User talk:MastCell/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Clarification, please?

Hi MastCell, I see you're cutting back, but you still seem to be interested in Lyme Disease, and I think it needs some work. It seems from the history that the consent of the WP:MED editors involved is needed, to get an edit to stick. So I'd like to ask a few questions about your various posts on this topic, especially those at Simesa's user page - shall I do it here, or would you like to come over to my user page, or should we ask Simesa to host? Probably LD talk page is not best, because it's being watched so closely. As a new editor I'm not quite ready for primetime on such a volatile topic. I am, arguably, civil and scientifically literate, so it shouldn't be too painful for you ;-) Thanks,Postpostmod (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to chat here. What can I help you with? MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcoming message. I'm interested in diagnosis. I wonder, what is your perception of the ELISA, used as the first stage of the standard two-tier test? (PS - I'm off to New Hampshire for the Sheep and Wool Festival soon, so may not get back to you right away. Gorgeous day here!)Postpostmod (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not ignoring you... just haven't had time to respond properly. Give me a day or two, and enjoy the good weather. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. Seeing some great birds during the warbler migration. Postpostmod (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just checking in. Great weekend, a good meal in Chinatown with friends, and birding both days. I wore my permethrin-coated clothes, of course ;-) Postpostmod (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. What did you want to talk about regarding the ELISA? I'll say upfront I'm not an expert in Lyme diagnosis, nor do I diagnose or treat Lyme disease professionally, but I'm happy to talk about it. Is your feeling that the ELISA is inappropriate as a screening test? MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I asked you first. ;-)

Here's the question again: I wonder, what is your perception of the ELISA, used as the first stage of the standard two-tier test? Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Like any ELISA, it needs to be interpreted with caution. They tend to be finicky assays, and they need to be carefully standardized. Additionally, basic Bayesian concepts are necessary to guide its use: if you screen people indiscriminately, then you run the risk of getting a lot of false positives. Screening should be performed in response to specific clinical suspicions, rather than as part of a shotgun approach to a patient with medically unexplained symptoms.

My understanding of the role of ELISA in Lyme disease diagnosis largely coincides with that of various expert groups: ELISA may be negative in the short term after Borrelia infection. In people who are promptly and successfully treated, detectable antibodies may never develop. On the other hand, people with late symptoms related to Borrelia should have detectable antibodies.

Because of the lack of specificity of Lyme ELISA (and ELISA in general), it's necessary to use the two-tier approach you mentioned with a confirmatory Western blot. This parallels the approach to HIV diagnosis and is a reasonably established diagnostic paradigm.

It seems to me that a lot of controversy attaches to the question of whether a patient can have late symptoms caused by Borrelia despite a lack of detectable antibodies to the spirochete. I'm not convinced by the available data that this occurs (my personal opinion, though one that appears to be shared by the IDSA and other expert groups). I could be convinced, but that would take more than testimonial and anecdotal evidence, and I haven't seen that yet.

I'm also very wary of the incessant attempts to attribute medically unexplained symptoms to the latest new infectious agent. This is the sort of thing that brought us ideas like "candidal overgrowth", chronic EBV, etc (it's too early to know whether XMRV is the real deal or just the latest in this unfortunate cascade). None of these ideas has ever been tested rigorously by its proponents, none has ever contributed anything of value to human well-being, and none has ever done anything more than enrich people who know how to take advantage of the desperate and suffering. Given the way battle lines have been drawn on the Lyme issue, and the sort of emotional/testimonial end-around approach to the scientific question, and in particular some of the sorts of people who have clustered around the "Lyme-literate" side (I won't name names, but I suspect you have an idea of whom I'm talking about), it's hard to avoid the suspicion that this is snake oil. But I've been wrong before and I might be wrong about this.

Sorry, you were asking me about the ELISA... :P MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll get back to you in a couple of days, need to consider my response. Raining here, and I'm glad - did a bike ride up in Marblehead yesterday, and I can use a day of rest. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Image data

I know you are still working on the data, but what you currently have created is amazing. Thank you so much for your help!!! Also, perhaps we could move the data over to a subpage of the Dermatology task force and link to it under the Statistics section? The main things I am looking for are number of pages with and without images, as well as, if possible, the number of pages with/without images before and after the creation of the task force (Oct 08).

Thanks again so much! ---kilbad (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I can move it if you give me the target you'd like it moved to. (I usually protect pages in my userspace, since I tend to forget about them and I don't want them sitting around vandalized indefinitely). I should have the numbers you're interested in up this afternoon - it's just a simple modification to the script, although it then needs to run again, which takes about 15-25 minutes. To economize, I'll probably try to go through and improve the image-exclusion list, to try to make sure we're excluding all of the template-related images and focusing only on the content images.

Looking at Oct 2008 vs. today is slightly more complex, and to get it up and running will probably take till next week - only because I've got a busy rest of the week and don't really have the time to devote to it right now. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks again for the help. How about putting the data at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Image data. ---kilbad (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of the paper? Feel free to edit it as you like. ---kilbad (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to give the paper an in-depth review until this weekend, but I promise to look at it then and give you some feedback. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Also, I ran through the whole list and posted some debugging information at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Image data. ---kilbad (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you could make the image data automatically generate on a monthly basis? ---kilbad (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about automatically, but it would be easy enough to run the script once a month. It takes about 30 minutes to run (since it needs to load and scan each page individually). The code is at User:MastCell/dermimages.py - you need a Python interpreter and the mwclient module to run it, both of which are easily available. The script writes out a text file containing the results, already formatted in wiki-markup, so you can just cut-and-paste the results onto Wikipedia. If you remind me, I'll be happy to run it whenever since I'm already set up with the requisite software. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo

As far as I know none of the Japanese books on the firebombings have been translated. Several on the atomic bombings, however, have been. One of the best books in English on the Tokyo bombings is:

• Guillian, Robert (1982). I Saw Tokyo Burning: An Eyewitness Narrative from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima. Jove Pubns. ISBN 0-86721-223-3.

Guillian was a French journalist, married to a Japanese, who lived in Tokyo during the war. Because Japan was not at war with France, he was left alone. He gives, I think, some of the best descriptions I've seen anywhere of what it was like for the people who were caught in the firestorm in March 1945. I'm not sure if this book is still in print. The copy I read I checked out from my local library. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - it sounds interesting. Unfortunately, my local library doesn't have a copy, although I may request one. If I can make a counter-suggestion for a book you might enjoy (mildly apropos of Climategate, I suppose), you should check out Betrayers of the Truth, by Nicholas Wade and William Broad. It's very dated - I think it was written in 1982 - but its perspectives on science and scientific fraud are thought-provoking. MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you for the recommendation. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jagz?

