User talk:MastCell/Archive 28

Clarence Thomas
I think you have good points on the CT article, but Ferrylodge and Simon Dodd will tag team to slant the article in Thomas's favor unless you start an RfC or something of the like. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the few rules that I've set for myself on Wikipedia is this: never get into a back-and-forth argument with Ferrylodge. It doesn't matter who's "right" - it will degenerate into an annoying, legalistic battle of last-wordism. I mean, it took quite an uphill effort just to get Thomas' confirmation hearings mentioned at all in the lead, when they are the single biggest aspect of any reputable biography of the man (including Thomas' own autobiography, for that matter). Arguing with Ferrylodge tends to bring out the worst in me, and it's definitely not how I want to spend my volunteer time. He can write the book on Clarence Thomas; it's not worth it. I would be willing to comment at a content RfC, as a previous editor of the article, but that's about it. MastCell Talk 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple lines from Strange Justice about the Post reporters who found corroboration of the allegations. It's critical that this information be included. Strange Justice's authors, writers for WSJ, concluded that Thomas lied. The current version of the article is mealy-mouthed about what actually happened. So stay the course. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've made my opinions, both about content and about editorial agendas, clear at Talk:Clarence Thomas. I don't have enough interest in the subject to fight about it; I really do make a point of avoiding substantive content arguments with Ferrylodge for my own sanity; and there appears to be a fairly serious edit-war underway there. All of those factors add up the following: I'm not getting involved. MastCell Talk 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a shame you're stepping out. I know what you mean about that guy. I don't know if I can keep watching the page when law school starts up next month; I hope you do. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I added this material to balance out a rather laudatory opinion of Thomas in the Recent Years section of the article, and I hope you can weigh in on its clear validity in the talk page:

In contrast, law professor Donald Wilkes calls Thomas "the most reactionary Supreme Court Justice" in decades, and says Thomas has a "proclivity for demeaning human rights." He notes what he calls Thomas's tendency to vote "systematically in favor of assertions of government power and against claims of individual liberty." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that's a great encyclopedic source. I mean, it's arguably no worse than most of those used to create our current hagiographic picture of Clarence Thomas (the fact that he hasn't asked a question from the bench since 2005 means he's a "good listener"! The fact that some people call him conservative just means that they don't understand the difference between political and judicial conservatism! His confirmation hearings, the central aspect of every reputable biography of the man (including Thomas' own autobiography), are just "sordid tabloid stuff" that should be excised from the lead and punted to a subarticle! If a source is generally critical of Thomas but contains one or two laudatory sentences, guess which part makes its way into a quotebox? And that's to say nothing of the talk page, where it's apparently [still] open season on Anita Hill. Forget the reliable sources that corroborate her accusations - they belong in the subarticle, or should be excised completely, because they offend delicate sensibilities). On the other hand, we should probably endeavor to raise the bar. In any case, I was serious when I said I was unwatching the page. There are enough crappy articles on Wikipedia, and I don't have a lot of free time at the moment. I don't want to spend my time here fighting about Clarence Thomas with a bunch of people who are obviously more committed to the topic than I. MastCell Talk 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I learned a new word -- hagiographic. I wouldn't cite Wilkes's personal site normally, but the article was also published in Flagpole magazine, so I figure it's good. Besides which, the block quote right above it is from a blog, posted by the blog's owner, which means it's essentially self-published. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the discussion on the talk page, I think we can use "far right" as outlined by Baccyak. This is how the section on conservatism and originalism starts now:

Justice Thomas is often described as an originalist, as well as a member of the "far right" of the Supreme Court.

