with this? Can you help with this? Nbauman 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recently used IP address, though it's dynamic so this probably won't be much use. I also semi-protected Amy Goodman, which should be more effective at stopping this particular problem. Since this appears to be a person using their work connection to do these sorts of things, it might be worth filing an abuse report with the Hughes Network IT department or something, though I haven't been impressed with the utility of this approach. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As it turned out, Amy Goodman announced today on her program that she has Bell's palsy -- not a stroke -- which is temporary. So there was some half-truth to it, but it didn't meet wp:rs especially for BLP. Nbauman 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's exactly the kind of unsourced speculation that our policies are meant to prevent. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi, MastCell. A checkuser request I filed has confirmed that a user, IronAngelAlice, who has been editing abortion-related articles recently has been using a sockpuppet account, Justine4all, to get around 3RR on Abortion, Post-abortion syndrome, etc. As you filed the checkuser request on Cindery, and are likely familiar with the checkuser process, I was wondering if you would be able to inform me where I can take this next. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just took it to AN/I. Thanks in advance. -Severa (!!!) 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I just checked up on the progression of the AN/I thread. I'm surprised to find that the multiplicity of accounts being used actually runs a lot deeper than I'd initially thought. -Severa (!!!) 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats masked as warnings -- COI? It seems to be the case.

Now you seem to have a seriously invested interest in this article. I ask again, what COI do you have that you are not disclosing? KP Botany 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any COI. One could equally well ask you the same question, though, given your highly personalized and hostile tone, accusations, and comments such as this. However, I don't think this is a particularly productive path to go down. I should emphasize that I have no problem including well-referenced, encyclopedic claims of psychiatric misdeeds in the appropriate articles. I do have a problem with creating an arbitrary, editor-defined category such as psychiatric abuse and lumping together individually notable incidents to advance an agenda. If you think that's not what's going on here, then I don't know what to say.

There's inevitable "pushback" (as you've seen from User:Scuro, for example), things get ugly, the article becomes a battleground, and Wikipedia is the worse for it. This is exactly the course that it appears resulted in this unpleasant ArbCom situation. I don't want to see it repeated. End of story. I don't carry any water for psychiatry as a field, but I like even less to see Wikipedia abused for this kind of aggressive nonsense. These are the same principles which led me to whatever involvement I have in the above ArbCom case, and they inform my response here. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly in the allegation of apartheid case are you references? It says things like, "The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit."

What exactly about this do you think applies to what is going on in this article? You're citing a case that appears to be leaning towards, "it's an editorial dispute and should be handled as such" and seem to be citing this as evidence that, well, that what? That this is an editorial dispute and should be handled as such?

You do appear to have a strong agenda against an article about psyhiatric abuse. Or about articles with negative titles, which is how the world winds up calling genocide "ethnic cleansing," which is absurd. If it's abuse by psychiatrists, making the title pretty isn't going to change it, and the sources on psychiatric abuse in the Soviet Union and discussing the Fulon Gong call it that, but you're not offering alternatives. What you're doing is trying very hard to bias people against the article. So, I ask again, what is your personal interest in psychiatric abuse?

And please note before countering with claims of my bias, that I have problems with all extremes, and notice my serious criticisms of both the article as it now stands and the flip version. I am not supporting or rejecting psyhiatrists or psychiatry for a Wikipedia article. The article can be written neutrally, fairly neutrally, and there are plenty of sources for it. That it hasn't doesn't mean the topic is non-encyclopedic. But it sure seems like the pro-psychiatry camp is worse than the anti-psychiatry camp at this point.

Or you could just offer a referenced alternative title. Or anything to support your opinions, like a quote from the ArbCom that shows what you are talking about in it--because, again, the ArbCom appears to be leaning towards "this is an editorial dispute." KP Botany 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on now. Genocide? Strawman alert. It's easy to write an encyclopedic article about genocide, because there are numerous solid sources describing incidents of genocide. On the other hand, "psychiatric abuse" in this case is being used as a catch-all for amalgamating disparate incidents, which no reliable source has grouped together, as part of an editor's campaign to denigrate psychiatry. Or maybe you've seen me around Wikipedia in my crusade against all negative terms? In which case it should be easy to provide some examples of your claims?

As to the ArbCom case, I'd suggest reviewing the arguments offered, the background (7 or so AfD's of allegations of Israeli apartheid, and arguable WP:POINT violations by respected editors in response to said article). Notable allegations of Israeli apartheid have been made. However, centralizing them in a Wikipedia article by that arbitrary title, instead of covering the allegations under encyclopedic and more neutral subjects such as human rights in Israel, pissed off a lot of people, generated drama and WP:POINT violations, and ended things up in ArbCom. I see this situation as clearly analogous, and I try to learn from previous problems.

