User talk:MastCell/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Did miss any?

Morning. Would you mind giving this a glance and letting me know if I missed any? Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's most of them. There may be a few more, but I feel like spending any more of my life dealing with or thinking about that particular editor would be a mistake. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Sorry for bringing it up. Next time I'll just give you a paper cut and put lemon juice on it. Thinking I knew her, I said "You look like Helen Brown." To which she replied "Yeah? Well you don't look so hot in blue." - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your chart is really depressing. It looks like nearly 40% of all posts to Talk:Abortion came from DMSBel (talk · contribs) and the tendentious IP editor. Even by Wikipedian standards, that suggests a poor signal-to-noise ratio. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this case, you're over the evidence limit again. It's pretty simple to request an extension rather than continually trim your evidence though; just speak to Jclemens,Coren, or Penwhale. NW (Talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I'm actually OK with trimming my evidence. I think the word limit is useful. It forces me to try to distill the evidence, focus more on diffs, and limit the amount of extraneous argumentation I include, which is probably a good thing. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me your little project summing up numbers of posts has very little to do with tendentious editing - the reason I have more than average number of edits is because as you know I often re-factor my posts (not to confuse, but I often see I could have made them clearer after posting), not a good practice I admit and one I am trying to avoid. Also when there is a lot of activity on a article talk page, it simply is easier (for me at least) to focus there solely for a while, rather than to try and take part in several discussions. I certainly welcome any lulls in talk page to get on with other editing.DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Signal to noise" is amusing, once again MastCell you manage to stir up a talk page and excuse yourself from all responsibility. When you done changing sentences for semantically identical ones, maybe there will be less noise.DMSBel (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also when you done pinning all the blame on everyone else individually, let me know if there is anyone you think you missed.DMSBel (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is me trying to be constructive. I'm trying to address a specific content issue civilly and neutrally, to outline my viewpoint with specific content suggestions and reliable sources, and to solicit others' opinion. That's my understanding of how article talk pages should be used, and how content disputes should be addressed. There were some useful responses, but then you started spouting off with your personal views about abortion, and things went downhill. From my perspective, there was a potentially constructive discussion about a content issue underway, but it was derailed when you started using the thread as a soapbox. To their credit, the other editors in the thread have generally avoided responding to you in kind and stayed focused on the content question. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The following comment I had re-factored to take into account Mastcell's reply. Look MastCell, I am not going to keep this going. It's a waste of time for both of us. As you know I often add my sig to my post if I have not been signed in so people know the IP is mine. That increases the counter on posts to DMSBel. Sorry about that but I am not going to be held to ransom on that issue. You made the bold change, I reverted, with an edit summary explaining why, you brought it up on the talk page but put your own wording back before I could discuss. In other words you short circuited the BRD cycle. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a grasp of what actually happened. I didn't "put my own wording back" - I made one edit (two contiguous edits, actually). You reverted it. I began a discussion. I have not made any edits to abortion since you initially reverted me. I've been following BRD. You do realize that one can actually look at the page history? And that your version of events is clearly falsified by that history?

It's a bit frustrating that you don't double-check your most basic and easily examined assumptions before launching accusations. If you want me to take you seriously as someone committed to improving this encyclopedia, you need to do a bit better. Of course, you may not care what I think, which is fine as well. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind you giving your thoughts MastCell, but since you pretty much seem to want to shut me and a few other editors up on the topic, judging by your workshop proposals, it hasn't encouraged me that you want to work on resolving matters colaboratively.DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

By way of clarification also, MastCell did not put back is own wording as I had mistakenly thought, and so did follow BRD.DMSBel (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Apology and moving on.

I see a need to apologise to you for the re-factoring of my posts and the annoyance that has caused. I will be working on other stuff un-related to abortion for a while, until I am more adept at editing. Best to you. DMSBel (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the apology, which is accepted, and for the note. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all the best with your editing. DMSBel (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

American College of Pediatricians

I see I'm not the only one involved in this crusade... It strikes me as silly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think "silly" is being extremely generous, but yeah. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm making up for having insulted another editor somewhere else. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry and healthcare

Hey, sorry the healthcare section got mixed up in the edit war. I just took a look at it and it's well-referenced and well-written. Thanks for fixing it. N419BH 06:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the kind words, and for the note. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia accurate on cancer

Is this old news ? [1] Saying "hi", still swamped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just medical articles, but the vast majority of Wikipedia articles regardless of topic can proudly and confidently withstand any accusation that they are well written. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought we'd discussed that article at WT:MED, but I can't find it, so maybe I just imagined it. Anyhow, it was nice to see some positive feedback, at least in terms of accuracy. You've probably seen PMID 21282098, which is basically an overview of Wikipedia written by the WP:MED team and proselytizing for more medically-oriented editors.

Boris, I prefer my Wikipedia articles poorly written. Every time I've been impressed with the technical quality of writing on Wikipedia, it's turned out to be plagiarized. There's something reassuring about clunky prose-by-committee. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A Cure for Cancer? Just sayin', and wondering why the banner ad at the top of the Newsday article says "Shockingly" Accurate Insights Request your FREE Urgent and Confidential Reading NOW! World Class Psychic FREE READING> which sounds about normal for Wikipedia :-/ . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Disruptive IP

Are you blocking this guy or who is?DMSBel (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This guy [[2]]

Here is the relevant block log. It looks like that IP is fairly static, and has been repeatedly used by a banned user to evade his block. The most recent, and currently active, block was placed by me. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By way of interest - why do you not indicate that you are an Admin on your userpage like most other Admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs)

I dunno. I used to have a notice, but I haven't for awhile. I got rid of it along with my other userboxes. I guess it felt too much like a merit badge, which it was obviously never intended to be, or else a red flag for the class of professionally oppressed Wikipedians who are always on a tear about abusive admins. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You wrote:

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christine Maggiore. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MastCell Talk 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

---

MastCell, you are wrong. I made one revert, and that's it. Do you not understand the concept of edit-warring, wherein multiple reverts are made? Obviously this does not qualify as such. Or do you simply like to scold regardless of the truth of the matter? Far more telling is that you didn't put this same edit-warring notice on the pages of Yobol and Skinwalker, the other two users involved. This seems to indicate your bias regarding the subject at hand. Kaihoku (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's déjà vu all over again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Life imitates art. In this case, the art in question seems to be Groundhog Day. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why write a new post, when the old one carries just as much meaning as it did before? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.--96.54.128.212 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An urgent request for clarification

MastCell, you left a message on my talk page telling me to stop 'following' Roscelese. I find your message to be ambiguous and difficult to understand, and need you to clarify it. If what you are really doing is imposing some ban on me interacting with Roscelese, you need to say so explicitly. Please respond on my talk page. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NB, I've raised this issue at ANI. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the ambiguity. It's obvious that you're looking through Roscelese's contribution history and then joining discussions she's involved in, specifically to take an opposing viewpoint. There is no other rational explanation for this, among other recent contributions on your part. There's no mitigating factor - you're not correcting abuses by Roscelese. You're just following her around to oppose whatever she does. If you don't stop, I will do what I can to make sure it stops. Do you continue to find ambiguity there? MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In fact, I find your position to be completely unacceptable. You assert that I am, "looking through Roscelese's contribution history and then joining discussions she's involved in, specifically to take an opposing viewpoint." You are wrong. I am not opposing Roscelese's positions just for the sake of opposing her. I am opposing them because I happen to have completely different views from her. She is a liberal editor and a self-identified "queer" (see her user page). I am a far right-wing extremist editor. Therefore, I would naturally disagree with her, wouldn't I? In effect, what you've done is to make it impossible for me to disagree with Roscelese at any article, at any time, and I'm not going to accept that without a struggle. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See the history of List of opera genres for evidence of abuse by Roscelese. She was edit warring. I reverted her edit warring. That was correcting her abuses. Your effective ban on me reverting (or even disagreeing!) with Roscelese would make that impossible. Just at the moment, I want to revert a recent edit Roscelese made to Straight Pride, not because she made it, but because I disagree with it and consider it a bad edit. You would probably block me if I reverted her, and you've given a phoney justification for your position. I'm going to take this up at ANI if you don't back down. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So you've identified Roscelese as someone whose political views (and sexual orientation, apparently) you disapprove of. And you're going through her contribs (please don't pretend you found list of opera genres some other way). And then going to articles you find there and opposing her (or, as you prefer to put it, "correcting her abuses"). Please, take that to AN/I. In fact, I think I will, since it seems completely inappropriate on pretty much every level. MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm going to end this. I am retiring from Wikipedia, effective immediately. By making it impossible for me to revert Roscelese, you've effectively made it impossible for me to edit at all, which I suppose was your intention. If I ever change my mind and decide to begin editing again, I'm sure we'll meet again, but it's goodbye for now. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you pretty much just proved MastCell's point. If being unable to revert one user means you can no longer edit, that's a sign you're clearly here for the wrong reasons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That was interesting, is there a high turnover of editors leaving after meeting you guys? Roscelese must be a magnet to right-wingers, can't figure why. DMSBel (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you're reading through my talkpage in such detail, but there's really no need to add your disparaging 2 cents to threads that have been dormant for almost 2 months now. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times and AIDS

Did you happen to read today's Science Times? There was a review of a new book titled The Origins of AIDS. It seems like it would be a nice read on the early evolution and epidemiology of HIV, which I have been thinking I should read about for a while. I was wondering if you knew of any book that covered material like that for the modern era. I guess I'm looking for a book that's part And the Band Played On and part The Emperor of All Maladies, except about HIV/AIDS and set in the in the 1990s and 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)

That book looks very interesting. I'm not really aware of any such books about the modern, post-protease-inhibitor era of HIV/AIDS. They may be out there and just under my radar screen - if not, it would make a great subject for a popular-science treatment. There's Impure Science by Steven Epstein, which is a bit dry and sociological but contains some excellent insight into the early years of the AIDS epidemic and the nature of credibility in science. However, it was published in 1996 so it stops just short of the modern HAART era; it's more overlapping with ...And The Band Played On.

