User talk:MastCell/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Is everything ok?

I saw this and wondered if you need some support. Sorry for the intrusion. --John (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - that's kind of you. Just one of those times when this place gets discouraging. I sometimes feel that relentless persistence carries much more weight in resolving disputes than minor issues like basic understanding of this site's policies, or the desire to create a serious, scholarly reference work. If you have 2 editors who don't understanding basic Wikipedia policy and 2 who do, then meeting halfway is not a "compromise". It's a failure. I'm talking purely abstractly, of course, and any similarities to any actual ongoing disputes are entirely coincidental. Anyhow, thanks for the kind note. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Evidence

Just wanted to leave a note. I thought the evidence you posted on the ARBCOM evidence page was spot on. I full agree with it. --Snowman frosty (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I second that. I wish wikipedia had more sane admins like you (or Boris) SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP warning

It is not acceptable that you have allowed distortions and misrepresntations of the sources to remain in the Philip E. Johnson article, as well as stood by while the dispute tag was removed. Your conduct is particularly unbecoming of an administrator. Whatever our personal views, we must abide by editing policies and refrain from defaming biographical subjects and misrespresenting their views. Please fix this mess you've helped foster. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about - your post is a long on aggressive bluster and short on specifics. I don't think I've edited Philip E. Johnson for years, if ever, so could you clarify which "BLP violation" you're "warning" me about? If I've defamed him somewhere, please point it out and I'll happily correct myself. From where I sit, you seem to be edit-warring across multiple articles and frantically opening noticeboard threads and leaving "warnings" on the talk pages of everyone who disagrees with you (which, it seems, is pretty much everyone you're interacting with at present). I mean this in the nicest way possible: you'll probably find it easier going if you chill out a bit. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hate you

I fell for this. Yes, I'm a gullible fool. Head → Desk. NW (Talk) 22:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad. Rickrolling is so tired and dated that you probably let your defenses down. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, that *is* evil. If I had not been watching your talk page, I would have been all over that too. Horologium (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My word, what kind of fool would fall for that? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have only one question: how long did it take you to find that diff in my talk-page archives? Never mind - it was worth it. :P MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You really were clairvoyant.

Hi, MastCell, I just saw your comment on the Race and intelligence ArbCom case proposed decision talk page. Wow! Yes, anyone who has been on Wikipedia longer than I have been (still only just more than three months of editing, after years of reading) could have seen that problem coming, but you asked an especially focused question that needs to be asked more often. It's great to see your contributions. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, the "uncivil side" in this case seems more than a little bit short-tempered. These guys seem to be perpetually high-strung drama-mongers (e.g. Slrubenstein currently calling for a topic ban of Noloop over at ANI because Noloop argues for a little neutrality in the Jesus myth theory [1], Mathsci brought at least a couple similar ANI threads with no diffs presented). Sad. After getting involved in discussing MMfA, Blablaaa RfCU, and now this Jesus Myth stuff I'm beginning to feel your cynicism in that it's sometimes impossible to get through to people. II | (t - c) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When someone strongly disagrees with you, it takes an extraordinary amount of effort (on both sides) to reach an understanding and to move forward constructively. That's in real life - the difficulties are magnified exponentially online, using throwaway pseudonyms. People are capable of making this effort - they do it every day. But it is a real effort. The problem with Wikipedia is that you're expected to make that effort every time you disagree with someone, and disagreements are frequent here. MastCell ^Talk 03:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature Conspiracy Theory paper

Goertzel T (2010). "Conspiracy theories in science". EMBO Rep. 11 (7): 493–9. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.84. PMC 2897118. PMID 20539311. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). MastCell originally posted this on his user page at 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read. It points out nothing that most educated people don't intuitively understand, I would hope, but it was nice to see it laid out like that. One sentence in the article that I thought was rather interesting was from the section on the MMR vaccine and autism: "While the authorities responded by citing findings from large epidemiological studies, much of the press coverage highlighted anecdotal accounts and human-interest stories." I ran into that problem just the other week, with a family friend who has has ran into issues with traditional hospitals in the past and now turns to homeopathy for basically everything. Even if I had a journal with me then (I didn't, because we were driving), I doubt hu would have bothered to read it all. I wonder what can be done in those cases.

A few other thoughts: "Sometimes these ‘findings’, such as the claim that the decline in crime in the USA in the 1990s was due to the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, become part of the conventional wisdom before other scientists have a chance to debunk them" I remember reading about that in Freakonomics. What I didn't know is that it had been debunked. Do you happen to know of a paper that discusses the link between abortion and crime, besides The Great American Crime Decline (which I probably would not have access to)?

"Scientific expertise is usually quite specialized, and scientists who advocate for political causes only tangentially related to their area of specialization have no special claim on the truth." If only people understood that...

Well, thanks for listening to me ramble. Best, NW (Talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think the paper presented anything novel, but it did an excellent job of cogently summarizing rather complex ideas. For instance: "Being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory." The problem is the human mind is biased to favor gripping anecdotes over depersonalized, aggregate data. It's a recurring theme - for instance, remember when medical errors were a big topic in the news? No one really cared to read lengthy statistical tallies of various procedural risks and aggregate malpractice data. They wanted to hear the horror stories about the absolute worst screwups.

Journalists understand this - it's basically a golden rule of journalism that if you want to introduce a big, overarching concept, you start with a human-interest angle, an anecdote. Scientists, on the other hand, pride themselves on being objective and data-driven. "Anecdotal" is a dirty word in the medical literature, but it's the basis of essentially all medical news coverage. That's the root of the issue - the difference between how journalists and scientists approach their respective trades.

I generally think that you can't address an irrational belief with rational argument. It's the wrong tool for the job. (My experience on Wikipedia has actually helped cement this view). Sure, it would help if the critical-thinking skills and scientific literacy of the American population were less abysmal, but even very smart people can get stuck defending irrational beliefs. I think on some level people recognize when a belief is irrational, which makes them all the more defensive when one tries to poke away at them rationally.

Regarding homeopathy, I generally don't really challenge people who use alternative medical approaches. I want to make sure they understand the reasons why those approaches aren't considered effective, and that they understand the regulatory issues and prevalence of scams (at least in the US, thanks to DSHEA). As long as they understand those things, it's up to them to decide how to spend their money and how to address their own health. If your friend is substituting homeopathy for proven and necessary treatments, that would be a different story. And I do have a problem when people's irrational belief systems endanger other, blameless individuals (c.f. Eliza Jane Scovill, or the recent and deadly pertussis outbreak in California, which is the predictable fruit of the strong foothold that the anti-vaccination movement has established there).

I remember reading the chapter in Freakonomics about abortion and crime. I haven't followed up on it, so I don't know how or to what extent it has been "debunked". It's a good reminder to look into it, out of curiosity. In general, I thought Freakonomics was extremely thought-provoking and the authors seemed to relish the opportunity to take on conventional wisdom, but they also got a bit carried away and overstated the explanatory power of their tools while downplaying obvious confounders. (I find those to be common weaknesses among economists, but I digress...) Anyhow, sorry for the digression, but thanks for the thought-provoking post. If you find anything addressing the abortion-crime matter, let me know. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading that about 85% of the population thinks anecdotally and only about 15% think analytically. The conjecture was that this trend is deeply rooted -- thousands of years ago someone noticed "Grog eat red berries, Grog get sick and die, me not eat red berries." As usual xkcd makes a relevant point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

and are rather interesting. I don't believe that Donohue and Levitt has changed their opinions on the issue, and it seems like the debate about the connection between abortion and crime is still open.

Thanks for your reply; it was very enlightening. Best, NW (Talk) 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you know, we even have two Wikipedia articles on it: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime and legalized abortion and crime effect. NW (Talk) 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That paper is epic awesome, I've integrated with Peter Duesberg. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that John Lott is part of the debate. I think he sued the authors of Freakonomics for defamation at one point. Lott has kind of a blood feud with Levitt, I think, as one might surmise from Freedomnomics, his awesomely titled response to Levitt's work. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jolly hockey sticks! Many thanks for a useful source, of course you do realise that this will expose you all as part of The Faction?? . . dave souza, talk 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One of his better mid-period albums, especially "Russian Roulette" and the title track. "Écoutez, s'il vout plait..." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From BLP violations to misinformation

If you click on "Show", you will want the next 15 seconds of your life back. You have been warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now that your propagandizing has branched into the promotion of misinformation I really think you need to take a step back. The scientific consensus on illicit drug use being damaging to health, including immunosuppression is conclusive. The dangers of the use of poppers, particularly for anal sex with multiple partners, is also fairly well established. Please cease your disruptions and focus on improving articles consistent with our BLP and NPOV policies. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Part of me wants to ask what on Earth you're talking about. But another part of me doesn't really want to deal with you at all, at least until you've calmed down a little and can stop posting things like this. MastCell Talk 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Truly I hope you weren't serious in suggesting that illicit drug use isn't immunosuppresive. It's disturbing enough that WLU is trying to sanitize the risks of poppers. Please stop with the BLP violations. And let's not stoop so low as to promote unsafe behavior among our readers. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Truly I hope you weren't serious in suggesting that recreational drug use is immunosuppressive enough to cause AIDS, or that any credible authority believes that it is. Because that sort of ignorance is actually dangerous. Your actions suggest to me that you have no grasp of what WP:BLP actually means, and that you consider any biographical edit that you dislike or disagree with to be a "BLP violation". I appreciate that you've changed your tone from aggressively blustering to condescendingly patronizing. I suppose that's progress. MastCell Talk 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I have stated numerous times my belief that HIV causes AIDS. I believe the science is fairly conclusive on this subject. It's also obvious to anyone who has ever seen before and after picture of coke, crack, and meth abusers that drug use can be extremely damaging including to the immune system. I have a good grasp of the BLP policy. If you want to include critical content and opinion that's fine, just make sure to attribute it and to mind wp:npov and wp:undue. I'm glad we seem to agree that drug use is damaging to the immune system. Maybe you can strike your previous comments where you suggested they weren't. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I should warn you that I'm immune to the Jedi mind trick, which seems to be the basis of your rhetorical approach here. :) We could discuss the effects of drug use elsewhere; perhaps we can commit to a slightly higher level of evidence than personal viewings of before-and-after photos of drug abusers. In the meantime, I think we're done here. MastCell Talk 23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Before and after photos of drug abusers can be pretty conclusive in and of themselves. I didn't mean to imply that you accepted drug abuse as a cause of immune system damage. Perhaps you're a denialist on that subject? And I was only using the photo illustrations as an example. The scientific literature on the subject is abundant, not to mention the risks associated with sharing needles. The arguments about AIDS and weakened immune systems from cofactors are interesting, but again, my main focus is just to stop the BLP violations and propagandizing. If I want to research the science I know where to look. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'm done with this discussion. Time to take my own advice from one thread up. MastCell Talk 00:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I read it and now I want the last 15 seconds of my life back. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I read this talk page posting, probably this one too as clearly straying into POV-pushing/soapboxing for AIDS denailism. Do you think it's worth bringing it to AN or ANI? And should the advocacy for creationism be brought up as well? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rarely is it worth bringing anything to WP:AN/I. He started an article on Warren Winkelstein, one of epidemiolgy's living legends, which made it sound like his only notable accomplishment was playing foil to Peter Duesberg. That suggests a skewed perspective, to put it mildly. On the other hand, it provided the impetus to actually work on writing a decent, if brief, biography of Winkelstein - see the result, and feel free to contribute. :) MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit, including his work shooting down the Duesberg hypothesis, plus an infobox and a note re: his status as an epidemiologist. The Duesberg bit is worth including, I'll try to find more later on to expand on his non-Duesberg related activities. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• That's just wrong on so many levels....LOL. GregJackP Boomer! 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Damage to the encyclopedia

