User talk:MastCell/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Thou shalt always kill

That was really good. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a fan. If you enjoyed that, you should check out "A Letter From God To Man". They're my 2nd-favorite obscure postmodern hip-hop act, next to Das Racist. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be a young person. Enjoy it while it lasts. I Facebooked that video already so I'll never forget. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Youth is highly contextual. When I'm surrounded by my professional colleagues, I feel quite young. When I deal with the particular brand of sheltered, provincial entitlement that characterizes the Wikipedia "community", I feel very, very old. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I like you, MastCell. Any time you want to come by and complain about the universe, there's a couple of cold beers here for you. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Page protection

I did not realize that they were sockpuppets. I've reduced the protection. Thanks for the info. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi, MastCell. I am hoping to alter WP:MEDRS. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

trayvon

more devils advocate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Frankly, I don't think it's useful to muddy the waters like that. There already seems to be a determination to squeeze in as much low-quality and partisan sourcing as editors there can possibly get away with. It would be helpful to take a stand about high sourcing standards, because it seems like the most active editors of the article are, by and large, more interested in reflecting talking points from the conservative blogosphere than writing an encyclopedia article.

So I raised that concern, and you responded, more or less, by equating NBC and CNN ("liberal gun-control" advocates) with a bunch of random partisan websites. I think you know that's a false equivalence, especially by this site's sourcing criteria.

You're one of the best editors active on that page right now, and I've seen you take a stand for good sourcing and against some of the more openly biased and agenda-driven edits. If we want the article to get better, then we need to insist on using high-quality sources across the board. Right now, the dominant approach is to find a barely-adequate or unsuitable partisan source which agrees with one's viewpoint, and then defend it to the hilt with wikilawyering.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to be overly harsh on you; like I said, I think you're a good editor. It's just frustrating to have every attempt to set some kind of minimal sourcing standards rebuffed with the claim that NBC and CNN are no better sources than randomconservativeblog.com. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points/arguments, 1) the general argument. 2) the specific argument under discussion on the talk page.

General : I am in absolute agreement with you on high quality sources. I was more arguing that the logic you were using to determine which sources were high quality was flawed, as it could be turned around against the more quality sources pretty easily. Frankly I think there is the potentially for a wonderful meta-discussion about the shooting, and its coverage, and how that coverage reveals various biases in the media, and flaws in their fact checking etc (in general, not just as related to this case). Obviously that meta-discussion is off topic for the article and its related talk page. However, assume that we had that meta-discussion. There are certainly some sites being referenced in this article which are genrally considered unreliable. However, I think it is quite revealing to see how often some of those sites were debunking the jump-to-conclusions of the "reliable sources". Granted, you got a whole boatload of racist stuff, and just-as-jump-to-conclusion-the-other-way crap along with it. However, in this case, I don't know that there are actually "good sources". The mainstream people fell down on the job hard core, and are notoriously loathe to do the true introspection on themselves as to what their mistakes and biases are - therefore we have to go down the chain a bit in this case (the article overall). So While I was playing devils advocate, I think there is some truth in the position as well.

Specific : However for the actual statements/sources that were the point of talk page, there is no reason to go to the crappy sources, as those particular statements can easily be sourced from better locations. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this gets to the point: what makes a source "reliable"? Reliability doesn't mean that a source never makes errors - certainly NBC, CNN, etc. all make their share. Reliability stems from accountability: if these sources do make an error, is there the will and mechanism to correct it? That's the difference between NBC and a random blog (or, for that matter, Fox News). If an error is identified in NBC's reporting, then the network addresses it, issues corrections as appropriate, and disciplines the people responsible. If a blog makes an error, what happens? Is there any accountability? Any effort to correct the error and repair the damage? That's where reliability comes from.

This comes up a lot: for instance, people dismiss CBS News as a reliable source because of Memogate. But they miss the point: when Memogate occurred, heads rolled at CBS. They appointed an independent commission (led by a Republican politician) to review their handling of the incident, and ultimately fired their most prominent TV personality in part as a result. I assume that CBS News will continue to make occasional errors in their reporting, but I also assume that they'll respond seriously and appropriately when those errors are identified. I don't think one can have anything approaching that level of confidence about a partisan magazine, or partisan website, or Fox News (which has an abysmal record of accountability when it comes to handling errors in its content).

Look at it this way: the New York Times publishes far more corrections than does Fox News. Does that mean that the Times is less reliable? Or does it mean they're actually more reliable, because they bother to follow through and correct errors instead of ignoring them?

To return to one of your points, yes, the mainstream media has done a pretty poor job on this case. They live in fear of being scooped by some blogger somewhere, so they push the envelope. But they have more to lose: if NBC makes a mistake, they lose credibility, whereas if a random blogger or opinion columnist jumps to an erroneous conclusion, they have no credibility to lose. It's a Catch-22 for the old-school networks - they can either do careful journalism and get scooped by the bloggers, or try to compete with the bloggers by sacrificing on careful journalism.

As Wikipedians, though, the solution is blindingly simple. We are not a news site. We don't need to rush everything into our article as soon as it pops up on the Web. If we were to wait even 48 or 72 hours before including the latest breaking news, we'd avoid the cycle of errors and corrections completely. But that will never happen - if you look at the talk page, 90% of it is people rushing in with the latest breaking news and figuring out how to get it into the article. The other 10% is people griping that the breaking news they insisted on rushing into the article turned out to be wrong, and blaming the media. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to the both of you for your continuing efforts on behalf of the Trayvon article and, bigger picture, Wikipedia. Most editors are not willing to suffer the strident atmosphere that seems to be a constant undercurrent at articles of this sort. Your pursuit to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard of the "blog situation" was educational. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi MastCell, nice to see that you're still here. I notice we've crossed paths at WP:ANI already. I'm hoping that Wikipedia is better at handling tendentious editors than the last time I was active... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. But the good news is that there are a bunch of new Javascript gadgets and a WikiLove button! MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Data Diving - The Scientist's article on clinical study reports

Thought you might find this article intriguing: Data Diving. Apparently the information underlying published reports was eye-opening even to veteran researchers. Incidentally, there's no clinical study report article, nor does the phrase appear anywhere in our "clinical trial" article. II | (t - c) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article... I have a few thoughts about it which I'll probably share once I have time to organize them. BTW, the closest formal term for the "clinical study reports" described in the article is probably case report form (CRF); we do have an article on the subject, under that name. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping

• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Subject matter experts and reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Crazy pill

Don't worry, any crazy pills you are taking are clearly of the homeopathic variety =p a13ean (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... every time I look at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, I feel like I've stepped into an alternate universe, one that destroys my fragile faith in humanity. I happily de-watchlisted it for awhile, and should probably do so again for my own sanity, but thanks anyway. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I added it to my watchlist right after it happened, but it went totally nuts within a day or two. I just don't have the time or sanity for it. a13ean (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting should/could be a gated community within that alternate universe. Now I only look over the fence to watch the goings-on. Too many agitators for my liking. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance

Some assistance, please? Yobol (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. Who does the blocking honors? Does this need to go to ANI, AIV, SPI, or can someone just block? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone can just block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's KBlott (talk · contribs), of whom the less said the better. He's very banned, so should be reverted, blocked on sight, and ignored. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, can I also request my page be semi-protected? Yobol (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I semi-protected it for 2 weeks; let me know if that works for you. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't know you were around MC, or I'd have not stuck my nose in. Figured you'd know who it was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Let me know if it was okay to ask here (I figured there'd be some talk page lurkers who could help), or if I should take it to another venue in the future. Yobol (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably fastest just to bring it up here, since I've dealt with him quite a bit recently. MuZemike (talk · contribs) also handled a lot of his IP socks, and rangeblocked his ISP at one point, so you could ask him directly. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin shooting

There is no consensus for the material you selectively edited. The general feeling is we add all or none. But "all" has BLP issues. Hence, until consensus is reached, stop adding such material or selectively editing it, as you did in your recent edit. And as an aside, as an admin here you should know better than this. Whatzinaname (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed material from a WP:BLP article where there was no consensus to include it (for reference, the active discussion is here). That's my understanding of how policy works. I'm not going to edit-war over it, but I think you're misapplying the policy you're citing here.

Since you brought it up, I think the discussion could do with a little outside input. The article and talkpage are dominated by editors who focus on nothing else but the Martin shooting, and any sense of perspective is woefully lacking as a result. I mean, it basically took a federal case just to get blatantly unsuitable blogs removed from this article, because of entrenched resistance. I'm not exactly optimistic about tackling the more complex problems with the article in the current environment.

The question is whether a dead individual's school disciplinary record has any relevance to his shooting, and I'd invite anyone reading this to review the talkpage thread in question and offer their input. (Note that the article—Shooting of Trayvon Martin—is subject to 1RR). MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You removed material about trayvon, but did not remove similar material about zimmerman. If you chose to remove part, you should have chose to remove all for the very same reasons. As you have obviously read the talk page and I assume know about BLP, playing coy is rather poor form. No one in their right mind would say any consensus has been reached on the matterWhatzinaname (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

