User talk:TenOfAllTrades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk archives

Andrew Wakefield[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to criticize someone for suboptimal dispute resolution when you consistently ignore their requests for help in this area. Nernst (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to keep making the same request over and over again when your arguments have failed to gain any traction with other editors. A stubborn refusal to listen on your part does not create an obligation on my part. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect, each edit sought to simplify and clarify the debate based on the comments of others. Each was accompanied by a request for dialogue and guidance. I listened actively, sought compromise and was met with an obtuse refusal to engage in discussion or even suggest how the discussion could proceed. There is no obligation on any part but this hypocrisy is astounding and ultimately futile. The debate was ended with clarification of the terms in use and 3 lines of explanation on secondary sources and NPOV. Nernst (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Good call. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med[edit]


Just making sure you're aware of m:WikiMed. Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

SUL and usurption[edit]

I noticed your comments on usurption at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. I largely agree with what you say there, but what would be your views are on what I mention here? That's on MZMcBride's talk page as I didn't want to add to what was already a very long thread at WP:BN). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Help changing Reference Desk boilerplate[edit]

Hi TenOfAllTrades, I think you may be an admin? And familiar with the Reference Desk?

We're looking for an admin to change the desk boilerplate header for us. The two consensus discussions are here (that's a diff - the section was just archived, apparently, but somehow I can't see it in the archive) and here and the consensus verion of the new text is here. Could you please review and make the change to the template?

Many thanks, (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know enough about how the Ref Desk headers are structured to want to mess with them—and I'm not sure when I'll be free long enough to troubleshoot if I break something. Sorry about that... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


I'm going to reply here, because I'd rather keep controversy off BN, and really I think your comment should have been addressed to me only. The statement was entirely my idea and my initiative, albeit various crats appended their names or supported at least aspects of it.

I was responding to several things, and none of them were personal to you, nor do I feel you made any bad faith posts.

So many of our institutions are or have been damaged, by shortcomings in office holders and/or by the Wikipedian mob chipping away at them. The Bureaucrats, until recently, have, I feel, retained their status, despite the difficult and hotly contentious decisions we must sometimes take. I care deeply about this trust the community has in its Bureaucrats, and as one of not very many currently active Crats, feel a responsibility to protect. To do so, I would go to far greater lengths than sticking my neck out by organising an unusual Crat statement. Although I do strongly regret that it can be read as if the statement was accusing you in the process, for which I apologise (the fault is entirely mine).

The usurp question came in the following context:

  • I feel that Arbcom's acceptance and handling of the resysop case damaged the position of Bureaucrat on en:. I don't believe I'm the only Crat to feel that way.
  • Increasing amounts of drama at BN, which in the past has always been a haven of sense and calm
  • Various community initiatives to corral Crats, which could be read as declining trust in us

Yours was not the only voice in that BN thread and I may have been overreacting, but while you are clear that you were not suggesting we were trying to expand our powers I did detect that there was at least a whiff of it in the air. And the tone of the overall discussion was anything but the calm and sensible one of yesteryear that I'd fight to regain and that would have helped us reach an appropriate conclusion quickly. Instead of which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has actually dared address the underlying instructioncreep issues to fix them.

