User talk:MastCell/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Milkmen / thanks

Thank you. I recently happened across some BLP vandalism, which reminded me of a vote we both participated in. I suspect my views are similar to yours on these issues. Regards, Cool Hand Luke 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I knew we'd interacted somewhere. Thanks for refreshing my memory. Well, best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your modest proposal

Worth a thought - although some distant part of me hopes that even those dedicated to advocacy are at least able to mass produce citations like the article needs. Never encountered that essay before, although I note that its difficult to do when you're shunning and everyone else is taking the bait.--Tznkai (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, my lone serious foray into abortion-related articles was a 6-month ordeal of trying to reason with, deal with, or at least restrain a committed soapboxer/advocate with a real-life conflict of interest, ending in an unpleasant but decisive ArbCom case. So I'm not optimistic about getting useful editing in this particular field out of people who come here specifically to push their viewpoint.

Yeah, the weakness is that shunning requires discipline and everyone has to be on board. And there's usually at least one person who can't resist taking the bait. But it can be useful, and it's often easier and more efficient than going through Wikipedia's clunky bureaucratic processes to deal with something this obvious. The nice thing about shunning is that it can be constructive - if you ignore someone's ranting, and acknowledge them only when they actually bring sources and make policy-based arguments, then there's theoretically some useful operant conditioning happening. I've seen it work relatively effectively on a persistent agenda editor at passive smoking, though it's failed much more often than it succeeds. Something about its logic appeals to me, though. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Huggins

Are you seriously claiming that Huggins' own writings are not reliable sources for Huggins' claims and beliefs?--Alterrabe (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)-

No. I'm saying that our article on Hal Huggins, like every other article on Wikipedia, should rely on indepedent, reliable secondary sources wherever possible. It's quite possible to accurately and clearly describe Huggins' views using such reliable third-party sources, with the added benefit that they provide context and due weight necessary for an encyclopedic article. Feel free to recast that as "censorship", though - good luck with that. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your break.

Have a good break, I've got your back.--Tznkai (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good break. Well earned!JQ (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got sidetracked when I accidentally saw our article on smoking bans. Good God, it's poor. I think most of the folks who wanted to put the WHO/Surgeon General on equal weight with Dave Hitt's blog must have migrated there, from passive smoking. MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do backup on this, if needed.JQ (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added your hot list to my watchlist for a few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're on a break? Who's going to keep colon cleansing clean? And who's going to make funny jokes on my user talk page (which has gotten a bit dull these days)? And who's going to join Boris at the local collective meeting on annual targets for Wikipedia verbiage? I'm devastated. I feel so alone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that your talkpage is dull because of my absence. Baseball seasons starts in April. I'll be sure to stop by and remind you just how bad your team is. Keeper ǀ 76 02:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen your vandalism in various locations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's hoping your break is more succesful than mine has been the last few days. --barneca (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the break hasn't really taken off yet - I've been editing in articlespace a bit when I feel like it - but I'm pretty firm about staying away from projectspace and admin actions for the immediate future. Mostly, though, I just thought it was time to change up my userpage. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, that means I can run amok, since you won't be blocking me. Oh happy days! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

AML edit undo

I'm O.K. with your revert. --Spiff666 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antinutrient&diff=259242908&oldid=235035283 --Thermoproteus (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I got it. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again [1] --Thermoproteus (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

"Holiday spirit"? WTF? Why don't you just go ahead and declare War on Christmas while you're at it?!?! :) Just kidding - it's just that Bill O'Reilly gets me so fired up about the secular liberal agenda that's ruining this country. :) Happy holidays. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

MERRY CHRISTMAS (or other winter holiday) AND A HAPPY GAMEDAY

--B (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Merry Christmas to you too. I'll be rooting for the Hokies. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, MastCell. Here's to another year of fun times and being accused of being paid by some evil pharmaceutical organization. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy holidays to you too. While no one can say for sure what the new year will bring, I think you've hit the closest thing to a sure bet. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Christmas greeting, MastCell! I hope you're having a joyous season, and may the New Year bring health, happiness and peace. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Horse-flogging