Hello. Shortly after 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs) was blocked, the account Millstoner (talk · contribs) was created and headed straight for race related articles which he's been editing ever since. Obviously a sockpuppet and probably Jagz yet again. What do you think? Regards, Mathsci (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would put the pre-test probability that it's Jagz at >75%. The Bayesian in me thinks that this is sufficiently high that checkuser probably won't add much predictive power. But the part of me that gets tired of being called a rogue abusive admin thinks you should request a checkuser. Let me think about it... MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. The edits get odder and odder. Nishkid64 said that he's snowed under at the moment... Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked as Jagz sock by Jpgordon. Do I get a barnstar? Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You get the reward all of us get for dealing with persistent sockpuppeteers: nothing. Except the knowledge that if you ever make a single mistake in identifying a sock, you will be endlessly raked over the coals for it. Great system, right? :P Sorry for the delay. I'll jump on the next one a bit more swiftly. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The things you learn on Wikipedia

I never knew JPandS was "the american equiv of The Lancet." Perhaps you disagree, but your opinion is of dubious merit as you're under suspicion of having pro-scientist sympathies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly unhelpful comment, SBHB. For the record I have "pro-scientist sympathies". Could you try to keep the snark down to a dull roar? ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Lar simply had it confused with the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is arguably the American equivalent of The Lancet. It's a common error, and in my more cynical moments I suspect that JPandS was intentionally named so as to facilitate such confusion. In any case, I left Lar a note to hopefully clarify things. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on when the group was founded, I was trying to concoct a story about wartime propaganda, but then I realised that the journals name only dates from 2003... Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the organization was founded during WWII, and made its name in the post-war period by opposing Medicare, Medicaid, and other tools of Satan. Then again, the AMA wasn't too psyched about those programs either back in the day... MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand the confusion, but still... I suspect that the purpose would better be served by having Cla68 as a monitor. Although I sometimes disagree with Cla68, he is diligent about actually checking things instead of giving them a glance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My experience is at odds with that. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about the J-A-P-S initials. But I don't know if the conspiracy theory should revolve around pro- anti-Japanese propaganda... Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Lancet was founded to campaign against the medical establishment and push for the new materialistic radical approach to medicine, one of its founders was the evolutionist Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet .... nope, probably not really a parallel. Best quote from Thomas Wakley – "The English Homeopathic Association were "an audacious set of quacks" and its supporters "noodles and knaves, the noodles forming the majority, and the knaves using them as tools"" . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to the message you left on my talk page

Hello. I don't quite know why Captain Occam is leaving messages like this.[1] Do you understand what he's up to? Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious that he's interested in having you blocked or otherwise restricted from editing. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scrying

In a consistent universe, scrying has to be enough to collapse a wave function, though a sufficiently well-informed wizard should be able to find some interesting applications for the Quantum Zeno effect. Next step, entangled scrolls - if Bob gets Ray of Frost, Alice gets Fireball. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just when you thought things couldn't get any crazier

You gotta believe me, Jake! I done SEEN the black helicopters with my own two eyes![2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly unhelpful comment, SBHB. ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, as if that comment is any more paranoid than the "omigod it's another Scibaby!!!" paranoia that has plagued this site for so many years. ATren (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with sockpuppet infestations on topics that you care about is an extremely frustrating experience. I've dealt with a few on topics I've edited, and it was extremely difficult to separate (justifiable) frustration with the sockpuppetry from excessive suspicion of genuinely new users. And there were nowhere near 500 socks in the cases I've dealt with as an editor. I agree that Scibaby inspired an overreaction. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a little hesitant to be overly judgmental of people who have had to deal with that volume of sockpuppetry, and I'd encourage similar circumspection from anyone who hasn't walked in those shoes. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I'm not judging, I'm expressing concern that we're overreaching and perhaps causing more harm than good by blocking an editor after a mere 25 edits and before checkuser has even been done. I fully understand how people passionate about an issue might overreact -- in fact, I've done it myself (off-wiki), accusing someone of being a sock in a forum and later finding out they were definitely not. It's a natural human reaction. But regardless of whether the overreactions are good faith, they are still overreactions, and that's why I object to them.

Regarding the false flag stuff, it's not as outrageous as it might seem. The ever-present menace that is Scibaby has created a very hostile environment for any new editor who edits from his point of view. Lar recently compared Scibaby to Emmanuel Goldstein, and I think the comparison has merit, because whatever Scibaby's intent, his presence creates a kind of perpetual war where extraordinary measures are taken to "protect the Wiki" -- like indef-blocking someone after 25 edits and no clear evidence of abuse. Let me make it clear that I do not believe anyone here is party to anything sinister, but it's entirely possible that someone sympathetic to the mainstream has hijacked the Scibaby identity to maintain this perpetual war against new skeptical editors.

Let me put it this way, if I were some kid in his parents' bedroom with nothing to lose and extremely passionate about an issue, I might try the false flag tactic, especially in an online environment where it's so easy to fake your identity. I can certainly imagine it happening.

But regardless of who Scibaby is or what his intentions are, overreaction to new editors who happen to edit from his POV is a Bad Thing, and when I see it, I'm going to object to it. ATren (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that Lar "borrowed" that 1984 analogy... :P I think there are any number of possible explanations for Scibaby. At some point, presumably, Occam's razor kicks in. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is far more apt the way I used it, frankly... so consider it a reallocation to a more productive usage. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right about that. Given the overuse of 1984 analogies on Wikipedia, I'm sometimes inclined to consider a 1984 corollary to Godwin's Rule... but since I broke it first, I guess I lose. :P MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Boris, from the article, "Ideological, political or religious ideologies will sometimes use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth, the ideology is simply unpopular with society." Additionally, you may also want to brush up on Lysenkoism and perhaps you know some scientifically-minded people who'd be interested in Jan Hendrik Schön. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lysenkoism is an interesting parallel. The political leaders of the USSR chose to repudiate the entire reputable scientific establishment of their country in favor of an obviously ignorant hack. They couldn't face certain agricultural realities, and so instead chose to bury their heads in the sand for short-term political gain. One might be tempted to draw an analogy to segments of the US Congress, which disregard the warnings of our own Academy in favor of obscure "skeptics" whose claims (while lacking scientific currency) are politically reassuring. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