It's unfortunate that you encourage editors like this one [2] to disregard our most basic editing policies and to distory BLP and article content based on their strident personal opinions and beliefs. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. From where I'm sitting, I think you consistently disregard our most basic editing policies and destroy article content based on your strident personal opinions. I also don't find interacting with you particularly enjoyable or rewarding. So if you have something substantial or content-related to say, then please say it with as little bluster and rhetoric as you can manage, and I will listen. If you just want to lecture me, then please understand that I'm unlikely to listen to moralizing and sanctimony from you, because you haven't demonstrated by your actions that you have any understanding of this site's goals and policies, nor that you are capable of handling disagreement or even rational discussion. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that HIV causes AIDS. Can you explain how I've disregarded our most basic editing policies based on that view? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained my viewpoint numerous times, on various article talk pages. I'm not inclined to do it again, per Einstein's definition of insanity. On a related matter, you might want to consider avoiding edits like this and particularly this; they suggest that you have no real interest in or understanding of WP:BLP beyond its potential as a weapon. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, no-one cares what any editor's personal opinion is. The important issue is the verification of reliable sources so as to be proportionate to their representation. "NPOV" and "BLP" do not mean "no criticisms" and all subjects are not equal in their representation. Disagreements about climate change regarding degree or speed are valid, but claims it is not happening is denialism and should get only enough room to indicate that it's wrong so we can show why. Disagreements about steady-state evolution versus punctuated equilibrium are valid, but claims it didn't happen or that it was the result of god, gods or super-smart aliens are not and should clearly be indicated. Debates about the degree to which lifestyle, nutrition and genetics impact HIV infection leading to AIDS are valid but claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that these factors are causative are not. We do not give equal weight to all viewpoints. We give due weight to the most reliable viewpoints as indicated in the prominence, number, prestige, source and scientific merit of the viewpoint. I've said it many times, and I will keep repeating it - Peter Duesberg is wrong. He is not expressing a valid scientific disagreement. He is engaging in AIDS denialism, which is a pejorative term and should be so. There are not two sides to tell - there is an accurate, data-based, scientific consensus, and there is Peter Duesberg ignoring evidence, cherry-picking quotations and misrepresenting data to support his own nonscientific opinion. Not all topics are equal - some are settled, some are nonsense, some are still being discussed. Showing up and starting wars based on the editor rather than summarizing scholarly consensus, sources and merit is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all the grief you caused me today. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend, so had not really noticed the goings-on until today. I'm sorry to have caused you grief. I said basically everything I have to say about the subject in my evidence submission; I think it was a highly regrettable episode in which both you and Lar set a poor example. On the other hand it seemed to be an isolated episode - neither you nor Lar have done anything remotely similar since, and I don't think we should be judged by our worst moments. I don't think you or Lar should be formally admonished - if I thought that, I'd have proposed formal admonishments in the Workshop. You know I think you're a good admin overall. Hell, I've voted for you every time you've run for ArbCom, including this past December, and I'd vote for you again. That said, I think there is an important point about the desperate need for good examples in the climate-change arena, and this was one of the most glaring examples of the opposite - hence its citation in my evidence. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. Too bad people won't get a balanced presentation like what you've said here. Instead, they will see the one sided presentation in the proposed decision. (Not your fault; a problem the processing of this case.) What ever happened to the principle that an occasionally mistake is allowed? One questionable diff out of how many CC edits and right away I get sanctioned. Too bad the committee is so obsessed with finding fault with admins, which discourages admin participation. I wish they had even half as much zeal for discouraging the participation of tendentious editors. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What, were you expecting arbcom to base their decision on a careful review of the facts? Silly boy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In their defense, there is a massive amount of noise, and I think they are trying (but maybe failing) to do a good job. Jehochman ^Talk 11:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cited your remark, here: [3]. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a peek

Hi, I just noticed this. I don't even remember what brought me to take a look but as the history shows the editor Bob K31416 changes the direction of WP:Weight to NPOV but without any discussion that I can see for this action. If you are too busy to check this out I'll see if I can find another administrator to take a peek. It just looks like a wrong edit to me but I'm not sure which is why I am coming to you as an administrator to help me. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - I only see Bob K31416 adding a "see also" link to the NPOV noticeboard. I didn't see any substantive changes to WP:WEIGHT, but I might have missed them. Is there a specific diff that you were concerned about? MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry please ignore. I didn't do something right when I got concerned about this. I saw something yesterday that isn't there. I don't know what I missed doing to get the idea that I thought had happened but you are correct and I made a mistake. Sorry again for wasting your time with this. I'll be more careful, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Hope things are going well. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

General whining

Keeping up with overreliance on primary sources in medical articles is just a chore; there aren't enough of us to go around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to prioritize. If the primary sources are basically doing no harm, then it's a low priority to address them. We should focus on instances where the primary literature is being mined to construct misleading or inaccurate claims - that's the abuse that WP:MEDRS was intended to correct. I'm actually OK with judicious use of primary sources. If you can give me the names of the 3 biggest offenders (medical-article-wise) in terms of misuse or overreliance on primary sources, I'll try to help out... MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is making me nuts-- I don't know that the sources are used inappropriately, but the extreme list of citations makes the article impossible to edit and vandal watch. Other than that, since I don't even play a Dr. on TV, it's hard for me to know when an article is inaccurate because of overuse of primary sources-- and that is what bugs me, in terms of our readers. Of course, EMDR and PTSD also make me nuts, as do most of the psych articles that contain original research. My global concern is that too many medical editors-- who should know better-- write articles from primary sources. Guess I'm just in a pissy mood today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I recently was offered the opportunity to write a review article on a topic of my choosing for a reasonably respectable, peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed reputable medical journal. I have exactly zero training in psychiatry, but I could take one for the team and write a review using all of those primary sources. Then you can just cite the review, once it's published, and voila. (Obviously, I'm not really going to write about schizophrenia, but I'd be lying if it hadn't crossed my mind while selecting a topic that a decent review of medical various controversies could do wonders for our coverage on Wikipedia). MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Do it for EMDR-- an area ripe for quackery. Expanding my rant :) I've long thought that inaccurate medical articles can be dangerous to our readers, and an overreliance on primary sources makes it difficult to impossible to determine the accuracy of our text. I once suggested on Jimbo's talk that we should have a policy akin to WP:BLP for medical articles-- I don't know if that would be best accomplished by elevating the status of WP:MEDRS, or if there's another way to achieve the goal of minimizing potential dangerous or misleading medical info to our readers. Of course, since I do so little for this website, and am just another cog in the wheel, I got no response from Jimbo to that suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I've debated how hard to beat this particular drum. Tim and Steven Fruitsmaak have done some very nice groundwork demonstrating the importance of Wikipedia as a source of medical information. For all of the (justifiable) angst about BLPs, our medical articles actually have (in my opinion) far more potential to cause real-life harm. But it's just not as juicy of an issue. I've considered writing up a couple of real-life cases in which people were demonstrably ill-served by relying on medical information gleaned from Wikipedia, but I'm not sure whether that's the right way to go.

BLP has always been partly a real ethical concern and partly a bludgeon and fig leaf for some of the worst elements of this project. I'm not sure I want to extend the culture of BLP vigilantism to medical articles. On the other hand, if "enforcing BLP" justifies pretty much any otherwise reprehensible behavior, then I feel pretty strongly that all the more leeway should be extended to people who defend the integrity and accuracy of this site's medical information. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I hadn't realized you had also engaged that hobby horse :) IMO, almost all of our psych articles are in worse shape than most of our strictly medicine articles (if that is the correct distinction), as that area tends to attract POV-pushing and original research. What we really need is a good ole journal expose to review of some of our shoddy psych articles, and how they can do harm. Maybe Tim could enlist some folks to work that up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, I hate to be pedantic, but why would you be surprised that schizophrenia makes you nuts? ;-) ATren (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

bwaahaha, check your PC-ometer!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Case in point: [4], [5], [6], [7]. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• That one is too obvious-- it's the less obvious ones, citing peer-reviewed primary sources-- that trouble me more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. I was lurking. I'm pretty opposed to OR in med articles, too; and totally agree with SandyGeorgia's opinion of the state of the psych articles. [8] I have a plan. The idea is to shove WP:OR and WP:MEDRS down their throats before new editors make their first edit. I know it won't cure everything but I think it might help, and I would really respect and appreciate any criticisms you guys might have to offer. Anthony (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I 'spose MC and I aren't as unique as we think, and I see Jimbo did answer that time. How will your plan work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Something like this:

You can edit this page. Click [show] to find out how.

Getting started Click any of the [edit] links within the article and type into the box near the bottom. If you add a claim, or substantially modify one, cite a scientific article or textbook that supports your claim. (See below.) Spelling and grammar corrections or stylistic improvements are welcome and need no citations. When you're finished, briefly describe what you've done in the "Edit summary" box and click "Publish changes". The editors at WikiProject Medicine will happily answer any questions you may have. Be guided by these important principles No original research Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not advance a new position using new analysis or synthesis of published material. Reliable sources Ideal sources for biomedical claims include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party sources, such as reputable medical journals, textbooks by recognized experts, or medical guidelines and position statements from reputable expert bodies. Use your own words Accurately reflect sources but do not copy chunks of copyrighted text. In terms of expression, your contribution should bear little resemblance to your source. Citing sources Content not accompanied by an inline "citation" (a footnote marker like this[14] linked to specified pages in a journal, textbook, etc.) that supports it might be deleted. Copy the style of other references in the article and type your reference between <ref> and </ref>. When you publish your work, the footnote marker[14] will appear in the text where you typed the above, and the full reference will appear at the bottom of the article in the list of references.

at the top of the article, just above the lead. Anthony (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Daily prize

What do you want, a cup of coffee for making me laugh? [9] I shall go beat up on Ceoil for neglecting to send songs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking for a catchy tune, this is my current favorite. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, come on ... if you're just looking at the babes, this one is better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea you rocked the slow jams. That one is a bit too cookie-cutter for my taste. I have to say I prefer Cee Lo's version on purely musical grounds. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil is training me-- he just looks at the babes :) Moni gets my best collections of videos, but you won't be privy to those LOL !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One can only imagine. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Control your imagination-- we need you working on the swarms of anti-vaccinationists! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they seem less numerous now than 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe Eubulides drove them off with his impermeable armor of reason and rationality. Also, the media is far less irresponsible in its coverage of vaccines now than it was a few years ago, when Andrew Wakefield was still presented as a martyr to scientific orthodoxy of Galilean proportions. Of course, there's still the occasional pertussis outbreak driven by antivaccine scaremongering, but they seem largely confined to backwards, provincial outposts like Southern California these days. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought all those types congregated in Northern California? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's American Taliban country. :P MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please strike through your comment?

I don't appreciate your insinuation that I am out for a "pound of flesh" when it's clear that I simply want to end the disruption. I'm afraid that this comment has inflamed the situation and my response has resulted in a campaign of harassment against me by Jehochman.[10][11][12] Can you please strike through your comment[13] and I'll strike through mine?[14] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. However I think AQFK is wrong in thinking it is directed at him, I read it as directed at me. MastCell, your comment is highly inappropriate. It's not exactly behavior that should be modeled, is it? It also happens to be wrong. My desire to see ChrisO's transgressions noted and entered into the record is purely to make sure we have less problems like those he caused going forward. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the insistence on formal reprimands for someone who's left the project is a bit vindictive. If it's about ending disruption caused by ChrisO, then his departure has solved that concern. He's clearly fallen short in some ways, but he's also given a lot to the project over the years. We don't need to give him a medal, but there's also no need to kick him on his way out the door. Good volunteer organizations don't do things like that.