I hope you get the gist of where I'm coming from. Thanks for your patience. Please respond here when you have time, I'll be watching. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll certainly have more to add later, but I'm still not able to find the 'resysop' ArbCom case you've mentioned. I've searched the last year's WP:ACN archive for the keywords 'bureaucrat', 'desysop', 'resysop' and so forth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that's because my faulty memory had it as "acceptance", rather than ultimately rejecting it as moot, because the resyopped admin resigned. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysopping, which led to this lot. This bad feeling around the Crats has had various fallouts, including (IMO) this cri de coeur. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
There is much that I've thought about saying, and much that I've decided best not to say. I get the impression from your words – and from your tone – that you're feeling burned out in your role as a 'crat right now, and there is little be gained to add to your sense of being piled upon. I've tried drafting a response here a few times over the last few days, but I don't know that it would be productive, and you don't sound like you're in the sort of place it would be helpful.
Briefly, I would urge you to read the last couple of comments from your fellow bureaucrats WJBscribe and UninvitedCompany at the end of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 27#Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines. WJBscribe and (particularly) UC's posts reflect taking the time to look at the origin and context of the guidelines in question. They calmly summarized the key issues raised in the discussion, without suggesting that anyone – 'crat or otherwise – approached the situation in anything other than bad faith. What they wrote there went a long way towards easing any tensions or concerns the community might have had precisely because they took the community's concerns seriously. While avoiding insincere obsequiousness and abasement, they acknowledged that it was possible the 'crats understanding and actions might have diverged from the broader community's wishes in this area, and they suggested ways that that divide might be bridged in the future. That is the sort of calm, dispassionate, clearly-expressed, problem-solving, consensus-building approach that the community expects from its 'crats, and it's why we have always granted 'crats extensive discretion and trust.
Compare the tone of those statements to that of your posted statement and follow-up comments (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 27#Bureaucrats' statement on recent discussion regarding potential usurpation of accounts with edits) delivered a day later. It sounds defensive. It implies that (unspecified) individuals who have expressed disagreement with you are doing so in bad faith. Running through it is a thread of "It's not our fault, stop being so mean to us." Your suggestion that I hadn't read the usurpation discussion in its entirety before I commented was a cheap (and misguided) shot. While the ArbCom isn't (even close to) perfect, reading the discussion among the Arbs doesn't seem to reflect the sort of 'damage' that you ascribe to it. Before FCYTravis resigned his adminship, there were ten Arb votes (plus one comment) on the case. Five were clear 'decline' votes, one more was 'leaning towards a decline'. One Arb had suggested a motion to kick the decision back to the 'crats for an en banc declaration of 'crat consensus. Only two Arbs had voted to open a full arbitration case; both of them (Jclemens and Elen of the Roads) were soundly rejected in December's ArbCom elections. Just one Arb had proposed a flat overturn of the resysopping by motion. Any way you slice it, a majority of the voting members found no problem with your conduct. And yet, until I asked you to clarify your comments, you had that situation twisted up in your mind as having been accepted by ArbCom and an implicit repudiation of your judgement. If you go looking for an adversarial relationship with the community, it will give you one.
Are there some people who come across as inconsiderate hotheads on WP:BN? Sure. Is there likely to be more controversy on BN as the project ages, as more desysopped (and potentially resysoppable) former admins accumulate? Yep. Does that mean that the community as a whole is losing faith in the judgement of 'crats? Nope—at least not yet. I would balance your perception of initiatives to 'corral' the 'crats against both the increased responsibilities the 'crats face – especially with the drastically increased number of de- and re-sysops you now handle, and the account renaming role you carry out – and the repeated proposals to employ you as magic consensus fairies for deciding everything from article content RfCs to fast-desysopping lynch mobs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm finding it hard to communicate how I feel on this topic, as you've so thoroughly misunderstood me on so many aspects. The proof is that many of the points you make above are ones I'd heartily agree with. Maybe the real problem is that my mind is a little messy on the subject, in part due to some offwiki correspondence I've had. Maybe. Not sure. But I didn't set out to pick a fight (on the contrary, my intention was always to calm things) with anyone.

So, perhaps it's better that I disengage before leading you further up the garden path. However, it is worth making a couple of things crystal clear.

First, and most importantly, I'll reiterate what I said above and strengthen it. I did not and do not intend to say or imply, at BN or here, anything that laid accusations of bad faith or poor behaviour at your door. That you still feel that way is clearly down to my own lackings and fallibility and I apologise.

Secondly, I'm not burned-out as a Crat or any other type of Wikipedian. I remain as engaged as ever, across a similar broad range of onwiki interests. I'm finding less time to write FAs or assess FACs, but still engaged with FAs in general, as this project shows. And my consistent position on all Crat issues is that whether or not I have an opinion on a topic, I'm always happy to follow the community consensus. --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


He's not new to ArbCom - he's served several terms in the past. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn. No excuse, then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding new page quality and possible paid editing. The thread is Hihimanshu70. Thank you. —Andrew327 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)



Why'd you revert Misazbot? 'Cause the arb hearing is ongoing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello, have replied on the Medical uses of silver talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tactfulness in dealing with others' behavior[edit]

Please allow me to table any extended response regarding my particular behavior and let us assume your warning is registered and will be considered carefully. That aside, could you please clarify the difference between what Wikipedia considers improper personal attacks, and proper handling of concerns/complaints with others' conduct. If I feel an editor has behaved improperly, am I supposed to drop the matter on any talk page and register a private complaint? What is the process? For that matter, what if I feel general behavior on a talk page has been handled improperly apart from any particular editor, that is, in a plausible denial-esque scenario in which no particular party is to blame but where something needs addressing or improving?