Perchta, Krampus and I wish you the jolliest Lenæa, kwanzaa, shōgatsu, Inti Raymi, Şeva Zistanê, etc. Let's pick a pair of axes and go out and have phun! -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On this edit of yours: I sense that the editor is willing to edit-war [if this can be a verb], but her edits since the previous warning that she'd received (from Black Kite) on her page have been few and entirely legitimate. Pessimistically, I'm not at all sure that the warring won't re-erupt, but it hasn't re-erupted yet. In your place, I wouldn't have posted that message. -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. From my perspective, when I see someone edit-warring, I find it's useful to inform them of the existence of the 3-revert rule as soon as possible - it saves everyone's time. At the time of my initial post, I think there hadn't yet been any edit-warring, but it's become an issue. I see your point - it may appear to be piling on to the previous warnings, and if I were more patient I'd have hand-crafted a message instead of using the template. MastCell ^Talk 06:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You could very well be right; I can't get worked up about it. Meanwhile.... Hoary (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

FYI: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh. At least he's using open proxies now, instead of computers belonging to the City of Jacksonville. The taxpayers should be proud. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources and agendas

[Moved from User Talk:Rockdowner] I've noticed that your edits here uniformly seem to advance a specific agenda. That by itself is a bit problematic, since Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy. More to the point, please review our policies on verifiability, undue weight, and appropriate sourcing. Many of the sources you keep reintroducing are clearly unacceptable from this encyclopedia's standpoint; those that may potentially be acceptable tend to be shoehorned to fit your editorial agenda, which raises the concern of original synthesis. Wikipedia isn't really the right agenda to advocate for your agenda; if you're interested in this project, then a good place to start is by finding the best available sources (as Wikipedia defines quality). If your main goal is to argue against smoking bans, then there are any number of more appropriate venues to do so. I'm sorry to be direct, but it's obvious that this is not a new issue, nor am I the only one to raise questions about your editing in this regard. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems however that claims and studies by people that actively get paided to sell smoking bans such as Scoolo, Hyland, and Glantz get posted as if they are unbiased fact. Should I delete those? Fact is few people actually spend the time to actively research bias in the links, which leads many to believe that controversial matters are fact. It seems that you are not concerned with proponents labeling certain posts as "tobacco industry funded" as if to discredit them in the Second Hand Smoke page.

Furthermore what is wrong with simply defining groups known to actively support or oppose smoking bans. This is not a matter of debate, it is just fact. Smoking bans are a heavily lobbyied issue. In 2006 in Hawaii for example, professional anti-smoking groups spent more money than any other agenda oriented lobby to push through a ban.

Also not all my posts are "one sided". Such as wine bars and upscale restaurants sopmetimes liking the ban or the majority of Americans supporting bans inside of restaurants. How would these posts help an agenda against bans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdowner (talk • contribs) 02:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: your first paragraph: the obvious difference there is that Glantz's work, for instance, is published in leading peer-reviewed medical journals. You, on the other hand, are citing blogs, op-ed pieces from tiny newspapers, and websites of obscure partisan pressure groups. I'm not going to bite on the rest of the stuff - just read the reliable sources guideline and consider the difference between the Lancet and blogspot.com, and we'll be fine. MastCell ^Talk 04:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quick to defend Glantz's work. Are you an anti-smoking? Some of them get paid for it. Be proud of who you are. Some of my friends are also proud to be anti-smoking. It is ok in my mind. They are honest with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdowner (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems like a transparent effort to personalize the issue. I'm talking about Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, not my personal opinions. I am being honest with you, so I'm not sure what you're implying there. To the extent that an article by Glantz et al. in the Lancet is a better source than the website of an obscure pressure group, yes, I suppose I'm "defending" Glantz's work. I'm pretty comfortable, if not "proud", of who I am, but thanks for the thought. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems transparent that you get paid to push your personal aganda. Which group pays you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdowner (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. No one pays me to correct crappy sourcing and poor-quality content on Wikipedia. I do it pro bono, for the kids (and the groupies). Merry Christmas. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting other people's referenced data. Your comments and actions are clearly agenda driven. Onless you can objectively prove that an addition is false beyond an debate, you are in violation of the rules of Wikipedia by your actions against other peoples contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdowner (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Have you read the verifiability policy, particularly the part indicating that the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for your edits? Regarding agendas, I think our respective contribution histories speak for themselves; nuff said. MastCell ^Talk 06:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

MastCell is gainfully employed as lead cabalist in Jimbo Wales' plot to rule the world as a pinko commie objectivist paradise.--Tznkai (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

In reply to this. A directive from ArbCom like that would be most helpful. See User:Jehochman/Content matters. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally with you in spirit; see, for example, the recent history of anti-smoking movement and smoking ban, where a single-purpose agenda editor is continually reinserting low-quality material without discussion or even so much as an edit summary (though he did take the time to question my personal ethics a few threads up). Yet I know that if I exceed 3RR in dealing with this persistent damage to the encyclopedia, I'm liable to get slapped. That's annoying.