Actually, I can accept that reasonable people differ about whether ChrisO's "transgessions" need to be "entered into the record" as a badge of shame, despite his departure. What's harder to understand is the sanctimonious badgering of ArbCom over the issue (e.g. [15]). That makes it harder to believe that this is about pragmatic benefit to the project - from that perspective, the issue is moot with Chris' departure. It starts to look more like personality politics - an underlying theme in this whole mess - where it's more about settling scores with an individual than about what makes sense for the project. Hence the pound of flesh trope.

At this point I'm comfortable clarifying my comment, as I have above, rather than striking it. I see you're shopping it around, though ([16], [17]), so I'm sure I'll hear if anything further comes of that. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: Perhaps you have more experience than me, but based on my experience just because someone retires doesn't necessarily mean that they stay retired. The one editor who I am familiar with who retired is Hipocrite (he retired about a year ago) and he obviously returned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course ChrisO will return once the flames die down...which makes it all the more evident why certain people conveniently feel its "not necessary" to document his infractions. It allows him to more easily continue his antics in the future. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm misremembering this, but I don't believe Hipocryte exercised his right to vanish; he just got mad and stomped off for a while, and then later he came back. Hundreds of people do this all the time; it's pathognomonic for Wikipedia obsession. But people rarely return after exercising their right to vanish. In my almost three years of watching Wikipedia, the only person I've seen do this was Adam Cuerdon/Shoemaker's Holiday, and his return cost him a lot of the political capital that he had when he left. I don't know what his current status is with the project, but he has no credibility with me, zero. I don't see any foundation for the vehement expressions of disbelief that ChrisO will stay away; on the contrary I see no particular reason for him to come back. Wikipedia is not his life; AFAIK he has a successful career which participation in Wikipedia could only be hindering rather than helping, and as far as I could ever tell, he was only here to try to improve the content of the encyclopedia. He got a little burned out there at the end, but that in no way negates the tremendous contribution he made to the project. I find the feeding frenzy atmosphere here just appalling. Woonpton (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton: I'm not sure if there's a difference between exercising the right to vanish and slapping a retired tag on their talk page. The incident to which I'm referring is when a group of editors (yes, cabals really do exist!) surpressed the news of a journalist being kidnapped in Afghanistan . In any case, what's appalling are these totally bogus accusations of a feeding frenzy. As I stated before ArbCom, the key issue here is how do we restore the CC editing atmosphere to one based on cooperation and mutual respect. ChrisO is not part of the solution, he's part of the problem. The sactions are necessary should ChrisO ever return and I would say the same thing regarding any other editor who announces their retirement in the middle of this ArbCom case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference between slapping a retired tag on a user page and exercising WP:Right to Vanish. Vanishing involves the dissociation of an account with an individual, and has to be done by a bureacrat; there is a good faith expectation that the person exercising this right intends to permanently sever their ties with the project. In the unlikely event that a person does come back after RTV, the pages related to the old account are restored and linked to the new account. This is quite different from keeping your account but using the "retired" tag for a time, and then logging on again; there is no bureaucratic procedure involved.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the incident that prompted Hipocryte's "retirement;" I was watching at the time, but again, I don't believe he exercised a right to vanish when he "retired" and in fact it's clear that he didn't, since he left as Hipocryte and came back as Hipocryte. If he had exercised the right to vanish, he couldn't have come back under the same username. The two things are quite different.

Yes, I find the feeding frenzy atmosphere appalling and will not be intimidated into withdrawing that opinion. I have no opinion about ChrisO's behavior on climate change; I have not followed either the topic area or the case pages, and I am not speaking here as a supporter of ChrisO in this area. I was simply expressing my reaction to what appears to be a pile-on on a good content contributor (I know only of his content contributions in the areas of eastern European history) after he has already exited the project. I think it's unseemly, uncollegial, and unnecessary. Woonpton (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton: I was not aware of the distinction between retiring and vanishing - which is why you should assume good faith instead of accusing editors of a "feeding frenzy". Further, I have no idea who is trying to "intimidate" you. I'm speaking to you in a calm and civil tone and haven't threatened you in any way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue over whether you were trying to intimidate me into withdrawing my comment, which after all was nothing but a simple personal expression of distaste for the post-departure bashing of ChrisO, when you wrote "what's appalling are these totally bogus accusations of a feeding frenzy," and will even go so far as to say that perhaps I might have chosen a better word than intimidation. But I will say in passing that it's never been my observation that intimidation and incivility go hand in hand, in fact the creepiest intimidations are generally uttered in friendly, calm, civil tones, which is precisely what makes them especially creepy and especially intimidating. Not that I'm characterizing your position or behavior or statements in any way; I'm simply disputing in general your assertion that calm civil tones preclude the presence or intention of intimidation. Woonpton (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of comment striking, can you take a look at this, and the reply immediately after it, and consider whether you should strike part of your comment. The source you referenced is out of date and in no way supports the argument that you are trying to make. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I think people have not understood (or decided not to engage) the point I was making. Perhaps that's my fault for communicating it poorly. It's also an occupational hazard of participating in an arena where thoughtful, rational dialogue has been devalued, which is why I try to limit my contributions to the case pages.

For the record, Cla68 said that RealClimate's "agenda" was "not the mainstream view of AGW science" and that RealClimate was "much more extreme than most climate scientists". I don't think that's true; RealClimate's viewpoint is not extreme. But who cares what I think? So I cited that Nature editorial, which states:

Press coverage of climate change is known to overly emphasize the views of the small minority of scientists who dispute the notion of man-made climate change. Mainstream climate scientists need to combat this, and RealClimate is, in principle, an excellent way of doing so. ([18])

See? The Nature editorial explicitly describes RealClimate as representing the mainstream view of climatologists. Their views are only "extreme" with reference to the false balance projected by some of our shoddier popular-press outlets. I'm not interested in arguing about whether RealClimate is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" (although that's of course where others immediately took the discussion). My point was that people who think RealClimate is promoting an "extreme agenda" have a skewed perspective on the actual state of knowledge in the field, perhaps (as Nature points out) due to the abysmally poor quality of popular-press coverage of the topic.

Do you still want me to strike anything? MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do get your point, and I am not calling you a big meanie, but at that time Nature had only the hope that RealClimate would present such views, hence the "in principle" part. The weren't into precognition, it remained a hope, based on what RC had said up to that point, which doesn't seem to have been very long. Nature is applauding the idea, but they weren't qualified at that time to judge whether or not it actually worked out that way. So I really don't think that their sincere wishes have any bearing on the reality of whether RC managed to deliver. If you had a more recent piece saying substantially the same thing then it would make more sense. Weakopedia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. As long as you see what I was trying to say, I'm fine with you agreeing, partly agreeing, or completely disagreeing. Let's leave it there, since (as I said) I'm tired of talking about it. MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch of Pungo Pre-FAC

See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo FAC filed

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your help and encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I just wanted to let you know that I've saved a comment of yours on my "Thoughts" page here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't noticed your subpage before, but reading it now, it's very well-written, insightful, and thought-provoking. If mildly depressing. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming again

Please see the NOR noticeboard thread. I believe FellGleaming is in violation of this warning. Please review the noticeboard thread and the talk page thread if you have the time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this even apply? That sanction warning seems to be about verifiability and the use of quotes, not synthesis. Also, I didn't think that climate change sanctions applied outside the topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not a sanction. It was a rather ludicrous "warning", which I specifically didn't appeal because it wasn't a sanction. As for Viriditas's ludicrous interpretation that a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute article isn't a valid source for verifying a point on international sea law, if you want to take that ball and run with it, feel free. You're going to be quite disappointed with the results, however. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge is correct; the climate-change sanctions don't really apply to articles about deep-ocean geography. Additionally, in the time since I warned FellGleaming for his aggressive posturing and cavalier attitude toward sources, he's edited articles where I've been active, and I would currently consider myself too "involved" with him to take any administrative action. Aside from the issue of involvement, I find interacting with FellGleaming an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and would prefer to limit our interaction to the minimum necessary. I think certain patterns are evident in his editing, and they are cause for substantial concern, but you'll have to bring it up elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, and I understand, but just for the record, I don't believe A Quest For Knowledge is correct on this matter. While it is true that FellGleamings edits are taking place across multiple articles about deep-ocean geography, his edits concern the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that has a significant role to play in climate governance.[19] According to the Pew Charitable Trusts website on the Law of the Sea treaty:

Climate change affects the planet without regard for international boundaries. By increasing temperatures and melting polar ice, greenhouse gas emissions render the seas uninhabitable for many organisms by affecting ocean salinity and contributing to ocean acidification. This problem can be addressed by requiring all states to reduce pollution through Treaty negotiations, as the Treaty addresses both air and water pollution. Nations are already competing for access to expected new navigation routes across the Arctic as sea ice melts, and these new shipping lanes are likely to lead to yet more pollution from transportation. The Law of the Sea Treaty promotes international cooperation in dealing with these global problems, and establishes U.S. sovereignty in huge areas of Arctic waters.[20]

More to the point, FellGleamings edits on this issue discuss the ratification of the treaty by the U.S., which is considered a necessary step towards future agreement on international climate treaties. Opponents of the Law of the Sea maintain that the treaty will force the U.S. to become compliant with international CC rules:

The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, a group opposed to the treaty, warned in letters to the Senate that it would force the U.S. to abide by mandatory dispute resolution, restrict Navy and Coast Guard activities and subject Americans to environmental standards dictated by the Kyoto Protocol.[21]

I hope this adequately explains why I believe FellGleaming continues to be in violation of this warning. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edits in question are almost certainly driven not by an interest in producing high-quality coverage of deep-ocean geography, but by a desire to push political and agenda-driven content into the widest possible range of articles, no matter that it sticks out like a sore thumb. As you probably know, that sort of editing is deeply harmful to the project, but also virtually impossible to deal with effectively given the project's prevailing attitudes. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw this in passing. From past history, I realize how rarely you dive deep enough into an edit history to truly understand the situation, but in this particular case, the entire section on nuclear dumping was already in the article. My edits merely changed the vague "international law" phrasing into an exact description of which particular treaty was the basis for that law. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Coons

Hi, could you explain this edit: [22]. It seems rather odd given how much press this has gotten, as well as the fact that the rest of the article is essentially scrubbed of all negative information (unlike Coon's opponent). This statement more than any other has generated a vast amount of controversy about Coons. Why do you feel the reader doesn't deserve to know about it? Fell Gleaming^talk 20:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a very pronounced double standard for sourcing and relevance, which is immediately apparent in comparing your contributions to Christine O'Donnell and Christopher A. Coons. I'm sure you understand how this gives the appearance of partisan and agenda-driven editing of campaign biographies. In any case, I've outlined my substantive concerns with the edit on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you fail utterly to accurately represent a situation. First and most importantly, the material I was speaking about is still in the O'Donnell article. In fact, I placed much of it there myself. I was simply rebutting in general the statement that reliable sourcing in itself is grounds for inclusion. Epic fail.