I'm not part of a "pro-psychiatry camp", nor do I have some secret connection or agenda related to psychiatry. The mere fact that you insist on seeing things in such terms is an illustration of why this article is a disaster waiting to get even worse. As to constructive suggestions, I'll make the same one I've made repeatedly: cover notable incidents in appropriate articles, instead of trying to group them together arbitrarily, in a manner not supported by reliable sources, to advance an agenda. The role of psychiatrists in repressing Soviet dissidents or Falun Gong can be covered in the appropriate articles. There are actually already a number of anti-psychiatry POV forks where some material could be merged. I'm rapidly tiring of this discussion and its tone, so I'll leave things there. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, "is how the world winds up calling genocide "ethnic cleansing," which is absurd." I didn't say there isn't an article on Genocide. I said that "ethnic cleansing" is an attempt to use a nicer term for something horrific, although not in those words. Again, you seem to be seeing more than there is.

They read all the arguments and came up with what I posted: it's an editorial conflict. So I still don't know where you're going with this, when the ArbCom you're quoting from, in spite of reems of evidence, is going precisely where I am going: it's an editorial dispute.

That one editor sees something or other in certain terms does not support your broad sweeping unsupported argument that this article must be deleted because of that. There are POV editors all over Wikipedia, we don't delete and censor the entire Wikipedia to deal with them. We edit neutrally. And, this article isn't anti-psychiatry, it's just about abuse by psychiatrists. If someone is abused by a doctor or a clergyman or a police officer, they may have a predisposed bias against the profession, but it doesn't have to make them anti the profession. And, anyone who reports abuse by psychiatrists or discusses it doesn't have to be anti-psychiatry. Abuse and anti don't mean the same thing, and the two articles are not one and the same. If there are multiple notable incidents of anything in Wikipedia it could merit its own article, not mere mention in other articles, and there is no Wikipedia policy demanding that they not be tied together. This isn't how it works. The article needs a developed outline on the general, and all incidents should be tied in to that. And, guess what? There are POVs all over Wikipedia, but they're not deleted for that reason, and, whatever his agenda, he's no longer editing. KP Botany 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think the article should be deleted. You don't. I think we've said there is to say on the subject. If you have further accusations to make about me, feel free to bring them up in the appropriate place, ideally with supporting evidence. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's clear we're not even reading the same ArbCom, so nothing will come of continuing this discussion. KP Botany 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tidal Energy Pty Ltd deleted

Please can you help me understand why Tidal Energy Pty Ltd was deleted (by you?) yet many others like MCT with simialr interests have a page that remians undeleted? Tidalenergy 01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process. It was tagged by another editor for deletion, and as the deletion was not contested in 5 days, I deleted the article. Here's what I would suggest: if you'd like to create an article on Tidal Energy Pty Ltd., check out the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. Basically, it would be best to dig up a few independent, reliable third-party sources (newspaper coverage, etc) or other material to demonstrate that the company meets our notability guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:216.166.216.138

You may want to look at User talk:216.166.216.138 that you blocked, now including new personal attacks. Cheers! Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

socks of User:Mariam83

Hi, Thanks for semi-protecting Tunisia. However, it seems, another of the socks of this user, User:YousefSalah, has been around long enough to get past that, and so has reverted again on various articles. Another unblocked sock is User:Blair76. It's getting rather tiresome. And could you semi-protect my talk page: I chose to remove comments from this user, and he keeps on putting them back. Thanks, Drmaik 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC/RfA

Plagiarism!!!

:)

--barneca (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... while I don't share the neoconservatives' idolatrous and even somewhat fetishistic worship of Winston Churchill, he certainly was quotable. I generally ascribe to a Lehrerian view of plagiarism, but I think this is just a case of great minds thinking alike. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about Churchill; he's dead. But you plagiarized me, plagiarizing Churchill! Still, as long as I get to count myself among these "great minds", I won't sue. Plus, as some comic somewhere whose name I forget once said, "All jokes are stolen". --barneca (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Using tobacco industry documents as reliable sources