Re: your essay, I understand why you want to apply common sense and content evaluation to 3RR enforcement - the best admins on WP:AN3 already do this - but the problem is that it doesn't scale well. It works if you, Jehochman, are the admin in question, because you have clue. But carry it out a bit further: you've got each admin making his/her own determination about which edit-warrior is better upholding NPOV, and excusing one side of an edit war on that basis? This works if you have a clueful and mature admin corps who can reliably sort out complex issues. We (with some notable exceptions) do not have such an admin corps. On that basis, I've become extremely wary of remedies which increase administrator discretion. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we need to make sure that clueful admins are watching over the edit wars, and that clueful editors ask for help instead of edit warring when they confront a tendentious opponent. There is no substitute for clue. All we can do is use what we have, and encourage more clueful editors to become admins, such as User:Athaenara, and User:Fritzpoll. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While I find RfA generally distasteful, I do try to keep an eye out and support people who I know will be good admins (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm). I could probably be more active in soliciting good editors to go through RfA, but my enthusiasm is tempered by the petty, arbitrary, and often hurtful nature of the process.

But to go back to discretionary findings by ArbCom for a moment: I've concluded that they are at best superfluous and at worst actively harmful. Good admins already exercise wide discretion, powered by their good judgement and the community's confidence. I don't need ArbCom to give me permission to block someone who "repeatedly fails to uphold the encyclopedia's standards and purpose", and neither do you, I'm sure. Formal "discretionary sanctions" benefit only admins who lack judgement and community confidence; they can now shelter behind various ArbCom fiats that give their decisions nearly ironclad status. I think that an ArbCom finding which explicitly injects admin discretion into 3RR enforcement will follow this pattern. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more troubling when non-admins, who happen to be solid editors, have to educate the admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for dropping in, but this idea, originally Raul's, might be of interest. I don't see a way other than delegation to specific knowledgeable (and clueful) admins that can avoid the problems you describe. Mike Christie (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

And the best to you, too. Nevard (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What you learn (or remember) by bothering to read

Indeed. I read that discussion back in 2005 (and didn't think I had anything useful to add), but in the interim I forgot what it actually said. It's almost as interesting as reading BADSITES after seeing the hundredth time it was invoked as "rejected policy". Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was worth critically examining the assumptions underlying the rhetoric on SPOV. Call me a skeptic :P MastCell ^Talk 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Christine Maggiore

Did you consider checking on Maggiore's death before removing my first edit and labeling it a hoax? Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknyc (talk • contribs) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I did check, but didn't turn anything up at the time to support the claim that she had died. You have to understand that "death" hoaxes are relatively common on Wikipedia. In any case, the problem can be avoided in the future by simply providing a source for the material you add, as our verifiability policy demands. You can understand, I'm sure, that this is particularly important when claiming that a person has died. MastCell ^Talk 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Spliting the anabolic steroid article

After mulling this over some glasses of wine, I think the best solution is Talk:Anabolic_steroid#Sub-article_proposal. If you have bit of time despite your wikisabbatical, please comment. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile. I'm deeply concerned about the state of some of the subarticles that you mention. Some of them are not only completely lacking in reliable sources, but uncritically make claims that at best questionable and at worst actively dangerous and irresponsible. Perhaps subarticles are the way to go - at the very least, we can do a better job distinguishing medical uses of anabolic steroids (limited as they are) from... recreational? uses. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Polite request

Happy new year :) So, I read the notice at the top of this page, and... I thought you could perhaps delve back into a slightly (but just ever so slightly) controversial topic and offer your opinion?

In early December, 96.254.65.104 (talk · contribs), the director of the Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation (yep, the folks behind fqresearch.org), requested that I add some paragraphs on quinolone-associated tendinopathy to the Quinolone article (full discussion here). This is the original proposed text, and this is my reworded/NPOV'd/re-sourced version. I think it's pretty unbiased and relevant, but I would appreciate fresh eyes; perhaps something could be expanded, reduced, or clarified further. I also haven't the faintest idea of where to put it in the article (which needs an overhaul), so any suggestions would be appreciated. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. *coughs, points politely to above section hoping you overlooked it ;)* Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I had overlooked it. I will take a look. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell yesPlease do; I'd really appreciate it. Did you get a chance to look at the original version? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - yours was definitely a huge improvement in terms of readability and Wikipedia's requirements. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There ya go....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

oh well....