And if you're going to fail to AGF and toss out accusations of hypocrisy, I have to ask why you think O'Donnell's acts in high school --acts that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics -- are notable if they portray her in a bad light -- but Coon's college papers that specifically outline his political views -- are not. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've commented at all on what should or shouldn't be in Christine O'Donnell's article. But maybe I did and I've just forgotten; could you supply a diff to refresh my memory and substantiate your aggressive questioning? MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean, besides accusing me of hypocrisy for my edits there? For someone who so quickly accuses others of "not having the best interests of the project" at heart, your remarks are truly outrageous. You want to know what the real double standard is here? O'Donnell makes a 10 second laughing statement about her actions in high school. Immediately, a hundred (quite possibly more-- look at the edit log) rush to splatter her article with it, going so far as to intentionally distort that as an "integral part of her religious views", or that "she admitted attending satanic rituals". I do yeoman work to clean it up -- but leave it in the article as significant. Then you accuse me of hypocrisy, immediately after you whitewash out Chris Coon's carefully considered political views as a college senior, as recorded in his own written papers. One is indisputably an order of magnitude more significant for the bio of a politician .... I want both in, and you're the one accusing me of hypocrisy in determining notability? Truth truly is stranger than fiction. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: This is such a shocking distortion of events for an administrator that I admit I have trouble even believing it. Let's recap. I protest your reversion, calling the material "interesting" "well sourced", and "notable due to coverage". You ignore two of those three justifications entirely, and call me a hypocrite because I pointed out elsewhere that "well sourced" by itself doesn't justify inclusion. And to add insult to injury, the material I was talking about wasn't even material being removed. In fact, I even posted that after I moved the material to its own section in the article. I ask that you strike your unwarranted personal attack and correct the record. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the record is amply clear.

• On Christine O'Donnell, you opposed the introduction of negative material, writing: "You can add 100 (sources), but until you stop adding blogs and op-eds, and start adding reliable sources, it doesn't count."
• One day later, you go to Christopher A. Coons (O'Donnell's campaign opponent) and insert controversial material, sourced largely to a National Review op-ed and the Huffington Post (a blog).

Like I said, this sort of flexibility makes it harder to assume good faith, and suggests that one is spinning Wikipedia policy around one's political agenda. It doesn't help that you seem to have only one rhetorical setting: outraged aggression. Anyhow, I did actually address the substantive concerns with the edit on the article talk page, so perhaps we can continue there. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better and better. Let's look at the actual edit that I was responding to there, shall we? Here it is: [23]. The problem here is not simply that the reference points to an op-ed -- but that the opinion of the op-ed author is being cited as established fact. This one single op-ed source was being used to claim that O'Donnell "is known for her vocal opposition to masturbation". Clearly inaccurate, and one that presents opinion as fact. In the Coons case, however, I gave three sources, one of which your yourself admitted was fine ... but most importantly of all, I didn't use opinion to support the statement. The opinion sources were merely to establish notability by showing how much controversy it has engendered. This sort of "flexibility" in distortion of events -- while ignoring your own actions -- makes it hard indeed to assume good faith.

As for my "rhetorical expression", I have quite a variety, as my editing history shows. Perhaps you might ask what it is about your own actions that generate so much outrage? I see you still haven't acknowledged your mischaracterization of my Challenger Deep edits -- see my note above. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I don't think I've mischaracterized your actions in any meaningful way. This discussion long ago entered soup-spitting territory, but the record is pretty clear, as I said above, and I don't wish to spin it back and forth any more. I don't think this is going anywhere constructive, so it's probably best to leave it. Whatever needs to be said about the sources can be said at Talk:Christopher A. Coons. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly find it difficult to believe you actually feel you're not wildly mischaracterizing events. For instance, you say, I have "a desire to push political and agenda-driven content into the widest possible range of articles, no matter that it sticks out like a sore thumb." But here's the Challenger Deep section immediately before my first edit: [24]. And here's my version being reverted out by Viriditas: [25]. Now, please explain to me exactly what I "stuck in there" that shouldn't be? Take an honest look. The text is essentially the same, only instead of it all being sourced to an obit column that doesn't support any of it at all, the science portion is supported by a cite to a physics professor's book, and the legal bit is sourced to a Berkeley Law website. Now what exactly doe you have a problem with there? Fell Gleaming^talk 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to link to Talk:Challenger Deep, where you seem to have played a major role in instigating and perpetuating a several-hundred-kb argument about international atomic waste disposal law. You forked the disputed material into Mariana Trench. You contributed to a gargantuan and circular thread at WP:NOR/N on the same topic. That's a pretty extensive effort to push this material in - I can only imagine how much time you spent on it, all told.

Without going into extensive detail, I learned a long time ago to avoid or minimize my interaction with editors who behave as you do. So let's leave it there; you can have the last word if you like. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Truly amazing. Rather than edit war, I follow protocol and seek assistance from neutral editors on the NOR messageboard...and you turn that back at me? And you still refuse flatly to acknowledge that this material was already in the article before I even arrived. All I did was properly source it. And when asked what specific problem you have with the material in question --- we get dead silence. How wonderfully illuminating. As usual, you ignore the editor who is the real problem here, with his claims that "you can't use a source unless that source specifically mentions the article by name", and his resultant section blanking spasms when he didn't get the result he wanted from the new editors who flowed into the page. The fact is, the material is interesting, notable, and well sourced....and the "several hundred kb discussion" was the result of a lengthy consensus-seeking process by several editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)

Free trade

Hi MastCell. You protected this article indefinitely, but I think you meant for the duration to be three days. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right, I meant 3 days. I got confused with the "Pending changes" box on the protection page and set the duration to 3 days there, instead of on the semiprotection boxes. I must be getting too old for this stuff. Thanks again for the note. :) MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DE Senate candidate Christopher A. Coons

The page for Delaware Senate candidate Christopher A. Coons has been semi-protected. I noticed you had made several edits to the page before it was put under semi-protected status. I registered yesterday, so I am blocked. If you're interested, adding the following to the "Controversy" section (which some users are insistent upon adding) on the Coons page would provide a balance.

Dave Hoffman, a Coons campaign spokesman, said the title of the article was designed as a humorous take on a joke Coons's college friends had made about how his time outside the country had affected his outlook. "After witnessing crushing poverty and the consequences of the Reagan Administration's 'constructive engagement' with the South African apartheid regime, he rethought his political views, returned to the America he loved and proudly registered as a Democrat."

On his September 16 show, Sean Hannity said "some unpopular Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to support Delaware's 'bearded Marxist' " -- without mentioning that the title was based on what Coons called a joke that his friends made. Coons never identified himself as a Marxist in the college article, and he does not describe himself as a Marxist now.

Source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009200052 Page for Coons: #REDIRECT [[26]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plshark83 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are blocked, I would be happy to add this the "Controversy". Also, do you agree that Controversy should be called "Political Campaign"? Skalpel (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Plshark83: Honestly, based on the degree of coverage in reputable, independent sources (as opposed to partisan outlets), this seems like a relatively minor issue and I suspect we're giving it undue weight, especially since Christopher A. Coons is supposed to be an encyclopedic biography rather than a summary of campaign "controversies". There is obviously an effort in the partisan blogosphere to make hay of this particular incident, and that effort has clearly spilled over onto Wikipedia, but I think as long as we stay focused on high-quality, reputable sources across the board, we'll end up with decent encyclopedic coverage.

About the semiprotection, the best advice I can give you is to look around Wikipedia, find some other (preferably non-controversial) topics you might be interested in, and do some editing there. It will give you a better idea of how this place is supposed to work (unfortunately, our ideals tend to break down a bit in practice when we cover high-profile, big-money political campaigns). If you like what you see, then it's a win-win: the encyclopedia will gain an editor who understands the project's goals and policies, and you'll have fun. Once you've done some editing elsewhere, you'll be able to edit semiprotected articles. More importantly, though, I'd suggest you spend the time looking around at non-political articles to see whether you think you'd like this place in general. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When a campaign manager disavows remarks made by the candidate 20 years earlier, it is generally accepted to not necessarily be an accurate reflection of that candidate's intention at the time. Countless political candidates have generated notable controversy from such remarks and, if you scan any number of Wikipedia entries on them, you will see those controversies recorded in the article -- including those of Coon's opponent. I find it hard to take seriously these protestations of bias, when I myself support such statements being fairly and accurately reported in the entries of all candidates, whereas other editors reserve their outrage only for candidates of one particular party. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of banning people from my talk page, so you can continue to post here. However, I'm only going to respond to you on article talk pages, about matters of article content. At least, I'm going to make an effort to do that. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I Am Curious (Yellow)

Hehe. It amuses me the way we will claim we're curious about stuff, when we're really, really not. :-) Bishonen | talk 03:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Have you ever noticed that when people say "I'd be happy to do that", it usually means that they are really, really passive-aggressively pissed about having to do it? Speaking of I Am Curious (Yellow), I took a look at our plot summary (since I never really got the movie). It reads, in part: "A sex act degenerates and begins to argue and fight." I can understand how a sex act could degenerate, but not how it could argue and fight. Only on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

[Enthusiastically: ] Bishzilla sex acts frequently argue and fight! 'Zilla enjoy! Fun! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

The "happy to" locution is really, really American, wouldn't you say? I imitate it sometimes, for protective local colour, but it always makes me feel like an impostor. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

When I say "I'd be happy to" I actually mean it. I would be happy to help you... Am I a Bad American? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad American, but good little dog! Tasty! ['Zilla eat little deathdoggie for breakfast. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

It's related to that annoying "I don't mean to interrupt, but ... [interruption ensues]" -- or, even worse, "I don't mean to pry, but ... " Sometimes I wish people would just be honest: "I am about to be a passive-aggressive asshole. Now listen. ..." (Not only on Wikipedia, but here quite a bit too.) Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorical figures like "Considering O's general behaviour, <here insert outrage committed by O which you particularly want to mention> isn't even worth mentioning" come quite naturally to me, I'm sorry to say. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

"I'd be happy to do that" would appear to translate as "I should be delighted to..." meaning "while I should, I won't". Not to mention narblooko. (Eccles – "narblooko?", Grytpype-Thynne – "I told you not to mention that". All characters and dialogue may have been misremembered) . . dave souza, talk 13:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

I read your comment at the Rfe about Talk:The Gore Effect gaving you a headache and had to laugh. I spent maybe a week (or was it a weekend?) on the article and gave up in frustration. It was just too silly of a topic to argue about. It's still on my watchlist so I see them arguing back and forth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The key to Wikipedia is realizing that sometimes, even though you're right and other people are acting like fools, you're just better off walking away. Or, as Paul Rudd said in Forgetting Sarah Marshall: When life hands you lemons, you gotta say "Fuck these lemons," and bail. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

When life gives you lemons, make an acid death ray (quote inexact due to the limitations of paper literature and the faultiness of my memory). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

Thank you for removing the other BLP violation that I didn't notice [27]. However, the use of verbatim, unattributed quotations from sources [28] is considered plagiarism ("prosecutors in... California" "found no evidence of wrongdoing by the group" and "videos had been heavily and selectively edited", from [29].) Please be more careful. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go back and try again. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the article talk page regarding your rewrite. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you executed that double bind very nicely. If I stick closely to the wording of a reliable, secondary source, then I'm committing "plagiarism". If I paraphrase to avoid that plagiarism, then I'm "failing NPOV" because I didn't reflect the caveats you think are important. I forgot why I don't usually bother with these sorts of articles. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Avoidance of plagiarism requires us to rewrite statements by sources in our own words, unless direct quotations are specifically attributed as such. WP:VER and WP:NPOV require that sources be represented fairly and accurately, even though we can't use their precise language without attribution. Though Wikipedia style guidelines discourage excessive quotation altogether, if you believe that quotes from sources are necessary in certain circumstances, you could at least attribute the direct copying of text with appropriate use of quotation marks, <blockquote>, or similar. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism explains our attribution requirements for directly copied text more comprehensively and authoritatively than I can. Your dismissive comment above is surprising - as an administrator, you should be setting a good example for other editors. If users with high levels of privileged access are regarded as not caring about this issue, it creates the impression that it isn't important. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I wasn't dismissive at all of your concern over plagiarism. I acknowledged your concern, and immediately went to the article to address it ([30]). I have to admit to a degree of cynicism about your follow-up, which perhaps you didn't deserve.