lol very amusing interpretation, but I'm fairly certain my side will prevail in the end. Email me if you want some enlightenment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your side? The side I want to prevail is the side that edits responsibly, gives appropriate weight to sources, and doesn't treat others badly because they are "right" and others are "wrong". Unfortunately that rules out a fair number of folk on the "skeptic" side, as well as a fair number of folk (who tend to support WMC's editing behavior) on the "mainstream" side. Which shows that those labels are misapplied to the "sides" I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I have several "sides" at play; the rationalist/scientific side from my agnostic atheist background, the freedom of information/speech side from my libertarianism, my anti-bully side (you should've seen me in school!) and pro-fairness side, but in this context the side I'm referring to is my skeptic side, but perhaps that label isn't correct anymore, since Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT, opined that one can only be skeptical of plausible propositions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the person behind the Scibaby and socks were to immediately be unbanned as long as they didn't sock again. If someone could perhaps persuade them to stop socking and stick to one account, I think everyone would be happier. (You are now free to move about the country return to the usual bickering.) -Atmoz (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Several times I've wanted his email address so I could try to talk him into doing the "fresh start" thingy and stop socking. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that someone willing to create >500 socks solely to advance their personal agenda is not someone who will be a valuable addition to this project. Think about the pathological level of obsessiveness involved, and the utter lack of interest in this project as anything other than a forum to push a political agenda. I've never heard of someone being unbanned because they'd managed to create so many socks that people gave up. That would be an interesting precedent, though. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and think it is a good thing that the subject area is free of the pathologically obsessed - such people, as you say, would not be valuable additions to the project. However, I'm not anywhere near convinced that a single person has 500 socks or even that the original sockpuppeter is still active. The fact of the matter is that "SciBaby" has done a tremendous amount to help maintain the status quo, at odds with his apparently "obvious" goals. Personally, I think actions, or in this case results, speak far louder than words. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@MC: I think I disagree. The number of socks they have created does not mean they are unwilling to follow our policies. It simply means that under the status quo they feel it is in their best interest to continue to create new accounts instead of sticking to one unbanned account. If we could foster an environment where they feel it is in their better interest to have only one account then everyone wins. The person behind Scibaby gets to contribute, the amount of time identifying and blocking socks is reduced, which leaves more time to actually write/edit the encyclopedia. I don't know exactly what that environment is, but I don't think it hurts to try to figure out what it might be. -Atmoz (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that they've made a rational decision to continue socking. I think that is unlikely. A rational person would realize after the first dozen, or 50, or 100 socks (depending on their level of perceptive ability) that they are unable to influence content with obvious throwaway socks. So a rational person would, at that point, adopt a different approach. An irrational, obsessive person would continue creating socks by the dozens. I think we're talking about the latter category, and long experience has convinced me of the futility of trying to deal rationally with irrational people. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the Scibaby monster was really a skeptic then his actions would definitely be irrational for the very reasons you stated. If we assume he is rational and look at the obvious and likely results of his actions then him actually being a skeptic seems like the wrong horse to bet on. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@MC: Yes, I am assuming they've made a rational decision. Mostly because they do influence content with their socks. When multiple editors spend time identifying and undoing the content added by one person, it keeps them contributing in other areas. When we are required to file separate SPI reports for individual accounts, that takes time and effort. Checkusers spend valuable time with this one person that they could be using elsewhere. Administrators spend time blocking and tagging accounts. And everyone argues about Scibaby and how to deal with them. They are influencing content. They contribute to the rift that currently exists on articles related to this topic. If an editors want to help identify Scibaby socks, this means they'll have less time to creates articles (i.e. the needed article on Aerosol-cloud-climate interactions). This means the encyclopedias is worse off and more skewed towards their position simply because they are socking. This is not to say they are not irrational, but what they are doing does have at least a little bit of rationality behind it. As a thought experiment, what would happen if we decided not to block one Scibaby sock and treated that account as if it were in good-standing but continued to block the rest? They would almost certainly continue socking, but what would happen with the unblocked account? Would they eventually realize that their edits from that account are not simply reverted on sight and that they can contribute actual content to the encyclopedia instead of simply being a nuisance? From my perspective, it is easier to track 1 account making these types of edits rather than attempting to identify and track >500 accounts doing the exact same thing. I realize that unbanning a serial sockmaster of this magnitude has never been attempted, but the current situation is untenable and something needs to be changed. -Atmoz (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a third approach: just blandly revert and ignore the socks, stop the obsession with finding and reporting new Scibaby socks, and perhaps they will just get bored and go away. Really, the majority of recent socks seem to do almost nothing - one recent sock had precisely two edits: he changed "claimed" to "asserted" and reordered some text, neither of which caused any damage. There was little harm in letting him go on editing, especially given how closely these articles are watched. After a while, they may get tired of mundane edits and escalate their behavior, and at that point they can be dealt with -- not as the iconic "Scibaby" but as just another troublesome user. No spectacle, no fanfare. Or, if CU is used, it can be done absent of any Scibaby mention, i.e. rather than "X and Y are both socks of Scibaby", it would simply be "X is a sock of Y". This would be a sort of "don't feed the trolls" approach to handling it. Given the lack of success of other approaches, what do we have to lose? ATren (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A good idea in principle. But it has been tried in the past and didn't work: when Scibaby material was silently reverted, certain people complained. We then had to do a checkuser, which put us back to square one. Note also that Scibaby had been socking for over a year before his first sockpuppet was blocked, meaning that his socking was intentional from the very beginning and not a response to being blocked. When viewed in that light it's unlikely he would stop socking if he were allowed to have one account, or that he'd just get bored and go away. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as solutions go, it may well be that a passive strategy is the best of worst. Nothing else has worked, before or since, and today he's as disruptive as ever. With all the new eyes watching these pages and preventing abuses, the silent/passive approach might be worth revisiting. And given that his edits are pretty tame lately (it's almost as if his game is to get banned for the least offensive set of edits possible), we might even consider avoiding the reflexive revert and let his non-offensive edits stand. This may sound repulsive, but if we've gotten to the point where editors are seriously discussing negotiating with Scibaby, then a repeal of the automatically-revert-on-sight policy may be acceptable. What this all comes down to is basically treating him like a regular user even when we know, and only escalating when he does, but doing so without mention of Scibaby. ATren (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The victory-through-surrender approach has a certain Zen appeal, but is that really a precedent we want to set? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it surrender. We would still apply our policies, we'd just avoid making a big deal out of it; the same thing we do now for any user. Surrender would be to allow him (or, more precisely, his socks) free reign, and I'm not suggesting that at all. ATren (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Victory through retreat would in fact be a time-honored Russian strategy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic aside - every time I see Emmanuel Goldstein, I think Emma Goldman. Not a comparison I think either of them would welcome, but it would make for a very different book. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Orwell probably had Emma Goldman in mind when he named Goldstein. Although the character himself is of course based on Trotsky. As another off-topic aside, am I crazy, or does the photo of the young Nadezhda Krupskaya in our article look kind of hot? I mean, before she ended up with Graves' eyes. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, when it becomes possible to do so, the most frequently socked articles could be put on flagged revisions. The hope is that not being able to get an edit to go live might reduce the incentive to sock. This should be in addition to, rather than instead of, continuing to block socks. Cardamon (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagz

Do you suspect he has returned in recent reversions by a new account? Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagz will keep coming back. He's the type. It's been a few days since his last sock was blocked, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's got another. Can you point me to the account you suspect (email is fine if you'd rather)? MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Email sent. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

"I have to admit I became disheartened after searching extensively - in the library - for Barnes' 1945 Lancet publication (which our article assures us exists). It does not exist, as best I can tell - although during the search I came across some fascinating work from 1945." That's above and beyond what most Wikipedians would ever do, I'm impressed. And yet, the article doesn't mention a 1945 article in Lancet, it mentions one from 1959: it is in PubMed and ScienceDirect,[3] and I found the abstract reproduced the following year:[4]. Fences&Windows 13:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm. The article used to claim that Barnes had published in Lancet in 1945. I removed that claim after my trip to the library proved unproductive. See [5]. ~Thanks for your work on finding and verifying the publications; after the claim about a 1945 Lancet article proved incorrect, I think it's sadly necessary to do so. MastCell ^Talk

Oh. Well, that was someone's slip I think. Depending an outcome that isn't deletion, I'll go over the article and references. Fences&Windows 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I think you do very good work, so I'm glad you're looking at the article. Thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nokian Tyres

I manually put "retrieved" because if I don't, people say that the references are not a consistent format. I want the article to be either a FA or equivalent to a FA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem - I just wanted to make sure you knew about the parameter option. I usually use accessdate= because it forces the refs to stay consistent, but it's up to you. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More

Here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And again. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, now

Gladys as a Valentine

Or maybe conclude that this is a topic that no serious, respectable reference work would stoop to touch with a ten-foot pole? (Note that only one of these is a serious suggestion). MastCell Talk 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC) What publication would that be? Encyclopaedia Britannica? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most of those are iffy, but at least harmless. Personally, I like Category:Vice Presidents of the United States who have shot people while in office (members would include Dick Cheney and Aaron Burr). But I digress. The problem is that "The Gore Effect" is both a) well below the horizon of what a serious, respectable reference work should cover, and b) an invitation to nearly continuous conflict. I can see people working on quirky articles as an enjoyable diversion, but this is clearly going to be more trouble than it's worth. IMHO. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it will actually create more trouble, just rechannel it. I agree we should be serious in the way we go about editing articles, but I've always thought that it is a good thing for us at Wikipedia not to think of ourselves too seriously, because by the nature of Wikipedia, we're not capable of the responsibility that a very serious reference work implies that it has. It's best that readers and editors are reminded of that. I think the best we can do is be mostly serious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Laetrile again

In regard to that old discussion over here, you might find this article interesting (plus this). II | (t - c) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the first source isn't very impressive. I get really tired of hearing that studies of various alternative medical approaches failed to show benefit because the researchers didn't give the drug the "right" way. No matter how the Mayo folks had given laetrile, someone would have criticized it (because no one has ever bothered to funnel some of the proceeds from marketing the drug into doing Phase I dose escalation, pharmacokinetics, or any of the basic things that a drug company has to do before they can even dream of marketing a drug to patients). It's kind of the mantra of the megavitamin people - no matter how many trials show that megadose vitamin E, or beta carotene, or folate are useless or even harmful, they'll just wave their hands about the wrong isomer of tocopherol or something.

When you do a clinical trial, you have to pick some specific dosing regimen. Inevitably, it's possible that you didn't pick the right dose, or administration route, or whatever. That's a possible explanation for any negative trial of an agent. It doesn't invalidate the result of a clinical trial, though. It merely makes it incumbent upon people who believe that the trial was conducted incorrectly to design and carry out their own clinical trial, where they can use whatever intervention they believe in. Designing a clinical trial and seeing it through to some kind of meaningful result is a lot harder than it looks.

I can think of only one example where a clearly negative result later turned out to be due to sub-optimal dosing (cf. flavopiridol). There may be others that aren't coming to mind. But in general, when a drug is clearly ineffective in a well-designed clinical trial, the chance of it becoming a miracle cure (or even modestly effective) with a change in dosing regimen is extremely small, in my experience. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you didn't say that Stephen Krashen should not have written the paper or should be ignored because he's a linguist. I'm also glad to see that you and him might sort of agree, since he concludes that "the Moertel et. al. study teaches us a great deal: It shows that using a mixture of pure and synthetic Laetrile on a rigid schedule with terminal patients does not work". He had four criticisms, summarized as: "The kind of Laetrile used. The way the Laetrile was administered. The use of terminal patients. The interpretation of the results". You're only commenting on the second one, and I'm pretty disappointed in your nihilistic attitude, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the cynical persona. :) It reminds me of neoconservatives who say regulation is unnecessary - because no matter what the regulation, there will be some negative unintended consequence or loophole. The implicit argument is that flaws and permutations are infinite and cannot be quantified and addressed as they are discovered.

On the dosage itself, Krashen said that the dosing would have been optimal ("dose of injected Laetrile appears to be more than sufficient and is consistent with previous practice") had the substance used been the one actually promoted, and had it been used for more than 3 weeks. Arguing that, had this been done as Krashen suggests, another argument would have magically sprouted up seems dubious, and further it could be interpreted to mean that critics are not acting in good-faith or are intellectually dishonest. It's also notable that laetrile did get a lot of early research (see Laetrile#Initial_studies_at_Sloan-Kettering). And it's not really the proponents who decided to jump to an uncontrolled, larger sized trial (Moertel 1982) rather than a couple smaller studies testing different administrations and doses, although I imagine it's possible that the tools and knowledge weren't readily available to do detailed pharmacokinetics at the time, or even today. The sad result of all this is that, as we discussed in our earlier thread, the Cochrane review cannot say with conviction that the case has been settled and recommends future research, including clinical trials. The key point is not to convince the diehard proponents so much as it is to convince rational objective third parties. You're jumping to the conclusion that Krashen is on the same level as promoters of megavitamin E supplementation, but that's not really fair. Krashen's conclusions are broadly the same as the 3 Cochrane reviewers.