---

The teeny little phagocyte is saying review me, review me -g'won, yer know yer can do it. An' I reckon getting yer namesake up ter scratch is in order, too. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't edit mast cell - I've got a COI. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No no, that space between the 'T' and the 'C', and those two capital letters mean they are two entirely different words! honest! No COI here at all. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (ec)

I promise to look at phagocyte soon, but it will be my first GA review, so anything could happen. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha we'll all help - XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to break the good news guys, but I reviewed it last night :( —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help, User:Karmaisking is back

Hi,

I believe that as evidenced here [3] and here [4], that User:Karmaisking is back, and as argumentative and insulting as ever.

JQ has suggested that you are an admin familiar with him, and know what to do in such a situation. However, since you are on break, if you're not up to dealing with him (again!), please let me know, and I'll post at the admin boards.

Thanks LK (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he's already been blocked. Thanks. LK (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure - I'm generally happy to keep an eye on Karmaisking, but have been spending less time on Wikipedia. Feel free to come here with additional socks as they show up, but you may get faster responses elsewhere. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you have another look at this

Hi Mastcell, I see your not doing so much admin work at the moment, if your too busy I understand. A few months ago you suggested that User:CadenS be topic banned or voluntarily topic banned from sexuality articles following a ANI thread against him. In the end it never happened, the thread went stale in the archives.

A new thread has been made against CadenS and his adopter, User:Kotra, agrees that a topic restriction is the best course of action. Although the ANI thread has been quite active, few admins have given their input, I'm concerned that this will go unresolved yet again (this is at least the third ANI thread involving CadenS). Could you possibly add your thoughts again. Appreciated. — Realist² 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he was topic-banned, which I think is entirely reasonable. Sorry for not being of more help or taking care of this sooner. MastCell ^Talk 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which

If you don't want to screw with it I understand, and maybe he'll cut it out, but User:Ombudsman violated his topic ban and undid the redirect and merger [5] of Cure Autism Now against consensus/previous warnings to cut it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Has he been topic-banned? Or is it just his general probation against tendentious editing? I probably should not be administratively enforcing rulings against Ombudsman (talk · contribs), since I've previously been involved in editing disputes with him. On the other hand, I do advocate a zero-tolerance policy toward his interminable tendentious abuse of Wikipedia. I'd suggest filing a short report at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, requesting he be banned from that page for violating his probation; an uninvolved admin can then act on it. I'll file it myself if you like, but you're probably more current with this most recent nonsense. Just cite the ArbCom ruling (linked here) and keep the report brief; that's my advice. MastCell ^Talk 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Now that I look closer, I guess it's not a topic ban per se. I'll do as you suggest, thanks for your advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded with a question on the discussion page. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Snotty comments

I came up with a snotty response on the Wilson's thyroid syndrome page.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

C M

I've listed a source on the talk page of Christine Maggiore. I wonder if you have an opinion about whether we can use it for the article. - Nunh-huh 12:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbaric medicine

I thought I'd ask, rather than just revert, but you removed the link to "PubMed" from the text and left "Cochrane Library" with edit summary "per WP:RS". Apart from the fact that WP:RS applies to sources, rather than WP articles (which we all know have their own standards for existing), I haven't been able to find anything in WP:RS that suggests PubMed is not a reliable source. I sincerely hope it is, since there are a lot of articles relying on it. Perhaps this would be better discussed on Talk:Hyperbaric medicine? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was just me being lazy and using one edit summary for a bunch of edits. The reference to WP:RS was directed toward my removal of the many links to drcranston.com, which I think is a bit below where we should be aiming in terms of sourcing. I'm a big fan and citer of PubMed, and didn't mean to imply that PubMed was unreliable - it's vital to find and cite good sources for medical articles. I removed "PubMed" from the text because it sounded a bit odd - the text spoke of "PubMed reviews", but PubMed doesn't "review" anything - it's just a search engine. On the other hand, the Cochrane Library does review and analyze data, so I left that in. Does that make sense? Anyhow, I don't feel strongly about the "PubMed" removal, so I'd be fine if you want to reinsert or reword it. I did feel more strongly about the extensive sourcing to drcranston.com. MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have no doubt that the article has indeed benefited from your edit and really have no wish to change it. I simply couldn't square it with your edit summary and thought I'd missed or misunderstood something. I agree that pointing to Cochrane Library is more likely to be helpful than PubMed. Incidentally have you come across the Rubicon Foundation? They are trying to make full-text available for a number of articles on PubMed (at least in my areas of interest). Thanks again for taking the time to explain. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard of Rubicon, but that sounds cool. I'm a big fan of the movement toward open access - even though it means more paperwork to get your papers released to PubMed Central. Good luck, and thanks for keeping an eye on the hyperbaric medicine article. MastCell ^Talk 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New study