On the other hand, I'm not totally convinced that you understand what plagiarism is. Exhibit A is this edit. There is no simpler way to describe something that took place in New York and California, other than saying that it took place "in New York and California". Short phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present simple information are not plagiarism. Since you've clearly read WP:PLAGIARISM, you presumably know this. This phrase doesn't require quotation marks, and it looks really odd to put them there. Would you mind removing them? MastCell ^Talk 03:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment above. Regarding my use of quotation marks for "in New York and California", I try to uphold a higher standard in my own work than I'd expect of other editors. I added the marks out of an abundance of caution, not because I believe that a user would be doing anything wrong by including the phrase without quotes. However, since it appears that they're not actually necessary at all, I've removed them. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Male infertility gene discovered, New study claims ADHD 'has a genetic link'

Here we go again. NW (Talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is where definite and indefinite articles are key. I never understood how languages like Russian get by without them. The semantic difference between "An infertility gene discovered" and "The infertility gene discovered" is substantial. Since newspaper headlines usually omit these articles, the reader is left to assume. Anyhow, the author made a number of good points. Thanks for the link. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I love this comment: "Accuracy interferes with sensationalism." Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But ... but ... when are they going to find the male how-to-ask-for-directions mutation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's based on a single-gene polymorphism. It's more likely one of the many neurotoxic side effects of testosterone. This hypothesis could be tested by taking a group of women, randomizing them to receive blinded injections of testosterone vs. placebo, and then determining their willingness to ask for directions as an endpoint. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I know of women with excess testosterone, the endpoint they're asking for is not directions. On men and directions, "Find your own damn socks - what, you think a vagina is a homing device?!" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know...that Y. pestis was only just now confirmed to be the cause of the Black Death? Let's see what people interpret that as :) NW (Talk) 21:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Dr. in the House?

So many questions! Are the wealthy educated variety different than the poor and illiterate, or do they all behave the same, like the brains they're attached to? Do they seek their own kind, or are they undiscriminating? Do they get advanced degrees in vaginology? Is taste a "sociocultural" factor? Do they engage in reverse discrimination? Do they cash their welfare checks while visiting the soft pink fluffy vertical smiles checkout stand? Most importantly, do you 'spose Eubulides wrote that phrase? Please help: I am so confused, and would hate to miss out on something important in this most crucial area of my life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm afraid I have to defer to your apparently greater expertise in matters of, er, taste. I doubt Eubulides wrote it, since he was always an extremely careful, talented, and technically proficient writer. Speaking of studies that "prove" the already evident, take a look at PMID 20480220. Although I think the last sentence is excessively judgmental and negatively framed. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was irritating; presumably Brewer G and Hendrie CA are men ? I see that the sample doesn't cover, ummmmm, "mature" women, so that might explain why they didn't cover *my* copulatory behaviors. More importantly, who can fix the wording at Causes of autism? Don't we all have a COI when it comes to the behavior of sperm? Perhaps some of Wiki's child editors can be put to productive use? Unfortunately, our resident expert has left the premises (and we miss him at FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That time of the month again

It's back! I defy you to come up with a list of ten that doesn't include *you*. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm having trouble coming up with a list of one. But however the candidate roster turns out, it will not include me. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowing you won't, I do have a list of one: Slp1 (talk · contribs). Colin would be next on my list, but he's not an admin (smart man). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the honorable Jim Henson said it best. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That was funny, and your edit summary was better-- but I wish I hadn't seen it because I had to encounter that load of crap right below this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to worm your way out of this

Are you really a real doctor? Note for the humor-impaired: this is not a serious question. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello central?. . . dave souza, talk 20:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The definitive word on my qualifications can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, under my username. MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looked at it. Putting two and two together in the accepted Wikipedia fashion, I have deduced that your real name is Robert Sean Leonard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Looking at my picture from my Wikipedia biography, I can't help noticing that I've let myself go a bit since Dead Poets' Society. But then, you should see Robin. MastCell ^Talk 03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of, do you think House has jumped the shark? We used to watch it religiously but this year we found we weren't bothering to keep up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it jumped the shark in the first season, but it's saved by the fact that it generally doesn't take itself too seriously, and because the character and acting are great. I have to admit I haven't seen much of this season. Community won me over, and this season of 30 Rock has been pretty great. So I've been watching those - I feel like I don't have time for an hour-long drama anymore. Life is too busy. And basically, every day of my life is exactly like an episode of House - they really nailed the realism... (just kidding). MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, Speaking of one’s wikipedia-relevant life experience…have you ever done any basic research, of the kind geared toward ascertaining a physical fact about nature? I’m asking because my training is in that kind of science, and I’m finding there’s a bit of a culture gap between the top priorities of that kind of science and the kind of science that is most immediately useful in the daily practice of medicine.

I dearly hope this question isn’t offensive. I have great respect for medicine and don’t mean to suggest there’s anything “wrong” with that kind of science; merely that there are, necessarily, proximal social considerations in medicine that are more distal in the science of isolated cells and molecules. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to decline to go into detail about my personal history, because I value what's left of my pseudonymity here. I do agree with your observation; I think that clinical research is a very different endeavor from basic science. The two areas attract different kinds of people and have different approaches and criteria for measuring success. If I were to greviously oversimplify, I'd say that in basic science questions are pursued primarily because they're interesting, while practical applications are often a secondary consideration. In clinical research, practicality is a prime consideration; often the most interesting and important questions can't be feasibly answered because it would be insurmountably impractical to do so. The best-designed clinical trial on Earth is no use to anyone if it fails to accrue patients and can't achieve any statistical power.

More to the point, the kind of questions faced in the daily practice of medicine are difficult precisely because they often haven't been the subject of rigorous clinical research. It would be impossible to practice truly "evidence-based" medicine, because it would be impossible to acquire a suitable evidence base to face every conceivable (or even every common) clinical scenario. For conditions that are uncommon or clinically heterogeneous, it is impossible to conduct a suitably powered randomized controlled trial, or sometimes even a decent prospective observational cohort. If you focus too narrowly on specific clinical conditions and scenarios, then you'll never accrue enough patients to conduct a meaningful study - and even if you did, the results wouldn't necessarily be generalizable if your population was narrowly defined. On the other hand, if you cast a broader net, then your patient population becomes heterogeneous, limiting your ability to draw specific conclusions.

That's why I get annoyed when people compare medicine to aviation (usually in terms of the markedly superior safety record of commercial aviation). Sure, practicing medicine would be like flying a plane - if every time you took off you had no idea exactly where you were going, and you'd never flown that exact model of plane before, and an M.B.A. at air traffic control might decide to override your judgment about the best flight plan, and if the passengers were actually at the controls and were free to decide to ignore your recommendations about flying the plane because of something Dr. Oz said on Oprah, and if your navigational maps were accurate only to a p-value of 0.05 at best...

In terms of social considerations, I do feel for scientists who lose control of their work when it's in the public domain, and have it re- (mis-)interpreted by various political forces. In general, I don't think scientists are very well-equipped for the political arena, and to the extent that ignorance routinely triumphs over enlightenment, I think that disconnect is partially to blame (of course, the pathetically poor state of scientific literacy and education in the US is also part of the problem, as is the media's approach to scientific controversies).

Anyhow, I'm digressing again. Did you have a specific issue in mind, or was that a general question? MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. Your second paragraph describes beautifully the issue I'm exploring. I offer you kudos for your writing skill.

It will take me a little while to craft an explanation of how this relates to our conversation about the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Frankly, I'm concerned about unintentionally offending. Obviously, it‘s both a complex, and a touchy, subject. I feel that extracting a “best guess” at the biological facts from the perhaps overly voluminous literature is quite challenging enough, without bringing emotional issues into the mix.

By the way, I love your aposematic moniker - thanks for the warning. I’ll create what I hope will be an adequately non-inflammatory explanation of my concerns and send it along here when it’s ready.Again, many thanks, and my compliments, for your elegantly phrased, substantive reply to my question. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about offending me. I (try to) have a pretty thick skin, at least as far as online discussion is concerned (arguably less so in real life, depending on whom you ask). I actually value a thought-provoking discussion over an excessive concern for politeness, although that preference doesn't translate well onto Wikipedia. By the way, I don't mean to minimize the human aspect of the issue. I think anyone who knows people debilitated by symptoms that cannot be readily explained has a sense for both the suffering and the vulnerability that result. Anyhow, thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, and take your time. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I’m back, after having a houseguest for several days and then enjoying the incredible holiday weekend weather. Warblers have almost all passed through, but the locally breeding birds have lots of ugly-cute babies. It's endlessly amusing to watch their family life.

Thanks for your kind understanding of my issue around offending on a touchy subject. I think it takes a pretty thick skin to edit Wikipedia, and in fact to do anything that puts one out in public (including cyberpublic) on potentially contentious issues. I'm not blessed with that; I'm just wistfully hoping for WP:NAM, and hoping that if I treat peoople with respect, they'll treat me with respect. This strategy, of course, is famously useless in dealing with bullies of various sorts; I think it's best for delicate souls to ignore or avoid them whenever possible. They've got their reasons, and they've got their natural enemies who have the chops to deal with them.

The more general issue about offending is that it tends to drive a discussion away from facts and logic, and toward irrelevant emotional defenses. Nothing wrong with emotion, we all have it and need it. It's just that it muddies the waters of an investigation of the facts. So I'm hoping to avoid stirring up that unhelpful murk.

Having said that, I, as Murphy's law would dictate, now need to ask an indelicate question. May I ask if you're naturally inclined to notice breaks in logic? I think this is a separate skill from general intelligence, somewhat like a sensitivity to spelling and usage - some highly intelligent people are not naturally good spellers, and their skin doesn't crawl when someone mixes up there, their, and they're, or affect and effect. I happen to be a good speller, but I recognize that, useful and aesthetic as it is, it could fairly be regarded as a sort of idiot-savant skill, like being good at fast mental math. I'm asking, not because I personally doubt your personal skill at logic, but because I think, not to put too fine a point on it, that there are some whoppers (or, to put a fine point on it, some commonly stated assumptions of unsubtly dubious merit) there are some consequential discrepancies in the mainstream medical literature, that somehow don't get detected by either the experts or the rank and file. And when they're pointed out, the whole profession's eyes seem to glaze over (or the hapless messenger is indignantly censured for unseemly behavior). This must mean, unless you see an alternative explanation which I'd be grateful to consider, that in the culture of medicine there is no social pressure to recognize such gaps, and could even mean that there is social pressure against recognizing them.

So I guess I've raised two (potentially thorny, sorry about that) issues - are you sensitive, in general, to breaks in the chain of a logical argument? If not, then I won't bother discussing them, but will focus on other ways of understanding reality, of which there are many. And, if you are, and have consequently noticed some of the more obvious ones in the medical literature, what do you think culturally accounts for their going unremarked? I'll end here, as it seems that considering too many issues at once is counterproductive to a straightforward discussion, and if emotional issues arise, we'll be able to know what triggered them and how to backtrack to the place where rationality was last in effect.I hope, if I say something unnecessarily tactless, you will dispassionately explain where I've gone astray and help me improve my skills in respectful debate.

I congratulate you again on your writing skill. And I appreciate your mention of the suffering caused by debility that cannot be readily explained by current medical concepts. Perhaps we would both agree, in principle, that such suffering and debility should be related as carefully as possible to any physical evidence that sheds light on the case, in order to have the best chance of alleviating it. And finally, thanks for your appreciation of the inherent limits of clinical research, when compared to more easily manipulated fields of enquiry (or is it inquiry? ;-). I think that's a rare insight, and extremely valuable.

I hope you're getting good spring weather wherever you are. You'd be astounded at how many people I saw last weekend lounging directly on the grass in shorts and flip-flops, in this LD-endemic area. Good for the local tourist economy, bad for the public health. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC),

Apology/Revision

Oops, I blew it. I just resumed listening to Jon Stewart's America on CD, and my chuckles died away as I realized I had let his sarcasm infect my tone in my very recent post to you, above. I gather it's not proper WP policy to edit it out, and I don't know how to use the strikeout method yet, so please, help me out and make the following changes in it, mentally if it can't be done physically:

Replace the portion between "whoppers" and "dubious merit" with "discrepancies".