An arrest for getting violent with a police officer is not "similar" to a school suspension. One involves an encounter with the criminal-justice system, and the other involves missing a few days of high school. This is the lack of perspective I'm talking about. In any case, your comments here and at the talkpage (e.g. [1], "black doogie howser", etc.) are exactly why I think outside input from editors with less of an axe to grind would be helpful. MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

well, I thought you'd do a mea culpa instead of a you-ah chumpa. Good faith fails me again. Don't turn your editorial misconduct on me. How people like you become admins here is mind boggling, and it speaks to the deep and flawed administrative oversight of this placeWhatzinaname (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Yes, MastCell, looking at your years and years of contributions, wise advice, and janitorial work, it's hard to understand how you became an admin. If only you were as calm, reasonable, neutral, and smart as Whatzisname. Sarcasm aside, I was torn between giving you an admin's barnstar, and creating a "How The Hell Do You Stand Dealing With These Fuckwits" barnstar, but I figured if I gave you the latter, I'd get in trouble for personal attacks (and horror of horrors, have my own adminship questioned). It should be obvious, but perhaps bears repeating, that outside of Bizarro World, you are valued very highly by the grownups. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Whereas I for my part, MastCell, was torn between biting you shrewdly on the ass and merely reminding you to go vote at my request for adminship. How people like you become admins and people evolved fish like me don't (yet) is worse than mind-boggling, it's a crime. darwinbish ^BITE 23:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
  • I support full equality for evolved fish, especially since I am one, on some level. I'm not sure how you bite someone shrewdly, but consider me canvassed. Except, of course, that I already voted a mere 18 months ago (see support #8 and its irrefutable logic). MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oops. All right then. darwinbish ^BITE 07:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Fuckwit? Pretty mature. I'm shocked you presume to be a friend of mastcell's. Yes, that's complete stunner. Years of wasting your life away here doesn't afford you the right to ignore wikipedia policiesWhatzinaname (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuckwit! darwinbish ^BITE 11:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Fuck is a legal word on Wikipedia? Can I get a Fuckwit barnstar? Seems like the only one that's worth receiving. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A "How The Hell Do You Stand Dealing With These Fuckwits" barnstar sounds like a pretty good idea to me; I can think of quite a few other editors who would also deserve it. Not me, obviously, since I seem to have finally given up dealing with the truckwits, myself. Oh well. By the way, good to see Darwinbish here! Heimstern:Away (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[Darwinbish is cheered, but not into complete blandness.] Hia Heim! Can you believe User:Floquenstein's monster still hasn't supported my RFA? Completely up to him,and I wouldn't lower myself to canvassing the creature, but I'm surprised, that's all. It's a stunner, as Fuckwit would say. I mean, FM is a monster, he's a sock, he's friends with Bishzilla! <subliminally>Wonder if it would help to bite his puppetmaster somewhere? Shrewdly?</subliminally> darwinbish ^BITE 17:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

• In my experience on Wikipedia, I've found that the key to dealing with the sort of people you've termed "fuckwits" is to avoid situations in which they outnumber you. Speaking of which, I have a talk page to un-watch. MastCell ^Talk 01:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Best barnstar I've seen so far. Is there a barnstar for barnstars? ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for your input

You commented a couple of months ago on SirFozzie's user talk page about an issue where I inadvertently violated a topic ban by commenting on another topic-banned editor's arbitration appeal (User talk:SirFozzie#Prioryman topic ban?). The same issue has come up again but kind of in reverse, where another topic-banned editor has commented on my own arbitration appeal, but apparently without any reaction from the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. I've asked them to clarify their position on the issue, given the apparent discrepancy. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for clarification: Jayen466 involvement in my ARBSCI appeal. I'd like to invite you to the discussion - if you have any views they would be welcome. Prioryman (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you are highly unlikely to get any useful feedback from ArbCom. They are hopelessly inconsistent on this issue, and when confronted with that inconsistency they haven't exactly shown a lot of interest in addressing it. You shouldn't have been singled out and blocked - without any effort at discussion - for something that others have been doing under ArbCom's nose forever, but I don't think you're going to get anything more out of them, and I don't think more prodding from me is going to accomplish anything. I'd just let it go as the price of doing business here. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What an absurd situation it is, to be sure. Prioryman (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You might also wish to be aware of an arbiter changing his vote after a decision was fully filed and announced, changing the result. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that, but have not yet formed an opinion which I am capable of constructively expressing. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Link? Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bellesiles

Hi, MastCell. I don't know why but a specific page edit filter is disallowing me from posting a single-line note here. As an alternative let's try linking to the same note I posted on Drmies's talk page .... [2] Regards, --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Sorry about the edit filter - I have no idea what's up with that, but thanks for letting me know. MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say a day or so ago that I couldn't post to your page with this account (which has very few edits) because of an edit filter (which I couldn't make heads or tails of); I wasn't even trying to save a link. I wonder if I can post now... --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Weird... did either of you get the edit filter number? If so, I can track it down. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to track it down, but got distracted by something shiny. I was trying to post in the barnstar section, I sort of assumed it was because I was trying to save a page with the word "fuckwit" in it (even though I wasn't adding the word to the page with this account). But if you can see this note, then that can't be it. I'll give you the edit filter number in a sec; I can't understand that whole interface. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha, it's #264, which is a relatively new one. Let me take a look... MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't post the number here, for the mortals to see, because I don't know if these things are top secret or not. But look here using your special admin xray goggles, and you can see the number. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I took my page off the list monitored by that filter. It seems to be getting a lot of false-positives, but I don't know enough about the reasoning behind it to simply disable it. For now at least the issue with my talkpage should be fixed - thank you both for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure. And @Floquenstein's monster: eek!…but up there with Bishzilla in cuteness factor. :o) --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Florida ip editor

At User talk:69.138.131.238 last November, you said you thought the IP was a banned editor. Who? The IP is back edit warring to promote Ave Maria, Florida. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the banned editor who was active under a variety of IPs on abortion-related articles. Without going into detail, their behavior was egregious beyond the usual Wikipedia nonsense and actually threatened the safety of a real-life individual. It's not entirely clear to me whether the IP is currently in use by the same person or by someone else, but either way I think there is sufficient rationale to temporarily semi-protect Ave Maria, Florida, which I've done. See if you can work it out on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the known IPs used by "Ip67" on the abortion articles may be found here. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional mallard calls at 67.239.64.253 67.239.64.251 (compare here)LeadSongDog come howl! 06:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

good faith outreach

Do you have a diff of the content you added that got removed so I could take a look vs talking about generalities? That way I could give a more specific critique or collaboration Gaijin42 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I had this in mind. MastCell ^Talk 00:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding, had some other stuff I had to deal with. I have some general/conceptual responses, and then a few more specific things.

• As I said in the main talk, comparing stormfront, Malkin, and Breitbard to CNN, NBC, and ABC is not really apples to apples. However, I think that particular issue can be overcome, and that some of this type of conservative meta-critique can come in.
• The mainstream sources were engaging in pretty wild speculation, manipulating evidence (video, audio, pictures, etc)
• The blog sources mentioned were for the most part doing some cherry picking, but they were cherry picking from actual pics/statements of MArtin. That certainly does not condemn Martin, lots of kids want to look tough, especially in black culture - but cherry picking is not the same as actually faking the evidence.
  • The obvious counter examples to this is the "hoodie photoshop" issues, and the possible "finger" issue. The hoodie thing I personally interpret as an honest mistake, and lack of diligence (in that, it is a nice parallel to the mainstream issues). The finger issue I don't even see as an issue - I have seen no real evidence that the photo was faked. Two photos taken in quick succession often look very similar.
  • The liberal side was doing that same cherry picking, by choosing old pics, rather than neutral pics, mugshot only, and focusing on the few bad events in Zimmerman's life the same way. There was a definate rush to judgement, and lack of integrity on the part of the media
• At the core - We expect more out of CNN, NBC, and ABC - thats why their failings in this case are notable.
• Some conservative sites, had some exceptionally vile and racist content on them, especially if you include the blog comments. Again, I would say that is not the same as CNN reporting that Zimmerman called Trayvon a coon. The people reading stormfront probably already had a bad opinion of Martin to start with. The people watching CNN NBC and ABC could actually be influenced by what they saw. This is in some way addressed by your original source, which is specifically saying "bloggers cherry pick". So I think there is an issue with apples to apples, although as I said I think this could be overcome.
• Certainly I think there is legitimate criticism into the motives of some of the sites - possibly racist, in some cases more reactionary left/right, in some cases blindly defending a possible threat to gun rights - but criticism of motives is different that criticism of the content/actions, and I think their actions were in general much less egregious in this case than the lefty side
• I personally went from completely anti-zimmerman on day one (I signed the parents petition on day 1, I started the Trayvon Martin page, made an outrage post to my facebook, etc) largely based on the media characterizations of the incident - to now thinking Zimmerman was likely in the wrong or at least overzealous, but certainly not a violent racist out to hunt down a black kid the way it was originally presented. Further I think actually proving murder is unlikely and he should probably be let off on reasonable doubt. Manslaughter would be more likely to get a conviction, but I think the prosecution is going to have a tough time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that SYG was not in effect. I would then expect a big civil case which he is much more likely to lose big on. Obviously this last bullet is completely unacceptable WP:FORUM as far as the article is concerned, but it might help us collaborate if you know where I am coming from rather than us having to try and infer things from suggested edits.

Specific critiques

• Attribute the commentary to "New York Times blogger X", rather than to the general New York Times. This is not a news article, and did not have the same level of editorial control (probably the closest thing this would get to an editor is the guy getting fired after the fact if it caused the right amount of noise - vs the mainstream stories that went through multiple layers of editors and producers)
• identify the conservative sites more explicitly as blogs vs just websites
• past that I think its fairly acceptable, its very short as compared to the critiques we are putting towards the mainstream - and that is appropriate and justified as per my logic above, but I would support you in including it. If you would like to make an RFC style post in the main talk page (especially including my two specific edits above) I would certainly lend my weight to it.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response, and your honesty in sharing your personal viewpoint on the incident. I think your second set of bullet points is reasonable. In-text attribution is fine, and I think blogs vs. websites is a minor semantic issue. That said, I really don't have the energy to push the issue against what I anticipate will be significant resistance. I think the best avenue for me, personally, is to de-watchlist the article and talk page again. My sense is that most of the more reasonable people who were active weeks ago have left, and the overall tone in the article/talk page isn't healthy. That said, I have a lot of respect for you and your efforts on this article, and thanks again for your thoughtful response. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Luke 3, verse 9

Re:Luke 19 Verse 27

This is glorious! Bulwersator (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Second that :)

There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest the user was from any kind of oppressed cultural minority either. I found the pretence of understanding offensive. Penyulap ☏ 23:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice
		But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses. Ravenswing 10:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Very late to the party, but just saw your close of the ANI thread for the first time. Elegantly done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail

You have some. :-) Risker (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. As do we, apparently. :) Responded. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Help find someone else to close AN discussion?