Incidentally, I've been meaning to read Emperor of All Maladies for awhile. Is it good? I skimmed it in the bookstore and it covered some events and people that I'm personally familiar with, so I was interested to see the author's take. I was also considering writing a Wikipedia article on Werner Bezwoda (see my to-do list), and I think the book might be a reasonable source for such an article.

If I could make a recommendation for you, it would be Betrayers of the Truth. It's extremely dated (it was published in 1982), but it contains some really remarkable insights about scientific fraud and the difference between the scientific ideal and the reality of practicing scientists. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Emperor of All Maladies was pretty good, from my layman's perspective at least. There was a great deal of history that I was not at all familiar with, and it was surprising to learn just how evidence-based medicine has grown in just the last 60 years. I thought he really hit his stride maybe halfway through the book, so it might take some time for you to start enjoying it. There isn't all that much in the book about Bezwoda though; ten pages at the most, IIRC.Just took a look; there actually is a fair bit on him.

And thank you for the recommendation. NW (Talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a movie that documents this and how vaccines made from monkeys and the locations these contaminated vaccines were used match the break out of the disease. Same folks are using thiomersal on the world's poor. --96.54.128.212 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thiomersal is safe, but they never tested it, and only used population stats to base their claim after the fact. If the ship has several holes fixing one hole the water will still be higher in the stats without thiomersal later. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/ Quote,"The location coincides dramatically. The earliest known cases of AIDS occurred in central Africa, in the same regions where Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to over a million people in 1957-1960. The timing coincides. There is no documented case of HIV infection or AIDS before 1959. Centuries of the slave trade and European exploitation of Africa exposed Africans and others to all other diseases then known; it is implausible that HIV could have been present and spreading in Africa without being recognised. Polio vaccines are grown (cultured) on monkey kidneys that could have been contaminated by SIVs. Polio vaccines could not be screened for SIV contamination before 1985. Another monkey virus, SV-40, is known to have been passed to humans through polio vaccines. A specific pool of Koprowski's vaccine was later shown to have been contaminated by an unknown virus. "--96.54.128.212 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

#2, #8, #10, & #17

Well said. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I also agree with you on this. I'd put it more bluntly: let them paint a bull's eye on themselves if they want to. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a blast from the past. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the offensive political userbox issue blasted itself today on ANI. I suppose it's one of those perennials. I thought that was drama, but then NYB pointed me to the 2006 pedophilia user box ArbCom case. That was the Wild West. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Some prying/meddlesome questions, apologies in advance

Hi, MastCell. I saw you arguing with NYyankee on Roscelese's page. Er.. why? Far be it from me to comment on the usefulness or otherwise of other people's editing patterns (that would look good coming from me, wouldn't it?), but it just made me curious. I suppose you don't expect all your excellent gunpowder, all the facts and diffs and evidence and so on, to shift the views of the person ostensibly addressed? So I figured, it's probably for the benefit of onlookers, who may not yet have made up their minds to quite such an extent? Anyway. What I really wanted to ask. It's a little too personal, but here goes. All your facts and examples leave me with an impression that you spend.. well.. pretty much all your waking hours watching Fox News for research purposes? Again, to each his own.. but I couldn't help being a little distressed by that idle notion. I'm hoping that maybe, instead, you culled many of the examples and comparisons from the documentary mentioned somewhere thereabouts? I'm sorry, I know we hardly know each other well enough for me to be this interfering, but, er, it would be really nice if you could qualify or remove the picture lodged in my brain of you staring maniacally at Fox News all day long, filing it all away. It's starting to .. incommode me. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

Let's just say that to get me to watch FoxNews (or CNN, or MSNBC, or any cable news channel for that matter), you'd have to use the Ludovico technique from A Clockwork Orange (is that a better mental image?) And I'm not under any illusion as to the power of facts to overcome deeply held misconceptions (in fact, rather the opposite seems to be the norm).

On the other hand, I do feel compelled to try to understand why people hold certain beliefs, especially when those beliefs seem to me obviously misguided. And I feel the need to explain why I hold certain viewpoints. I think my viewpoints have a solid basis in objective reality, and are not simply ossified prejudices, but it's useful to actually try to support them from time to time to make sure.

Spinoza once wrote that his goal was "not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." (Of course, he spent his days peaceably grinding lenses, and wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes on Wikipedia). So that's why I get into back-and-forths; I want to understand. My comments really were directed to NYyankees51, rather than to the audience; but they weren't so much intended to change his thinking as to clarify my own.

As a contributory phenomenon, I used to find a lot of stimulating conversation on this site, but it seems to be largely a thing of the past. Every now and then I look through my talk-page archives, and threads like this, this, or even this still make me smile. But a lot of the people who used to make this place fun for me have left, or cut back their participation, or gotten completely burnt out. When you have to deal with this site's neverending stream of pettiness and idiocy, it's important to sense that there's a core of sane people around you who see through the nonsense and share your perception of what's important. That group has been dwindling for a long time, from my perspective. I'm not sure how I got onto this tangent, but maybe my point was that I still welcome the opportunity for an off-topic discussion with interesting folks when it arises. Even if it means giving the impression that I watch cable news. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell is far too busy hunched over his shortwave radio, getting his coded secret instructions from Big Pharma, to watch cable TV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? I thought in this day and age that they'd simplified and merely implanted chips in people's brains. So much more direct. Of course, it depends on satellite technology to operate, so the next sunstorm might see major changes in the prospects for various new drugs... Risker (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I got my info from my ex-plumber's sister's cousin-in-law, so I'm pretty confident it's true. He said the implanted chip story is just what they want you to think. So you've either been duped, or you're in on it too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Beautifully put. Sometimes when I get quite burnt-out with the place, I watch Betrand Russell for two minutes. (How long would he have lasted here? You know someone would have dragged him to AN/I ...) Antandrus (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hah. Russell was an SPOV-pusher and probably a latent member of the IDCab. It would be worth watching Russell edit Wikipedia, if only so we could witness Randy-From-Boise lecturing him on logical atonism. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Correcting misinformation in the public's mind

From your first user page quote, I thought you might be interested in the last sentence in this section: Death_panel#Media_analysis_and_recommendations. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that supposed to make me feel better? :) The source is a draft paper, so I'll refrain from criticizing its methodology too harshly... but why are we citing a draft paper again? Anyhow, the study says that many people refuse to accept objective reality unless it's endorsed by FoxNews and/or prominent Republican politicians. Given their track records on objective reality, where does that leave us? Is it realistic to expect a bunch of Republicans running scared of the Tea Party to stand up and say that Sarah Palin is lying about "death panels"? Or to expect FoxNews, which after all employs her, to provide a fact-check? MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might! =) Yes I understand what you're saying but you don't need a bunch, just one (Death_panel#Politicians Isakson in this case). Of course, I wouldn't expect Fox to trumpet Isakson's quote. And yes, it's a draft so I've shied away from citing it much but I think it is a reliable source for the statements it is backing up. Jesanj (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• New edition of “Testing Treatments”, best pop science book on Evidence Based Medicine ever. – Bad Science might assist? . . dave souza, talk 11:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)". Thank you. --Rdavout (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the topic of "correcting misinformation" - I'm with you 100% on the Fox news issue. It's extremely irritating, and dangerous to us all. The particular example of "death panels" (along with "death tax", and "death threats" of all sorts) is a well-worn rhetorical ploy to evoke a visceral reaction in people, thus short-circuiting their critical thinking.

I just downloaded Testing Treatments to my ipad. I'll get back to you all after I've read it.

The issue of which "authorities" people should believe is big and complex. Regarding medicine, I guess it's not surprising that, as a scientist in biomedical research, I think one problematic bias in medicine, is in favoring arguments from authority, rather than from data. I'm relieved to see that Mr. Wales is opposed to the idea that Wikipedia cares more about "verifiability" than about truth (see this thread, for example). So maybe it's not inappropriate to suggest that demonstrably incorrect interpretations of data, that have become part of the mainstream, might be of legitimate interest to Wikipedians who have the appropriate training.

I've been thinking about how people can progress beyond arguments from authority, in their individual and group thinking. There isn't any substitute for impartial observation and checking of data. But few people have that skill. To have the motivation to develop that skill, one has to have the sense that it's not all that unusual for systematic errors to be perpetuated, in spite of a lack of objective evidence that they're correct. And then one has to be willing to buck the mainstream. In science, that's an honorable pursuit, almost a requirement, while in medicine...not so much. But pseudonymous Wikipedian doctors could pursue this avenue without risking professional consequences, though the social consequences within Wikipedia might be uncomfortable. Maybe that's reason enough not to go there. On the other hand, one doesn't want to become an accessory to betrayers of the truth.

Irreverent histories of science are good for grasping the professional politics and ego issues that often distort science. Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything details some of the well-documented mistakes, and feuds, that attended many scientific controversies in the past. In addition, it's highly entertaining.

I just finished readingThe Alarming History of Medicine by Richard Gordon (1993, but written in a style more suggestive of the early 20th century, presumably to be funny). It's witty, and a fast read. There's a section lampooning some "alternative medicine" beliefs, after many historic mainstream medical errors have been described.