and this study? what is your opinion? [6] --TSP (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting. It's also a study involving 14 mice exposed to huge doses of thiomersal, meaning that it is at most hypothesis-generating. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the epidemiologic data by gender; I can't recall off the top of my head if this was included in any of the publications. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you mention this study in thiomersal controversy in Rationale for concern?--TSP (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that there are literally hundreds of published articles on thiomersal, I think we should be careful to avoid selective citation. There's some guidance at WP:MEDRS; basically, to ensure that our article does not give undue weight or misuse primary sources, we should focus on secondary sources - reviews of available evidence by reputable expert bodies. Otherwise, we could argue all day about which 10 studies, of the hundreds available, should be mentioned in the article - the reviews and analyses of expert bodies give us an indication of which data are considered most convincing. Short answer: you can bring it up at Talk:Thiomersal controversy for wider discussion, but I don't think it's particularly useful to scour the literature for small mouse studies. I dunno. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Outing

Given your willingness to act on a post by Feline1, I thought I should bring to your attention this exchange. My suggestion to refactor the disclosure, including a link to that user's approved request for restoration of anonymity resulted in the opposite of the intended effect, as the offending link to what appears to be a user's real name was reposted more directly rather than withdrawn. I have emailed Oversight-l but they have not responded. I don't know if there is a meaning to the lack of a response, but outing information is live and working on that page and shouldn't be. I don't know what better tactic to use to deal with this without drawing the wrong sort of attention, so I leave the matter to you. --Noren (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's unfortunate. On the other hand, I've had sufficient prior involvement with Martinphi that it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action towards him. It might be best to bring this to the attention of one of the clerks, or an admin uninvolved with Martinphi - assuming that Martin is unwilling to address the concern further. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request to Martinphi to remove the link to the history at the above discussion. Let's see how this goes. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gon4z

He is back, or at least one of the IP's he uses: his edit log As it is a fixed IP can we block it indef? His daily fidgeting with the Albanian military numbers (did you know Albania has more active troops than India?) goes on my nerves. thanks, --noclador (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected the target article and blocked the IP for 24 hours. We don't usually indefinitely block IP's, since even relatively static ones can change hands. If the IP remains in use to evade the block, let me know and I'll extend the block. MastCell ^Talk 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will and thanks for your help, --noclador (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame Controversy

I noticed you wrote at the Aspartame controversy article:

"why not use the ACTUAL conclusion? seems a clearer representation of what the article actually says - plus, it reviewed ALL published articles pertaining to aspartame, not just a fraction"

I'm curious where you read that they reviewed all published articles. They reviewed 500 studies/articles/reviews, which is a small part of the total research that has been done since aspartame was invented. The review is a valid source, but scientifically speaking it's badly done. They have used many studies that were severely flawed, and used none of the independent research. Their mission was not to come up with an objective review, but to assembly a review, favorable to their client, Ajinimoto. This link is not a valid wikipedia source, but it described in a rational way a bit what the review was about: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ (Immortale (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Well, I simply read the full text of the article. In it, the authors write:

There were no exclusion criteria. To the best of our knowledge, all studies on the safety of aspartame conducted using scientific methodology and published in the peer-reviewed literature have been included in this review. Unpublished studies and reports were also included provided that methodology and results were available for review and that study conclusions were data-driven.