On the side, I honestly feel a genuine need to politely inform you that I think your empathy and tact could use tweaking. I understand your general valid right/obligation to correct a scenario in which you find improper behavior going on, but your lack of empathy with an editor being thrust for whatever reason into a frustrating ordeal, is just cold. A proper reprimand would include sympathy of my situation whether or not you feel it is the fault of WP or my naivete, and presenting the basic information that I'm behaving improperly before leaping to being "close to being blocked". In general, how is someone supposed to correct behavior their behavior until they know they're doing something wrong?

An editor already (calmly) addressed my "rhetoric" and I used this to correct myself and express my concerns more logically. If anything I was doing counted as a personal attack I could have been told once with a polite explanation on the proper process to follow if I have a dispute with an editor. It's just surreal to me that you don't pair whatever reprimand you think is necessary with a mental note to address issues that landed me in the unfortunate situation. A reprimand with elite tact would include a calm, proper level of sympathy and non-hostile information of what I'm doing wrong, as well as a note of where you think WP or the system may have gone wrong.

Your reprimand might be appropriate if I just logged onto a talk page randomly and started posting "I just hate this person!" knowing exactly what I'm doing, with no reasoning, case, or cause, and in a scenario that had nothing to do with an incident that may involve flaws in the WP system. You should ask yourself, what went wrong in the system that an editor was placed in this situation? What courses of action could be taken to better inform editors of proper behavior? Why were all the editors on the talk page inquiring about information ignored? You can assign whatever magnitude of negativity, however light, you like to the scenario of editors questions not being answered properly, but it's certainly not proper WP behavior to ignore people's basic questions (i.e. asking "where can I find this information?" and receive no answer).

You should notice here the very first trigger of the scenario was something that went wrong here. This is proved retroactively by the fact that it's been addressed/corrected on the article page. That should warrant your careful attention and consideration of the process that led an editor to what he feels is a massive problem. You don't have to agree with my reasoning to recognize that something has gone out of place.

I'm sorry for writing so much here but as I feel your reprimand is just sub-elite, not wrong, I've felt the need to present fine details that I really think you should consider when addressing editors in such situations. I will consider your words carefully, but I know from the wide spectrum of tact on WP that other editors would have handled this situation more politely. Squish7 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity and to avoid fragmenting this discussion, I am going to copy this response back to User talk:Squish7#Caution regarding attacks on other editors. Further responses can be posted there; I have your talk page on my watchlist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Could you please reply on my talk page?

a) I have posted the comment not as a personal testimony per-se, but per WP:BIAS that is recognized by the Wikipedia. I have posted in a Good Faith without a purpose of having discussion upon it, so NOTFORUM doesn't apply here. I have posted in order to induce positive improvement of the article.

b) There were many comments of people without any specific proposition to change the article, none of them were hatted. It would be highly unusual for impartial observer to understand, why that specific post is being hatted.

Please reconsider hatting based on the raised points, thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Kindly reply on my talk page, thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks again[edit]

Years ago you wrote me this, and I was pleased to be able to reference your essay to good effect in this edit. Thanks! —Steve Summit (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad people are still finding that page useful. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gonna be a dick to everyone?[edit]