Thank you
Thanks for dealing with the LuvGoldStar account. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I haven't exactly been impressed with the average admin's willingness to stick out their necks on sockpuppetry cases, even obvious ones. Though I guess it's understandable given some historical, high-profile events. Anyhow, it looked pretty open-and-shut to me, so I'm happy to help. MastCell Talk 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ELISA test in Lyme Disease
As we both seem to have strong opinions about this, I've asked for a third opinion in Third opinion. I have to admit that I have extremely strong concerns about this issue as my wife passed two ELISA tests and so it took nine months to diagnose her Lyme Disease, which is now chronic and nearing the point of crippling her. Simesa (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that. I think we agree on the value of accurate information here. Maybe a third opinion will be useful. MastCell Talk 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Yes. Please, please. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi.
Hi, I was the "problem" editor at Wikifan bogus sock report. The ANI has now spilled over into a dispute between User:SlimVirgin and I. She is accusing me of Fraud and threatening to file a topic ban against me. I find this turn of events very disturbing and would really appreciate at least some kind of intervention or "weigh in" that doesn't involve me getting permabanned. Also, Slim still believes I am a member of the CAMERA conspiracy. If you don't have the time, can you recommend someone? Please? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest with you: I don't know that you want me to get involved here, because I have a very low tolerance for what I regard as primarily agenda-driven editing in general, and on these topics in particular. My initial impression - while I have not reviewed your contributions in detail - is that you generally fall into this sort of category.
 * I do have a few general suggestions:
 * If you've cited a source, then you generally need to be willing to respond to challenges of that source. It's OK if you don't have the book in front of you - not everything is at one's fingertips, even in the Information Age - but you need to accept that other editors can challenge material that they find questionable, and it's up to the editor inserting the material to meet those challenges with detailed info about the source. Being defensive (or, worse, going on a counteroffensive against the challenging editor) isn't a productive approach. That's just how Wikipedia's policies work, at least as I understand them.
 * Especially when you're making a point that you feel strongly about, it's important to go through the sources first and be sure that you understand what they're saying. Contentious statements are always going to be challenged on Israeli/Palestinian articles. The best possible response is a calm, rational one: "Here is the source. Here is a quote from the source supporting the text I inserted. Here is the page number where anyone owning a copy of the book can verify the material." If you don't have this info, then the second-best response is a calm, rational one: "I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't answer your question at the moment. Move the material to the talk page, and I will look it up next time I'm at the library; do any other editors have access the information in question?" Responses that evade the question, or cite other Wikipedia articles, are less useful.
 * I don't know many admins who are willing to spend a lot of time policing Israeli/Palestinian articles, for reasons which I'm sure are obvious to you. I'm torn between wanting to step up in an area where the project is clearly hurting, and a desire to spend my time here doing things I actually enjoy. Recently, the latter has been winning out, so I don't think I'm going to involve myself further at this point. Sorry for the frank response, but I hope there is at least something of interest to you in it. MastCell Talk 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. However, If you review the discussion you will find that I was trying very hard to explain the sources and information cordially but Slim continued to make more excuses as old ones were resolved. I primarily edit Middle Eastern-related articles but so do plenty of other editors, and never have I been excused of being an advocate except by User:NonZionist and User:RolandR. The paragraph in question had already several citations within the article, and at History of Arab-Israeli conflict (word for word). Slim claiming Bard and Sela were not "reliabile" after citing the Academic policy was dubious at best, considering both are academics and one of them is an actual professor at a major university. I've had conflicts with Slim in the past but never this violent. I've never accused slim of being part of a Pro-Palestinian organization or advocating on behalf of it, yet she felt it was appropriate to imply I belong to a CAMERA-conspiracy and am possibly a sock of tundra (which is absurd). I mean, if I were to accuse you of being a part of a partisan website and a party to a conspiracy, I'm sure the reaction would involve a block if not a ban. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'm accused of belonging to so many conspiracies, I can't keep track. That's life on Wikipedia. I don't really have an interest in getting involved in either the content dispute or the surrounding behavioral issues, so I think we can leave it there. MastCell Talk 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the response! Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy
For your enlightenment:


 * Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science


 * "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it.﻿"

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lyme Disease Controversy and politics
I really am very conceened about the accuracy of Lyme disease. I think more needs to be done, and the section expanded (especially based on comments from others in another forum reading this article), so I've opened an RfC (which I expect will find I'm somewhat biased myself). I do want to emphasize that the rest of the article does seem reflective of current mainstream beliefs. Simesa (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi MastCell, also related to the Lyme Disease article, your edit reverts several obvious improvements to the article, including at least one added reference (Donahue et al.) that appears valid to me. I see that you were reverted later, and correctly so; but there should be no need for me to tell you, a highly experienced editor, that edits shouldn't be wholesale reverted because only portions of the edit aren't to your liking.  Pro crast in a tor (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct that I should go back and add those references back; thank you for the reminder. I would prefer that further discussion take place at Talk:Lyme disease. MastCell Talk 16:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...
Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Great minds and all that... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a pain in the ass to fill out a 3RR report. It's a good reminder of what non-admins have to go through to get an obvious disruptive edit-warrior blocked; I've started taking for granted that if I see something untoward, I can just handle it (assuming I'm not involved). MastCell Talk 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AN/3RR is about the worst noticeboard we've got in all of Wikipedia. Mostly a waste of time in my experience when you can just ping an active admin about a violation and have it dealt with fairly quickly. Nathan  T 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'd feel kind of dirty doing that (although I have, on occasion). Besides, it really does build character and empathy - it is an immense undertaking to build a 3RR report, but there's no other way for an unconnected or genuinely novice user to deal with a disruptive edit-warrior. MastCell Talk 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See entry at WIKISPEAK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified Climate Scientists
Hi MastCell,