The overall issue of not engaging or replicating the AltMed claims applies broadly, and in my mind explains a lot the current tension. You seem to have an attitude that engagement and rational discussion are hopeless with these people, but my impression is that lack of proper engagement is much more damaging. The lack of engagement is not just an old 70s and 80s thing, either; similarly disappointing work was done more recently with glucosamine, when despite all earlier trials pointing to chloride not working and sulfate working, the trial went ahead with chloride [6]. If sulfate had been used and the results had been the same, a significant point of the controversy would been closer to being settled.

Incidentally, I did research the whole synthetic racemic alpha-tocopherol versus natural alpha-tocopherol a couple years ago. The main engagement I came upon was this (see first letter then response on 9-10) in 2005. It looks fairly convincing, but considering that the orthomolecular folks have been making this argument for probably 30-40 years, it's a bit late. II | (t - c) 02:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually was going say something about Krashen's field of expertise, but I thought it would be uncharitable and I wanted to focus on the substance instead. But since you mention it - I'm always amazed at the lack of respect for complexity and expertise and the amateur I-could-do-that-better attitude that medicine brings out. I would never lecture Krashin on language acquisition, but he clearly feels very comfortable criticizing the design of clinical trials.

Think about it. Practicing medicine, or conducting medical research, is actually far more complex and requires far more training and expertise than, say, piloting an aircraft. But people are way more eager to second-guess a physician than a pilot. You'd never knock on the cockpit door and tell the pilot how to configure the aircraft for landing, no matter how much reading you'd done on Google or in the library. But the same people feel no compunction second-guessing much more complex undertakings in medicine. I think it's probably because flying an aircraft looks complicated, so people are willing to defer to established expertise. On the other hand, designing a clinical trial looks deceptively easy. That's not aimed at you or Krashin; it's just a general gripe of mine.

And since you brought up regulation, let's talk about that. The dietary-supplement industry wrote DSHEA and spent millions on lobbying to ensure its passage. As a result, the industry is essentially unreglated. Based on your comments about neocons, I'm sure you agree with me that this state of affairs is a disaster for everyone except dietary-supplement manufacturers. It's certainly a disaster for anyone who wants to do meaningful research on dietary supplements. Since there are huge variations in the quality, potency, and chemical makeup of various brands of a given supplement, it's basically impossible to generalize any result seen in a clinical trial. Of course, the double bind is that any negative result can be written off as "well, you just didn't use the right brand."

It would help, of course, if someone did basic work to understand why it might make a difference whether glucosamine is sulfated or HCl-conjugated, or whether there is any biological difference. For a pharmaceutical company, that would be step 1A, but there's no mechanism or incentive for such studies in the deregulated world of supplements. By the way, glucosamine and chondroitin bring in upwards of $730 million annually. That compares admirably with the best-selling pharmaceuticals - except that the supplement makers didn't have to spend a dime proving that their products actually work, whereas regulatory approval is a multimillion dollar expense for a drug company.

So I have zero sympathy for people who lean on "more research is needed" and criticize the medical establishment for not doing these studies. The supplement makers have millions in unregulated income every year. They can spend that funding studies to show that their products actually work - but that would be stupid, because a) they'd rather keep that money for themselves as profit, and b) the studies would likely be negative in which case they'd have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. That's human nature, but I think if you want to understand why the state of scientific research on alternative-medical compounds is so shitty, then DSHEA is exhibit A. And it didn't come from greedy doctors or drug companies - it was written by the supplement industry, the ones who constantly demonize those other forces.

Sorry, I got distracted, and I don't think I actually addressed your comments about laetrile. But now that I got that out of my system, let me come back to it in a little bit. :P MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lightening strikes!

"for comparison, there are about 400-600 lightning strikes per year in the US" That many?? Really?? That must include Alaska and Hawaii? :) Sorry, it made me laugh. Verbal chat 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion#More reliable references so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion#Assessing the current agreement status--Nutriveg (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I have commented. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues question

As you predicted on the Workshop page, I removed your suggested sub-issues. As requested, they need to be a single-sentence, neutrally worded question. You can reformat your previous content and readd the other questions (I left what I felt were the two most important ones). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the heads-up. I don't think I feel strongly enough to re-word them right now, so I'm fine with whatever. If I feel fired up about it, maybe I'll raise it for discussion later in the case in a more appropriate venue for free-form discussion. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cansema

Would you look into the cansema page. I am involved in a bit of a battle with an IP user who is deleting and altering the article away from its encyclopedic form. Jettparmer (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like your reversions were correct on grounds of sourcing and so forth. It looks to have quieted down a bit, but I will watchlist the article. Happy editing. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate the objective view. Jettparmer (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe

I don't know how busy you are, but if you've got time to step through the recent changes at Hairy cell leukemia, I'd appreciate it. A well-informed anon seems determined to push current clinical trials and some, shall we say, "pre-publication" claims, and I'm trying to avoid edit warring. The new information is generally not wrong, but IMO it's undue emphasis on treatment of a tiny minority of patients (young treatment-resistant patients in a disease that mostly strikes older men and has a 90% success rate for standard treatment).

If, on the other hand, you think it's okay, then I'll leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me take a look. At academic medical centers, one sees an overrepresentation of young patients with aggressive hairy-cell leukemia (probably because of referral patterns), so I can understand the anon's focus. The folks who will do well with a little cladribine never get referred, so it's easy to get a skewed perspective. That said, it might not be the best way to go for a Wikipedia article. I'll take a peek. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you about this. The focus appears to be on promoting the 'need for further research'. (Actually, it's probably one of the best-understood and certainly best-treated diseases in its class, especially relative to the number of people affected and the years of potential life lost.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look?