To me, that indicates clearly that they reviewed all scientific literature on the topic. I'm not commenting at this point on whether this review should be the final word, or even on its relative quality, but its methodology should at least be properly represented. I share your general concerns about sponsorship by an interested party. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I haven't read the whole review but looks like I have to do that because many things don't make much sense. I just have to think of the largest research on aspartame that has been done in recent years, The Ramazzini studies, shows a relation with cancer. To read in the Burdock review: "The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue." The industry cannot cut off the hand that feeds it. But it's interesting nevertheless. (Immortale (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

You know I used to do pharmaceutical research. Never once lied, or got paid to come up with a result that some industry wanted. That's a ridiculous and unfounded accusation about medical science researchers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not really relevant, but of course most researchers don't lie. But they can be manipulated by the sponsor of the study. There are plenty of researchers whose funds were cut off by the sponsor when negative results were shown, in controversial products. When it comes to aspartame, why not investigate it yourself, if you're so convinced of its safety. Take a bottle of diet with aspartame in it and put it in the sun on a warm day, then an hour in the fridge and drink it and describe how you feel. Or send it to a lab and examine its breakdown products. Put a bottle in the sun the whole summer and measure some more. I can assure you, it's this simple. Many studies were done with slow dissolving aspartame capsules, which were fresh. We already established that aspartame breaks down over time, so the older it is, the bigger the risk. A researcher wouldn't have to lie but it's the industry who chooses the studies and the way they are set up. Then I wonder about all those researchers who were hired by the tobacco industry, that never found any health hazards, while independent research already presented tobacco's dangers back in the 1930s and 1940s. How do you explain that? Immortale (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

False Prophets

Very cool; it should go into the book page. I haven't had time yet to compose a proper reply to your other note, by the way. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. Don't worry about it. I'll look at the book page and see if I can work it in. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Beat you to it. Sorry, didn't know you were going to work on it. Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem - you freed me up to spend less time adding content and more time suppressing The Truth. Which is my real calling anyway. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

suggested trimback

I made this suggestion, and would be interested in your take, especially since it is my impression i) you read the book; ii) you are much more current in the medical literature than myself. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup - responded on the talk page. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Bishonen-FT2

You had to bring up my name. LMAO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What, do you want a residual or something? You LA types... :) MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's in my contract. Even though I'm just a bit player in this 5 act drama, I do expect contract rates. You can take it out of your admin salary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a real life

This says your user talk is the 8th highest page that I edit on the project. I'm probably violating some wikistalking rule. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ted Frank

Fwiw, that was an actual quote from the WSJ, rather than scare quotes. The reference tag was in the wrong place, but that's a different issue. THF (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I was trying to fix up the refs and the quotation marks looked a bit odd... in any case, not a big deal to me either way. Feel free to revert it if you like, or I can if you prefer. I'm on a reference-formatting kick recently. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you're avoiding the dramaz but...

I'd like your thoughts on what I wrote here - although feel free to run screaming.--Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah - if I'm "avoiding drama" at present, I'd hate to see what it would look like if I made a point of engaging in it... :) MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall telling myself I was going to step back from administrative and clerking matters - look where that got me.--Tznkai (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

*chuckles*

Thanks for the laugh. It makes the screaming customers at work tolerable :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you were a dentist. MastCell ^Talk 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical article

Could you have a look at Video Modeling and see what you think. I just skimmed it, but I think it needs to be checked out. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gere

FYI, the gerbil guy is back. I know you had mentioned maybe blocking him on WP:BLPN, just wanted to give you a heads-up. Kelly ^hi! 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Handled; thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 06:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking

He's worse than ever. It would save a lot of trouble if we could permanently semi-protect his target articles such as Austrian School, Credit crunch and so on. JQ (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I got most of them; I went with a month this time. If it flares up again, we'll extend it from there. Let me know if I missed any of his target articles, either here or via email. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He just turned up at Libertarianism, a new one for him, I think. The sock has already been banned and I reverted the changes. What a pain!JQ (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no one ever said that suppressing The Truth was going to be easy... :) MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, KiK must be the Truthiest of all Truthers. Even his socknames are perfect. Thanks for doing the grunt work on this. JQ (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doctor_of_Chiropractic

Since you commented earlier, could you give some feedback on the current discussion about a topic ban of User:Levine2112? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to do so. Conditions at that thread are such that any input I offer would probably be counterproductive. I'm confident that a suitable resolution will be achieved. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Conditions are indeed delicate, but at least the drama level has subsided a little after the first OMG!! explosion. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

True dat. You've got mail. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop sending me so many LOLcats, mate. Try to keep it down to about five a day, alright? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But they're so adorable... besides, all Leishmania and no play makes, well, you know the rest. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