What's wrong with adding the adjective 'unidentified' (or 'unnamed') to describe the climate scientists quoted by ABC news? If their names are in the referenced article, I stand corrected.Andonee (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee


 * What's wrong is that you're framing our presentation of the article to imply that the climate scientists should not be trusted. I think that's fairly obvious. On a deeper level, what's wrong is that you're edit-warring and using IPs to try to force your proposed text into the article, which is not only doomed to fail but is annoying and disrespectful toward the other contributors on the page. MastCell Talk 19:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unidentified Climate Scientist"? I'd like to be one of those.  It sounds kinda cool, almost like Unidentified Flying Object. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick! Call the S-Files!--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris, the unintended humor in what you wrote is delicious. I'll give you some time to think about it.

Getting back to my main point, if the sources are 'unnamed', they should be referred to as such. If you interpret 'unnamed' as 'untrustworthy', that's up to you. The word 'unnamed' exactly describes the critics quoted in the article, because, well, their names weren't given.Andonee (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee


 * Congratulations on your unblock. I'd like to request that further discussion of content issues take place at Talk:Fred Singer. MastCell Talk 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I didn't want to just blow off your comment here. I owe you a response but I prefer to take this off the talk page as the discussion is actually more about an editing philosophy at this point than the specifics of the Singer article.

I do understand the philosophical point you are arguing, and in isolation I can even agree with it. My somewhat inept attempt at expressing why I think it doesn't (or shouldn't?) apply in the case we were discussing comes down to this: while I can accept the philosophy you express as being a valid and appropriate goal I disagree that it can (or even should?) be applied universally and without exception. This case is a reasonable case in point. If trying to apply this principle leads us to exhibit behavior that allows me to accurately articulate the facts that I did here then I think we have crossed some sort of line because I believe that those specific facts point to something that will lead to an article that fails to achieve WP:NPOV. It is very easy for the majority (i.e. the dominant group of editors in any given article) to cherry pick sources that present things in a biased way (not that I am accusing you of that here) and a universal application of your principle will then necessarily lead to an article that nearly universally reflects that majority POV at the exclusion of a minority POV.

Can you not understand that as a skeptic when I read that very same ABC News article that I take note of a very different set of points than, say, you do? So the things that jump out at me may not be the same things that jump out at you. The unidentified nature of the scientists is, in fact, one such point. ABC was writing that article, not reporting on someone else's article. So they are the ones that chose to leave the sources unidentified. They must have had some reason for doing so, correct? I sincerely doubt that it was an oversight on their part. I don't know what the reasons are and I don't even want to speculate on what they may be, but the simple fact that they chose not to name names is significant for anyone reading that article with a critical eye.

Suppose, as a hypothetical example, the individuals in question asked not to be named because they feared being charged with defamation of character, or fraud, or something similar in response to their statement. Do you think that ABC would have printed this in the article? Not likely. They would have left it completely out and just left their sources anonymous. Alternatively, it is also possible that they selected individuals with a particular history with Singer and an axe to grind so that they could get a particularly sensational quote. Do you expect that they would have printed explicitly that they were not naming their sources because they were known enemies of Singer? Again, not likely. It is also possible that they simply told their sources that they were taking their statements off the record so that they could speak more freely. In doing so, of course, they opened the door to having them say things behind their anonymity that they would never had said publicly. This type of thing all factors into how much weight the reader should give a given statement.

Given these possibilities, in this case I think your requirement that ABC make a big deal about the anonymous nature of their sources in order to list them as unidentified is misplaced and for obvious reasons. They aren't going to rat themselves out for any questionable deeds that lie behind keeping the sources anonymous. In this case what ABC chose NOT to say is just as significant to the critical thinker as is what they DID say and I don't think that there is anything wrong with making such points explicit in our summaries. I guess YMMV on that.