Ignore the entire following sentence.

Replace my references to "you" with references to a purely abstract, hypothetical member of WP:MED, with regard to following a train of logic. Maybe be could call him/her THD for The Hypothetical Doctor.

I'm very sorry, this caught me by surprise. It's amazing how contagious an impartial tone can be, especially if it includes the pleasure of humor. Anyway I just learned a valuable lesson, and I'll be careful never to read or listen to Jon Stewart or his ilk before talking to anyone who disagrees with me! Best wishes, a much subdued Postpostmod (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Don't worry so much about offending me; I didn't see anything in your initial post that was anything less than civil, although I appreciate your attention to tone.

Of course I think I'm capable of recognizing breaks in logic, but then people are notoriously bad at assessing their own capacity for introspection and critical thought. One has to be wary of the Dunning–Kruger effect - my lack of ability to think critically may actually impair my ability to recognize that lack. Sorry for being, er, post-modern about it. :P

In terms of specific logical gaps underlying common medical assumptions, that's a complex question. I think there is a tendency toward groupthink, or at least accepting something because X authority said so, inherent in any complicated and highly specialized field of knowledge. In some ways it's a useful heuristic - for example, I don't consider myself qualified to analyze the relative impact of various antiplatelet agents after myocardial infarction, so it's quite useful for me to accept the American College of Cardiology's take on the subject. The danger, of course, is that if their (undoubtedly human and fallible) expert panel missed something major, then I've also missed it by accepting their synthesis. Critical thinking is essential, but it's also impossible to apply universally - there just isn't enough time, especially for a working physician or researcher, to independently assess every assumption underlying standard medical practice.

On the other hand, I'm also deeply dubious of assertions that all of the expert bodies in a field have made some major, basic error of logic. At the extreme, it's like the AIDS denialists, who claim that every scientist who's done successful work with HIV has been duped into thinking it causes AIDS. At some point, it's just entirely implausible that such a basic error could have been carried forward so far. To a lesser extent, the climate-change "skeptics" are in the same boat, as if there were some magical set of assumptions that the National Academies of every large nation on Earth have overlooked. That's not to say it's impossible, and we shouldn't set up sacred cows that are beyond reasonable questioning or debate. The trick is to know when you've passed the "reasonable" threshold.

Without knowing which specific apparent breaks in logical thought you're referring to, it's hard for me to comment intelligently on your second question. I'm guessing that it has to do with the Lyme ELISA, but it would probably be easier to discuss if I had a more concrete sense of what you're referring to. Sorry for the non-answer... MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Thanks for your patience with my spilkes. I like your Sontag quote. I didn’t figure that out until I was in my mid-forties. ;-)

Lots of great early summer action in the wetlands. My area is blessed with numerous parks with wide paths along water. Some of the newbie bird (and newbie bird-parent) antics are hilarious. We saw a kingbird trying to feed a mulberry to the babies. S/he tried each of the three in turn, and each tried but failed to engulf it. Good idea that didn't work out. The moms and dads are overworked trying to feed everybody, but it doesn’t last long, and I’m sure it’s well-compensated by the sense of purpose and dignity they enjoy. At least that’s how I felt at the height of my scientific career. I don’t have kids - not enough faith in the benevolence of the universe, I guess.

Now, about the logical problems with using the ELISA for LD diagnosis. Here is one notable inconsistency in the officially stated policy, which raise questions about the reliability of the IDSA guidelines. I’m using your quotes on the subject, since I can be sure that you are both aware of, and willing to acknowledge, the presence of these statements in legitimate medical discourse. Of course, there is abundant verifiable evidence to back up these statements, which we could both cite if necessary.

“ELISA is an inadequate diagnostic tool when used in isolation. That's why no one in their right minds recommends using it in isolation; for instance, as you note, the CDC recommends that diagnoses be made clinically and laboratory testing used in an ancillary role.” MastCell[[31]]

“I think Lyme disease is almost certainly grossly underdiagnosed and underreported. A more useful screening test would be hugely important.” MastCell [[32]]

I agree with you, and more importantly, I think the preponderance of data agrees with both of us. But, the IDSA guidelines say:

"Clinical findings are sufficient for the diagnosis of erythema migrans, but clinical findings alone are not sufficient for diagnosis of extracutaneous manifestations of Lyme disease or for diagnosis of HGA or babesiosis. Diagnostic testing performed in laboratories with excellent quality-control procedures is required for confirmation of extracutaneous Lyme disease, HGA, and babesiosis.’ [emphasis in original]"[[33]]

See the problem? in the guidelines, and how it contributes to the gross underdiagnosis (and consequent undertreatment, delayed treatment, etc.) of LD? And see how it's therefore not a good idea, from a humanitarian standpoint, to defend the guidelines beyond what is reasonably required by WP:MEDRS?

Hope you're enjoying the summer, best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to let you know I'm still interested. Hope all's well, Postpostmod (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I had gotten a bit preoccupied and missed your response until just recently. But continuing our discussion is now officially on my to-do list. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just checking in. We've been having quite the heat wave, but it just thunderstormed and Yay! it's down to 70 (deg F). Hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, checking in again, so thread doesn't get accidentally archived. (If it does, I guess we can dig it out again if need be.) I see I'm still on your to-do list. Looking forward to hearing from you. New heat wave coming here, after a few days' relief, which gave the house a chance to cool down. Hope all's well, Postpostmod (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been spending most of my on-Wikipedia time elsewhere, as you can probably see... I don't like to get caught up, but those kinds of processes are usually time-sensitive. If you ignore them and then wish you'd said what you had to say, you can't go back. Anyhow, I just haven't had the time/mental energy to continue our conversation in the past week or two, although I do intend to. I don't have an automated archive system (I do it by hand), so this thread won't go anywhere. Thanks for your patience. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just caught your reply - it didn't show up on my watchlist for some reason - oh well. Thanks for communicating, looking forward to it. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, more great summer weather here. We're in the middle of shorebird migration, and herons seem to be on the move. Two evenings ago saw a black-crowned night heron, a great egret, and two green-backed herons, in addition to the usual few great blue herons, just at our one local pond. I've been reading books about historical epidemics, and the threat of new ones (bird flu); pretty interesting. It had never occurred to me that all epidemics are political hot buttons, but now of course it seems obvious, as they can have huge economic effects. Nobody wants to be the first to admit their country (village, town, state, etc.) is infected, because people will then avoid the region, and the stigma and economic damage can be long lasting. Apparently epidemiology routinely has to deal with public relations, governmental actions, news control, etc., in addition to the purely biological issues.

Back to our subject, I just edited a couple of sentences of my comments - one that I had mentioned before that I thought was impolite, and one at the end of my post of 17 June, which you haven't answered yet. I thought maybe the second question, that I have withdrawn, was too difficult, and that was keeping you from responding. If that's not it, could you let me know what the problem might be, and maybe I can think of a way around it, so we can continue our discussion of Lyme disease testing? Thanks very much, hope all's well with you, Postpostmod (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still interested. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for the delay, and let me see if I can help pick this up where we (I) left off. I think that the CDC guidelines are based on Bayesian probability - in other words, the utility of a diagnostic test varies depending on what the pre-test probability is. Erythema migrans is a relatively unusual skin lesion outside of tickborne disease, so if someone shows up in a Lyme-endemic area with EM, then the pre-test likelihood that they've been exposed to Lyme disease is very high - so high that additional diagnostic testing doesn't really add much. So it makes sense that in the case of EM in an endemic area, the clinical finding is sufficient for diagnosis.

On the other hand, the extracutaneous manifestations are a different kettle of fish. Even for widely agreed-upon manifestations like joint pain, fever, myalgias, etc, the differential diagnosis is much broader than just Lyme. For those manifestations, therefore, it makes sense to utilize a diagnostic test in addition to clinical findings, because the pre-test probability isn't as high and there are other competing entities in the differential diagnosis. This applies even more strongly to the disputed manifestations of "chronic" Lyme disease, which are protean and overlap with a wide range of other diseases and syndromes - in those cases, you need some sort of diagnostic testing, or you're really firing blindly.

The problem is that ELISAs are not the most specific tests in the world. You get false positives, which is why they're frequently used as screening tests but usually require some sort of independent confirmation (e.g. in HIV testing). If you take a test with a high false-positive rate, and you apply it to a population with a relatively low pre-test probability of disease (e.g. people with wide-ranging medically unexplained symptoms), you will end up with basically no predictive or diagnostic power whatsoever.

I'm not sure if I'm really addressing your question - I apologize, but because of the delay on my end, I lost the thread of our conversation a bit. Anyhow, if I'm off on a tangent, please feel free to refocus me on the aspects of testing that you wanted to discuss. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your friendly reply. I'm in the middle of a round of family visits, should be able to reply next week. Hope all's well, Postpostmod (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back. Whew. I'm glad I have such a nice family, but it takes a lot out of me to do the social stuff for long uninterrupted periods of time.

I wrote a long, logically structured reply, but then realized it is probably not suitable for a medium like the web that relies more on skipping and skimming than on uninterrupted critical reading. It seems it's best to focus on one simple question at a time.

So I wonder if I could just ask you to try to recall where you picked up the impressions I quoted from you above, which I'll repeat here so you won't have to scroll up:

“ELISA is an inadequate diagnostic tool when used in isolation. That's why no one in their right minds recommends using it in isolation; for instance, as you note, the CDC recommends that diagnoses be made clinically and laboratory testing used in an ancillary role.” MastCell[[34]]

“I think Lyme disease is almost certainly grossly underdiagnosed and underreported. A more useful screening test would be hugely important.” MastCell [[35]]

To summarize, please tell me where you got these impressions.

Thanks! I appreciate it! hope all's well with you and yours, Postpostmod (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I made another blunder in tone. I had bolded the quotes from you in my post of 20 August 2010 (just above this one), but it looked like I was yelling. I don't think a strikeout would fix that, so I hope it's okay if I just remove the bold from the text and put in a note that I did so.

[Note to readers: Postpostmod had originally bolded the quoted diffs just above. Postpostmod is now removing the bolding to correct the tone of the post.]

Again, sorry to have been impolite. I think I had just been needled by someone else, and inadvertently adopted their tone. (An explanation, not a justification.) Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still interested. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm still interested. Hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still interested. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, still interested. Best, Postpostmod (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still interested. Regards, Postpostmod (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, still waiting for your reply. You must be arguing with a bunch of people on a bunch of issues, to judge from your main page. The issue I've raised is relatively easy, though, because it's not very subtle, and it's all right there in the literature, no "conspiracy theory" required. ;-)

If you'll recall, the question was regarding the accuracy of Lyme disease testing: how do you reconcile the conflicting authoritative statements by IDSA (positive 2-tier test is required for diagnosis of all non-EM cases) versus the CDC (testing should only be used to support a clinical diagnosis)? To be useful, the reconciliation must be done in a way that doesn’t sacrifice patient well-being. In other words, the fact that it's more convenient (often glossed over as “more objective”) for doctors and insurers to depend on a lab test is irrelevant if the test is inaccurate. I've looked at the data in the literature and I think they don't support the IDSA position on this one. Half of the IDSA panel that reviewed the guidelines agreed with me on this, so it’s hardly a fringe position. I was hoping to engage your curiosity so you could figure out what's wrong with the testing dogma for yourself; it's kind of a fun eureka experience, to catch the big shots making rookie errors in print. But, I guess you're never going to do that. So I'll tell you what's wrong with that literature, just for due diligence’s sake. You kindly put a lot of words into explaining your view of medical culture to me, and I appreciate it, so here's a lot of words explaining what I find important and why.