Finally, Jerome Groopman's and Atul Gawande's books describe the more common ways that current mainstream medicine goes wrong, and what might be done to improve it. Gawande is a surgeon, while Groopman is in medicine, and I think you can see that distinction in the errors they've chosen as examples. They're both good writers, enjoyable and speedy to read.

I borrowed Bad Science (Goldacre) from the library about a year ago but was disappointed - the only examples of bad science he uses are minority beliefs universally disavowed by the mainstream. I don't recall that he made any attempt to trace any mainstream view back to its origin, to determine if it might be wrong. This book might be useful to the uneducated, but for us professionals it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel - so easy and obvious that it's arguably a waste of our talents. We can leave that to popular journalists like Golda...oops, I just found that Goldacre is a doctor. Good thing I checked the data. ;-) I guess this is one area where the priorities of medicine and those of science are...different.

I've seen Betrayers of the Truth by Broad and Wade mentioned in this context. Ironically, one of "my" Lyme disease patients appears in that book as a young scientist who followed up the data of one of the "betrayers" , and helped show it to be false. I think that unpleasant experience contributed to his ability to question authority. (Although it still took him 7 years to question his doctors' confident assertions, figure out what was going on, and get testing and treatment.) Of course, it was somewhat traumatic for a scientist involved in medicine, not only to be incorrectly diagnosed and treated, but to have his faith in the relative integrity of medical research betrayed, yet again. (This case wasn't me, it was a close friend and colleague, whose slow decline from health, and equally slow recovery, I've witnessed for many years.)

I've been told to stop apologizing for the length of my contributions, so I'll abstain. ;-)

Happy reading and thinking to all, Postpostmod (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: I recommend Richard Feynman's Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, if you haven't read it, or not recently. I read it twice, because I was too busy laughing the first time through to ponder the lessons embedded in each chapter regarding human relations, science, common sense, and authority. (I tried to get a Unitarian science-and-religion group to read it, but those who had, nixed it, maybe because of the topless dancers. It was a rather earnest group.;-)Postpostmod (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for recommending Groopman. I'm familiar with Gawande. I cite him here sometimes (example). And thanks for the neurobiology mechanism reminder. I hadn't heard that in a while. Jesanj (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

God only knows why...

...but I loved that movie as a teenager, and still have a soft spot for it even now. Completely ridiculous, and from a political viewpoint almost 180 degrees opposite mine, and cheesily acted, and lame, but I loved it. (I'll stop stalking your contribs now, sorry if that's a little creepy) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Quack

Sorry to bring this steamy brown lump to you, but you should be aware of what's recently been up between:

• User:Carolmooredc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and

• User:Historicist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 19oct2008-25sep2009

etc. You know the relevant history. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gee, you really know how to cheer up someone when they're depressed about the state of Wikipedia. :) I think it's more likely than not that Goodwinsands (talk · contribs) is Historicist (talk · contribs). Even if I'm wrong about that, it's really, really hard for me to see how the encyclopedia would be harmed by blocking a highly combative, agenda-driven account.

On the other hand, I decided a while ago to stop adminning in the Israel-Palestine topic area. You know, James Garfield once described Roscoe Conkling as "a great fighter, more animated by his hates than his loves." The I-P topic area is full of people like that—people whose greatest (and, often, sole) apparent pleasure on this site derives from mortal combat with other editors. I try to limit my exposure to editors like that, which isn't hard since I don't have any irons in the fire in that particular topic area beyond a general annoyance that obvious battleground behavior is endlessly tolerated.

Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up. Is there any particular action you think would be warranted? I've come to trust your judgment quite a bit. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I fear WP is a little too like the real world in that regard. Of course the same thing crops up in every controversial RW arena. I suspect this is RBI territory, but of course it wouldn't do to be seen as taking sides on content. I flagged it to you simply because of your prior block, but of course deferring to another admin or to routine SPI process should always be valid options. Just didn't want it to slip past you unnoticed... Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Oh bother", said Pooh

Oh dear, another bothersome situation. Could you please take a look at contributions and contributions? Seems to be very rapid production of very high quality content, though perhaps it is being written offline and pasted in. Still, the accounts look to be the same editor. May just need some guidance on managing of legit socks, but I have some suspicions. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure what to make of that. Obviously it's the same editor, and the quality of the content seems quite good. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you can see the potential problems, I'll leave it with you. Gotta get some rest. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

re User:Religionsworstnightmare

Hello MastCell. Regarding this and the block of Religionsworstnightmare (talk · contribs), a fairly obvious new sock is back as Iwkni12 (talk · contribs). I can open an SPI if you would rather I do that, but that seems like an unnecessary waste of time. nableezy - 16:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I did it for you ... the SPI might not be a bad idea in case there are others, but sockpuppets as obvious as this need no extra effort, IMO. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, nableezy - 16:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please comment on the talk page

concerning my reply to you here . It only concerns the one reversion of my edit. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I must have lost that in the thicket of comments. OK, I'm still not psyched about the quality of sourcing or the reliance on rifevideos.com, but I guess I can accept that they've accurately scanned the obituary. So if you want to reintroduce the material about Heidelberg etc. then I don't object. MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for RetractionWatch

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Monday morning, check in to the mainpage after a weekend off, see a medical DYK, go to the article expecting to find the usual DYK outrage that will require hours of my time and ruin my nice morning, find nothing wrong with the article, <surprise>, go to the contribs, see author is none other than the esteemed yours truly !!! Then check the diffs and see some content was gutted ... oh, well :) Nice article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good blog, enlightening and horrifying at the same time, and I thought it deserved an article here. Actually, NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) nominated it and shepherded the article through the DYK process (as well as working on the content), so he probably deserves the credit. Anyhow, it's good to get back to content-writing once in a while, especially on the rare occasion when one finds a worthy topic that doesn't yet have an article. It's also nice to work on a non-controversial topic, where people are really working together collaboratively. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I nominated it, but I wouldn't say that I did anything beyond that. In fact, the success of this article seems like the Wikipedia story that Jimbo and Sue love to tell: multiple editors (MastCell, Orlady, and to a very minor extent Victuallers and myself) working in harmony to produce a nice article that's a better summary of the subject matter than anything else on the Web or in print. NW (Talk) 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So maybe fairytales do come true. Or maybe, as Diogenes once observed, the sun even shines on a dog's ass some days. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am discobolus

The Discobolus of Myron

...but also relieved for your sake that you didn't run this year.--Tznkai (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hah. The one reason I've been tempted to run the last few years is that I was curious about the contents of the ArbCom mailing list archive. Which, admittedly, isn't a good reason. Anyhow, now that curiosity has been largely satisfied, courtesy of Wikipedia Review, so I'm good. Honestly, I can't think of anything more soul-destroying than mediating Wikipedia disputes. I'm burnt-out enough as it is. Although maybe I could have used ArbCom as a platform for my latest hobbyhorse: I want us to treat the insertion of potentially dangerous medical misinformation as seriously as we treat BLP violations. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a good hobbyhorse. I added it to my question-lanche. It's interesting to see what jumps to people's minds. Kww thought of homeopathy; Coren didn't give any specifics but talked about an ethical responsibility to get things right; Hersfold didn't understand the problem; and everyone else hasn't answered it. NW (Talk) 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that sounds about right. :[ MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Potentially dangerous misinformation? That could include an awful lot. A wrong georeference? A citation of a retracted work? How about when we omit to condemn a dangerous outright fraud as such because we can't find a secondary RS willing to do so? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Right now, there's so much low-hanging fruit that I don't think we need to worry about edge cases. Although it's worth thinking about them as a thought exercise. It's mostly the principle - that people read our medical coverage and rely on its accuracy, and that we should take our responsibility to the reader at least as seriously as we take BLPs or the occasional incivility block. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That the line drawing exercises are hard suggests to me that the principle is worth applying.--Tznkai (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken BLPs are taken seriously mostly because they are seen as an existential threat to WMF in case of libel lawsuits. Is the medical disclaimer seen as sufficient protection to disregard any analogous liability in medical articles? I'm sure that the wp:GREATWRONGS argument would eventually get trotted out, but it has always seemed to be a two-edged sword. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there's any legal liability attached to the Foundation; the medical disclaimer should cover that. If people could sue because they were given false health information by Some Website, the courts would be overwhelmed. :P

Regarding BLP, I suppose the practical rationale could be the Foundation's legal liability (although they seem to be protected by the current interpretation of Section 230, at least in the U.S.). But WP:BLP doesn't talk about covering the Foundation's ass - it's full of high-minded rhetoric about our ethical responsibility to the living people whose biographies we host. And I buy that - but the same ethical responsibility should then extend to our health coverage, since I think it obviously has the potential for at least equal, if not far greater, harm. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethically you are, of course, correct. Practically the process of getting out the poisonous persistent invaders may be more of a challenge than we're up to. Still the aspiration is tough to counter. (Stands back to watch the purveyors of CAM woo come flooding in to do battle.) LeadSongDog come howl! 00:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also disappointed that you aren't running. But as the Bard once wrote, "Some are born great; others achieve greatness; and some can't be arsed." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose its actually possible for me to rig the election so MastCell does appear as an optino...--Tznkai (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice re: Anythingyouwant

I'm sure you have plenty of more important things to spend your time on. It's not as if it seems that any Arbitrator or passerby is actually convinced that he is the victim here. NW (Talk) 20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course; thanks for the note. I'd posted this before I saw his (latest) retirement notice; I'd probably have held off otherwise. Anyhow, point taken. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Feverfew

I'm curious as to which part of "The plant has been used as an herbal treatment to reduce fever and to treat headaches, arthritis and digestive problems, and many studies have confirmed these effects, though more research is needed about its efficiency against migraines." is incorrect? I even provide a citation, which you said was in violation of Wikipedia:MEDRS. If you read those guidelines, it says Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews, and the citation I provided is a systematic review. Why are you quoting rules to me that I'm not even breaking? --Calibas (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that text is incorrect, which is why I removed it. You say that "many studies have confirmed" feverfew's effectiveness against arthritis and "digestive problems"? Odd. As far as I know, there's been exactly one trial of feverfew for rheumatoid arthritis (PMID 2673080), and that trial found feverfew no better than placebo. How does that translate into "many studies confirming its effectiveness" against arthritis? I don't know of any studies in humans looking at "digestive problems".