A fundamental question here is whether WP:NPOV is intended to be applied at an individual source level (which is sort of your point as I understand it ... at least from the perspective of not changing the "bias" of the source) or whether it is a more over-arching concept for the article as a whole (which is more where I am coming from). I don't believe that strict adherence to the former necessarily leads to the latter. Do you?

Anyway I respect you and your point of view even if I disagree with it from time to time. So are we "good" here? I meant no offense in my commentary at Singer's talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're proceeding from a faulty premise, which is that there must have been a specific reason for leaving out the names. Stories without names appear all the time, even on such uncontroversial topics as fossil camels. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, my premise is fine. You are just pointing out that "sometimes they just leave out the names" is one of the myriad of possibilities.  I don't deny this, but neither does that make the other upteen bazzillion possibilities disappear.


 * I think it highly unlikely that the names were left out by happenstance. If I was writing a article where I wanted to include a quote from Joe Schmoe at Stanford the most natural thing to do is to say Joe Schmoe of Stanford said blah.  If Joe was a climate scientist and I was wanting to stress the significance of his credentials to bolster my point I would certainly want to include his name and mention some of those credentials like he has a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Physics or whatever.  ABC went the exact opposite direction and so I strongly suspect that there is a reason behind that decision.  But I acknowledge that I could be wrong.  Sometimes a missing name is just a missing name, after all.  --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @GoRight: I'm sure that you and I have different reactions when we read the ABC News piece, based on different underlying assumptions. I can understand and, to some extent, agree with the idea that it would have better practice for ABC News to name their sources; and I can certainly understand how you, coming from a more skeptical viewpoint, would see that as a significant flaw in the piece. I agree with you that asking these sorts of questions is part of basic critical thinking. But in the end, for Wikipedia's purposes, we're bound by the available sources. The problem is that I think that you're interpolating your reaction, and your concerns about the ABC News piece, into the Wikipedia article in a way that can't be supported by this site's policies. The real question is, what do we do as Wikipedia editors when we think that something published in a reliable source is flawed, or out-and-out crap? Different people have different approaches. I tend to think that we need to grit our teeth and live with it, because if editors start interposing their personal evaluations of the journalistic quality of various reliable sources, then that's an extremely slippery slope. Regarding the last part, I'll take this opportunity to apologize for being snippy. A few days ago, someone asked me on another talk page whether I'd gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. I have felt more short-tempered than usual recently; as you've probably experienced, sometimes the frustrations of Wikipedia can accumulate to the point where one is not at one's best. We're fine; I wasn't offended, and I apologize for being cranky. MastCell Talk 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "I tend to think that we need to grit our teeth and live with it, because if editors start interposing their personal evaluations of the journalistic quality of various reliable sources, then that's an extremely slippery slope." - OK, fair enough. I have been working at the grit your teeth approach more (I said I was trying to ignore that topic) and I acknowledge this as a valid concern, in general.  This is, perhaps, why I felt the need to keep stressing the point that what I wanted to add was an objective fact that was easily discernible from the source.  I think that this is an important distinction within this discussion.  The slippery slope that you speak of doesn't seem to apply, at least IMHO, to objective facts.  Statements of nuanced opinion pulled almost entirely out of the author's head are obviously on the slippery slope.  The fact that the climate scientists were unidentified is not of the same caliber of concern, IMHO.  So, as with many things, we seem to be agreed on what the issues are but not necessarily on where to draw the lines.  --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:300681197
Apparently, nothing.--Tznkai (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait for it... MastCell Talk 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. You know, it occurs to me, that "users created" sounds awfully like Spontaneous generation or not so intelligent design.--Tznkai (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one of the many godlike powers entrusted to anyone who can pass an RfA... MastCell Talk 06:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful tool
Wikidashboard, also if you go to an article it shows contributors. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scary. I have a few hand-coded tools that do analytic stuff that I find informative, but nothing that polished. MastCell Talk 05:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD: Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
 * Advisory Council on Project Development
 * Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks. MastCell Talk 16:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I never knew Arbcom did that to people...
Better be careful in that new committee. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reaction to that committee has been informative, because sometimes I briefly forget how dysfunctional this place's culture has become. I will never understand why this project insists on handing over veto power to any group of 3 or more people with an active Internet connection. MastCell Talk
 * The phenomena has driven off three good arbitrators in a week; I guess I'm glad for you that you didn't end up joining the committee, apparently it makes you the subject of "dedicated detectives, members of an elite squad" focused on turning arbitrators into special victims. Nathan  T 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... as far as I know, I did join the committee, for what it's worth. It occurred to me at the time that Wikipedians, being Wikipedians, might be unable to conceptualize it as anything other than a threat or a form of elitism, given the prevailing mood of febrile, aggrieved outsiderhood here. But such is life. I guess the idea of the Arbitration Committee seeking advice from Giano (to take one example) seemed like a step in a new and interesting direction. The sad thing about the resignations - aside from the fact that these are excellent people that we're losing - is that ArbCom has improved dramatically in the 3 years or so that I've been aware of it. The current ArbCom is the best so far, by a large margin, and the trend has been one of steady improvement. But simultaneously, the job has gotten to be literally unsustainable - look at the turnover in the past year, going back to the rash of resignations leading up to last year's election. We've created a job that is pretty much guaranteed to lead to burnout - in a best case scenario. It's basically a game of king of the mountain - someone ascends to the top, and then everyone focuses their energy on knocking them off the pedestal. Other successful enterprises have operated that way - the Roman Empire comes to mind - but it doesn't seem like a good model for a volunteer encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the arbitration committee specifically ;) Nathan  T 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So many committees... who can keep track? :) I was once naive enough to run for ArbCom, but that was a long time ago, and I'm much wiser now. MastCell Talk 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In an odd way, its a sign of health. Things are going well enough that we're willing to waste our time on petty nonsense. I personally think that the vast majority of the rock-throwers are the same people who shake their fists and demand transparency and leadership from ArbCom, I don't think its any more dysfunctional here then anywhere else, we just have the collective gall to be surprised by it.--Tznkai (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, MastCell, that the current ArbComm is an improvement. However, ArbComm, while the best we have, is close to froth on the surface, and until we address how to efficiently find or estimate community-wide consensus, we will continue to needlessly burn out editors and administrators. I've known for years how to do it. Propose it, it's a firestorm of opposition based on no experience whatever, but only fear, and, in the end, it's the basic and long-standing fear of democratic power. And I know how to move beyond that. What it will take is a whole series of small-scale discussions, quite possibly off-wiki. Once local consensus has been found in these discussions, then broader discussions begin on that foundation. Eventually, if it was off-wiki to begin, it returns here in part, filtered, and probably off-wiki mechanisms would be used, still. In order to have a truly large-scale consensus process, write access must be restricted, it is intrinsic to the problem. That's not the same as depriving people of a say, but it does mean constraining how they say it, according to the consensus of those who are participants in the discussion and who will be damaged by excessive and repetitive discussion. Because, until the very end, these discussions are to some degree or other exclusive, self-selected membership with mutual approval, and because all they generate, in the end, is advice, there is no actual exclusion, but only exclusion from specific discussions by whatever mechanisms exist for that discussion group, for reasons of noise control. Those following such a discussion, whether it be open or otherwise, would still presumably be able to !vote in polls for the estimation of consensus, but actual written discussion, part of the record of that virtual committee, would have to be through someone with write access. Mailing lists generally allow the necessary tools. --Abd (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