Hello, I see you almost but not quite closed the AN discussion I've been involved in, because you felt you might run afoul of WP:INVOLVED. It's been open for too long now and I'd really like to be able to take WP:AN off my watchlist. Do you think you could enlist some other admin to review it and close it? Much appreciated if you can help. Thanks. Zad68 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else already did it. Thank you for looking into it. Zad68 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council again

Hi, Mast. Your closure of the Luke 19 Verse 23 thread was indeed "glorious", as Bulwersator observed. I thought you might like to know that IP 209.6.69.227 set up archiving on the ALEC page, which resulted in the talk page thread where you added so many sources rolling immediately to archives. That thread, as you may recall, was about a professor named William Cronan who was targeted with FOIA requests re his work computer activity after he criticised ALEC.

You objected to Lionelt's suggestion that the Cronan section in the article was wp:undue. What you might not be aware of is that he subsequently deleted all mention of Cronan from the article. Anyway, I pulled the thread back to the talk page, added to it, and restored the William Cronan section to the article. Thought you'd be interested, since you'd commented repeatedly in the now-restored thread. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet my best bottle of Scotch that 209.6.69.227 (talk) is operated by one or a group of people affiliated with ALEC. Which means it's pretty much hopeless - you can't write an encyclopedic article in the face of a highly active agenda-driven editor like that. First of all, you can expect exactly zero support in trying to deal with the obvious conflict of interest embodied in that IP editor. Secondly, you can expect zero support in trying to deal with hard-core agenda-driven single-purpose editors. The problem is that the editor(s) behind that IP care deeply and almost solely about ALEC. I don't, and I suspect you don't, so eventually we'll find better things to do and leave the article to them. I don't mean to be overly cynical, and I will probably re-visit the article at some point, but I can't imagine any less rewarding way to spend Memorial Day weekend than trying to deal with an ALEC-affiliated agenda-driven IP editor backed by Lionelt. Remind me in a week or two to look back at the article, and good luck. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. It shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm only surprised that so many articles actually remain unbiased by strong POV editing - though I fear that Wikipedia is headed in that direction. Gandydancer (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same impression of 209.x re COI; your scotch is in no danger, MastCell. I'd really prefer not to care about the ALEC article, myself; I try to avoid articles about American politics. And I didn't care, when I first looked in on the article. But after seeing 209.x and a few others ( Lionelt just gave 209.x a barnstar ) who camp there expunge even overwhelmingly well-sourced content with ostensible "policy" arguments that wouldn't persuade an intelligent seven-year old... well, I take offence at that.

I do so because I want to be able feel at least some pride in Wikipedia, and it irritates me to see people make poor Wikipetan into their propaganda bitch. ALEC's principal activity is to create model bills, and the group camped out there has (so far) expunged all but one short sentence that gives any indication at all as to what those model bills have been about... Right, then; end of rant, but I'm afraid you're both correct that it's far too easy for a few "hard-core agenda-driven single-purpose editors" to wear down those whose primary allegiance is to the project, rather than to a "cause". I'll ping you again on this, though, in a week or two, since you're open to that. Thanks to both of you for your thoughts on this. --OhioStandard (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting through ArbCom protection...

As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci‎‎, you appear to have overlooked the fact that I protected User:Aixoisie/file and User:Aixoisie/file1 as an ArbCom action, to facilitate the other arbitrators' ease in seeing exactly what the pages said. Since several appear to not yet have had an opportunity to review them (it is, after all, a holiday weekend in the US), I'd appreciate it if you would restore them; while I appreciate your promptness, an ArbCom member will remove them when they are no longer needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Us non-admins would appreciate it too. Some of us are getting very interested in what ArbCom does. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Since all of the Arbs are able to view deleted content, I don't see how my action makes it any more difficult for them to evaluate the material in question. And I don't see the purpose served by restoring public visibility to material which, after all, ArbCom ordered deleted by fiat. I decline to restore the material, because I believe it should remain deleted. But if you or another admin chooses to undo my deletion, then I will not wheel-war or re-delete it. As you know, Arbitration Committee membership does not confer special executive powers on individual arbitrators. If you are acting on behalf of a consensus of the Committee, rather than as an individual Arbitrator, then please let me know and I will of course do as the Committee requests.

Also, please don't bother saying things like "I'm sure you didn't actually mean to hide evidence of wrongdoing preserved for an ArbCom review". It's beneath you, since you know I'm neither trying to hide, nor actually hiding, anything from the Committee. And when you attempt to cow people with those sorts of veiled threats, it suggests that you're aware that your actions lack a rational basis in policy. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Coffee Party USA

Hello MastCell. I recently noticed the SPI in which you uncovered that user NP was a sockpuppet of user TP (see here). There is another account I wanted to bring to your attention here, that edited concurrently with user TP in April 2010 (same article, Coffee Party USA), with similar characteristics. In this somewhat cryptic edit, they make reference to creating additional accounts to continue their edits. They haven't edited for quite some time know, but I wanted to make you aware of it in case it was a sleeper. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any duck-hunter would agree those are the same editors, but I doubt we'll see any more edits from that specific account. However, this static IP 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) of his is seeing renewed activity (within the past few days), and poses a problem. Can an IP registered to New York State Unified Court System be blocked? Or is monitoring it the best we can do? There is no doubt the blocked editor is using that IP, as he admits here, and again here -- and in this edit he says the name 'Manoa' should be removed from an article, which he then goes ahead and removes with his TruthfulPerson sock account here. I noted this 207.x.x.x IP on the previous SPI page for this editor, but nothing came of it. IPs 24.193.146.216 (talk · contribs) and 98.116.75.221 (talk · contribs) are also in use by the now blocked editor. Those appear to be newer versions of his old IPs: 24.193.146.146 (talk · contribs) and 98.116.113.166 (talk · contribs), also listed on the old SPI page. I suppose he wasn't kidding when he said an endless supply of IPs and accounts are available to him. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to block an IP registered to the New York state court system, but I don't see a lot of recent activity from 207.29.40.2 (talk). And the contribution log suggests that the IP, which is after all a proxy server for the court system, is probably being used by multiple people. I think the best approach in dealing with editors using dynamic or multiple IPs is to semi-protect the target articles; if you see these IPs actively editing a specific article, please let me know and I'll look into it. As an aside, if block evasion becomes a persistent problem, most states have laws against using state-owned computer systems or other information-technology resources for partisan political purposes, but I'm not sure that would be a productive road to go down. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus theory

Mast, in looking for something else in CONS, I came across your ideal vs. reality edit. While I agree from my own experience that that's true, I was wondering what you thought that it contributed to that policy? Should that recognition have some practical effect or create some practical consideration in regard to consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I love your user page and the good sense of humor you show. Now ... back to writing articles! Bearian (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Best with Scotch

For your reading pleasure... Sources:American Legislative Exchange Council. Of course the pleasure bit is on account of the Scotch. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that the editors at American Legislative Exchange Council will respect independent, reliable sources, even when they conflict with editors' personal agendas. Of course, I'd also like to believe that someday I'll be part of a three-way with Ségolène Royal and Naomi Klein. I'm not sure which belief is more realistic. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If I was the gambling type I'd go with the french girls, but you gotta have dreams. On a slightly related issue, this looks interesting. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren, again, 05 June 2012

Below is a warning that I placed on the talk page of Gandydancer (talk) today. He has reverted other editor's edits several times in the last 24 hours. I remember that you blocked me even before I passed 3RR when I was editing the Elizabeth Warren article. I'm just trying to figure out why I was pre-emptively blocked for 3RR, but editors such as Gandydancer get a free pass. I went to the talk page, as you suggested that I do, when I made the edit today. I explain there why the information is not-notable and not relevant. Gandydancer did NOT go to the talk page and discuss the topic with me before he reverted me. The information is not notable or relevant to the topic of Elizabeth Warren. It is merely a person explaining how difficul it is to do ancestry research. The person does not speak to Warren specifically. The person doesn't provide even an opinion, much less a new fact on Warren's situation. Many editors have expressed the opinion that the Indian ancestry section is getting too long and cluttered, but when I remove irrelevant, non-notable information I am reverted, by an editor who is over 3RR, and that editor does not provide any discussion on the matter. Also, you are an admin who has been watching the article and you blocked me with the claim that I needed to slow down. However, when Gandydancer violates 3RR nothing. I'm just confused. Can you explain to me why you decided to enforce the pre-emptive 3RR for me, but the regular 3RR for Gandydancer does not apply? (1) Revert 1, (2) Revert 2, (3) Revert 3, and (4) Revert 4. --Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, what you're calling Revert 1 and Revert 2 are actually two consecutive edits by Gandydancer, and thus constitute a single revert (per policy). Secondly, the edits you've cited span a time frame greater than 24 hours. That's why I haven't blocked Gandydancer. Arguably, he could be blocked for general edit-warring that doesn't quite reach the 3RR threshold - but if I went down that route, I'd be blocking at least two other editors as well.