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (which is typically overly credulous, if anything) says there's no evidence that feverfew is useful for arthritis, or anything really other than perhaps headaches ([3]). The U. of Maryland says that feverfew might maybe do something for headaches, but is useless for arthritis ([4]). Again, then, why do you want our article to claim that "many studies confirm" feverfew's effectiveness?

As for the "systematic review" ([5]), it doesn't appear to actually be a systematic review. I'm not sure why the authors labeled it as such, nor why the journal editors or peer reviewers allowed them to make such a claim. Anyhow, assuming we agree that the article should reflect expert opinion accurately, it should be clear why I removed the sentence. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So which study shows no scientific evidence beyond a placebo effect for headaches, arthritis and digestive problems, which is what the article now claims? --Calibas (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you check the sources cited directly after that sentence in the article? From the Cochrane Library review (PMID 14973986, which, incidentally, is a good example of what a systematic review actually looks like): "There is insufficient evidence from randomised, double-blind trials to suggest an effect of feverfew over and above placebo for preventing migraine." For rheumatoid arthritis, the lone randomized controlled trial (PMID 2673080) showed no benefit of feverew over placebo. And I'm not aware that any decent studies even exist for "digestive disorders", which is a rather broad category, after all. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read them. Insufficient does not mean no. --Calibas (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So then we're in agreement: the sources say there is insufficient evidence of feverfew's effectiveness for these indications? I can't tell if we're actually making progress or if you're just rapidly shifting tactics. Anyhow, if you'd like to rephrase the sentence in question, I guess it would be reasonable. Instead of saying there is "no evidence", one could say that "scientific evidence does not support anything beyond a placebo effect for feverfew in humans." MastCell ^Talk 05:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet that's still not correct because there is scientific evidence that supports something beyond a placebo effect. As a whole, the research is still inconclusive precisely because there's evidence of something beyond a placebo effect. Here's a brand new study showing more of it's anti-inflammatory properties: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22004922 Here's one that shows it may be help treat cystic fibrosis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992677 The current article makes it sound like it does nothing, which is not what the research suggests. --Calibas (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, parthenolide is not feverfew; it's a single potentially active compound from the plant. You can't cite studies of parthenolide to claim that feverfew is useful, for the same reason you can't cite studies on aspirin to make a case that cardiac patients should chew tree bark. Secondly, studies in transformed cell lines are designed to help identify biological mechanisms and pathways - they're a long, long way from demonstrating actual clinical usefulness, so it's misguided to cite in vitro cell-line data when we're discussing clinical effect vs. placebo. Finally, the key point is that existing scientific evidence, when viewed as a whole (as opposed to in cherry-picked slices), does not support any effect for feverfew beyond placebo. I'm a bit baffled by the entrenched resistance to conveying this straightforward fact to the reader. MastCell ^Talk 08:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which systematic studies are you talking about here? I only see one quoted and that's limited to migraines. --Calibas (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for migraines. For arthritis, AFAIK there is a grand total of one randomized clinical trial (which was negative) - so there's hardly a need for a systematic review if there's only one decent trial, right? And for other indications, there are no significant clinical trials, and thus no systematic reviews. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Which still doesn't translate to "no scientific evidence". THE MAIN STUDY THAT'S CITED DOESN'T FIND "NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" IT FOUND EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ON THE PAGE, MIXED RESULTS, WHICH MEANS THERE WAS ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION. What about this don't you understand? Even the article that's cited about arthritis says, and I quote: One study found that feverfew did not reduce rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in women whose symptoms did not respond to conventional medicines. It has been suggested that 'feverfew could help those with milder symptoms.'

Here's a parallel that shows the bias of what you reverted the article to. No scientific studies have shown that Wikipedia user MastCell has any brains in his head. It's literally true, but it implies something that certainly isn't true.--Calibas (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your last example is interesting. If you start by assuming no Wikipedia user has any brains, then it would be reasonable to demand proof to the contrary in my case. Similarly, any serious researcher typically begins a clinical trial with the assumption that a given therapeutic is no better than placebo. And one needs to see proof to the contrary. Anyhow, if we're at the typing-in-all-caps phase of discussion, then I'll go ahead and solicit some outside input, perhaps. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but when you remove something from a Wiki article that is almost word for word what was found in the citation, I feel the need to stress certain things to you. The systematic review doesn't find it was "no better than a placebo", it found mixed results that warranted further investigation. Why can't the article repeat what was found in the investigation? --Calibas (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cochrane library review (PMID 14973986) says: There is insufficient evidence from randomised, double-blind trials to suggest an effect of feverfew over and above placebo for preventing migraine (abstract) and Collectively, the data reviewed do not convince that feverfew is efficacious beyond placebo for preventing migraine (body). That's not ambiguous; current evidence doesn't support anything beyond a placebo effect. You're not going to convince me we should softpedal that, and I'm curious why you're trying. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So a single migraine review translates to, "scientific evidence does not support anything beyond a placebo effect"? That seems like a bit of synthesis on your part. I keep providing scientific evidence that supports something beyond a placebo effect, and according to you none of it counts. What are your sources exactly? You're excellent at bureaucracy and red tape, have you considered a government job? --Calibas (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

thiomersal controversy article talk block

What extensive edit warring? Give the examples? --96.54.128.212 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hate being called a liar almost as much as I hate comma splices, and you've managed both simultaneously. On the other hand, it's hard to stay angry when you've got a plate full of leftover turkey and stuffing, a just-opened bottle of wine, pumpkin pie, and college football on TV. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yobol MastCell tag team, I barely posted on the contraversy page, Every time it was reverted, Left it at that, except for the EPA voilation, I believe you think your thiomersal edit gang is doing the right thing by depriving readers of information by censoring information, when the thiomersal article opens again try reverting the edit that thiomersal was grandfathered in, and do your homework, POST THE LIST OF EXTENSIVE REVERTS BUDDY and I'll apoligize, extensive edits is more than almost one three revert rule in an article, and I've read your page, your one of us, if the WHO created aids by mistake through a vaccine, like they'll admit thiomersal vaccine mistake, no they'll pull it and say its safe, big government is the liar. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to provoke me - that's the mother of all comma splices. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What, is, a, comma, splice? Do, I, do, it, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I,m,so,confused,by,Stephan,s,post.My,brain,hurts.Maybetheipshouldfuckoff. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A comma splice requires shoving together two perfectly good independent clauses (each complete with both a subject and a predicate) with a comma, rather than making them into two separate sentences or correctly joining them with a semicolon. Mere overuse of commas doesn't count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But you have to admit that "voilation" is a cool-sounding word. It could be a synonym for "veiling" (ref. voile), or at a stretch, the process of announcing a dramatic revelation (ref. wikt:voilà). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's positively Joycean in its layered multiplicity of meaning. MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Although it's fun to mock the rudely dyslexic, it doesn't really help, does it? Coming back to the original challenge, the edit warring at Thimerosol from two IP addresses in Victoria, British Columbia is seen in these edits:[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. At last, the IP explains here why xhe is so invested in the topic, but still has not shown any willingness to work with other editors in a wp:civil manner. While we can understand such behaviour, we cannot accept it. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it did help me, a little, but you're right. Thank you for detailing the edit-warring in question. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Need to say something to leadsong. Half those edits are an edit on an edit to make the added material clearer/more readable. You'll note that they were immediately posted after the other, without interference from another editor. I'm am dyslexic, not going to let that stop me from writing. Good writing comes after several drafts. Note, you only get my first draft here. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Read some more. Couldn't debate the does/could/might exceed the EPA guidelines, so had to go suggest and use a different article the thiomersal article, but clearly WE KNOW IT WAS THE thiomersal controversy article. ??? thank you for detailing the edit warring, you know the Dog is referencing the wrong article. The wiki way. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit three revert rule was over the EPA guidelines. Thiomersal in adult flu shots are 250 times over the EPA limit so this might exceed the EPA limit. http://www.factoverfiction.com/article/4553 I believe the article was improved by removing the might, and note Yobol's edit needs a the before EPA. Quote, " A review of the data showed that while the vaccine schedule for infants did not exceed FDA, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), or WHO guidelines on mercury exposure, it could have exceeded .... needs a the .... Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for the first six months of life, depending on the vaccine formulation and the weight of the infant."--199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. Sorry about that. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you undo the block I won't post there. The thiomersal article has been open to edit and haven't posted there. Again, I apologize.

Yo - on Jclemens

Hey - randomly posted some spur of the moment thoughts which somewhat relate to you (and in some cases mention you) over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Jclemens. Admittedly, I don't know Jclemens that well, but I do know some of the people being discussed. II | (t - c) 12:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I guess the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. :P MastCell ^Talk 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Harp that references be included, even when they are, the wiki way to discredit say they didn't even if you know it's false

MasCell for some unknown reason I like you. Your bright/smart; so please help and get that thiomersal was grandfathered into the article. I keep reading this fact on thimersal again and again so it should be stated on the number one site for thiomersal controvorsy on the net. Fact wise it is 100 percent that it was grandfathered in, no one disputes that. Basically, a big part of the controversy was the lack of testing, and therefore to omit that the drug was grandfathered is unethical. Readers require this info as if you don't say it, this is a lie by omission; it is assumed it met FDA guidelines meaning it was tested first etc.