 * User_talk:TimVickers. (Good thread above ;)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. In my ideal world, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the FDA would be accorded slightly higher value, as sources, than Suzannesomers.com - at least when it comes to medical claims. I'm probably in the minority, though. MastCell Talk 18:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have something against dumb blondes? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * zOMG BLP violation! :P No, I don't discriminate on the basis of hair color. MastCell Talk 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite fond of Sandy, I don't see her hair color as a disadvantage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WR, I'm a redhead !! (Shall I remove the BLP? :))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (mousy brown)
 * Oh... a redhead. Just like Jesus, Socrates, Darwin, Isaac Newton, Miguel Cervantes, and User:Moulton.(source: User:Moulton) Explains a lot. :) MastCell Talk 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's useful for disinfo :) And Ceoil helped spread the rumor. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... if WR is wrong about your hair color, what else might they possibly be wrong about? MastCell Talk 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying :) But I believe every word My Favorite Fat Man writes ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MastCell/FDA links
I have been advertising your page when I make the indicated linkrot updates. I am assuming that you do not mind, but it occurred to me this morning that it might be polite to ask. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. The more people working on it, the better. Note that I have yet to fix a link myself. :) MastCell Talk 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that as well... forgot to ask ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi?
Hi. You may or may not recall User:Muntuwandi and the vast array of socks. The latest is User:Earl_J._Redneck_III and in this guise M appears willing to talk and to offer to behave. With your permission, I'd like to try a trial unblock to see if reason prevails William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I can't even really remember who Muntuwandi is/was, though the name sounds vaguely familiar and - since you're asking me - I must have blocked him at some point. Sure, if I can't even remember the details, I can't very well stand in the way of a trial unblock, can I? :) MastCell Talk 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; it was a while ago. I'll go ahead and take the blame on my head William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what the hell; go for it. It's not like people are cataloging your every move and waiting for you to slip up or anything. :P MastCell Talk 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Drivin' it home
Thank you. I'm so used to reading poorly designed trials and shilly, manufacturer-sponsored Studies™ that I guess I got a little carried away. I was even briefly tempted to note conflicts of interest in each footnote, but that would have made the References section longer than the article (just kiding... or am I?) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, a lifetime or two ago, an editor proposed (at our emergency contraception article) to list the conflicts of interest for every medical paper that we cite. My kneejerk reaction was negative, because the editor in question happened to be the most obnoxious troll I've ever encountered on Wikipedia, and the proposal was made as part of what I considered a pretty transparent attempt to warp our coverage in the direction of scare-mongering. But it's an idea that bears consideration. On the one hand, it's pretty trivial to describe the problem - one can cite everything from out-and-out promotional fraud and bias in sponsored review articles, to more subtle bias that falls under the questionable-but-not-fraudulent category. I don't think that any serious peruser of the medical literature can afford to be ignorant of authorial conflicts of interest. On the other hand, how to handle them for Wikipedia's purposes? In a medical journal, the disclosures are given in small print at the end of the article - they're obvious for anyone who cares, but they don't drown out the text of the article. In contrast, most Wikipedia solutions would involve giving the disclosure statement far more weight than warranted by the original source - if we spend one sentence summarizing an article's content, and one summarizing conflicts of interest, we've seriously altered the weighting and (I would argue) misrepresented the original source.  Part of it may be the differing readerships. I think most journal editors assume a certain level of sophistication on the parts of their readers - they are presumed to be able to interpret the study and the conflicts for themselves. On the other hand, here on Wikipedia most of the people who focus on the issue seem driven by a need to hit people over the head with "zOMG EVIL DRUG INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA!!1!!", which speaks both to the sorts of people attracted by the issue and to the presumed lack of sophistication on the parts of our readers. Anyhow, no solutions handy, but since you brought it up, it's a question I've been pondering recently. MastCell Talk 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