The most obvious problem is that the studies that claim to show that the two-tier test is sensitive in late Lyme disease (LD) are invalid due to using a circular argument. See, as just one of many examples, Steere et al 2008, PMID18532885. When you read the methods you can see that the study requires a positive 2-tier test for a patient to be included as someone with late LD - then, after a few pages of tables, graphs, discussions of other issues, when they get to the conclusions, they say that their results show that greater than 99% of late LD patients have a positive 2-tier test. Read that sentence again. Well sure they do, since that's how you chose them. It’s 100%, guaranteed. I know, it's crazy, and I have no idea how something so obvious keeps getting past referees and into the high-profile literature, unless they just rubber-stamp it "accept", to save time, because it's from a big-name lab. This would be disastrous for the scientific enterprise if it were common, but of course experienced pillars of the scientific community like you and me, unlike those pesky fringe people, know that only rarely would respected medical researchers do something so obviously damaging to science, and to patients.

This is just an example. The literature on this disease is full of stuff just as ridiculous, repeated over and over. I think it's the repetition that allows it to pass as true.

And why am I bugging you about it? Because you keep chiming in on the LD talk page and article. You and Tim are the two people most responsible for maintaining the page in its current incarnation, which is far from exhibiting an impartial tone regarding the controversy.

I can see that it would be embarrassing for anyone in the current WP:MED group to acknowledge a situation in which respected medical authority figures are demonstrably not respectable. And I realize that WP doesn't have any easy policy fixes for a situation like this one. NPOV does direct editors to describe disputes, not to engage in disputes, but this distinction often is ignored in practice, probably because the ability to do it is rare, plus it's not as much fun as denouncing evil-doers. ;-)

I appreciate the valuable concept of due and undue weight. In fact, even if all mainstream knowledge was as tainted as this case, it would still be important to fully document the currently dominant view, in any article on any subject, because that's the view people have to deal with in the real world, whether it's right or wrong or somewhere in between. Sick people and their care-givers, however, also have to deal with the biological reality of the disease. They don't have the luxury of believing a plausible tale told by an authority but signifying nothing.

You must have noticed that sometimes the medical hierarchy gets itself into a self-reinforcing rut. It's not helpful to get indiscriminately angry at anyone who questions authority. Sometimes they just want to help push the truck out of the rut. I'm not asking you to join them in the mud, just to examine the science in addition to the mainstream dogma, and edit accordingly. ;-)

If you're sick of this, you can always take the 5th, say you won’t answer the question, and archive the thread. I'm not the type to get mad and yell about it, as you've probably noticed by now.

Guessing that that’s what you’ll do, let me reiterate that I greatly appreciate your sharing your insights about the culture of medicine, both clinical and academic. I printed them out for future reference. I’ve been reading a bunch of books about the topic, and they’ve been real eye-openers, but there’s no substitute for off-the-cuff riffing by a practitioner.

Best wishes, from your friendly and loyal opposition, Postpostmod (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being non-responsive. For whatever reason, the impetus to respond to people who are aggressively obstinate or ignorant is strong, while the impetus to respond to your commentary, which has been reasonable and civil, is lower. So I guess the moral of the story is that you should be more obnoxious? :) In any case, you may have noticed that I've wound down my participation here pretty substantially, so in part I just haven't been bothering with this place as much as I used to.

About Steere et al. (PMID 18532885), I think you probably have a point. And, as I'm sure you know, Raphael Stricker raised exactly the same point in a letter published in Clinical Infectious Diseases. Steere's response was sort of, well, non-responsive. I think the paper in general was not particularly well-written. The sensitivity is going to be 100%, as you note, although the specificity depends more on the false-positive rate in the control populations. Steere et al. did explicitly mention the circular nature of this reasoning in the lead-in to their discussion, but they should have been clearer about it. For a more robust description of the operating characteristics of two-tier testing, I guess you'd have to go back to Bacon et al. 2003 (PMID 12695997) or thereabouts... without the paper in front of me, I seem to recall that they examined the test in a population that was clinically (rather than serologically) diagnosed with late manifestations of Lyme.

I should emphasize that I'm not an expert on Lyme disease, by any means. I don't diagnose or treat Lyme. That said, I can tell you that my sympathies are always going to be with a group of scientists when they're subjected to abusive, politically motivated interrogations by people who are pandering for votes rather than taking an interest in the question at hand. That's true whether it's Richard Blumenthal or James Inhofe doing the interrogating. There is fraud, abuse, and ignorance in science, but the number of times that they have been effectively remedied by politicians ignorant of the underlying subject matter is... zero, as far as I know. But I digress.

Yeah, I've noticed that medical thought gets stuck in a rut sometimes. I've also noticed that some people suffer - and I mean really suffer - from symptoms that are entirely real but medically inexplicable. And I've noticed that when medicine can't find an etiology for such suffering, into the breach rush every manner of charlatan and snake-oil salesman. Think of all of the scams that have pushed to people with medically unexplained symptoms, from candidal overgrowth to somatids to "adrenal fatigue" to "Wilson's syndrome". I'm not saying that the ILADS people are in this group, but when someone tells people with medically unexplained symptoms that they've found The Answer That Their Doctors Missed, my default attitude is skeptical. And without getting into ad hominem stuff, the background of some ILADS figures isn't especially reassuring. But again, this is a digression.

I'll leave you with a book recommendation, although you may already have it on your reading list. Take a look at White Coat, Black Hat by Carl Elliott. It's a thought-provoking read; I don't disagree that he's identified real problems, but I do feel like he didn't make even a token effort to provide a balanced perspective or seek out data that might conflict with his preconceived hypotheses. Then again, I guess we all have our blind spots. :) Anyhow, I think you'd enjoy reading the book. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for responding, and for cracking the paper. I've got the Bacon paper around here somewhere and will take a good look at it (I'm old-fashioned, I like to get comfy on the couch with a red pen). I ordered "White Coat, Black Hat" from my local library system, but it may take awhile because all the copies have holds on it already - must be a hot topic.

By the way, the latest NEJM has a theme of medical errors and their prevention (I think it's mostly surgical). My favorite of all the books I've read so far on errors of thought, and how to avoid them, is Groopman's "How Doctors Think". Richard Smith's "The Trouble With Medical Journals" is an excellent discussion of publication issues, and he's witty, but it's not a pleasure to read because of the book design. Of course, I got a kick out of "The House of God", which you must have read. Regarding our topic of circular reasoning, the Leggo says, "Most people who have glomerulonephritis and spit blood have glomerulonephritis and spit blood."

I'll get back to you more substantively in a few days - gotta go look at ducks now. Gorgeous weather! Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the NEJM articles on medical errors. Interesting stuff. I have to admit, I'm not a huge fan of Groopman's medical writing - I prefer Atul Gawande, or Abraham Verghese, or even Richard Selzer - but I have been meaning to look at "How Doctors Think". Thanks for the reminder to request it from the library.

House of God is, of course, a classic. I remember visiting Beth Israel in Boston - I had considered (but decided against) doing part of my training there - and they seemed quite proud of being the model for the fictional House of God. It seemed like a somewhat ambiguous honor to me, but whatever. One final recommendation is Becoming a Doctor, by Melvin Konner. He's an anthropology professor who decided he wanted to become a physician. The book contains his observations - with an anthropologist's perspective - on the culture of medical education. They aren't particularly charitable. I'd like to think things have gotten better, but some of his descriptions still have a ring of absolute familiarity. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, quick update. I ordered "Becoming a Doctor", thanks for recommending. Located and re-read the ref you mentioned, Bacon et al. 2003 (PMID 12695997). I think it's not the one you want - it's another one of the circular ones. Disclaimers within the text, but not in the abstract, where it counts. I believe you, that there exists a paper where the authors say they ignored the previously established serological status of the patient, and still came up with the verdict "sensitive", but I think I'll focus my efforts on documenting the circular ones. ;-). Craven et al. PMID: 8903216 is instructive, as to what issues were considered while setting the standards for testing at the Dearborn meeting in 1994.

Great "ducking" Sat and Sun, 10 species on local ponds. And interesting behavior: the mallards were head-bobbing to each other as they do in spring, presumably in response to the slightly warmer weather. We also saw a group of them splashing each other with water like kids in a pool. No wonder they're so prolific, they don't miss a chance for fun or romance. ;-) Best wishes,Postpostmod (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings -- thought you may have an interest in this

Hi MastCell, as a relative newcomer here I've joined in on an article that I see you worked diligently on (ironing out a scenario of WP:SOCK, WP:NPOV and WP:COPYRIGHT it seems) nearly one year ago. To make a long story short, I wish to spend some time slowly but surely working with other editors to bring this article up to Wikipedia's own standards, and I've posted this introductory note (along with a proposed infobox) to get things headed in the right direction over there. Anyhow, I recognize that you are taking a breath of fresh air from the admin world for the time being; however I felt it important to extend a courtesy note to say Mahalo, hope all is well, and if you get a chance to weigh in on my approach, great. But if not, no worries. Kind regards, Carthan (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for direction

Hey, I know you've had a run-in with this editor before, so I was hoping you could advise me on how to proceed here. [36] My best efforts at being conciliatory have not been very fruitful. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm looking for direction also. I want to know why you went to my talk page and claimed that my edit was not supported. It was completely supported by three reliable sources. Also, it is not good form to wander around looking for other editors gang up on other editors. Just a reminder. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think my concerns were spelled out clearly on your talk page. They have not been assuaged by your subsequent editing. Re: Arbor832566, I would suggest remaining civil, avoiding edit-warring, and pursuing dispute resolution as appropriate. That said, if the deeply inappropriate editing by InaMaka continues, then I will either address it or refer it to another admin, because it's an abuse of this site. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Block

Fair questions. For the record, I was not involved in a content dispute or edit warring with the editor in question. As an administrator I was attempting to restore some order and preserve a talk page from having recent content archived and placed "out of sight". I am happy to enlighten those who are curious as to exactly what happened and why this editor has been blocked for a short period of cooling off time. I happened upon the Juan Williams article last night and noticed that there was some edit warring going on. And in particular there were some attempts to archive current material from the talk page which is not appropriate conduct. One of the threads being put out of sight had responses from this month - indeed this past few days (though the section itself had been started a year back.) It discusses some sensitive matters. But the discussion was not of a tabloid nature, it quoted from and linked to the Washington Post - the employer of Williams at the time of the incidents discussed. And referred to matters for which Williams was investigated, disciplined and apologized. Matters that were very widely reported at the time. The sole area of contention was the exact nature of the incidents. And that is precisely why we have talk pages - for forthright, civil discussion between editors. There was other recent content that the editor was seeking to archive. Wearing my Administrator hat I stepped in civilly and restored the content. Not as an editor warring with an editor. But as an Administrator restoring a long-held protocol. And I requested that this recent material not be deleted or archived. The editor immediately reversed the restoration. It was then that I spent a little time looking through the recent histories of the editor's interactions with other editors and discovered that there were several complaints of bullying by this editor. I investigated and I regret to say that I did find numerous examples in just the preceding 24 hours of a very aggressive tone and threatening text towards other editors in both his messages and in his edit summaries. They are all there to be seen. By way of example he wrote to Veriss1 "I've set you right. Don't do it again". And "Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task". He wrote to Davidpatrick: "You either go with the sources or you don't edit." And "You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple." Those types of comments are not conducive to healthy discourse.