Hi, I know you hate going to this article. That being said, would take a look at this editor? Petergkeyes is becoming tenacious with his POV about things. He hasn't breached 3 rr since he waits before he redoes his edits. He keeps making the same edits over and over no matter what other editors tell him. Oh, he is on the talk page too finally. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That editor's talk page is one long series of warnings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add Water fluoridation to your watchlist, which is being targeted by the same editor. Now that Eubulides has gone, I fear the POV pushers will take over. I don't have good access to sources so there's a limit to how well I can defend the article. Colin°^Talk 14:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Filed 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a bit slow with this. It looks like your 3RR report was handled appropriately. I've added water fluoridation to my watchlist and will try to help maintain its quality. Quackwatch is an article that I'm much happier having de-watchlisted years ago, but I suppose I can keep an eye out at least for egregious abuses. Has anyone had any sort of contact with Eubulides since he disappeared? I'm willing to beg him to return. The amount and quality of work he did was phenomenal, and we really miss his presence. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one ever had e-mail contact with Eubulides. Most unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And now I see WLU is encountering similar at Talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (again-- another long time issue). Keeping articles clean, reliable, well-sourced and quackery free without Colin and Eubulides is going to be a chore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what happened to Colin?!?! MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images#Something is amiss here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I just got here again to see all of this and it's really sad to see we are losing valuable editors again. Not going to say anything more about this because I won't be able to say it 'nicely'. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is most unfortunate. Colin and Eubulides are both essentially irreplaceable. People with their level of knowledge, skill with sources, writing ability, and dedication to this project don't grow on trees, even though the official party line around here is that such people are an infinitely renewable resource.

In 20 years or so, when people are writing sociology Ph.D. theses on the rise and fall of Wikipedia, I suspect they'll point to things like this as a tipping point. When a discussion about something as meaningless (in the grand scheme of things) as alt-text becomes poisonous enough that excellent, sane, well-adjusted people are driven off, then we've basically planted the seeds that will eventually destroy this project. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I wondered why things were going to pot again. I don't recognise Colin's name, but sad to loose anyone you guys respect. Verbal chat 18:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, MC, this is very bad news, and may be a tipping point. We need all hands on deck just to deal with quackery now. I won't have any free time until August. :-(( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll help where I can, can you give me some articles to put on my watchlist? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RoyBoy/Sandbox#In_art.2C_literature.2C_and_film

If you are able can you please review my draft of a new abortion section; please add your notes in the section below. Thanks! - RoyBoy 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of you to ask my input, especially given the differences we've had in the past. I will try to take a look; if I don't get around to it, I wish you the best of luck in getting it squared away for mainspace. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Another User:DPeterson sock

YorkieDoctor (talk · contribs) is the latest! --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed all his edits and wrote Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DPeterson. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A good point

[7] A good point, but that's mostly because of the contentious nature of CC articles. You know as well as I do that editors are fighting tooth and nail over every little sentence of every little article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I see the root cause of the problem as a loss of perspective. I think these are predominantly people with the potential to be good encyclopedic editors, but they've been sucked into this bubble where arguing about blog comments assumes paramount importance. We either need to break that bubble so they see how ridiculous these sorts of arguments are, or (less appealingly) ask people who don't get it to leave. Apologizing to people who have been hurt by this obsession is reasonable and proper, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem. If we don't restore some sense of what's important, and what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, then we're going to be sending out a lot more apologies. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi back

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Nice to see a familiar name over there :) Lyrl^Talk _C 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes?

I think your characterisation of this as "chicken and egg is wrong". But arguing on the workshop page will end up being drowned in noise, so: you you think yuo, or anyone else, has provided any evidence for your assertion that the editing environment is contentious and has given rise to a range of intractable disputes? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there's anything in evidence; I guess I didn't anticipate it being particularly contentious, and we are limited in the amount of evidence we can present (at least in theory). I do think that so much has transpired that things tend to escalate very quickly. I guess as an example I'd point to "retired"-gate. If the issue of whether to describe a retired professor as "retired" can escalate across multiple noticeboards into widespread acrimony (and the issue is still not dead), then I think the contentiousness of the editing environment is giving rise to intractable disputes, and creating them out of things that should be minor at most. MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is contentious. Oh well, I'll just have to put up my own proposal with yours reversed. I find it difficult to understand why you don't appreciate the importance of this getting-it-the-wrong-way-round. You seem to think it barely matters. As for retired-gate: I think this is a bad example, because it the great scheme of things it is so minor. The dispute should not have been escalated, I agree. The obvious solution to that puzzle is to look at who escalated it, and their motives for so doing William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Locus_of_dispute William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. To be honest, your proposed finding looks reasonable as well. I think you're talking about people importing off-wiki disputes and agendas, leading to a deterioration of the editing environment on-wiki. Undoubtedly, that has happened (and is happening). I also think that things have been so contentious for so long that disputes rapidly become intractable. I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just remebered another factoid in this: prior to the CRU stuff hadn't we had a period of peace and quiet for about a year? Or possibly just prior to the Abd stuff? I must try and dig around: it is, I think, evidence that things are OK here until poisoned from the outside William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the coverage of CRU clearly led to a large increase in the volume of new editors, of partisanship, and of contentiousness. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hope that's not me you're talking about! :-/ Yes, it did raise the profile of a topic I'd been avoiding because of the bunfights, to the point where I thought I'd help a little once the Darwinversary had passed. And I'm still in the swamp! (if only just) . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate case

If you have additional recent diffs about thegoodlocust, post them on evidence page and notify me on my talk. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff

Per your conversation on Rlev's talk page, you might want [8]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[9], with extra BLP vio. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Hi I was just over at Rand Paul and noticed that the "Board certification" section is listed twice. It may well be a WP:BLP vio listing this in the "personal life". I suggested that the info me merged into the "2010 Senatorial campaign". But was reverted immediately before I could add the info into the lower section. The editor who reverted listed talk page, where I saw you were active. I do not want to get into an edit war maybe you can take a look at the page and fix it if possible.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment there. Actually, I already did, a few days ago, with this very proposal, but no one responded. Basically, I agree that it should be mentioned only once, not twice. I think it's better in the "Medical career" section, rather than the "Campaign" section. I also think that the text from the "Medical career" section is better than the "Campaign" section text (although I wrote the former, so perhaps that's not surprising). Anyhow, I'll comment on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

MC, I hate to bother you again, but if you could take a look at the Rand Paul talk page. I believe there is a user adding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH but he will not listen to me, maybe you can help clear this dispute. Tanks, --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in any disputes about Rand Paul. I edited the page only because our coverage of his medical board certification was so poor and erroneous as to constitute a glaring WP:BLP violation. I prefer to strictly limit my editing to the pages of active politicians, both for my own sanity and as a matter of trying to ensure that my editing doesn't become guided by my own political views. Choosing not to edit or watchlist Sarah Palin in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election was one of the best decisions I've made on Wikipedia. That said, I will take a look, but outside of correcting clearly erroneous or inappropriate statements about his medical board certification I don't think I'll have much more to contribute. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there some kind of drama at our Sarah Palin article? I find that hard to believe. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing major - just a wheel war or two, an Arbitration case, a bunch of angry op-eds about Wikipedia's editorial biases, a community-imposed probation, a bunch of admins accused of bias... fortunately, nothing similar has happened since. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