C-list?
I was shocked, appalled and horrified that you are not on Abd's A-list or B-list. When we're all invited for cocktails and canapés in Springfield, I'll save you a vol-au-vent. Which kind do you prefer - mushroom, shrimp or asparagus? I generally avoid the petit-fours because they can contain nuts. Were you looking for a misplaced invitation on my talk page when you accidentally hit the wrong button? :-)Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, all those tabs at the top of the screen are so cluttered together - you non-admins couldn't possibly understand how hard it is. :P Actually, I'm pretty technically inept, or just careless - check out my block log... MastCell Talk 06:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, along those lines, I have of late&mdash;but wherefore I know not&mdash;lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the encyclopedia, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire&mdash;why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. Or maybe I just need a wikibreak. :P MastCell Talk 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi
I reported Muntuwandi @ socks copyright violations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Scared?
You seem to have taken flight from my hypotheticals: Wikipedia_talk:SOCK  MBisanz  talk 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm firing up a new account to escape your bullying. :P Actually, I was curious to see what others had to say, and wanted to sit back and listen, but I should probably address your question myself. MastCell Talk 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's much better Face-tongue.svg And I didn't even need to shake my club.  MBisanz  talk 03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI comments
Thank you for your comments at ANI. I have refactored my FTN post as I agree with your criticism. All the best, Verbal chat  17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I;d be interested in your opinion on Dreamguys language here. Artw (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A new start
I've looked over my comments at WP:BLPN and redacted some of them that I think were too harsh. Let's keep discussing this in a way that might lead to a consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's kind of you. I do think the best way forward is with additional eyes, so hopefully we'll see some additional input there. MastCell Talk 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Goldstein/Thomas
I removed the laudatory Goldstein quote from the Thomas article per new comments on it, and would look for your comment on it also. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=303666698&oldid=303666241 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stepping back a bit from editing the article - I think there's way too much willingness to jump into an edit war, and I don't really want to be part of one. I don't really have a problem with Goldstein per se - he's a fairly well-known commentator on the Court. Well, OK, I do have a small problem with it, because with such a wealth of good sources I don't know why we need to rely so heavily on a blog. But hey, if Goldstein thinks Thomas is an original judicial thinker, I'm fine with including that viewpoint. The problem is that it's basically the only viewpoint featured in the article, and that pattern is repeated endlessly to create a truly poor-quality article. I mean, someone reading our article would be left with a completely misguided understanding of reliably sourced viewpoints on Thomas. Even the Conservapedia article on Thomas is better than ours, and I don't think I've ever said that before. MastCell Talk 04:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:YourHumanRights
Hi there! YourHumanRights left a message on my talk page in relation to his reverted edits on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons page. I have no knowledge on the subject. The message left follows:

Could you explain to the user why the edits were reverted, thanks, Cargoking   talk  21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. He's posted at the article talk page along very similar lines, which is probably the best venue to discuss this further. I'll respond there. MastCell Talk 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question
You asked in an AfD, if I considered the Atlanta paper to be local media for Athens. In the strict sense of the word, no, because both have seperate markets. But I normally use a (totally arbitrary I admit) rule of thumb of a 50-75 mile radius to be "local". Atlanta is about 70 road miles from Athens, even less of an air mile radius. So they are very borderline to me. Local papers MUST cover local issues to sell papers. If there were no local news in them, people would just pick up USA Today. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for getting back to me. I was asking since I usually think of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as a regionally, if not nationally, significant paper, probably the "biggest" in the southeastern US... but that's me, and I was curious how you thought of it. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, without a doubt, a major paper and very significant (#24 in circulation). Believe it or not, the St.Petersburg Times is the biggest in the SE at #22, although the Miami Hearld could be argued as bigger if you include their international edition. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... I'd forgotten about the Herald. MastCell Talk 17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point about "local media" wasn't a commentary about the size or importance of any of the papers involved. It was to point out that local papers, regardless of their size, are pretty much required to cover local events; events that often nobody outside of the local area cares about or hears about. Without the local "flavor", there would be nothing left to seperate them from USA Today. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Superb
Bigipedia from BBC Radio 4. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I have serenity coming out of my ass!" Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Legally, a wine." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still listening. (Is there such a thing as Wiki-induced ADHD? It's worse than the TV generation's attention span!)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chianto: the other big C! Kidipedia !  Good stuff. (I thought the proper way to clean a fish was anus to gill? Do you clean them backwards across the pond?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is hilarious. The damnedest thing is, it is accurate.  "A humane way of killing chickens..." Antandrus  (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly me
I thought this was a fairly straightforward suggestion that people could either agree with or not. Sigh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is always secret Wikipedia option C: agree that it seems reasonable on the surface, but then cite several dozen minor technical and legalistic concerns which, so sorry, prevent the reasonable suggestion from being enacted. I like the idea that an RfC is necessary to change an example from the policy. I set foot on policy pages a few times in the past, and came away with the firm conviction that they are literally the least productive, most perspective-destroying, waste of time on Wikipedia. And that's saying quite a bit. MastCell Talk 05:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Petition for Feedback
In the past, you have been a key contributor on the Robert Young (author) page. I recently posted some statements on the discussion page for contributor feedback. The goal for these recent statements is to give a synopsis of the primary content found in Young's books. I am not sure if you have seen the latest draft I posted. I do not want to post anything in the article until I have full approval from the other contributors like yourself. So I am writing to ask your opinion on the matter and support so that a representation of the content found in Young's books can be included in some form or another in his article. Side note - this may come up so I will explain my reasoning now: I referenced his blog a few times because he seems to sum up the bulk of the content found in his books in his blog called Articles of Health. If that is unacceptable then I can reference the same content from his books. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform
I contacted you about this last week - I realize you just may not care. But at this point there has been some lively (and startlingly unrancorous) discussion from a range of users. I am hoping I can pursuade you to check it out. You care about good content, and policies, so perhaps you can make a constructive contribution here? Slrubenstein  |  Talk