In any case, I'm hardly the final word on the matter; if you disagree with my take on it, you're welcome to report edit-warring at the relevant noticeboard. You should be aware that if you do so, your own revert-warring will come under scrutiny as well. I think the most likely administrative intervention at this point would be page protection, given the high volume of multilateral reverts flying back and forth, but if you'd like to pursue it then that's the proper forum. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not afraid to have my edits reviewed because I was not engaging in an edit war. I was just editing. It is you and Gandydancer who believe that when I edit I am somehow "edit warring." One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Also, I am just pointing out to you the obvious double standard here. You did not block me the other day for 3RR. You blocked me because you claimed that I was "edit warring." That is an all purpose "I'm just gonna block you" kind of reason. It applies whether I make one edit or 500 edits. But back to the double standard, I noticed that you choose not to pull out the generic "edit warring" claim on Gandydancer, even though you did pull out the claim on me earlier. That's fine. That's your prerogative as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Wikipedian admin. Yes, I know that I am not to question the great Oz, but like Toto I feel the need to pull back the curtain on the actions of admins. Have a good day! I'll go now and just wait for you to find a reason to block me for expressing my opinion which just happened to be different than yours. Best,--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm hardly the last word on the matter. I don't have any special powers or prerogatives above the other 1,000+ admins on this project, and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by personalizing the matter. As a general matter, I think you'll find that people here will respond better to a less combative and less passive-aggressive tone, but you're free to take or leave that advice as you see fit. If you're not happy with my answer here, you're welcome to go to the edit-warring noticeboard and file a report, where other admins will review it. It is a judgment call, and another admin may well come to a different conclusion than I. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to appeal it. I will lose anyway. The law of admins basically states that unless there is an outrageously bad call then the ruling of the original admin stands. I tend to agree with that unwritten rule also. It parrots the civil proof of evidence rule in Texas which states that a appeal court cannot overrule a trial court on a matter of discretion unless that trial court judge committed an abuse of discretion. Appealing your block was never the point of my comments. The point of my comments is that admins should be open to feedback without getting defensive. So far, you have much more patient than the average admin. You have, so far, not found a technicality to use to block me. That is usually the defensive response that I get from my feedback. Also, my feedback, whether you agree or not, is useful if you can allow yourself to be honest with yourself. I pointed out that you slammed me with a pre-emptive 3RR, but you did not do such a thing with Gandydancer, who was clearly looking for a fight. So far, your only defensive push back has been is, and I give you credit for this, that you commented upon me personally (e.g., I quote you directly on this one, "passive-aggressive tone"). This comment is once again a judgement call and it is not a matter of fact. At any rate, it is an incorrect characterization of my comments. I understand why you might not like what I'm saying because very few regular editors are brave enough (or stupid enough, depending upon your point of view) to actually attempt to give an admin feedback that is honest and useful. And of course both of those adjectives do apply because my feedback is both honest and useful and your mischaracterization of my comments as "passive-aggressive" completely discounts my honesty and ignores the usefulness of what I have told you. Once again, that is the nature of admin/regular editor relationship. Admins just don't want to hear feedback especially from someone that they just blocked--in a borderline inappropriate manner. Wikipedia would be a better place if an editor could provide admins input without being called "passive-aggressive" but that is the nature of the game.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not savvy enough to appeal my block; took me several hours just to find my own talk page!

And I suppose I cannot convince YOU to willingly lift it? If you consider a calm, restrained, reference to a legitimate news story running counter to Lizzie as being "hostile", well then, what's the point? Can I mention Woodward and Bernstein on Nixon's talk page? Guess that's kind of hostile to him, too.

I should point out, btw, that a HUGE chunk of the talk page consists of people really really BASHING her over stuff as silly as a cookbook. I took no (or very little?) part in that. Nor have I used "Lieawatha" etc in the first person. Just a dispassionate plea for others (like yourself?) to stop trying to embargo legitimate news stories.

Here we have a solid Rutgers professor charging her -- in print -- with something nasty, and of an investigation that produced 2 reports on the matter. These aren't my charges, these aren't my opinions, and I didn't even try to force them into the article, although they definitely SHOULD be there. If you won't even allow them onto the TALK pages, however, well, then, what's the point of allowing ANY dissention? Just delete the whole Cherokee section and be done with it. No point being half-assed in whitewashing something.

Cheers 66.105.218.9 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm asking NICELY. Why did you (or someone) routinely delete my legitimate contributions to the talk page, when today you give a pass to people posting the EXACT SAME THING ("misconduct" accusations).

I have nothing against Warren. But that doesn't give the whitewash team the right to delete all negative information...while sticking in subjective terms like "expert".

Expert, LOL. Why not add in "genius" and "inspiration"?! 66.105.218.18 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Know much about this, or interested in discussing Luciddreamworld (talk · contribs)'s concerns that the article needs warnings? Start of a discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I know much about the topic; it's not particularly interesting to me; and I don't really have the patience to deal with yet another True-Believer-On-A-Mission-To-Make-Sure-Wikipedia-Reflects-THE-TRUTH at the moment. Sort of a trifecta. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. A very smart choice on your part. I'll take it up the WP:DR chain if there's anything further from him, but I'm hoping that it's already over. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection New Party

Please explain your Protection of New Party article. This appears to have been done without any reason. The issue at hand is well sourced, and consencus is clear for its inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.115 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's a clear consensus for the material to be included, then the semi-protection is irrelevant. Surely one of the other editors who form this consensus will reinsert it. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Remove The Protection On Final Fantasy Type-0

A certain group of too enthusiastic fans have been littering the page with unreliable and moody sources regarding Western localization. The only solid facts there are to go on are the ones from the supplemental Ultimania material. Moreover, the "hints" that were provided by these questionable sources (read: some random bloggers on the internet) have all been directed towards this year's E3. That has come and gone, with no verifications or comments or anything regarding a Western release. The edits and reverts I have been making were not for the sole sake of just starting some petty edit war - I was merely cleaning up the mess they created. However, they keep reverting my edits and directing me to the talk page to discuss. When fallacious information and unverified sources are in question, there is no "talk" - and that is something which they do not seem to grasp. I ask that you remove the protection so that I may remove the false information, or at the very least, you remove them. I can direct you towards the unverified information as well as the verified one. Then, I ask you to protect the page so it may no longer be abused by them. Thank you. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. I don't want to start an argument on your talk page, so I won't respond to any of that, but if you do happen to want any more information on this situation, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy_Type-0#PS_Vita_release or the IP's talk page. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning to remove the semi-protection; in fact, I'll probably revisit it with an eye to extending its duration or potentially upping it to full protection. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be most appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be fine as well to full protection - so long as the fallacious information is removed. Otherwise, it's nothing but misleading the readers without any context. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

...As I said above. I'll comply, so long as the misinformation is removed. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Mastcell. So, I know you mentioned the prospect of extending the protection on this article . Not long after the protection ended, another IP came and tried to remove the information. While it wasn't the same IP number above, their approach was awfully similar, ie not discussing on talk page and feeling their personal view trumps the reliable source. I was wondering if you could help with further protection, or if you think we should wait longer first. Let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've extended the semi-protection by a week, to encourage the IP editor(s) to sort this issue out on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As you can see on the article's talk page and the original IP's talk page above, I've tried discussing any number of times, so I'm more than willing to, should they (he?) finally decide to do so. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AE appeal by TrevelyanL85A2

I've copied over an appeal to AE as the editor is blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A banned user posted a message at User talk:TrevelyanL85A2 and there is disagreement about whether that message should be removed. As you recently blocked TrevelyanL85A2 following an AE request, may I ask your opinion on their restoration of the message (diff). While the message is harmless enough, I would have thought that DENY applied, and would appreciate your advice. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the user talk page for the remainder of the block, so that everyone can get back to doing something more productive. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Chip Rogers

Is getting more IP or "single edit" editors on a regular basis. I think protection of some sort would make sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a pretty low threshold for semi-protecting BLPs, especially those of active politicians during election season. I gave it a week, which will hopefully discourage the IP editors from edit-warring and drive discussion to the talkpage. If the issue recurs after the week is up, you can let me know or go to WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. "If I were King of the Forest" <g>, we would already have "pending changes" back in place for all political and religious BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

7-Keto

Hi MastCell,

I appreciate your diligence on the 7-Keto page and I want to work with you to reach an acceptable solution.

Please review the attached from the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/acmd1/acmd-steroids-advice-2012?view=Binary

Please also consider the following. If you are going to mention WADA then we certainly need to include all of this information as well.

In March, 2007 the Department of Health and Ageing and the Office of Chemical Safety of the Australian Government completed an extensive review of the androgenic potential of 7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone (7-Keto). Their findings were as follows:

“Data from the published literature as well as from your submission establishes that whilst structurally related to DHEA and testosterone, 7-Keto-DHEA does not have biological action at the androgen receptor. It would appear that the presence of the oxygen double bond on the 7-Keto-DHEA molecule prevents binding to, and hence activation of, the androgen receptor. Thus this substance is not expected to produce an androgenic effect.”

In February 2012 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) (London) reversed their decision that 7-Keto is an anabolic agent. In November 2011, the ACMD had previously advised that 7-Keto was an anabolic steroid and should be classified as a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in Class C. This decision was based primarily on the fact that the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) had classified 7-Keto as an anabolic steroid because it was a metabolite of DHEA. However, after receiving a dossier of peer-reviewed literature supporting the fact that 7-Keto is not an anabolic substance, the ACMD reconsidered their previous decision and came to the conclusion that it could not describe 7-Keto as an anabolic agent and that it did not warrant inclusion in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are the article links: 7-Keto-DHEA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I'm fine with mentioning the ACMD letter. But you can't just remove all the information you disagree with, and replace it with the information you agree with. Here you removed an article from WebMD because you disagree with its conclusions. We need to rely on published interpretations of the medical literature, rather than producing our own reviews or syntheses. This is spelled out in the site guideline on sourcing for medical content.

Here you remove the fact that 7-Keto DHEA is a steroid. Do you disagree that it's a steroid?

Finally, may I ask whether you're affiliated with the production, marketing, or promotion of 7-Keto supplements? MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell -- I appreciate your response. I assure you that I respectfully disagree with the idea that I'm removing information I disagree with and replacing it with information I do agree with. Let's go through the points -- I wanted to make sure it was classified as a metabolite of DHEA but there's no reason not to include the word steroid, so that can certainly be returned. Re: WebMD, Since the claims about insufficient human data are default WebMD language for when they don't have enough information on a particular subject, I struggle with the decision to refute published medical literature citing human clinical data in favor of copied and pasted default WebMD text. If it would help, I will source more information on the anabolic and WADA status as well as human clinical data so that we offer a fuller picture. Perhaps we want to introduce a full separate section addressing the anabolic challenges (or any other research challenges)? Might make more sense and enable a more thorough discussion than the header allows. As I said, I appreciate your diligence and I'm confident that we can work together to end up with a well-sourced, comprehensive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs)

p.s. -- Sorry to bombard you with information (but I suppose more is better, right?) I found a review of the Delbeke paper on Prohormones in Sport, and I also have some safety information addressing the “pro-hormone” issues and the “anabolic steroid” issues. I also found results of a urine test showing that 7-Keto administration does not interfere with urine screens for anabolic steroids.