FYI - WP:GS/CC/RE#Request concerning ChrisO, submitted by myself. In view of your comment about my editing here your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to have been closed, so I think it can rest there. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I see that you have deleted a page about Sujit Saraf. Why ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I did that about 3 years ago. Based on the deletion summary, it looks like the article was nominated for deletion via the proposed deletion pathway. When no one contested the deletion after 5 days, I deleted the article as a housekeeping matter. The deletion isn't permanent by any means, so if you'd like to create an article on Sujit Saraf, please feel free. The original (deleted) article contained essentially no content or references, so I don't think there's much useful there, but you can always start a new article about the subject. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Linksearch extension

Since your search extension seems to be a lot more useful than what I have available through LinkSearch (you apparently can search by namespace), could you give me the mainspace totals for the other groups:

• www.fair.org
• www.aim.org
• www.mrc.org
• www.newsbusters.org

And one more (unrelated to the discussion) www.sourcewatch.org--which has a mindboggling number of links to an OPEN WIKI. I think that will need a bit of cleanup too.

Thanks. Horologium (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use the search extension, it's easy. Just go to your vector.js page (User:Horologium/vector.js) and add the following:

importScript('User:MastCell/el-namespace.js');

That will import the JavaScript extension that I wrote, so that when you go to Special:Linksearch, you should see a drop-down box where you can select the namespace you'd like (or go with all namespaces). The actual code is at User:MastCell/el-namespace.js, as you probably deduced from the importScript line. It's not bug-free - for example, I still need to fix the links that show up. I've only tested it on recent versions of Firefox and IE on a Mac, Linux, and Windows, so I can't guarantee it will work for you - but if it doesn't, just remove the line from your vector.js page and things will go back to normal.

That said, I get 286 links to *.fair.org, 89 links to *.aim.org, 37 to *.mrc.org, and 92 to *.newsbusters.org. Those are link totals for article space alone and do not include links in other namespaces. I get 1,000 links to *.sourcewatch.org, which probably means that there are >1,000 but the linksearch tool just tops out there. Hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

regarding me and 2/0

MastCell, regarding this comment, you wrote:

"If an admin declared that they thought the scientific consensus was underrepresented in climate-change articles, and then proceeded to opine on enforcement requests in a manner reinforcing that viewpoint, you (ATren) would have a problem with it. I know you would, because you leveled exactly these sorts of allegations about 2/0."

I'd like to make a subtle distinction: there is a vast difference between opine and act. My problems with 2/0 were based on actions, not opinions, in particular, several quick, unilateral actions he took early on in the probation against "skeptics" coupled with his later defense of WMC for behavior that was as bad or worse. I had a major problem with his indef block of GoRight, where he not only executed the block but actually did the work of collecting and presenting evidence, which is far more than Lar ever did. In fact, until his 1-hour block on WMC (which was clear baiting on WMC's part) I don't think Lar had enforced a single request, while 2/0 had handed out several lengthy topic bans and one indef block -- all to "skeptic" editors. Since then, Lar has, at times, been harshly critical of "skeptic" editors like Marknutley, TGL, and me, whereas 2/0 has actually defended WMC (do you recall 2/0's long, diff-by-diff defense of WMC back in Feb or March?).

Despite all this, I've chimed in several times recently in support of 2/0's participation on the request page, as long as he didn't take hasty, unilateral action -- i.e. as long as he contributed opinions toward consensus but didn't act unilaterally. I don't have diffs handy, but I know I've said that. I'd appreciate if you'd correct your statement (which I believe to be wrong but said in good faith) on the case page.

^{Note: in the above, "skeptic" is in quotes, indicating that we're not necessarily true skeptics, but we edit from that "side"}

ATren (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think that's a subtle distinction. I don't think it's fair to criticize 2/0 for presenting a long list of diffs supporting GoRight's block. We both know that GoRight was intensely legalistic, and previous actions had been criticized because the admin failed to present a lengthy diff-by-diff justification for their actions. I think 2/0 was responding to the conditions that had been established, and probably trying to head off the inevitable wikilawyering by GoRight. If he had not presented all of those diffs, then the first response would have focused on the lack of specific diffs supporting his action. So I see that as sort of a double bind.

I think it is worth asking whether any of 2/0's actions lacked support or consensus. I think the ban of GoRight was extensively debated and ultimately supported at all levels, including up to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Similarly, I think it would be very difficult to convince me (or the community) that topic bans of editors like Thegoodlocust were undeserved.

On some level, it's a moot point, as my understanding is that 2/0 is voluntarily stepping back from climate-change enforcement (correct me if I'm wrong). I think that's a laudable response, and one that speaks of confidence in one's fellow admins, although I can understand why it might also feel like giving in to bullying.