Please give this some thought and after you give it due consideration you'll agree that thiomersal grandfathered in MUST BE IN THE CONTROVERSY ARTICLE PS the thiomersal article is open to edit, I'm not touching it , I leave it to your conscience. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it's easy to compare your writing to MastCell's, I can pretty much state that MastCell is a few orders of magnitude smarter than you. And, giving condescending platitudes at the start of a sentence is amusing at best. Setting aside my snark, there is NO controversy (I'm back to using caps). There is one in your mind, and in the mind of some others, but really, a scientific controversy usually requires a lot of data that is subject to discussion and interpretation. In this case, there is no discussion, ALL (fuck, those caps again) of the real science shows nothing at all. No link between vaccines and anything. NONE (that damn caps lock again). And we have a boatload of real articles in real journals with real peer review to show you. Oh wait, it's in the article. So, my suggestion is that you head back to the Age of Autism and whine there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually that article does need some attention. Seems it completely overlooks the whole scientific fraud conspiracy finding. Shame the UK abolished capital punishment, but we can be fairly sure that the perpetrators won't be getting past Saint Peter when their time comes. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not believing in St. Peter or anything but punishment on earth, it appalls me that Andrew Wakefield hasn't been arrested in the UK or the US for depraved indifference murder, so that he can be executed in Texas or something. I'm opposed to capital punishment, but I have my exceptions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if no Peter, then no getting past him, right?... So does the Republic of Texas have an extradition treaty with the UK? I'm pretty sure they'd have had some victims. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The thiomersal controversy article needs to include that the drug thiomersal was grandfathered in. Your comments have nothing to do with this discussion -- no surprise. --96.54.160.222 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You've said that already. No need to repeat yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

At least, Wakefield never said this. Vaccines make you smarter, according to the American Acedemy of Pediatrics Quote, "One study published in 2010 was conducted in response to concerns about the total number of vaccines children receive. In this study (the last one listed in this document), researchers found infants who followed the recommended vaccine schedule performed better on 42 different neuropsychological outcomes years later than children who delayed or skipped vaccinations. This should reassure parents that vaccinating their children on schedule is safe and is the best way to protect them from disease." http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf --96.54.160.222 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do is to establish that thiomersal was in fact "grandfathered in". Ideally, that would involve finding a reliable source describing its regulatory history. So far I haven't been able to tease out such a source in your posts, so it might help to identify one or a handful of the best available sources you can find (and by "best" I mean according to this site's criteria), and posting them.

My understanding is that thiomersal had been used in vaccines without serious safety concerns since the 1930s. It has not been tested as a separate therapeutic (I assume that's what you mean by "grandfathered in"). On the other hand, dozens of thimerosal-containing vaccines have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy without evidence of concern. Additionally, a number of epidemiologic studies have examined the effect of thimerosal on more subtle neuropsychological function; for example, see Thompson et al., NEJM 2007.

So the second question is how we convey information on the safety of thimerosal. By emphasizing the idea that it was "grandfathered in", you imply that its safety has not been rigorously tested and that it's administered rather haphazardly. That is untrue; the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines is one of the best-studied topics in medicine, so I think your emphasis creates a false impression.

Finally, since you invoked my conscience in your original post, you should know that I take these matters very seriously. The accuracy of medical information on this site has been one of my top priorities and motivations in contributing here. I can't, in good conscience, sit by and watch incorrect, misleading, or inappropriately scaremongering material be inserted into this site when that misinformation has a real chance of causing real harm to real people. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked, WP:battleground, etc. etc.--Tznkai (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No argument there. But to return to the subject of thimerosal, the best source I've turned up describing how it came to be incorporated into (or "grandfathered into") vaccines is PMID 18172138 (free full text). For what it's worth, should anyone choose to pursue this question using actual reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, an admirable display of balanced perspective. I think I may need to go see what else Baker JP has written about. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

He recently wrote a very nice short piece on autism as it was understood in the 1950s and 1960s, and how that legacy plays into the parents-vs.-researchers dynamic today ("Autism in 1959: Joey the mechanical boy"). And a concise rundown of the development of the first measles vaccine (here, although it's probably subscription-only). MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MC. I think perhaps this 1970 paper (PMID 5486557) had some impact too, in quite a separate field. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, that's a different guy (James P. Baker, not Jeffrey P. Baker). Interesting paper from Chest, though, and it underscores the burden of COPD in the heart of tobacco country back in the day. Also interesting to look back on the days when ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and tetracycline were actually useful antibiotics. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Doh! Both from Virginia, though. I had some doubts about the career span... LeadSongDog come howl! 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible breach of FDA rules

THE LAW. Quote, "under the 1938 Act’s “grandfather” clause (21 U.S.C. 201(p)), if a drug was marketed under the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (the 1906 Act) prior to the enactment of the 1938 Act, and the drug’s labeling regarding its use is the same asit was before the enactment of the 1938 Act, the drug is not a new drug. If it is not a new drug, it is not subject to the new drug provisions of the 1938 Act, such as the new drug application provisions found in section 505 of the 1938 Act (21 U.S.C. 355). For the Agency to determine that a drug product is not a new drug under the grandfather exemption, the following two questions must be answered affirmatively: 1. Was the drug product marketed between January 1, 1907, the effective date of the 1906 Act, and June 25, 1938, the enactment date of the 1938 Act? 3b. Is the drug product at issue the same drug product that was marketed between January 1, 1907, and June 25, 1938, and does its labeling describe the same conditions of use?"

EACH NEW PRODUCT FOR THOMERSAL NEEDED TO BE TESTED. THIS FAILURE ALLOWS LAWSUITS AS NOT EACH NEW PRODUCT WAS TESTED. Simply said, the argument that the end does not justify the means applies, the concept of absolute liability applies, complaince is not an option, each new thiomersal product must comply. Does not matter if it is 100 percent safe? What do you think of this MastCell? The grandfather clause for thiomersal is complex, looks like it was breach as the vaccine people thought it was totally grandfathered. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you are trying to conduct or promote your own original research on Wikipedia, which is not acceptable. While I have no doubt MastCell has an opinion on what you have posted, neither of your personal opinions are particularly relevant in this situation; what counts is what independent, reliable sources have to say about it. Risker (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That paragraph was added to the FDA article, and I've undone it since it seems like a COATRACK-ing attempt. Yeah, I feel bad for making that into a verb.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Every thimerosal-containing vaccine has undergone extensive safety testing prior to its approval. I'm not sure what you're worked up about - you think that thimerosal should be tested separately? First of all, it's not a drug, but a preservative. More importantly and less legalistically, what would that prove? It's only administered as a vaccine preservative, so surely the relevant study setting to evaluate its safety is in a vaccine trial. If thimerosal was tested separately and shown to be safe, you - and people like you - would insist that the studies were meaningless because they looked at thimerosal in isolation and not in the setting of vaccination.

  This approach to testing and approving vaccine additives is a common practice - it's not specific to thimerosal, despite whatever conspiracy theories you may have read on the Web. For example, some vaccines contain aluminum as an adjuvant (that is, an additive that enhances the immune response). A few vaccines contain trace formaldehyde, and others contain various amino acids, proteins, or sugars as stabilizers. Many live-virus vaccines contain trace amounts of calf serum. None of these substances were tested in isolation; they were all tested as parts of the relevant vaccine. MastCell ^Talk 01:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence?

I replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Strengthening civility rules asking whether there is any evidence in support of your assertion. I've seen clearly contrary circumstances. Thank you for responding. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't care enough about the discussion to put in the work to provide examples. If that leads you to disregard my comment, that's OK with me. If you've seen examples for yourself, then you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, then all the better for you. Either way, good luck with the discussion. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor retention thoughts?

So, I'm curious - what do you think the whole editor retention issue? Have you commented on it previously? While researching the ArbCom elections, I ran across this clip of the WikimediaUK board meeting where Sue Gardner talked about it; I also looked at the Editor Trends study at Wikimedia. Do you think this is a serious problem?

I've made no secret of the fact that I find the attitude and culture at Wikipedia pretty rough. I feel like everyone around here has a stick up their ass - and when I spend a little bit of time reading stuff, I feel like I'm beginning to get impaled. It really feels like such an uptight, hateful place. I don't really understand why it has be to like that. And that's why I think civility is such an important topic. What do you think?

Incidentally, the research required to make an informed ArbCom election just seems ridiculous, and I'm not sure I can even vote in good conscience. Ah well. I'll admit that I think the mess of Wikipedia's dated software is as much a reason for the decline as anything else. II | (t - c) 06:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think editor retention is a huge problem. I've commented at length elsewhere, but I can't be bothered at the moment to dig up the diffs (I'm feeling pretty lazy). I'm of two minds about the culture here. On the one hand, I think it's remarkably civilized considering that it's a highly prominent pseudonymous online venue. The effects of anonymity and online interaction on civil discourse are well-documented and profoundly negative, and I think that this site exceeds expectations in terms of managing that tendency.

That said, I agree with you that this site's culture can be, as you put it, hateful. There are ever-increasing numbers of festering grudges and people with scores to settle. But I'd actually argue that the civility policy is partly to blame. Civility, as interpreted and "enforced" on this site, is completely superficial. One can act as uncivilly and meanly as one likes, as long as that pettiness is cloaked in the fig leaf of polite language. As a result, we've selected for a tendency toward superficially polite spitefulness. I think true civility is incredibly important, but I don't think the culture at this site has the first clue what civility actually is, much less how to promote it. Instead, we have a lot of misguided and even actively harmful ideas about "enforcing" WP:CIVIL.