Lastly, I reviewed the Sulcova and Hampl paper you included that talks about the delayed effects of 7-Keto on various hormonal steroids. In this study the 7-Keto was applied topically for 8 consecutive days and then terminated. After the first dose levels of 7 beta hydroxy-dehydroepiandrosterone was increased and testosterone and gonadotropins were decreased. 7 beta hydroxy-dehydroepiandrosterone is one of 7-Keto’s main metabolites so it is not surprising that it is elevated after 7-Keto administration and it is not a hormone or pro-hormone. Testosterone was decreased so 7-Keto is not converting to testosterone. 7-Keto has a half-life of 2.2 hours so by 12 hours after terminating the administration it will no longer be present in the body so the “late” changes in testosterone and estradiol etc. that they report cannot be attributed to 7-Keto administration.

With the end goal of a comprehensive, thorough article, I'm okay with any and all of these topics being introduced as long as we cover the full picture and present both sides. Per my previous message, maybe a separate section? Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. First of all, I'm happy to discuss any published medical/scientific literature on 7-Keto, or any reviews/position statements by reputable expert bodies. The best thing to do is probably to place links to the sources on the article talk page (Talk:7-Keto-DHEA), so that other interested editors can also comment.

I think you have to understand that the existence of one or two small clinical trials (especially those published outside the MEDLINE-indexed literature) isn't necessarily "sufficient evidence" of benefit. If 7-Keto-DHEA were evaluated scientifically, as a pharmaceutical, the existing data wouldn't be anywhere close to what would be needed to claim efficacy. The WebMD langauge - that there is "insufficient evidence" to support the use of 7-Keto-DHEA - is actually a reflection of the existing state of the literature, which is sufficient only to say that more, larger, and better-designed trials should be conducted.

Please take a look at the site guidelines for medical content. We can't just pick out a bunch of primary sources (that is, individual journal articles) and juxtapose them to make the point we want to make. We need to look at how independent secondary sources have interpreted existing data. Those secondary sources might include WebMD, WADA, the ACMD, Micromedex, etc.

Are you comfortable answering my question about any potential connection to production/marketing/promotion of 7-Keto supplements? MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell -- Of course, I'm sorry, I missed that before. I'm self-employed but I do have a connection to the manufacturers of the dietary ingredient (not the finished supplements). I'm aware of potential conflicts of interest and, as I've stated, am motivated to end up with a thorough and comprehensive article, and I welcome assistance to ensure neutrality. Did you have thoughts on my recommendation to initiate a full section to address risks and benefits? As I said, I am happy to address any issues as long as we present the full picture. I also don't want to create extra work for you (per the discussion below this, I see that you have your hands full!) so let me know what I can do. Writer (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mastcell. i have seen you editing many medical pages and I wanted to ask for your help. I was reading an article and I realized that it needed major help but I really don't know how to fix it. It reads like an uncritical ad for the procedure. Maybe you could take a look and see. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_pulling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.32.126 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will take a look, but I'm feeling pretty burnt-out at the moment and can't promise anything. The amount of sustained effort needed to clean up and maintain these sorts of low-profile alternative-medicine articles is prohibitive. There are hundreds of such articles, and for every such article, there is at least one person with a deeply vested interest in using the article to promote the treatment. I'm one person, and I don't actually have a vested interest in any of this stuff, except that I think this site should provide accurate medical information.

I've dealt with hundreds of these people and articles, and it really feels like a poor use of my time. If there were any sort of serious commitment from "the community" to accurate and useful medical content, it might be worthwhile, but there isn't. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to edit conflict you -- I think I got this one. I know the feeling. Cheers a13ean (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I appreciate it. I did a quick PubMed search and there is actually some published literature from the Indian dentistry community, so perhaps it won't be impossible to write a decent article here. Thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I chose you because I have always been impressed with your knowledge and even handedness on medical articles. People do appreciate what you do. I will learn how to tag and edit soon. I just have to remember my account name and password! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.135.60 (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another possible Soapbox concern

Hi, I saw your note at User talk:Andrewrp#Not a soapbox and was wondering if a similar sentiment would be appropriate for the main poster who appears to be wanting a good argument? After several months it's put off a number of editors and more are weighing in on this one editor and no work on the actual article is getting accomplished. If there is somewhere else to ask please point me in that direction. Insomesia (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to North8000 (talk · contribs). I haven't followed the discussion at Talk:Homophobia in depth, but at a glance it does appear that North8000 is persisting in arguing his points despite substantial objections from a number of other editors. And it does appear that tempers are fraying a bit.

That said, I don't think this is a clear-cut case of talk-page abuse a la Andrewrp (talk · contribs), so I'm hesitant to step in and be heavy-handed. I think the best approach is to clearly outline your objections once; if one editor persists in pursuing their arguments despite failing to convince anyone else, then I've always found WP:SHUN to contain excellent (if hard-to-implement) advice. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I think shun could work if there weren't so many editors involved. I'm thinking we need an administrator to look at the situation if Noth8000 won't stop arguing circularly. Insomesia (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Health insurance mandate

Hey, I saw your posts on the talk page of the individual health care mandate article. You said "But I get a clear sense of ownership here, and unless other editors are willing to chime in, I don't feel like dealing with it at present." and I totally agree - that editor (TVC 15) has been questioned on the talk page by multiple other editors (including me, check out the POV section) and he continues to delete/revert any mention of support for the individual mandate. It's fairly clear to me that he's a Republican who is trying to push his party's agenda on Wikipedia. Is there something we can do about this guy? I'm willing to do something if you are. I'm sure the other editors who have raised issues with him would be willing to as well. Winampman (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the talk page basically looks like a succession of editors coming the article, being appalled by it, and voicing good-faith concerns on the talkpage, only to be drowned out and beaten down by TVC 15 (talk · contribs). I guess I'm the most recent in that line. It's a shame that a relatively important and high-profile article is so poor.

At the same time, I know from experience that it requires an immense investment of energy to try to improve such an article in the face of an entrenched, combative owner, and at best we'll all come out a little bloodied and a little less patient. I've been through that cycle plenty of times, and some of the material on my user page is there to remind me to carefully weigh what I hope to achieve against what it will cost in terms of time, effort, and goodwill.

The problem is that Wikipedia has no formal mechanism to favor sane, constructive editors over tendentious, agenda-driven editors. In fact, as outlined in User:MastCell#16 here, our processes actually favor editors who obsessively push a focused agenda.

I think the best hope is to get a number of editors interested in the page and move away from one-on-one arguments with the article owner. Even if the interested editors don't all agree with me, or with you, they will provide a buffer to help pry the article away from single-editor ownership and back to something that can be edited collaboratively. I think that once the Supreme Court decision is handed down (later this week?), there will be more interest in the article, and hopefully with some new eyes on the situation we can make some progress.

Sorry for the cynicism; hope that helps, and good luck. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:NIME

You beat me to including my rationale and counterproposal. Do check back and comment again. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Block

Nenpog evaded your block. See this write up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a summary: Nepong's User 79.182.199.172 account was blocked 24 hours, from 04:17, 20 June 2012 to 04:16, 21 June 2012.[3] Nepong then avoided the block and detection by creating new account to begin editing during the 24 hour block at 01:49, 21 June 2012.[4] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an accurate summary. The IP person created a new user account while the IP was blocked, to evade the block and continue arguing. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree he evaded the block by creating a new account. But at this point I'm less concerned with that technicality than with the overall level of disruption caused by this editor. I've been here 6 years and rarely seen a more dramatic or canonical example of a tendentious editor, which is saying something. I'm thinking about the best approach, but he's clearly forum-shopped his pet cause into the ground. He crossed into I-can't-hear-you territory long ago, and we're probably at the point where constructive editors shouldn't be forced to put up with this anymore.

(To put it another way: I think the damage done to the encyclopedia by his block evasion was minimal. He could just have waited a few more hours and then created the account. His tendentious editing is far, far more damaging to both our community of constructive editors and to our medical content. But the way things work in this effed-up place, it's much easier to block someone on the former narrow technical grounds than on the latter grounds of egregious, sustained disruption.) MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:KKM010

Hello MastCell, you recently blocked my account for 24 hour which I think is absolutely correct since I engaged in edit warning and am sorry what I did. If I were in your shoes I would have done the same thing so your actions are quiet fair.

Now at the discussion page of Enrico Fermi you can have your point of view and am leaving a message at their. Thnaks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note, and no hard feelings, I hope. It's uncommon to get such a circumspect note from someone who's been blocked, and I appreciate your maturity. As someone mentioned on your talkpage, you probably have a reasonable point; it just needs to be advanced on the talkpage instead of through edit-warring. I don't really have a strong feeling or interest in the content dispute; I was only acting as an administrator in reviewing the edit-warring report. But I wish you success in resolving the issue, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Favor

If you're willing, I'd like User talk:Floquenbeam indef semi'd; no need for an IP/new editor to post there, and I appear to have made an enemy. Be aware you'd be over-riding an admin at RFPP who already declined to do so because "we don't semi protect talk pages"; no problem if you'd prefer not to get into a whole thing with them, to be honest I wouldn't want to if I were you. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC) (too lazy to talk in character)

Hah... that's what you get for going to WP:RFPP. Trusting the competence of a randomly selected administrator is a rookie mistake - you must be slipping. Fortunately, you came to the right abusive admin this time. I semi-protected the page; overriding other admins is pretty much what I live for these days. Everything else about this place has gotten pretty boring. Actually, I should make you reclaim your admin bit and protect it yourself, but I'm feeling charitable. :) Hope things are going well, and always good to hear from you. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course, evidently it only took a couple of weeks before I reverted back to a clueless noob. From now on I'll come directly to you for all my abusive admin needs. And that ArbCom request looks pretty tame; surely you can do better than that? Anyway, thanks, you rock. Enjoy the summer. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Admins and Burnout

Hi MastCell, long time no see :) I just wanted to drop by and let you know about something myself and Dougweller have been talking about on WikiProject editor retention. While the project focusses on all editors (especially new editors we loose quickly) we want to do something to retain sysops (some one mentioned that there are less than 200 active admins). We want to know what's keeping ppl here, what's driving them away and we want to find ways to help. I was wondering if you'd like to contribute. Ultimately we want to help keep good faith people here and reduce negative aspects of the site.
I'm also doing some actual research on wikipedia studies (lit review of work out there on conflict, policy, sysops and editor loss) on meta if you had any thoughts on that I'd welcome them :) --Cailil ^talk 19:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My goals in wiki

I came here excited to share fact that should help people live better lives. Birth control (IUD should be considered) and tea especially green. I spent hours researching very recent anti cancer agents and results of green tea, and tho simplistic, made modest entries. Well supported double blind stuff tho small trials. BOOM it's all gone, editor claiming a very simplistic FDA review is primary. That FDA review is very limited in scope and quite dated. I quit wiki.