MC, I just want you to know that my comment in the above thread to you was with respect to the fact that Levine and QC have been battling each other for a longggggggg time. Both use edit-warring as a tool to get their way. Anyways, I'm going to read up on how apples can cure Alzheimer's disease. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh... they're probably at least as effective as Aricept... :P MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, "useless." Interestingly, there appears to be some breakthrough on treatments, but it's still in Phase 2 clinicals. So, since I'm closer to the Nursing Home than you are, this is important. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mucoid plaque

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mucoid plaque, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (3rd nomination). Thank you. ZayZayEM (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done with this particularly odd topic for now. I'll keep it on my watchlist. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another banned sockpuppet on Libertarianism

A few days behind, but had noticed that User:PublicSquare has been editing away and I'm quite sure he is User:Sarsaparilla who has had a bunch of sockpuppets working on the same articles as PublicSquare and I've helped get several removed. The person (known to me) emailed me a few months back that he felt he had a right to do it and would do from public terminals if necessary. He's been mostly off last couple months using any noticeable Socks but seems to be back last couple days. Some of his edits are ok, but many are extremely POV and disruptive.

I discussed this with PublicUser on his talk page and he denied it but I don't believe him. I just put up correct template on his talk page. So if you want to check it out, feel free. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me which of my recent edits are disruptive? Thank you. PublicSquare (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks a bit reminiscent of the old User:Billy Ego sockfarm, but it's been awhile. Might be worth asking a checkuser to look into it. I'll take a closer look over the next couple of days as well. MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This has gotten weirder as PublicSquare is now emailing me with the same handle as a longtime user he's come in conflict with. I hastily notified that user to go with this welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best idea is to ask a checkuser to look into it - you can file a formal request or email one of the checkusers with the details. I don't think I'm going to have the time to look into this to the extent that it deserves - I apologize. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No comment

No comment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

another film you have to see....

this....totally inspired...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen it, but Jon Stewart continually mocks his participation in it, so it's probably at least as good as The Faculty... MastCell ^Talk 06:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fetal pain

I know your experience with medical topics, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind checking out these changes to the fetal pain article. It completely re-wrote the lead, rescoped the article, and altered the weight given to certain views. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the medical literature on this topic, or if you want to give time to examining it, but I'm curious of your opinion on these changes. Do they accurately represent the scientific consensus in this matter? The new version focuses on "mid-gestation" and comparisons to infants, while the old version mentions the 7th month and 26th week and thalamocortical connections, while also contextualizing this issue within the abortion debate (something completely omitted from the new lead). Hopefully you'll have the time and desire to examine these changes. Thank you for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not ignoring this, but other things have intervened. I promise to take a look in the next 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got a fan

71.246.98.35 (talk · contribs) and 72.68.210.111 (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He kept on going and going - [7] --Chaosdruid (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

FDA sourcing

The Aids tainted blood is well referenced. The Youtube Video is an MSNBC broadcast that was broadcasted all over the world. Everyone is pretty much familiar with the occurrence of this incident, there should really be no controversy that it occurred. You can googlge Bayer Aids tainted blood and it comes up everywhere. There was even an article in the New York Times about it. http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.121.17 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. All I'm asking is that we find a proper source for the material. If it's as widely known as you indicate, then we shouldn't have a problem. Google News is probably a good place to start, or the New York Times online archives. But please understand that just because you're convinced you know something to be true, that doesn't obviate the need for proper sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Well said.[8] --Elonka 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Passive smoking

Wait - people do not get fat off of research grants? Curses, I am in the wrong line of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldereft (talk • contribs)

thanks for your help

...at ANI the other day and in general. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your indefinite block on Rothwell

I just want to make it clear that I have no particular interest in whether Rothwell is topic banned or indefinitely blocked. If he should be topic banned or blocked indefinitely then so be it. He can fight his own battles on that point and I am taking no particular position on the merits of his particular case.

While you and I frequently don't see eye to eye on many topics, we have in the past been able to discuss things rationally and have been able to come to mutually amicable resolutions to our disputes. I come here with that in mind and a sincere desire to have such a conversation now.

My interest here is not with Rothwell but rather with Wikipedia policy and how it is applied to minority voices on scientific and related matters. The whole Rothwell situation seems to hit squarely on that point. My position is, in a nutshell, that if Rothwell should be banned that he be banned on his own merits and for the proper policy reasons. I am concerned that a dangerous precedent is being enabled here if the application of WP:MEAT is allowed to be used to extend a topic ban from one user to other users merely based on a similarity in their POV and with no evidence of direct collaboration with the banned party.