Being charitable and assuming that the editor is generally of good faith but perhaps being a hot head in the heat of edit warring, I decided to give him a clear warning that he could be blocked for his actions in removing article talk page material and uncivil interactions and inviting him to respond. By referring to the specific Wikipedia guidelines that he would be encouraged to review during such a suspension I truly hoped he would take a deep breath and realize that if several people (at least two editors and an Administrator) were all unhappy with his tone of discourse that perhaps he needed to cool down. But his immediate response was belligerent and to declare that I was "a meat puppet for Davidpatrick and Veriss1". Apart from the fact that this is patently false, it unfortunately confirmed the identical issue that the other editors have complained of. Namely a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia. That is the reason for the block. I truly hope that the time off will help the editor to read Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and WP:CIVIL and reflect on the merits of a calmer more friendly approach to fellow editors, even in the heat of disagreements. (PS. I'm sending this same reply to the other two individuals who responded, plus I'm posting this on my own talk page in case anyone else posts a similar query). 23skidoo (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that this incident has blown over, I hope you're interested in sticking around to work on more potentially productive areas of the project. MastCell ^Talk 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I feel you should know that I mention you here. I am very upset about this thread so I would appreciate any input you may have about what is going on there. Thanks, I'm stepping back for a few to calm down, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Drwilson48

I don't know if you noticed, but a couple of hours after you left a note for User:Drwilson48 about edit warring, User:Stevenson1425 took over the campaign to suppress criticism and promote favorable information at the IAHP article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up. I will look into it. MastCell ^Talk 02:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi MastCell, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't actively follow that set of articles, so I hadn't realized that the editing environment had deteriorated. I've tended to stay away from the area more recently, because I find the editorial dynamics depressing. I've recently become much more selective (or selfish, if you like) about how I spend my volunteer time here. In any case, I will take a look at the page you mention, but I can't promise anything in terms of input or follow-through. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding libel claims at National Council Against Health Fraud

I appreciated your attempt to improve the sourcing of this section, but the LIBEL claims needed to be addressed formally. I started an ANI thread in which I mentioned you here . --Ocaasi (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS

What the heck is the agenda here? Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Policy.2FGuideline. Either I'm obtuse, or he's obtuse, or there's more to this than meets the eye. (Yes, I've seen the ANI thread, and I can't figure if this is just obtuseness, a misuuderstanding on my part, or polite POV pushing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, if I may chime in, QG and I have a brief but fairly involved history at Chiropractic where the article has been whipped into nearly textbook scientific form through QG and other's strident and strict application of WP:ASF (which is now kind of just WP:ASSERT) and WP:MEDRS which has given very strong weight to particular systematic reviews regarding the general safety of Chiropractic. So, I put MEDRS on my watchlist. I can explain more, but basically, that is the extent of the topic-specific background you need to know.

A few days ago I saw QG had removed text explaining the hierarchy which subordinates MEDRS to NPOV, for one, and after considering replacing it, finally did today (coincidentally or not, on an evening he suggested I might be breaching wp:libel). Anyway, the impetus may not have been entirely random, but I had it on my to-do or to-consider list for a few weeks, and I replaced it.

As you probably know, there's been a debate/battle for quite some time about NPOV vs. SPOV. MEDRS has been a big help for scientific sourcing, and I don't regret that a bit. I have more trouble with the way it has been imposed on alternative medicine articles, however, where some of the articles have imo, a nearly anti-alternative-medicine bias. That may be expected in certain instances where research has not matched up with alt.med practicioner's claims, but it also may be part of a broader and less neutral opposition. So, MEDRS is very much at the center of debates around Pseudoscience, and Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Alternative Medicine, etc. are all highly controversial articles, many of which have been to ArbCom and back.

All of that still, however, had nothing to do with my advocacy for SlimVirgin's addition. I've been working on unrelated policy issues for a few months, trying to do basic cleanup for consistency and simplicity. I thought the statement-in-question was a helpful pointer, and as a relatively new editor, always found a high level of confusion between policies and guidelines, especially RS (and implicitly MEDRS) which comes into play on virtually every article, and particularly so with contentious and explicitly medical issues.

After that, I just thought it was a matter of finishing the conversation where it started. I figured that if Colin objected to it being on MEDRS, that we might as well hash it out there rather than on the template page; if one content guideline objection can't be overcome I wasn't sure it was worth continuing more broadly. That's pretty much it.

Policy is a big mess and lots of people are trying to clean it up in a variety of well-intentioned though not particularly coordinated ways. At the same time, different snippets of policy portend to sway the balance in delicately stacked controversial articles. Sometimes small edits are not always small, or they can seem to be motivated by a broader agenda. As I said above, that may have been the nudge, but I was looking at these policies for quite some time relative to my brief tenure, and intended to work on those statements anyway. As the RfC now going on a wp:V suggests, this is a tip-of-the-iceberg issue regarding clarity and consistency of policies. Which brings the background up to date. Does that not cover anything? Ocaasi (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall a fellow editor once equating the level of obtuseness with word count. Somebody then did something about it Shot info (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And on an aside - where's Elonka and WP:TAGTEAM when you need it!!!!1one :-) Shot info (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shot, you made a pretty strong point that we should be focusing on issues not editors. I presume that word counts are included in the red-herring category. Would you mind dropping the haranguing. If you want the focus to be on the article rather than the miscellaneous side issues, please do so as well. Ocaasi (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the best thing to do is not to reply if you don't like how things are going for you. It's not my fault that this new editor "Ocaasi" has lit up my watchlist - probably the same as lots of other editors - as you have no doubt by now noticed and after much shopping at many noticeboards - found you are being ignored? Now I wonder why that is :-). BTW, "haranguing" - reframing the argument is something that is easily seen through here in WP. Also I reveal in the irony of having you asking me to focus on the article - rather than issues. Yet all over my watchlist there is "Ocaasi" focusing on many issues - mainly of his own creation. Who would have thought it :-) Shot info (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shot, I don't mind how things are going at the moment. I got more in-depth/detailed than I should have re QG on the NCAHF talk page, and have been working on the sources since. The only noticeboard was AN/I. MEDRS was only tangentially related, as is this. Haranguing was not about the article but about your following here to make a not-exactly-necessary comment on the length of my post. I asked you to focus on the issues, because you asked me to focus on the issues. If you're serious about it, good, then we can drop the unrelated stuff, and perhaps return to the article content. Ocaasi (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing me with another editor who has asked me to focus on the issues - which is really not unusual as you haven't really being focusing on the issues at all, so to have other editors ask you this is quite honestly unsurprising. My point (sarcastic as if may be) is merely to help remind you that we are here to do something - although the way you are editing at the moment reminds me of something WP isn't supposed to be. Read those archieves yet? :-) Shot info (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think battlegrounds are best left elsewhere as well, but I can't quite figure out your mix of antagonism and advice. You don't want this to be a battleground and you don't think we should focus on editors, but you seem somewhat invested in the article and are making comments about an editor. I'm not seeing the 'let's make an article' at the bottom of it. As I said above, if you feel like dropping the comments and sarcasm and focusing back on the content, that would line up nicely with what you've suggested. If you prefer to keep it up, I'll just let you share this moment of peculiar revelry by yourself. Ocaasi (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So no, archives not read yet? Pity. By doing so you will see and understand and perhaps comprehend why it appears that your edits are not being viewed in good faith. I can only point you in the direction - you however can (and probably will) continue to write reams about it... Shot info (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, guys. Let's take a break, or at least take it outside. To go back to the policy question, I feel pretty strongly that this site needs to provide high-quality, accurate, scholarly medical information. For all the BLP zealotry, well-founded as it is, I think the medical articles are far and away more important from both an ethical perspective and in their potential for real-life harm.

  WP:MEDRS (and the best practices codified in it) are meant to apply to all medical content on Wikipedia, including alt-med articles. Alternative medicine articles aren't a free-fire zone where we drop our sourcing requirements. We owe readers accurate, high-quality, encyclopedic information on alt-med topics just as much, if not more, as on more mainstream medical topics. It's harder to write good articles on alt-med topics, because there are proportionately fewer quality sources and exponentially more crappy sources, but we can do it if we work at it.

  The editing of policy pages raises a couple of concerns. One of them I codified here as point #5: I'm not a big fan of editing policy pages to influence a specific content dispute. That's a temptation to be avoided wherever possible. One of the reasons that policies and guidelines are such a bloated mess is that they're often edited to influence specific content disputes. Or else they're edited as part of a years-long crusade by individual editors who want policy to reflect their personal vision of Wikipedia. Both of these are the wrong approaches - policies should be altered to reflect what's working in practice. The medical articles work, in practice, for the most part - at least they're among the best content Wikipedia has to offer, and they're steadily improving. WP:MEDRS was an attempt to codify the practices that have led to success in this topic area.

  As to Sandy's question about more than meets the eye: I guess my cynical answer is that wherever SlimVirgin is involved, there's bound to be more than meets the eye. I don't think it's a secret that she has an agenda that she wants to see reflected in this site's content and sourcing policies. That agenda hasn't really attracted much support, but anyone experienced in the ways of this site realizes that you "win" disputes not by convincing people by force of reason, but by outlasting them. So we see these same tropes inserted into various policy pages every few months. A cynic would conclude that she's just waiting for the people who have opposed these changes to wither away or get tired and give up.

  To go back to Sandy's original question, I do think there's a bit of soup-spitting here. I doubt it's intentional or malicious, but a number of people (more patient than I) seem to be getting the feeling that they're going around in unproductive circles. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks ... sorry you had to type so much to confirm that I'm not obtuse :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:SOUP. Never seen that before. Brilliant. Colin°^Talk 09:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as dumb as I look, and polite TLDR posts don't obscure when a POV is being pushed by attempting to change policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I thought an explanation was what you were looking for, so I went into the details. Naming policies may seem like a distraction, but that was the language I found in use on alt.med articles, not an attempt to obscure things. As for a POV, I somewhat took on one side of the debate at Chiropractic, but I don't consider policy something that should be used to suit particular articles--something I was trying to avoid at MEDRS. I have tried to explain my subject-related involvement, which doesn't eliminate a potential bias, but it lets editors know some of the context... Ocaasi (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move Autism to Autistic disorder

Hi MastCell. Your expertise would be welcome at this proposal. Anthony (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question on my talk

I've just responded to the question you posted on my talkpage a few days ago. Sorry for the delay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I figured you're extremely busy, and with so many people posting to your talk page, you'd get around to it when you got around to it. Thanks for the answer - I appreciate your interest in brainstorming outside-the-box solutions. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 Guides

Thought I would let you know that I quoted you here. I also wanted to encourage you to make a guide. I certainly would value your opinion, and many others would as well. NW (Talk) 04:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have strong feelings (positive in some cases, negative in others) about a handful of candidates, in particular the ex-Arbs who have decided to run again. But the cynic in me says that at least some of the most horrifying candidates are likely to be elected, so why should I bother pissing them off by noting how deeply they horrify me?

I would say I'm strongly positive on about 5 or 6 (I'll say here and now that I'm voting for Newyorkbrad and Iridescent). I'm strongly negative on a similar number - as in I would seriously consider leaving this site, or at least never bringing case before the Committee, if they're elected.

Most of the rest, I can't get excited about - social networkers and the inveterately clueless, as well as a few people who are borderline but would probably grow into the job. I don't think they'll destroy Wikipedia if elected, but they'll likely be overmatched, faceless, and invisible as Arbs (I can point to quite a few examples from previous elections). Anyhow, I'll think about it... MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I for one was curious about your opinion. It's going to be an ... "interesting" election. The results may contain surprises. (I've been resisting the desire to write another fairly cynical "observation" about some of the things playing out here.) Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the move to secret ballots has helped matters. It used to be that everyone had to express an open opinion. With secret ballots those who comment on the candidates stand out, so few people do it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in lieu of a formal guide, I think I could sum up my philosophy about the current election in a few words: Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Given the current level of vigilance, I should clearly attribute those words to Santayana. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)