See my diff [5]. I removed the ref. to the tobacco document intentionally, for two reasons: 1) I think that internal tobacco industry documents do not alone qualify as reliable sources - they need to be backed by an article or some other piece of writing which can be considered as a reliable source; 2) as there is a link to the Wikipedia article on Gio Batta Gori, it is preferable to rely on the references provided in the article rather than providing a separate reference (which is redundant and runs the risk of not being updated in sync with the references in the article). If you consider these reasons acceptable, I leave it to you to remove the reference to the industry document. --Dessources 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem either way. On the one hand, we should clearly source the potentially controversial claim that Gori is a tobacco-industry consultant (per WP:BLP). I think tobacco documents are a reasonably reliable source for this purpose. I do think your use of the court decision, a more secondary source, is preferable in this situation. I'd prefer to see a source of some sort in the passive smoking article, lest the accusation of including unsourced info be leveled, but I don't have a strong feeling as to which source should be used. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand your reasoning, I still have a problem with the principle of accepting internal tobacco documents as reasonably reliable sources. This may backfire in other situations, and other editors may use the Gio Gori article as setting a precedent. A court judgement, made by a judge who has a constitutional duty to be neutral, is a much more preferable source than one particular tobacco document, exhibited out of a mass of documents. When the document is a copy of Gori's own CV, then this clearly crosses the line (this is not the one you chose to use). I would take such documents not as "sources", but as pieces of evidence or illustrations (playing the same role as, for example, a picture), and use them with moderation.

--Dessources 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yokohama Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yokohama Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chris 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• withdraw request-admin showed me the text, nothing there to save. Chris 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of passive smoking

I bet you that, as we now have documented that the German scientist who coined the term Passivrauchen did not belong to the Nazis, but was actually opposed to the Nazis and persecuted by them, the interest for an etymology section will magically vanish... --Dessources 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Such cynicism! :) An unfortunate by-product of dealing with Wikipedia's surfeit of contrarianism. As you could see from my initial response, I was also a bit suspicious that this was a "anti-tobacco = Nazism" angle. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with meatpuppet investigation?

I'm trying to figure out how & when a meatpuppet investigation is done. Dematt suggested I check with you (See: User_talk:Dematt#Help_with_Sockpuppet_investigation.3F. --Ronz 15:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is tricky, because it's very hard to tell whether two people just have the same interests and agree quite a bit, or are actually violating WP:MEAT. With sockpuppetry, you can at least ask for checkuser evidence to support a suspicion. I assume you're referring to User:Levine2112 and User:TheDoctorIsIn. I think they certainly share a viewpoint on Stephen-Barrett-related topics, though their general tones are fairly different. Beyond that, I don't see any smoking gun indicating that they are violating WP:MEAT. One could similarly accuse two accounts on the "other" side of those issues of being meatpuppets.

There are a couple of possible approaches: one is to open a report at WP:SSP for an admin to look over (I'd recuse myself here given my history on those pages). The other is to leave the meatpuppet angle and instead just focus on accountability to Wikipedia's policies for both accounts. It appears that this dispute has been festering endlessly, so it might be worth considering a WP:RfC or other mechanism to move past the deadlock. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's basically what I thought. --Ronz 03:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Harry Potter beasts

Hi. You closed this discussion with a delete consensus, although I think there was a consensus to merge. It would benefit Wikipedia to still contain this information, albeit in a single article. Would you feel strongly about this information being undeleted? If not, I can run it through WP:DRV and work on the outcome myself. --Oldak Quill 13:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against merging relevant material. What might work best is that I can userfy the deleted material (that is, move it into your userspace), and you can merge what you like into the appropriate articles. Would that work for you? MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have made a request for arbitration regarding the passive smoking article. You are listed as a party in this request. Thanks. Chido6d 04:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another silly smoking dispute

I happened to run across Smokeasy, where an anon IP editor insists on describing smoking bans as a sumptuary law (the same editor made similar edits there also) even though no-one except the editor has ever linked the two (there are a handful of uses of this as a pejorative description of drug and alcohol prohibition). If you have time to waste, you might want to take a look at this.JQ 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why deleted my profile?

You deleted my profile how would you like it if i deleted yours?

RESTORE IT!

Jay Turner (Author)

I am a Author, its my USER PAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytur1 (talk • contribs)

Your page was actually tagged for deletion by another editor via the proposed deletion process. I deleted the page when the proposed deletion went uncontested for 5 days. Generally, if you object, an article deleted by this process can be restored. However, the article actually fails our notability criteria and meets some of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I'm not going to restore it at this point. If you'd like to contest the deletion, you can take it to deletion review, but it may be more appropriate for your userpage rather than for article space. Edits like this are not doing you any favors, though. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jay Turner (author)

Can you restore my user page Jay Turner (author), please?

It was my user page. I just wanted people to know I write books. :-( you crushed my dreams :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytur1 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• You might like to review Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:spam and Wikipedia:Userpage. These pages might help in either understanding the rational behind any action taken by Wiki admin or the rational needed for an appeal.
  MastCell, feel free to delete this on your return if you so wish. (SouthernElectric 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Bearian's RfA

Dear Mr. Clinton, ;-) Many thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I hope that I am doing a good job so far. Bearian 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Crap of the day

See this RfCU. Thanks OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)