To allow this to happen is to enable the wholesale banning of a minority POV, as well as to permit the gutting of the letter and the spirit of WP:CCC. Consensus will not change if the minority voices are summarily silenced in such a fashion. The very notion runs counter to the idea of collaboration and consensus building.

So, with that as the backdrop for my discussion here I would like to better understand the specifics of the policy-related rationale that you are using to justify the imposition of an indefinite block on Rothwell's abandoned account (and therefore on Rothwell). In other words, why specifically have you blocked him and what Wikipedia policies are you relying upon to justify your action? Is he being blocked for violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT or what? Are you asserting that Rothwell is a WP:MEAT puppet of User:Pcarbonn and do you have any evidence that Rothwell's recent edits were performed merely at the behest of User:Pcarbonn?

Another potential issue with your current block as a means of effecting the desired topic ban is one of scope. Even if I were to accept the discussion of a handful of involved editors at WP:AN as being legitimate consensus for a topic ban, which I do not, the discussion there was only about a topic ban on Cold Fusion. Your indefinite block effectively expands that to a full community ban, something that was never discussed. Am I correct on this point? If so, I would argue that something has to be done to rectify that disparity.

What are your thoughts on these points? --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that you're wikilawyering excessively. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I would remind everyone of the principle expressed by the arbcom that inappropriate conduct undertaken in the service of a noble cause is still inappropriate conduct. Regardless of whether you think Rothwell should or should not be topic banned, I think that we should all be able to agree that he should be banned on his own merits and based on the legitimate application of existing policies. Using User:Pcarbonn's topic ban in conjunction with WP:MEAT merely as an expediency is still wrong (assuming that this is what has occurred) even if it is done for good reasons. Or do you disagree with the arbcom on that point? --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. If you look at the block log for JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you can see that the account was blocked because it was abandoned and the user proceeded to use a bunch of IPs for disruptive editing. Are you suggesting that Jed Rothwell's IPs were doing useful editing and they should be allowed to continue what they were doing? Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What analysis? I am here asking User:MastCell to describe his reasoning and justifications. I am assuming nothing. I am here for clarification. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning is pretty much as I explained it in the block log. The account is long abandoned, but the user continues to violate various guidelines and policies through abuse of talk pages, tendentious argumentation, and so forth. If Jehochman stopped using his account today, but started disrupting an article using various IP's, then I would think that blocking his account (along with the IP's) would be reasonable. I don't see it as meatpuppetry per se, in that I don't think that Mr Rothwell was "recruited" to edit Wikipedia by Pcarbonn. I do see an article where a small group of committed advocates is at work, to the detriment of the encyclopedia.

I share your concerns about Wikipedia's receptivity to minoritarian views. The road for someone with such views is not easy here. They need to be able to wear their Wikipedian hat, as opposed to their cold-fusion-booster hat, when they edit. Not many people can do it - I don't know if I could. But this wasn't exactly a gray area. The most recent IP contributions had nothing to do with encyclopedia-building, and the pattern went back pretty far. I don't think this is really a test case for your proposition about minoritarian scientific views, because the overarching issue here was behavior rather than the specific viewpoint at issue. I understand the principle you're arguing, but I don't think it applies in this specific case (echoing Jehochman's questions above).

If Jed Rothwell, or you, would like to appeal the block, then that would be fine with me. I won't argue my case beyond what I've said here. I'll also waive any requirement to obtain my consent for an unblock - that is, if any admin feels the block was in error and wishes to reverse it, then I won't contest it. MastCell ^Talk 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think this is really a test case for your proposition about minoritarian scientific views, because the overarching issue here was behavior rather than the specific viewpoint at issue." - I am not looking to use this as a "test case" in support of the principle we are discussing (for all the reasons you allude to), but rather I am merely being precautionary in making sure that this doesn't become a test case in favor of the opposing view.

Are you willing to go on record here by positively asserting that your block of Rothwell was based solely on violations of policy related incivility and/or disruptive editing and further assert that this block was completely unrelated to User:PCarbonn's topic ban in the sense that your decision to block in no way depended on that ban or the assertions that Rothwell should be considered a WP:MEAT puppet of User:Pcarbonn? In other words, your block here should in no way be construed as supporting (or having relied upon) the view that User:Pcarbonn's topic ban somehow extends to Rothwell or anyone else. Do you agree? --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)