I come back when a friend dies of prostate treatments. Not prostate cancer itself, but the common consequences of the PSA test. He had a heart attach at 48 no history, low cholesterol. VERY high CRP and 2 days out of the hospital prostatectomy. I find wiki article vague, out of date, and often misleading. I find little editor resistance to fixes. But OMG when I apply the same updated info to mammography and breast cancer BOOM facts are removed or diluted or buried. I come to understand that probably most editors in wiki have conflicts of interest.

I write all this because I enjoyed reading your user page writing. You seem to fathom why editors quit unless they are following the money. I'm going to head back there and read more carefully. But then your comment breast cancer talk doesn't jive, so I wonder.32cllou (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are either dissembling, or misremembering. Your attempts to slant the Mammography article began before your attempts to slant the Prostate-specific antigen article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. I think we probably agree that there's a strong case to be made for rethinking the old approach to prostate-cancer screening, and in fact that rethinking is evident in the latest USPSTF recommendations. I recently read Otis Brawley's book How We Do Harm, in which he passionately, eloquently, and sometimes combatively made the case against PSA screening, complete with horror stories about patients who were harmed and follow-the-money descriptions of some of the organizations which promote screening. If you haven't read the book already, I'd recommend it.

As far as breast-cancer screening, I think I've only made one comment, so you must be referring to this. I really do think you're doing yourself a disservice by personalizing the issue so much. When you accuse James of carrying water for GE, it just makes me disregard the rest of your post. James is interested in presenting accurate medical information to the reader. So are you. You need to find a way to work with the other editors of the article.

The sheer volume of rapid-fire posts and edit-warring makes it nearly impossible for an outside observer (me, for instance) to figure out what the content dispute is actually about. Really, I think everyone will agree that the Cochrane Library and the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force are reliable secondary sources for medical material. If these august groups reach different conclusions, that's fine. It's not our job here to resolve their contradictions, just to accurately present their viewpoints. Reading over the arguments again and again, I still can't quite understand where you're failing to connect with the other editors. I'm not saying it's your fault, but I think you'd find things much easier if you moderated your communication style a bit. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The end result in both PSA and Mammo are now mostly factual. You are correct that I am angered by the tactics and attempts to dilute the most recent meta. One example, "Many" becomes "Some" when it's two natl organizations james / jmh649 cites, in way that exaggerates, natl orgs that recommend mammo. The editor then failing to fix re specific two and their specific recommendations by date. So, I have to take the time. The end result should have taken a small fraction of the time if editors were constructive.

The mammography pic is not accurate. Young woman instead of 50+. Her breast is barely pressed, instead of smashed down hard. It's from the NCI, so it stays. But it is not representative of fact and really does look like a mammography machine marketing picture. Does it give you the true feeling that the procedure is quite painful (reported usually less than actual) for more than half? If not, it misleads. To the point of conflict of interest, why do jmh649 and Yobol insist / require it's inclusion?

Hipocrete, your comments above are vague. If there's a constructive criticism, please direct me specifically. Where do I have display any "slant"? I edited both psa and mammo at about the same time, sorry if my listing was off by a day. I write into word, then transfer, but the dates of those files is reverse of my entries in wiki.32cllou (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PS I wager in a few years we well be reading of how we did net harm promoting mammography and its aftereffects. That's what the 2012 cochrane concludes.32cllou (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at childbirth, and note Yobol removed the last sentence "Induced birth before 39 weeks is associated with increased chances of health and developmental problems, and learning difficulties. He has valid reason, though both news articles are well referenced. I don't have access to journals without paying $$$$$$$$$$$. Yobol does, but deleted useful info instead of properly referencing. Induced births are 20% of all births nowadays, doing great harm to the infant. What could be his motivation? Why doesn't he just pull the cited references and insert?32cllou (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Got all the journal and med assoc stuff OK as review and entered in lead, management, and complications. Yobol did a great job of filling out the policy guidelines and info.32cllou (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog

I notice nenpog has only made 26 article space edits, 25 of which are in a 4 day period after account creation: [5], all on X-ray computed tomography and Ionizing radiation. He has made 370 edits outside article space and is essentially a completely non-productive tendentious time waster [6]. I see at the moment he appears to be leading himself towards a ban. It looks like he is willingly leading himself towards a block and it seems, to me, pointless to slowly wait for him to violate the rules as he sucks away the time of other editors, per similar reasoning to WP:SNOW. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that I previously edited from dynamic IPs, and that the above does not include that. Have a look at how the article look today and how it looked before I started to edit it. Most of the changes in the adverse effects and scan dose section are due to my contributions, and each of the accepted edits was greatly resisted, even simple things like the numbers at the scan dose table, which are quotes from a source that was already accepted for other numbers that were in the table! --Nenpog (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

RotaTeq and risk of IS

Dear MastCell, I am a bit perplexed by your comment and will take the opportunity to clarify apparent misunderstandings. You feel that I “should be ashamed of this blatant misrepresentation of the source...expecting no one to read it”? I would urge you to heed your own advice and examine it more closely, as this will surely allow to you to revisit your assertion that “the post-marketing data show that ‘no safety concerns were identified for infants vaccinated with RotaTeq’", and, of course, will serve to answer your query regarding my need to “pretend there were”. I do have a clever imagination, but it is not served by conjuring up images of infants developing intussusception days after administration of a vaccination. Page 5 of the document states “Although the study results support the conclusion drawn from REST, one cannot definitively rule out a small increased risk for IS after administration of RotaTeq”. There is a responsibility to inform consumers of these risks so that they may make educated choices based upon published benefits as well as potential hazards. --Kfav 20:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

All right. Let's be crystal-clear about why I have a problem with your edit. First of all, let's look at the source you cite - the FDA summary of post-marketing surveillance of the RotaTeq vaccine ([7]). The rate of intussusception was the same in the RotaTeq group and the control group (6 cases in the 85,000 infants receiving RotaTeq; 5 cases in the concurrent "control" group of ~60,000 infants receiving DTaP).

The FDA document repeatedly states that RotaTeq was not associated with any increase in the risk of intussusception: Chart-confirmed findings based on comparisons with concurrent and historical DTaP controls did not support an association between immunization with RotaTeq and IS [intussusception] or Kawasaki Disease, with relative risks well within normal limits. (emphasis mine)

As a result, the amended FDA labeling for RotaTeq now states: In safety analyses which evaluated multiple follow-up windows after vaccination (days: 0-7, 1-7, 8-14 and 0-30), no safety concerns were identified for infants vaccinated with RotaTeq when compared with self-matched controls and the historical control subset. (emphasis mine, again)

Here's how you present that source: "However, a post-marketing observational study revealed confirmed cases of intussusception occurring within 30 days of RotaTeq administration." Do you think that's even remotely an honest use of the source? It's actually worse than a lie; it's a half-truth, carefully constructed to be technically true but completely misleading in its implications. Yes, there were confirmed cases of intussusception reported after RotaTeq—the same number of cases (statistically speaking) as in kids who didn't receive RotaTeq. You've taken the source's finding that RotaTeq is safe and turned it on its head to imply that it causes intussusception.

I see two possibilities here: a) you read and understood the source and chose to intentionally misrepresent it to scare people about the vaccine, or b) you have failed to read or understand the source but nonetheless cited it completely inappropriately. If there is another explanation, please let me know.

In light of your blatant misrepresentation of the safety data on RotaTeq, your moralizing about our "responsibility to inform consumers" is pure hypocrisy. You've robbed the reader of the right to make an informed decision by misrepresenting the data. You are manipulating sources to misinform people, and the idea that even one person will choose not to vaccinate their child on the basis of your misrepresentation of the safety data is what keeps me editing here. If we took our responsibility to provide accurate medical information half as seriously as we take our responsibility to living article subjects, edits like yours would result in an immediate and permanent ban from this site. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted this edit. MastCell, I don't think you need offer Hanlon's razor as an option. I agree with your opinion that we shouldn't have to put up with this sort of willfully misleading editing. Where does one request a ban and/or request such a ban be supported by explicit policy. Colin°^Talk 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dali lama ding dong

Per this notification he is under an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed yet somewhat flagrantly flaunts it by editing articles such as Land of Israel, Haganah and Zionism. See Contribs. I suspect that given the way he's tweaking his nose at the sanction, even if you block him he'll come back under another account. Do I need to file an AE? Or is notice to you sufficient.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to jump through the WP:AE hoops for such a flagrant case. I've taken care of it. He may well come back to the Arab-Israeli topic area under a different account - he wouldn't exactly be the first agenda-driven editor to do that, after all - but we can tackle that if/when it happens. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that but I have a sinking suspicion that we haven't heard the last of him (or them)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [8] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much unanimous that WP:BLPCRIME applies to the allegations against Zimmerman, which don't belong in the article at present. I appreciate the note, though, and your work on the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog again

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol.

Previous AN/I discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#User:Nenpog

Previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 109#Alert !

Previous Topic bans: Diff1gDiff2Diff3 --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I obviously erred in not indefinitely blocking Nenpog in the first place; lesson learned. I have no desire to waste any further time on this, nor should anyone else have to. Once the ArbCom request is formally closed—assuming the Committee sees no merit in his request, which it appears they do not—I plan to block Nenpog indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA question

I see that you do a lot of WP:ARBPIA enforcement. Could you take a look at the contributions of User:Society of Rules? The comments on User talk:Sean.hoyland make it abundantly clear this is not a new user. But I know almost nothing about the topic area, so I wouldn't even know where to begin to check. I've given and logged an ARBPIA warning, partially per the likelihood that this is either block evasion or bad hand sockpuppetry, and because the edits at Palestinian people, while under 1RR, are questionable. But I thought you might be able to spot something that would indicate exactly where this user is coming from. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been handled. I don't really have any great insight into the editor behind that account, and I can't say it rings any bells. I think the ideas voiced at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lutrinae are likely on target. Sorry I can't be of more help... MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's alright, as long as the problem (temporarily) goes away. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You are a fucking awesome Wikipedia editor and administrator. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... that's very kind of you, and I appreciate it. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lyme disease page

Re. your recent retraction of my edits to the Lyme Disease page:

You wrote, "(this is pretty clearly inappropriate synthesis,not to mention inaccurate to imply that the view of IDSA and AAN (among other organizations) is a "minority" view)".