I'm actually in favor of what you describe as "unilateral action", within reason - I think the probation board ended up bogging down in interminable attempts to thin-slice each enforcement request and proactively generate consensus. In some cases, it makes more sense for an admin to simply take action and then submit that action for review - in fact, many non-climate-change enforcement requests are handled this way. If an admin is taking unilateral actions that subsequently lack consensus or are deemed ill-advised, then it becomes clear that they need to stop taking unilateral actions. That's sort of how these things are supposed to work, in my opinion anyway. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, 2/0's actions early on were, IMO, very harsh towards several "skeptical" editors, not just GoRight. JPatterson was an example: he was topic banned for almost nothing by 2/0 (who later reversed his action, but only begrudgingly). There were others. And in a topic like this with such a long history of partisan conflict, I don't agree with the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach you seem to advocate, because it inflames an already hot situation. Consensus of multiple admins is necessary in these cases. IMO. ATren (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a philosophical difference, I guess. Although I wouldn't frame it as "shoot first, ask questions later". When a topic area is placed under probation, it's usually because the community has deemed that it's problematic enough that admins should be given more leeway to police it. I don't remember JPatterson's case so I can't really comment on it offhand, nor do I agree with every administrative action undertaken by 2/0 (in particular, under no circumstances would I have reversed Lar's 1-hour block of WMC, although under no circumstances would I block someone for 1 hour either). I do think that 2/0 is overall an excellent admin (perhaps you might expect me to say that, as the person who nominated him for adminship). MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree he is overall a good admin, and I think he's acted in good faith on the CC probation. But I think he has a POV blind spot in this topic area, and I think his actions demonstrate that. FWIW, I think every admin who has participated in that probation has some POV, 2/0 is not unique in that sense, and that's why I think discussion before decision is necessary, because it helps to negate these varying POVs. I also think there's a secondary benefit to the consensus-building approach: disgreeing admins forming consensus on decisions can be a model for editors to follow -- lead by example. ATren (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the last point is a good one. When it works, there are definite advantages to the consensus model, as you've outlined. The trade-off is that takes a long time to reach consensus, during which even minor events fester and molehills accrete into mountains. The dispute between Mark Nutley and Ratel about name abbreviations, for instance, should have just been clarified as a misunderstanding in one line. Instead, it went back and forth and escalated far more than it should have, because the process is inherently unwieldy. Maybe the answer is to use a consensus model for complicated disputes, but a more rapidly responsive one for matters that should be handled expeditiously. I don't know - if I had any great suggestions about how to improve oversight of the area, I would have made them long ago at the ArbCom workshop. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• 2/0 is voluntarily stepping back from climate-change enforcement (correct me if I'm wrong) - oh sweet Athe, yes; there has been a little backsliding related to keeping up with the ArbCom case, but on the whole I think I am much happier when people are only yelling at me for removing their copyright violations or protecting the version with(out) the term British Isles. On an unrelated note to you or any TPWs - WP:AN3 has one case just sitting there, but I cannot close it due to being somewhere in the vicinity of WP:INVOLVED.
• WMC unblock - you are probably right about that. The lack of time for any reviewing admin to think, ponder, consult, and think again is one of the reasons why personally I disfavor very short blocks. On balance and with 20/15 hindsight (because it would be a shame if my metaphorical vision were inferior to my physical), I would not say that that unblock was in anyone's best interests, or those of the project. Ah well, time to read last month's FDA update to the blood donation exclusion criteria - the encyclopedia awaits.
• I do think that 2/0 is overall an excellent admin :) - 2/0 (cont.) 02:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hidden stuff

I got a glimpse of your reply after it was hidden. Does corruption abound where conspiracies are suspected? No doubt the site that I referenced and that you commented upon have a bias, but is it justified? A link that I put in a reply on another talk page was to a med journal study about the two types of mercury--sorry that I was hypnotized by prior talk page entries to responding with that item when I should not have done. I should have ignored them. BTW that stuff was / is also. Oldspammer (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Accessing sources

Hi MastCell. I'd appreciate it if you (or Tim Vickers, who I see watches this page too) could comment at User talk:NuclearWarfare#Favor. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A specific source request: Do you happen to have access to "Dewhurst, S (2004). "Human Herpesvirus Type 6 and Human Herpesvirus Type 7 Infections of the Central Nervous System". Herpes: The Journal of the IHMF 11 Suppl 2: 105A–111A. PMID 15319097"? It is the only one that I seem to be unable to locate. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Assessment Service

Hi MastCell, I appreciate you taking a close look at my proposed revision to the STATS article. I've just made a number of edits to my proposed version based on your feedback, and answered your questions back on the Talk page. Let me know when you find a moment! Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just added a paragraph about the J-S controversy. Your input appreciated. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

TND

Re [10]. I agree; but I think I (and you?) have said all that needs to be said on that page now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Prednisone article in distress

Hi, I just linked to this article and saw an error so went to it. It is a disaster of an article. I've been looking high and low for the template that states that an expert is needed for a medical article. Ok, I couldn't find it. Who would think that there were so many templates! Anyways, I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to fix this article. I've had the unfortunate need to use this drug which I can say this is a horrible but necessary need at times. Do you think you can help me at least tag the article to bring it to the attentions of editors who can fix it up. I would appreciate the help a lot. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably looking for {{expert}}. I will try to take a look at it in the near future. What do you think are the biggest problem areas in the article right now? MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When you take a look I think you will be able to see the problems. It looks like the vandals have gotten a lot into the article, plus it's been tagged for citations that are verifiable since November 2008. I think that says a lot right there. It shows 6 references, which most are in the info box with one tagged for verifying. There are two lists in the article that probably should be more in prose than in list form but either way definitely needs to be changed. The information in this article is all over the place and some of it seems inaccurate to me. This is just a start of what I feel is wrong with this article. This is a medication that I have to assume is looked up frequently and the way the article is now it just doesn't do the project any justice. I'll add the template to the top of the article to see if I can get more eyes on it, thanks. As someone who has had to take this medication with bad results, I don't feel that I can do an update to this article in fear of my POV getting in the way plus I think that medical articles needs editors more knowledgeable than I am. I don't mind helping with vandalism or doing minor things to articles that I feel strongly about but that being said I try to avoid major changes in any article that I feel strongly about because parking one's POV at the door is at times very hard to do. Right now I'm waiting for my new glasses because I lost another few levels of sight due to being on this medication during two different hospital stays. The eye doctor seemed very concerned with my being on this medication also is scary. An example of not leaving your POV at the door is what I believe can be seen with these two cases; the Climate change articles and the Race and intelligence articles. You're help with this would really be appreciated. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You should know I mentioned you at the wikiproject pharmacology here. Sorry in a hurry in RL. Got to go, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the recent ANI thread

Hi,

I realize that you were engaged in the discussion so this reminder may be a bit presumptuous but here goes: Recently the editor in question came out of a 3 month topic ban largely for the same reasons that the ANI thread started, persistent allegations and/or allusions to antisemitic bents of other editors. Original topic ban, her unsuccessful appeal. That the editor seems to engage in repeated line toeing and then asking to have the book thrown at her is getting somewhat tired. She is a valuable contributor on other fronts but I really don't think that her involvement in this particular topic area does the project or herself much good. Best, Unomi (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, now I remember that topic-ban discussion. Personally, I think there are ample grounds for concern that this user is too deeply and emotionally invested - and too incapable of self-restraint - to productively edit the topic. On the other hand, I can't really promise the time or follow-through to work on a solution. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking in again

Hi there MastCell, I'm going to be away from my computer maybe for the rest of the day and part of the weekend, so let me know about the page when you find a moment to review the proposed article version again. Thanks for your help. NMS Bill (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature Issue

Sorry, I meant to answer earlier. The article and talk page were deleted, so I don't have any way to find the diffs. GregJackP Boomer! 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)