To go back to editor retention, I think the problem is multifactorial. First of all, it's normal for people's enthusiasm to wane over time. There are presumably a finite number of people truly interested in volunteering their time to build a free online encyclopedia, and we've already burned through most of them. I just don't think there are many people left out there who are well-suited to and interested in this project and who haven't already taken a stab at it

.

I think we've generally treated good editors as disposable and replaceable, when in fact they are a very limited resource. We do a piss-poor job of supporting good editors when they run up against bad editors (and by "bad" editors, I mean people with no interest in this site's actual goals or policies). There's a jealous king-of-the-mountain mentality here, too - if someone becomes too "prominent", or too successful, or collects too much "power", then they get targeted and torn down by others lower down on the mountain trying to climb up. I've seen that happen to a lot of people here; some of them even deserved it, maybe, but it's a depressing dynamic.

Also, on polarized topics, it's nearly impossible to stake out a reasonable middle ground. I'm sure you've experienced this, on alt-med topics, and you've probably already commented on it. At one point, years ago, I floated an idea at WP:MED to identify talented and constructive alt-med-focused editors and "co-opt" them. The idea would be to create a powerful "reasonable middle" that would effectively marginalize the more extreme and unconstructive voices on both sides of the topic. In particular, there were two editors - a chiropractor and an acupuncturist by profession - whom I esteemed very highly as Wikipedia editors (and as people), and whom I hoped to work together with. In the end, it didn't happen, and those two editors are both (I think) long departed, to Wikipedia's loss. But I digress.

I'm not sure the software is as big a hurdle as it's made out to be. On the other hand, though, I have some (amateur) experience in web development and programming, so the interface here actually seemed fairly intuitive to me (I learned on UNIX and emacs, so anything looks user-friendly by comparison). What do you think the major factors behind the editor-retention issue are? MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Without good data, I guess it is pretty much speculation. Clearly there is a lot going on, including (in no particular order) (1) a lack of a targeted approach to publicly advertise and reward contributors; for the sake of quality, I would emphasize important areas (WP:MED has been relatively good in this area) and something of an excessive focus on "FA" and "GA" articles (even really niche articles which wouldn't attract any attention on a personal website); (2) bureaucratic, tight-assed individuals all over the fucking place, and no strategy to educate them or tone them down; (3) excessive tolerance for distracting, dramatic and/or problem behavior, (4) technology, such as the mess of talkpages (wish we had Liquidthreads).

I agree that we've exhausted a lot of the potential people, but it seems like you view the number of Wikipedians in the world as relatively fixed whereas I view it as very flexible. People can find Wikipedia enjoyable and stick around or find it overwhelming and hostile and leave quickly. Further, long-term Wikipedia editing can engender a neutral, scholarly viewpoint - a perspective which is uncommon even in academia. Since we're relying on gut feeling, I can just look around at my well-educated friends - none of whom contribute to Wikipedia despite my encouragement but easily could - and know there's way more potential out there. But I also know that few people enjoy being in a negative environment.

Sue Gardner thinks it's the way that all the new users are basically bombarded with templates or other harassment. It's kind of funny in that video (dated 11-2011) I posted above - Sue Gardner talks about how "they're only now gathering data because we've only had one survey" but surveys aren't where the data is at. The data is right here, it's just that Wikimedia seems to spend most of its development resources on random things like themes and that article feedback tool. Although I'm not up to it, it's theoretically possible to look at the new editors, look at if they got templated/harassed and why, and compare that to users who didn't (if any such exist) and see how things turn out. And while I realize there's a big bias there and it could require some qualitative coding to screen out the really bad apples in the templated group, the approach is still a mildly scientific way to test Sue's hypothesis. The effort could also involve stratifying by age of account, number of edits, and where the edits occurred prior to dropping. Maybe it's already been done, but it doesn't sound like it. But I digress.

As far as the whole civility issue, imagine that you walk into a courtroom and, while presenting your case, note that your opponent is a "fucking asshole" as well as several other unmentionables. You persist after the judge tells you to cut it out, and find yourself in jail for a night or two. Coincidentally, you lose the case. You appeal, pointing out that your behavior probably caused the judge to overlook the law - and you probably lose that appeal. Boo-hoo. My point is that we're all busy, and if one can't muster the impulse control to present professionally, that's a lot of strikes against. Now, obviously, in most cases there's more at stake at ArbCom - we're talking about the accuracy of the world's #1 information source, and so ArbCom can't be petty and look at surface behavior. And my response to this is: how many civil POV-pushers have really survived, and continue to edit? I know I've been out of the loop for a while, but between alt-med, cold fusion, and race and intelligence, a lot of been basically smacked into submission and have disappeared. Of course, this required ArbCom in many instances. One could say that it was only due to excessive efforts - but how many times has ArbCom really gotten it wrong and let the civil POV pushers get away with it? Perhaps in climate change - I didn't watch that one carefully. And we don't know whether the amount of effort that went into these cases was really necessary. The right side could have presented a half-assed case on race and intelligence or cold fusion and yet I seriously doubt that those on the wrong side would not have been topic banned.

Now, paradoxically, if Wikipedia did deal with its civil POV pushers and its drama-whores, activity could decline. I know I was around more when I was fighting, or perhaps more accurately attracted - like a moth - to the flamewars. And it's quite likely that people learn more when they're going through the controversies - I know that I know far more about alt-med and nutrition because of controversies like the orthomolecular medicine one. And I also know a lot more about Wikipedia policy because I've been driven to read it in order to argue effectively. So, eh, it's not all a bad thing, as much as it seems like (and mostly is) a waste of time. II | (t - c) 06:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your poor Phillies

I don't mean to pollute your page with something that doesn't involve crap about alternative medicine, thiomersal, and/or Boris making some snarky, and hysterical, remark about various members of ArbCom, but all indications are that Albert Pujols is coming to the Florida Marlins (screw the redirect). Halladay is shaking in his cleats. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Pujols is 2 for 14 (.142) lifetime against Halladay, and he tends to keep Pujols on the ground (41% of Pujols' at-bats against Halladay ended in groundouts, and another 12% in strikeouts). See [16]. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fails MEDRS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope neither of you is behind this ;-() LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to edit it years ago, but I found editing sports articles on Wikipedia to be as traumatic as getting involved with Abortion. I wonder if there's ever been an Arbcom about a sports team article. If not, I see a goal in my life. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No-trade clause? After a year or two with the Marlins, he might be demanding a trade. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Must be another whining Mets fan. Go Marlins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A Mets fan??? Forsooth!!! I am a Cubs fan. Calling a Cubs fan a Mets fan is grounds for homicide (in Chicago's North Side, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, how the hell am I supposed to divine that? Your pathetic sadness should have clued me into your surviving 100 years without a championship. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just don't go bringing up 2003, OK? Though I don't hate the Marlins. They knocked off the Yanks in stunning fashion, so that made up for it a little. And as a long-time fan, I can get away with saying this: I'm old enough to remember when the Phillies truly sucked. They were the only thing that kept the Cubs out of last place! In recent years (except for 2008), the Phillies have been a disappointment. But they don't suck. The Cubs in recent years? They do suck. It's more than just a curse. A curse is understating it. It's what Mike Royko called Cubness. Do you know why the Cubs don't have any World Series trophies? It's because the last time they won it was before metal was invented. [insert rimshot here] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that was bad. I bet Bartman lives in Florida now!!! BTW, the Bartman article is bigger with more photos than important science and medical articles. Wikipedia is really nothing more than pop information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Checkmate! WOULD YOU PLEASE POST EVEN ONE SOURCE THAT SAYs THIOMERSAL is not grandfathered.

MastCell, orginal research is not allowed on wiki. You say thiomersal was not grandfather. I can't find a single source that says thiomersal was NOT grandfathered; yet there is over hundred thousand google results saying it is grandfathered. Hundreds of books state it's grandfathered. WOULD YOU PLEASE POST EVEN ONE SOURCE THAT SAYS THIOMERSAL is not grandfathered. Thank you. Quote, "What counts is what independent, reliable sources have to say about it." http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=thiomersal%7E%22not+grandfathered%22&gbv=2&oq=thiomersal%7E%22not+grandfathered%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1422l10375l0l10641l30l24l0l12l0l0l359l2719l0.4.6.2l12l0 --96.54.160.222 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Shifting the burden of proof? Your gambits are becoming less interesting. For the record, I didn't say anything about whether thimerosal was "grandfathered" - I asked you to provide a reliable source attesting to that fact, but instead you keep dumping Google searches on me.

Then I bestirred myself to find what I consider a decent source on the subject of thimerosal's approval, which you've totally disregarded since it doesn't contain the specific words you're intent on forcing into our article.