A. I did not use the word "minority view".

B. "Inappropriate synthesis" means use of multiple sources to claim something not claimed in those sources. In this case, I listed citations, and observed that the authors of those citations are the same people. Authorship /is/ claimed in these sources. I am correctly using citations to point out that these multiple sources, which are presented in the previous version of the article as multiple independent authorities, are the same group of people over and over.

C. You retracted my "[citation needed]" after the claim "insurance coverage of long-term antibiotic therapy, which most insurers deny". That original claim is unsupported, and needs a citation. Philgoetz (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I didn't say you used the words "minority view". I said that you implied it. And you did, by writing that the IDSA/AAN position was "not a broad consensus of the medical community, but the work of a small number of clinicians".

Your point B is pretty much the definition of improper synthesis. You cite a bunch of the relevant papers to support your personal conclusion that their authorship isn't sufficiently diverse.

As for your "citation needed" tag, I removed it because the content in question is sourced. Read the pieces cited at the end of the sentence in question, particularly the Forbes piece (look for the paragraph that starts: "Many of the chronic Lyme patients are upset that their insurance companies won't cover unlimited treatments...")

It looks to me like a number of editors disagree with the changes you're trying to make. I'd suggest you go to the article talk page and make your case. It's certainly possible that I'm being unreasonable, or that I could be converted to your viewpoint if you explain it further. But if you just keep edit-warring, no good will come of it. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note discussion at WP:COIN

There's a tiny chance you might be interested, it looks like a confluence of possible science, possible quackery, definite self-promotion and a soupçon of cancer. You've commented on Venturi before, and you might have the expertise to address some of the issues. Thus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

JohnDoe0007

I was going to block after that third edit of his, but I'll defer to you if you think the warning will be enough. NW (Talk) 20:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm involved - having reverted one of that editor's BLP violations earlier today - so I'm not going to do anything administrative. I chose the warning because I was too lazy to hunt down an uninvolved admin, not necessarily because I think it's a sufficient response. Personally, I think a block is well-warranted by the edit-warring and BLP violations to date, although I suspect such a block will be controversial. After all, the categories of "zealous BLP proponent" and "WMC-hater" are heavily overlapping, and personal prejudices usually trump principle in my experience. But then, I've been accused of excess cynicism. :)

I guess this is a long way of saying that I think a block would be completely appropriate; I chose to warn rather than block because I'm involved. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I noticed a problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens!

Arcandam (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's 'cause I'm allergic, you bastard. :P Thanks anyway - it's the thought that counts. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I bought it from Felix Pets, they claimed it was hypoallergenic because, well, you know, its kinda virtual and 2d and stuff. Arcandam (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Have another!

I hear you

[9] Even if you decided that others might not find it enlightening. Risker (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - that means a lot, since you know I value your opinion very highly.

I'm (intentionally) ignorant of the on-wiki and off-wiki aspects of the Fae situation, so I'm probably not qualified to take a strong stand on the subject. That's why I removed my post - one thing I've always hated about Wikipedia is the way people immediately stake out dogmatic positions about things they really know nothing about, and I realized that I'd sort of fallen into that trap.

Anyhow, thanks for the kind words, and I hope you and yours are doing well. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw your (now-removed) comments also and think there is a good deal of truth in them. (I probably have an essay in me about all of this, though I would struggle to avoid Newyorkbrad tl;dr syndrome if I actually decided to write it, which is one reason I haven't yet.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd certainly be interested to read your thoughts on the subject, regardless of their length. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions to Wikipedia!  TOW  talk  22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I see we disagree (mildly) about whether to call Rob Portman a lobbyist (I say no, you say yes). It's interesting; the Washington Post does just about everything except call him a lobbyist. They note that Portman worked for a lobbying firm, registered as a "foreign agent", and met with legislative staff on behalf of a Hong-Kong-based business concern ([10]). All of that does add up, in any sane person's mind, to "lobbying". So I guess it's a philosophical difference about how much we connect the dots. Anyhow, thanks for the barnstar, and for your contributions. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. Ryan Vesey 19:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. I'll return the favor by saying that I greatly appreciate your input. Even when we disagree about a specific question, you're a welcome voice of reason in an otherwise depressing partisan stew. I'm starting to remember why I avoided political articles in 2008 - Wikipedia's mechanisms for dealing with agenda-driven editing are essentially non-existent, and these hot-button political topics bring out the worst in people (myself included, probably).

One of the things I can't stand about modern political discourse is its overwhelming intellectual dishonesty. Wikipedia should, ideally, be a refuge from that sort of manipulative untruthfulness, but it's being imported here in large quantities during election season.

Anyhow, enough griping - thanks for the note, and keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 07:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle on wikipedia avoiding the political spin machine, in pratice this is going to be very difficult. Even if you adhere to 100% strict "truth", every (political) fact can be rephrased many ways with additional details radically changing the interpretation of what they mean. (IE, which unemployement number should we report, the one that does not count people who have stopped looking for work, and whos benefits have expired, or the full "everyone not working" number) Beyond that, which "facts" are notable enough for inclusion to start with is itself a source of great controversy. WP:RS are in fact notoriously unreliable and biased in various directions when it comes to politically charged things as well, so we cant just fall back to "what the sources say"Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - it's actually not difficult at all to avoid the political spin machine. It's really simple - use the best available independent, reliable sources. If there are reams of competing budget numbers being bandied about by both campaigns, then look at how independent, reliable sources have parsed them. The best sources actually address the issues you're describing in their analysis.

The basic approach is simple - if you're writing an article, start by identifying the best available reliable sources, and follow where they lead. The problem is that on political topics, very few people want to write that way. They'd rather start with a partisan talking point, and then try to dig up just enough marginal sourcing to force it into the article (or to create a standalone article, in the case in point). It's actually pretty easy to tell when people are honestly looking for good sources, vs. when they're just using the sources as a lever to get their agenda onto Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that

If you are still concerned about its neutrality, try WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you may. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your follow-up and your constructive work on the article. Trust me - I've been here a long time, and I know exactly what it would take to deal with the sort of ideologically-driven editing currently contaminating that article. I just don't have the energy or desire to do it. I'm fine with letting them turn the article into a thinly-veiled, uncritical amplification of a dishonest partisan attack ad. I designed my user page specifically to remind me to let this sort of stuff slide. I'm good, but thanks for the note, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Poke, poke

I have mentioned you name here. I apologize for taking it on me to interpret your motives for certain actions, and invite your correction. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

I think it's fair to say that I'm really depressed at this site's superficial and juvenile idea of "civility", and at the ham-handed and counterproductive ways in which we try to "enforce" it. The most disappointing thing is that there's absolutely no memory at all, and no evidence that the community is capable of actually learning anything from past experience. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to keep calling for civility blocks, as Santayana observed and as I duly noted as #14 here. It's really depressing to look back four effing years and realize that we're no wiser. But whatever; serenity now, serenity now... MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Scibaby socks question

Have any blocked Scibaby socks ever requested unblocking? Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some have requested unblocking through unblock-en-L in the past, although I have not tracked recent trends. No statistics or archives of these requests are kept, and there are no accessible records of unblock requests. Now that range blocking is very rarely done (and the old ones were lifted), I understand we no longer get complaints about the inability to create accounts or edit on "Scibaby" ranges. Risker (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Range-blocking has never struck me as a good way of approaching things anyway, but I was thinking more along the lines of whether individual sock accounts ever appeal. I notice that none of the recently blocked socks have appealed or even commented on their blocks. That's just what you'd expect from throwaway accounts, though. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis on how many blocks, good or bad, are ever appealed. My observation is that block appeals by new users are extremely rare, regardless of their appropriateness; almost all block appeals are by experienced users (some of whom are sockpuppets). The message people get when they try to edit blocked is almost incomprehensible if they aren't already familiar with Wikipedia conventions. Even if their edits, on review, are legitimate, most of them either simply create a new account (and then really get jumped on) or they write off Wikipedia entirely. Might be an interesting area of research for the editor engagement people to look at, although I'd be hard-pressed to figure out how they'd extract information, unless the user has email enabled. (However, the account creation template does seem to encourage people to add an email address, which is then included in their preferences.) Risker (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My anecdotal experience is in line with Risker's. The lack of unblock requests might reflect the fact that it's easier for Scibaby to simply create a new batch of accounts instead, but it might also reflect the fact that new users are frequently so confused or intimidated by the block notices that they don't avail themselves of the appeal mechanisms. I don't think you can interpret the lack of unblock requests as having any positive or negative predictive value. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record.

It's entirely possible to oppose bias in one direction without wanting to replace it with bias in the other. My interest is in preventing well-sourced information from being removed from articles and keeping out obvious bias from any direction. Early on, I didn't know how to deal with edit-warring and incivility, but I'm learning. I take it as a personal insult when you equate my behavior with that of Belchfire and others of his group. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What you have in common with Belchfire and a number of the other WP:RIGHT editors is that your editing is devoted largely or solely to political hot-button issues, and you typically stake out an ideological position on these articles and push it. I have sort of a reflex negative reaction to people whose interest in Wikipedia seems limited to using it as a platform for their political agenda, and right now your editing history lumps you into that category.

I'm not saying that you have to divest yourself of your political views. But look - there are two basic approaches to editing controversial topics on Wikipedia. The first is to start out by looking for the best available sources and then following where they lead. The second is to start out with an entrenched agenda, and then hunt around for sources that you can use to leverage that agenda into the article. Wikipedia gets infested with people in the second group during election season. One can try to camouflage the second approach as consistent with the letter of site policy, but I think it's pretty easy for anyone with some experience here to tell which group someone falls into.