 * Thanks for following up; I'm flattered that you care about my input. It looks like there is some potentially useful discussion going on there. That said, your concluding sentence is a bit off; I'm currently going through one of those periods where it's hard to care much about internal Wikipedia governance, or policy debates. I will take a look, but can't promise anything. Good luck. MastCell Talk 04:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I may or may not have time to participate either, but I would just like to say that I value your opinion, MastCell. Thanks for the link, Slrubenstein. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dave_Szulborski
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dave_Szulborski. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrhia (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine - as a matter of course (and policy) I routinely restore any WP:PROD that I've deleted if an editor requests it. No need to go through WP:DRV, but looks like this is already restored. MastCell Talk 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ECA stack
I've shrunk/rewritten some of my text you objected to in the talk page. Which renders your response a little silly, but I didn't want to go editing your text without permission so I left it as is. For what it's worth, I am currently *using* EC. My earlier research convinced me the benefits for me outweighed the risk, so I've been taking either ECA or EC for the last three months and my results are consistent with all those studies I found - I lost over 5% of body weight, nearly effortlessly, almost all of it fat loss rather than muscle loss according to my resistance-sensor. With no noticeable side effects, which again is what one would expect from the journal articles.

I noticed in a few of the double-blind study full articles I read - especially the later ones where they were *looking* for specific bad-outcome issues - that people would drop out of the study because they experienced a scary side-effect symptom. Then at the end of the study it would turn out roughly half of those people were getting the placebo. If you see that in a study of 20 or 50 or 100 people, it seems certain that if 12 million people start taking the drug you are guaranteed to see a *lot* of negative symptoms. So the fact that the FDA *did* see a lot of negative symptoms is not really in conflict with the earlier studies., not surprising, and not (barring more careful analysis) a clear reason to avoid the drug.

Between my ability to see this particular glass half full and yours to see it half-empty, this article should be excellent once we reach a happy medium. Thanks for your help and patience! --Blogjack (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Video - The Fluoride Deception
The Fluoride Deception is a Google Video that outlines that numerous studies involving negligible fluoride toxicity have been faked by corrupted scientists working for rich tycoons and government officials who did not want to be sued over wrongful death or injury claims.

When more recent (1990s) scientists uncover this corruption, they are fired immediately upon disclosing that fluoride is highly toxic, highly carcinogenic, acting to lower intelligence quotients of those infected, and does not reduce dental caries as claimed. Without knowing it, environmentalists fighting against industrial pollution as happened in the 1948 Halloween incident in Donora, Pennsylvania never realized that the primary fatal toxic ingredient was an industrial release of fluoride / fluorine gas—a fact that was covered up by PR releases by government officials at the time—overriding what other toxicologists had discovered and reported.

Description is as follows:
 * The Fluoride Deception (Interview With Christopher Bryson) - 28:31 - Apr 5, 2006
 * Fluoridealert.org – http://www.fluoridealert.org/
 * In this video, Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Fluoride Deception.  EARLY REVIEWS of “The Fluoride Deception:”  "Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride's harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people.  The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate." -- PUBLISHERS WEEKLY

Could you please review and comment on this. Thanks in advance. Oldspammer (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that fluoride is "highly toxic, highly carcinogenic, etc" is not particularly credible. One can make a number of cases against universal water fluoridation (the most convincing is probably a civil-libertarian one). However, I don't think one can seriously deny the results, in that millions of people have been exposed to the low fluoride levels in the water, and there has been no explosion of toxicity, no epidemic of bone cancers, and on the whole no evidence of any significant toxicity from the fluoride. I'm not a pro-fluoride advocate - I think you could argue that it's probably overkill to fluoridate the water - but I'm turned off by the ignorance, paranoia, and conspiracism which still dominate the anti-fluoridation rhetoric. I understand the temptation to demonize a specific chemical or biological entity, to point to it as the cause of the myriad ills of the modern age. It's a natural human instinct. If you don't believe that fluoride is the root of all evil, feel free to take your pick of Epstein-Barr virus, Lyme disease, thimerosal, the MMR vaccine, the underwire bra... The world isn't that simple, and human biology certainly isn't. That's my opinion. MastCell Talk 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)