Finally, you're demanding I prove a negative. You think we should say thimerosal was "grandfathered" unless I can find a reliable source specifically contradicting your pet belief? Fine. Let's say I think the Knights Templar faked the Apollo moon landing. If you can't find a single source contradicting that claim, then CHECKMATE! MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Big Pharma fake the Apollo moon landing? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ProTip: Using LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS IS A NO-FAIL SIGN THAT YOU'RE COMPLETELY ON THE WRONG TRACK!!11!!ELEVEN!!11111!!!!! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NO, the free world faked the moon landings. Why has the space shuttle never gone more than 400 miles up? The space shuttle has never been into space; why is that? Earth's orbit is not space. It's because the Van Allen Radiation belt makes it impossible for humans and this fact is classified for good reason. The only animal ever to make it through are turtles. The Russians have never walked on the moon, but they have moon rocks and have placed a mirror/reflector on the moon. Wiki's Animals in space article does not mention the Van Allen Radiation belt and should be called animals in orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Startreck Making a joke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So in other words - the Knights Templar DID fake the moon landings!!!one Shot info (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

POSITIVE, adj. Mistaken at the top of one's voice. Ambrose Bierce, 02:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

199. is right about the turtle though. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Weren't we just having a discussion on how IP's take up 10,000 hours just in case they make 1 positive edit sometime in the next 10 years? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

C'MON, SHOTINFO, WHY WOULD WE USE APOLLO ROQUETTES FOR MOON LANDINGS WHEN WE HAVE CAPTURED FLYING SAUCERS STORED IN AREA 51? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) is a professional society composed of physician toxicologists and their committee states thiomersal was grandfathered. They know. Asking to place this quote into the thiomersal controversy article, "When the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938, thiomersal was placed on the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list." http://jmt.pennpress.org/strands/jmt/pdfHandler.pdf;jsessionid=B7FAAFDDFA2D2919308C0A958B8660B4?issue=20060204&file=20060204_170_171.pdf --199.60.104.18 (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, generally recognized as safe isn't "grandfathering" a substance. GRAS is an official categorization, and a substance must meet specific criteria to qualify. Secondly, the quoted passage is a bit odd, because I was under the impression that the GRAS category wasn't created until 1958, when the Food Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act was passed. Bit odd to say that thimerosal was placed in that category in 1938 - I didn't think GRAS existed at the time, but I may be missing something. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin userbox or some other indication.

I have mentioned you though not by name, at the amendment discussion. [[17]]

I am concerned about Admins not indicating their position. While I accept that you have reservations about appearing to be posting a badge of merit or something. I think it generates more confusion when Admin do not indicate their position, I don't think there are that many editors who regard wikipedia as a hierarchy with levels of superiority, so saying you are admin by itself is unlikely to draw the attention of the vast majority editors. DMSBel (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a first—someone complaining that an administrator is not asserting their position. NW (Talk) 15:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I make a slight distinction between asserting and indicating. If there have been any serious complaints about an Admin having simply indicated it on their talk page I am not aware of any of those either. Are the complaints you mention about Admin. behaviour perhaps, rather than just being an Admin. and indicating it. Is it not possible that an assertion actually becomes necessary because it was not obvious someone was an Admin. in the first place?DMSBel (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important for administrators to visibly identify themselves, so that other editors can clearly and conspicuously show themselves, the admins, and the rest of the community that they don't attach any importance to adminship, and that they don't treat admins as being different from other editors.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel and Ten, if you add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); to your monobook.js you will have an infallible way of knowing a person's admin status. Just go to the editor's user page or user talk page and you will see a list of all their userrights at the top. Supposedly it works with the vector skin as well as monobook. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm and irony can be hard to detect in online interactions, can't they? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Tenofalltrades says to a certain extent, but in fact Admin do have privileges that other editors don't. That in itself doesn't mean they ought to be treated differently, though I'd say they do deserve respect, as do the wikignomes who do a lot of the work. But my issue here and I could have made it clearer in earlier comments is one of transparency, thats all. Not everyone knows of these detector tools, it's the first I knew of it myself, and I tend to just click on a user-page if I want to know more about an editor.DMSBel (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Or just bookmark this, that's also infallible ASFAIK. But personally I believe admins should identify themselves on their userpage, with a box or similar, where it will be easily found if actively sought. Not on the talkpage, where it would be more in-your-face and, just possibly, intimidating for very new users. I've found those often have exaggerated notions of admins' power and glory. (If I had a penny for every time a new user has threatened to get an admin to ban me... ) The best userpage indication IMO is a clearly described and conspicuous link to the log of your admin actions. Good for transparency. @Ten: was that irony? (Always tricky.) You are of course an admin, but there's no indication of it on your userpage. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, I don't think most new editors find the sight of a userbox stating adminship intimidating, they might given the recent level of decorum find other things more intimidating. But it certainly would help to know how wikipedia operates, for them to know that there are admins etc., its not just a free-for-all (even if it seems like that sometimes!!) Userpages and talkpages are the normative interface between editors. Search tools are fine, but not always known about. And I simply think extended privileges should go hand in hand with greater transparency. Would it hurt the project? But we seem to be somewhat in agreeance. DMSBel (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with the page owner, sorry!) Is that really in response to my post, DMSBel? You sound like you think you're arguing against it. Please see my own userpage for what I hope is some of the transparency I recommended ("a clearly described and conspicuous link to the log of [my] admin actions"). OK, I'm done on MastCell's page for now, this repetitiousness must be boring him to tears. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Not arguing against you Bishonen, I might have misunderstood you. I wasn't asking for linkage to a log, just an Admin userbox.DMSBel (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• You asked me the same question here, but I suppose weren't satisfied with my answer. I used to have an admin userbox on my page. I also used to have a prominent link to my admin logs (e.g. here, under "Admin stuff"). I removed both, along with most of my other userpage content, because I felt like my userpage was bloated and I wanted something cleaner and sparser. (Of course, now my userpage has re-bloated itself, so maybe that's a moot point.) And I haven't restore them for the reasons I mentioned the last time you asked.

  That said, I'm fine with putting some sort of indication of adminship on my userpage if it will make life easier for others. To be fair, I remember being a bit confused trying to figure who held what permissions when I started out here. And I agree it's probably useful to have a link to the logs of my admin actions - I find myself looking for that information from time to time, and having to go through a lot of clicks to get it. But to be clear: that's an argument from convenience, not transparency. Administrative actions are already transparent: they're indelibly logged on the servers, where they can be reviewed by anyone with an Internet connection.

  As an aside, I was inspired to create this snippet of Javascript. It's based on the tool that EdJohnston mentioned above, but I customized it for my preferences. Basically, if you're on a registered editor's user or usertalk page, it just sticks a small line of text at the top listing when they registered, how many edits they've made, which permissions they hold, and whether they're currently blocked. Anyone's welcome to use it, by adding importScript('User:MastCell/user-rights.js'); to their vector.js file. It's not production-grade, and I haven't tested it on anything besides the Vector skin, but I'm finding it pretty handy so far.

  So bottom line: would you like me to add some sort of indication of adminship to my userpage? If so, I'll go ahead and do it. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Please also add information about your favorite baseball team, Seattle grunge group from the 80's (Smashing Pumpkins would show some class), and hair color. I think full information such as that would be useful in determining if anything you say has any validity whatsoever. Endorsements from Boris have no value. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • First of all, grunge was a 90s phenomenon, not 80s. And I've always hated Smashing Pumpkins and their tuneless, self-pitying pseudo-profundity. But I'll work on some userboxes. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Had no idea what OM was talking about. But if his parting shot at me was meant to be taken in all seriousness, he can tell all sorts of things about people on here simply by...well that is indeed the question! Guessing? So he hardly needs userboxes, with that kind of ability! The rest of us can't tell such things until we see them on userpages!

To reply to MastCell, no I don't request you to put it on your page if you don't wish to, or in exception to other Admin. Earlier while editing I wondered just who can and who can't block, ban etc. Yes you are right it is perhaps better to describe it as a matter of convenience, rather than a matter transparency of actions. One might say though that it assists transparency of roles even though without actions and roles are not cloaked. When I see editors not displaying any indication, it leaves me wondering if there are other editors who are also Admin. My preference is that all Admin indicate so. Sorry but I coming to think that a tight-ship approach is best. Up to you what you do though, for myself though I didn't know you had admin privileges at the outset, I have been aware of that since the earlier discussion. DMSBel (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bigfoot edit, no serious encyclopedia would pretend that Bigfoot exists

The Bigfoot wiki encyclopedia article does not link to the Yeti wiki article. Could someone please insert [[]] around Yeti aka the Abominable Snowman in the Bigfoot article? Yeti can also be placed in the also see list for Bigfoot. Thanks both articles are locked. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Butting in here, sorry MastCell. Yes, it is linked, 199.60.104.18. The same question was asked on the Bigfoot talkpage on November 2, and I replied on the same day. Yeti is linked in the first line of the "After 1958" subsection. It's only supposed to be linked once, not every time it appears. Article talk is the best place to raise this type of question: more interested users will see it there. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

And now we've gone from Vaccine controversy and thiomersal to Bigfoot. This is your fault MastCell. Completely your fault. You told the IP to google bigfoot.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bigfoot is covered in black hair and looks like a gorilla. The abominable snowman... well I have never seen him but I'd assume adaption to his enviroment and lack of sightings means he is covered in white hair probably.DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it looks like my hypothesis is proven : see footage from just before the 4 minute point. [[18]]. Ok you got me. It's the ice planet Hoth (humour)DMSBel (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman WP:BLP vio issue

"without comment on which content is "right" or "wrong" - I've commented exhaustively, on the bio talk page, at WP:IBX Talk, and on SPhilbrick's talk page, on what's "right" and what's "wrong". The way SPhilbrick wants to leave the page for now is not just inaccurate, it's inaccurate in a way that leaves a negative impression. Here I go again, and just for you:

On inaccuracy:

• Wrong: leaving Krugman's influences at just long-dead Keynes, as SPhilbrick did at one point.
• Wrong: Leaving it at just Keynes and long-dead Hicks, as SPhilbrick did not long after.
• Wrong: leaving it at just Keynes, Hicks and (aged, then dead) Samuelson, as Sphilbrick did not long after that.
• Better, though far from perfect: a longer, if perhaps not quite complete, list of influences showing that Krugman is not some dinosaur in his own field, but is actually influenced by people like, well ... his own dissertation advisor, Rudi Dornbusch, a great economist himself. Like Stiglitz, a great economist not that much older than Krugman is. And for all I know, some people a little younger. People who are still contributors in their specialties.