My advice is to do some work around this project outside of U.S. culture-war hot-button topics. It's a lot easier to get a feel for the place, and it's actually a lot more enjoyable. I get bothered by what I see as obvious attempts to abuse Wikipedia as a platform to amplify political talking points (and with entire WikiProjects seemingly devoted to doing the same), and sometimes I feel compelled to get involved in the more ridiculous and outlandish ideological abuses of this site (like you didn't build that and the attendant nonsense). But if that were all I did, I wouldn't have much fun here, and I'd get a pretty skewed view of how this site operates. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do edit more than political articles, but this is the political season; that's where the activity is and it's activity that gets my attention. My methodology is to track changes and consider whether they're adding inaccuracy, removing information or otherwise harming the article. I'm particularly sensitive to "revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness".

To the extent that there are editors adding liberal bias, I oppose them as well, but that's not what I'm running into here. There seems to be some implicit notion that articles about conservative topics should be controlled by conservatives, and I strongly disagree with that. I've briefly expressed my political views and it would be fair to call them liberal, at least by current standards. That's why I've followed the advice in WP:WFTE, editing Mitt Romney instead of Barack Obama.

There was a recent and successful attempt to censor most of the information about Mitt's missing taxes, but I've seen nothing comparable to this sort of whitewashing on Obama's article. And I don't need to tell you about this WikiProject Conservapedia issue.

In any case, any advice about walking away is untimely. It's too late: I've stirred up the hornet's nest already. No guarantees, but it's likely just a matter of time before they find some way to get me banned. I might as well use the time I have to do what I can. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase, "They've put a noose around my neck and I'm up on this high platform, so, I might as well jump off." Too many veteran editors have tried to convince you of the folly of your methods. At some point, it becomes a waste of valuable time for the responders. I suggest you remove the victim noose, get off your "high horse, and see what happens. Or not. Its always been up to you. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you pro or con WP:RETENTION? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take the advice you've been given and go create a new article or work on something quiet for a few days. Less drama and more constructive contributions would help. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate report

On the recent 3RR at You didn't build that. Sorry, dude. You gotta be quicker :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I got slowed down including all of the timestamps for the reverts. (When I'm reviewing WP:AN3 reports as an admin, I find it immensely helpful to have the diff timestamps called out in the report, so I try to pay it forward when I file). I've been tinkering with a Python script that automatically pulls diffs from the database, condenses consecutive edits, and spits out a formatted 3RR report, but it's not quite production-ready so I'm stuck with the slow, manual approach for now. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There used to be this handy tool that helped create reports, but I've lost the link to it. I admit I was lazy filling in the report stuff, but it's awfully tedious. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the old online tool was pretty limited. For instance, it couldn't handle consecutive reverts by the same editor (it would list them all as separate reverts). I used to use it, but in all but the very simplest cases I found that I had to go back by hand and reformat/condense the report to get anything useable. I figured I could hand-code something myself that would work better, but just haven't gotten around to it. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A hand job is always going to work better than an online tool ;-) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey: Ain't that the truth. MastCell: Any Python tools you're partial to? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean developer tools, or scripts I've written? I have a script that I use to periodically tabulate links to patently unreliable sources, so I can review and address them. Also one that identifies every instance where a medical article cites the Daily Mail as a "reliable" source (but I don't use that one often, because it's too depressing). And one that I use to quickly collect all contributions by a specific author to a specific page (a feature which the MediaWiki API provides, but our current Web interface hides).

I've actually found JavaScript to be more useful in terms of gadgetry, although it's a serious pain in the ass to debug. I use this script so that when I go to Special:Linksearch I can restrict my linksearch to specific namespaces (useful for finding article links while ignoring talkpage links). And with this script, every time I go to someone's user or usertalk page, a little sidebar pops up listing their user rights (admin, checkuser, etc), the date they registered, and their number of edits. Handy.

Are there any areas where you think an automated or semi-automated tool would be useful? MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Any chance of you closing the equally straightforward one above it (User:Settdigger reported by User:I Jethrobot) - I can't because I reverted the editor once while he was edit-warring. Ta, Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was actually about to close that one earlier today, but then I noticed that Bbb23 (talk · contribs) was already working on trying to talk down Settdigger. I left Bbb23 a note ([11]). Based on this editor's history (which includes a clear 3RR violation despite being warned, as well as various personal attacks and other unhelpful and disruptive commentary), I've gone ahead and blocked him/her for 24 hours. It appears that there's also an ongoing WP:AN/I thread about this editor. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you are working on a Python script to format the reverts for 3RR. Anything I can help with? EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it's been on the back-burner for awhile now. If/when I finish it, it would be great if I could give it to you (and others) to test out, since there are bound to be flaws I won't notice upfront. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

I wanted to vandalize your userpage (actually, I wanted to add a 19th point to the Cynic's Guide, of relevance to a current RFAR), but it's only editable by admins. :-( Bad MastCell! Bishonen | talk 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

"19. Anything worth editing is admin protected"? :) IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"20. My constitutional freedom of speech is being denied!" Bishonen | talk 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

"21. Is this what Wikipedia has become?" Bishonen | talk 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

"22. Save da wikis" — Ched :  ?  13:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the idea was to gently coerce people like you (Bishonen) to request your admin bit back, so you could edit the page. Also, I like to scatter a few abusive, unilateral administrative actions into my logs, so that the eventual ArbCom case against me will be more interesting. But I've gone ahead and unprotected it, so that the unwashed masses of non-admins and ex-admins can edit it. Do your best/worst. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNXIZuIBJKs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)

Sophisticated, grownup, mature, high-brow humor

You are mentioned here. Once the info goes viral, I imagine you'll want to stop by WP:CHU. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Journal Scholar

You might want to consider logging the two blocks at [12]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't actually place the blocks as climate-change arbitration enforcement - they're just part of standard administrative discretion to block people where there are concerns about disruptive editing and plagiarism. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well as long as you considered it, and know that the guy was warned for this in the past... It's your block, so it's your call. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait and see. An AE block is a blunt instrument. MastCell has placed a block that any admin can undo, which could be a better beginning to a negotiation that may have to continue for a while. In my view, if JS is eventually unblocked a complete ban from ARBCC ought to be one of the options considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to drag you into that. I was trying to include everyone who had commented, because I didn't want to be accused of stacking the deck. Also, it's not terribly clear who they mean to be included. Kerfuffler (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, there are way too many noticeboards, and zero evidence that any of them actually accomplish anything of value. I don't mind being notified, but I'll probably sit this one out. The main roadblocks, as I see them, are actually user-conduct issues rather than specific content issues, and I doubt that those can be solved (or even appropriately addressed) at the dispute-resolution noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true. Kerfuffler (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

CGTW

I am rapidly becoming convinced that everything in there is 100% true. Kerfuffler (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because everything in there is 100% true. Although, as Lily Tomlin once observed, no matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What, me sorry?

Yeah! And "I'm sorry you screwed up" apologies are at best meaningless. But your cynic's point is more important/more specific to Wikipedia. How about penning (keyboarding) a little essay? You could call it Wikipedia: What, me sorry?. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Speaking of essays... I was going to add a point to the Cynic's Guide about the uselessness of essay-writing, but maybe I should hold off. :P It's depressing to see that blocked editors are routinely told, or ordered, to "apologize" as a condition of their unblock. I've never understood why anyone would want an apology from someone who isn't actually sorry. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to compare essay-writing to anything you like, don't mind me. [Fetches Darwinbish.] Bishonen | talk 19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

It's a fine point, but do you have another idea for how to decide when to lift a multi-year or indefinite block? —Kerfuffler 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that once the block has been subject to the usual review and determined to be justified, we need to put it on the blocked editor to come up with an unblock proposal. If they actually understand why they were blocked, then they're in the best position to propose unblock terms. I know we've tried to impose unblock terms externally (e.g. "stay away from topic X", 1RR, etc), but in my experience these usually don't work out. If the editor perceives them as onerous external restrictions, then they'll just wikilawyer and test the boundaries until it blows up. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask blocked editors to propose their own unblock terms - based on their understanding of why their behavior was problematic in the first place - if they're serious about returning to edit constructively. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks erasing edits

No intention, must have been a mistake. I dint get a (edit conflict) though...odd..(Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).

OK. I do think the article could stand a bit of reorganization and other improvements, but it's just way too rapid-fire to get a word in edgewise, at least for me. Anyhow, thanks for getting the refs formatted, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Kafak PR

In case you're interested, Franz Kafka is undergoing a peer review right now. PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I may take a look, although (as I mentioned at User talk:Risker) I'm actually not a huge fan, nor particularly knowledgeable about his work, life, or significance. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Would like your input...

at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision#Is this page needed anymore? It should be redirected to Circumcision. Self-explanatory! Thanks... Zad68 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the answer is "yes, of course it should be redirected". But I try to avoid any articles having to do with circumcision. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Come on, chime in just this once on the Talk page! It's going to get redirected anyway, nobody will see it, I swear. And you'll have to learn to love Circumcision because if I have my way I'm going to take it to FA. Zad68 17:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Deed is done, thanks for your input. Zad68 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Linguistics

I'm afraid it may be time to semi-protect Linguistics again: [13]. garik (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Done; let me know if it comes up again when the semi-protection expires. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! garik (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned at User_talk:MBisanz#1rr_at_Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe

I am turning to you in the matter because User:Bwilkins is mostly inactive since July. I believe Altetendekrabbe has recently been behaving disruptive and does not accord to his edit restrictions. He has been doing several full reverts of three different users on Eurabia in the last couple of days (1, 2, 3), pretending a consensus where actually there is none (1). With his last revert (3)), he restored a three day old version of his, thereby undoing changes and additions of several users and ignoring the simultaneous discussion on the talk page which accompanied these edits. Furthermore, he has been accusing me of a POV (1, 2), and I feel this has been deliberately done in order to stir up sentiments. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left him a note at User talk:Altetendekrabbe. I'm not going to block or otherwise sanction him at this point, but he's clearly nibbling around the edges of his unblock conditions, if not outright violating them. If this sort of thing continues, I suspect he'll end up re-blocked by me or by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)