Paul Krugman actually has a lot of contemporary influences -- he got the John Bates Clark medal and Nobel prize for contributions at the cutting edge in three different areas of economics, each with its own major luminaries. And that's just microeconomics. He is also a force in macroeconomics. You can't accomplish that in econ without a lot of contemporary influences.

To say otherwise is wrong. And that's what the article said, and it's how SPhilbrick wants to leave it, until perfect compliance with economist infobox has been achieved in his eyes. (Maybe not much fun to satisfy him, since he has told me he really has no interest in who has influenced Krugman. How do you know when you're done, when under the supervision of the wilfully ignorant?)

On inaccurate negativity:

To leave Krugman in the eyes of the more casual readers (who will read the infobox if nothing else) seemingly influenced by just a tiny handful of economists whose work was admittedly great, but already pretty dated when he first entered the field (with the possible exception of Samuelson's later contributions) -- that's negative. It leaves a too-convenient message to some who are desperate to hear it, a message that goes like this: "Paul Krugman got a Nobel, but he's from Old Hat." Which is hardly unprecedented: Hayek left economics for philosophy in the late 40s, having been proven wrong about almost every pressing economic issue of that day, and hadn't done econ in decades when he got the Nobel. And there are plenty of people out there who are desperate for a negative view -- any negative view -- of Paul Krugman. There are even professional economists who say he doesn't know his macro simply because his Nobel was all in micro. They aren't doing their homework on the guy. Wikipedia should not be playing to those motivations in any respect. People with those motivations show up all the time, to make tendentious edits on the article.

It's very unfortunate that the infobox is not in compliance with the guidelines for economist infoboxes. Sphilbrick is right about that. It's even more unfortunate that the sections of the article that could bring it into compliance are neglected, in part (as Mark points out on the Talk page) because the article is so frequently under assault by ideologues. But I didn't create that situation. I'm only trying to remedy its worst effects. Paul Krugman stands on the shoulders of giants, living and dead. A list that emphasizes the dead (in the case of Keynes and Hicks, the long-dead, and in the case of Samuelson, an economist long past his peak when Krugman started econ) is negative and inaccurate.

So: can you tell me why it's not WP:BLP vio when changes (SPhilbrick's serial deletions) leave the article more inaccurate and reflecting more negatively on a living person, in the same blow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs)

• An infobox is a condensed summary. A reasonable reader expects it to mention a couple of Krugman's most prominent influences, and to find more substantial detail about his influences in the article body.
• No reasonable reader is going to assume that because an influence is not listed in the infobox, Krugman must not have any modern influences.
• It does not reflect negatively on Krugman in any way, to any reasonable reader, to mention only a subset of his influences in the infobox, particularly if his influences are discussed more fully in the article text.

I am sensitive (some would say over-sensitive) to agenda-driven editing, but I find it impossible to believe that limiting the "influences" listed in the infobox is somehow part of a plot to diminish Krugman's standing. It's just a content dispute, and as I said on your page, listing 2 vs. a boatload of influences in the infobox is not a BLP violation. It's a content dispute, with good arguments on both sides (presenting as full a picture as possible vs. keeping the infobox short and condensed by listing only one or two biggest influences). I'm concerned at the degree of emotional investment in this issue, which I think is misplaced.

Since you are currently active, I will look back at the article in an hour, and if you haven't self-reverted, I will block you for violating WP:3RR. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no block notice on my Talk page. And I haven't seen you weighing in on the Paul Krugman talk page. In your block notice, you should not only say why the BLP exemption to 3RR doesn't apply to my claims, you should also say why YOU consider yourself exempt from that rule's requirement to seek consensus on the issue on the article's Talk page first. The BLP exemption on 3RR states:

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

SPhilbrick has removed useful material together with sourcing I supplied -- influences that he admits he's not interested in, and whose validity he admits he doesn't dispute. He has substituted only a much shorter list, a few names that don't nearly cover how strongly influenced Paul Krugman is by his contemporaries and immediate predecessors. If there had been no "influences" list, and he'd added Keynes, he could get the benefit of the doubt: he's starting to add important material. This, however, is a case of removing well-cited material that violates no policies, just guidelines, and removing it in a way that itself violates policy. To repeat: this can leave Paul Krugman appearing to casual readers as if he's far behind in his own field. People do get Nobel prizes for very old, dated work (that's actually hardly unusual), and (less usual) long after they've left the field. In this case, it's not true, and Wikipedia shouldn't be leaving any such impression to those who merely skim -- among them, obviously, the consumers of infobox material. Yakushima (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

First, thanks for stepping in. I'm sorry it was necessary.

I wanted to pass along that Yakushima may be in Tokyo, so may not respond for several hours.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe I should read above before commenting. (I've often found that when adding a comment to an editors talk page, it is often useful to read recent comments on the page. I need to make that a personal rule.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Another "personal rule" for you, SPhilbrick, and also a Wikipedia rule: don't assume that an editor who obviously put considerable effort into arguing that an edit is a WP:BLP vio can only be joking. If you suspend AGF and take up the assumption that the editor IS joking, don't assume that others are similarly suspending AGF for the same reason, and that nothing needs to be said. Just say, when first encountering what you think is a joke, that you're suspending AGF on that editor, at least on that particular point. Don't lie to other editors saying you answered that editor's questions and challenges already, when in fact all you did was write what you called a "snarky" response to them, then didn't leave it posted. There's no URL that leads to the erstwhile contents of your mind. Yakushima (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Nice user page. I agree with all 19 of your points. Dream Focus 00:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes for the New Year

Although this may be an inappropriate time to ask, I dare add this to your brooding queue: do you have an opinion on this proposal or perhaps on the new WMF-driven religious-offense-minded Wikipedia that is the making [19]? You are the resident cynic after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

While I think that situation is interesting on a philosophical level, I have not found it to be a good use of my time to try to have a serious discussion about a nuanced issue with groups of Wikipedians in the setting of an ArbCom case. So I'm going to sit this one out, especially since it looks like there are already plenty of cooks in the kitchen. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

'Sup

Haven't seen you around lately. How are things? Hope your holidays are/have been/will be good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I've been cutting back here, largely because I don't enjoy it as much as I used to. The number of interesting, stimulating people is ever-shrinking, while the number of annoying people has been steadily rising since at least 2007. I've gone through cycles of burnout with this project before, and I suspect this one will pass as well, but who knows. Anyhow, thanks for the note... MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

TS

Hey! Do you just happen to be bored out of your mind (yea, right)? I've got three new reviews, and the pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome needs to be beefed up. I know it's not up your alley at all, but with a bit more brain wrapped around neurobiology than I've got, you should be able to get a paragraph or two out of my sources. Any chance you can help out? If so, I'll email the sources. I used to be able to count on Tim Vickers, but ... he's probably off doing what we should be doing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. If you email me the sources, I'll take a look. Happy New Year, and I'll write more once I have a chance to sort through my Wikipedia-related email... :) MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy note, but just for the record: I have never had any interest whatsoever in the dispute about the lead sentence of abortion, and have no interest in participating in any sort of ongoing debate about it. I can guess where all of these processes will end up: with a crappy written-by-consensus lead that's useless and unreadable. And then if I, or anyone, try to improve it, we'll be told it's a product of "consensus" and thus inalterable without another year-long series of discussions.

On the other hand, I see you proposed that the binding RfC be closed by an admin, a WP:MED member, and a user experienced in dispute resolution. Since I'm all three, maybe I'll just close it myself. :P MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation project

Wondering if you would be interested in getting involved with this translation project. Most of the pages involved are forgotten by the editing community thus easy to improve while at the same time read by many. Translators Without Borders is joining use to make the work hopefully more broadly applicable globally.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds interesting. What would be involved and how could I help? I have some facility with a couple of non-English languages, but not enough to easily or comfortably translate medical articles. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The translation will hopefully be carried out entirely by the volunteers at translators without borders. The main thing I am needing help with is getting all 80 or so articles here Book:Health care up to GA or FA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. How about I start working on stomach cancer (chosen mostly at random from the first set of topics at Book:Health care)? Some of those articles might just need a bit polishing to get to GA or FA; for example, cervical cancer looks pretty high-quality already. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes that would be great, many just need polishing and sources (ie. replacing primary sources with secondary ones). Just nominated Hepatitis C after a rewrite today. These articles are nice as most are not controversial and one can make huge improvement without encountering any drama.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mikemikev

• 스토킹 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please could you indefinitely block this confirmed sock of Mikemikev? Checkuser has already confirmed that it is him but not indefinitely blocked the account. He has vandalised my user page and left a typical message at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. He's perfectly capable of IP hopping. Thanks and Happy New Year. Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Happy New Year! MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

I'm back! [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good news! I think it will be a big win for the medical articles to have more input from you. I'm actually not that active at present; I've been sort of depressed at recent goings-on here and I'm (once again) questioning how much sense it makes to devote my time to this place. But I'm sure I'll come around eventually. Good to have you back with us! MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

As you were the blocking admin, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at User talk:ChristianHistory. I'm not so sure the recent discussion on that page has anything to do with either appealing a block or improving wikipedia. I could be wrong, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pottinger's cats

See User talk:WLU#Pottinger's cats. I'd be interested in your view on dealing with this editor. I'm not convinced that engaging in talk page discussion is wise -- only encourages. Colin°^Talk 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to...

...post your excellent Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia to my own user page (credited to you, natch). Would you be comfortable with that? Writegeist (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)