Since you were a dick to me, are you going to "chastise" Wnt and everyone else who, before and since, has "editorialized" their opinions? Jimbo's page is HIS page and I will damn well say whatever I want whenever I want unless JIMBO says so, and I will respect him. You sir, were a dickish ass who needs to ignore things they don't like. And you, and a lot of people, are wrong about BLP, it applies to articles ONLY, not to talk pages where freedom of expression does still exist. Angus King, Senator from Maine has said that treason is a fitting description of what Mr. Snowden did. Headline of Washington Times "Edward Snowden: Treasonous underachiever?" And many more such mentions. Saying one is "guilty of treason" if one has betrayed the laws of our govt regarding classified material is not a libelous statement, it falls under hyperbole and free speech. And as I mentioned only Mr. Snowden has legal standing to bring me to civil court. Now, perhaps he could find enough donations or a few wealthy backers to have a chance of matching my resources, but I assume he has more pressing matters; but basically it is Mr. Snowden who has a right to get upset, not you. So please shut your rude mouth and let people who wish to have a discussion about Mr. Snowden's actions continue to do so. You can ignore it.Camelbinky (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah. So you get to "damn well say whatever I want whenever I want", but TenOfAllTrades isn't allowed that same privilege in responding to you? You're also completely wrong about WP:BLP, which does of course apply to talkpages. But given the irrational, combative tone of your comment I doubt that factual correctness is a high priority for you at the moment. MastCell Talk 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I was out of town for the last few days, and I'm only seeing this now. I, for the most part, choose to let sleeping dogs lie—MastCell has already made as cogent and pithy a reply as is necessary.
As a general bit of advice, Camelbinky, I think it worth emphasizing that you still need to grasp that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia – including talk pages and in userspace – and that you are likely to get yourself in trouble if you continue to ignore the several people who have advised you of this. Note as well that I said nothing about defamation, libel, or lawsuits in my comment, and I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up in your responses to me; we should be following the letter and spirit of WP:BLP even in the complete absence of a real or imagined legal threat.
In any event, I've violated WP:DNFTT enough for one day. I won't respond to anything further that isn't both courteous and well-reasoned, and I strongly encourage any lurkers on this talk page to do the same. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Ten, as you had provided an interpretive statement here regarding the WP:MEDICINE topic-bans handed out here, I thought you might like to be made aware of the notification regarding a possible topic ban problem I left Kim Dent-Brown here. Zad68 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question that it's a violation of the topic ban. (I'm not going to take an enforcement role as I commented in the AN/I discussion.) A two-sentence request on AN/I would almost certainly result in a block for Drgao, if you're inclined to go that route. However, given that it is a first offence and given that it doesn't appear to be a conspicuously tendentious set of edits (unlike his other recent conduct), a very direct warning would probably suffice.
He may be confused about the extent of the ban—either unaware that it applies on user talk pages as well as in article and article talk space, or unaware (despite its clear wording) that it applies beyond the Morgellons article. He should be strongly encouraged to ask Kim Dent-Brown or another trustworthy editor about any conditions of his topic ban that he is not 100% crystal clear upon, as further breaches are unlikely to be treated as generously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yup... As it turns out, KDB went with the more attention-getting action of an indef with a request that Drgao post an unblock request showing understanding of the scope of the TBAN. Given that WP:IDHT was one of the fundamental underlying behavioral problems that led to the TBAN in the first place, I don't think it's unwarranted. Hopefully that'll result in the behavior change needed. Zad68 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Works for me. It's really the 'best' outcome, in cases where the blocking admin is available to monitor the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Indented bullets[edit]

I tried to find the common practice for indentation and lists on this wikipedia but couldn't find anything that applied. I do know that several tools see it as non intended, for example, checkwiki.

Aisteco (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your block of IQ125[edit]

As violations of WP:CIVIL go, this looked pretty tame to me. [1] Personally, I'd have thought that IQ125 accusing Cyclopia of vandalism was if anything more block-worthy. Except of course that Cyclopia had just !voted 'keep' in the AfD, which made the comments look rather ridiculous... Anyway, I'd like to suggest that since I wasn't offended by the comments, I think an unblock with a warning to IQ125 to behave in future might be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Call it the straw that broke the camel's back, if you prefer. He wasn't getting his way in an AfD, and so he threw a tantrum and went for childish attacks on your talk page. The spurious vandalism accusation, the canvassing notices (it looks like he was running through the list of editors who have an animal welfare userbox), the BLP concerns—it's pretty clear that he's out to WP:RGW, and to do so very counterproductively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reference format for Alternative medicine[edit]

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Some popcorn for ya[edit]

MrBill3 (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Ag-AgCl Reference Electrode wide.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


If you're going to denounce shrill comments, would you consider doing so even-handedly? There's plenty to go around on all sides of the issue. e.g. [2] Jehochman Talk 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Or this? [3] If you support decorum, please be even handed. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not the 'shrill' police. I saw you going after Brad rather unfairly, given the way that you had approached him earlier (you made a rather abrupt leap when you read Brad's "Don't edit ACN" as "We condone lying in elections") and I called you on it. That's all.
I said I wasn't going to stir the pot any further, and you seemed happy with that and said you weren't looking for a fight; I'm not sure what you're looking for now. I think Newyorkbrad's most recent talk page comment [4] says everything that needs to be said, better than I could say it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking for a common understanding with you. If you read my response to NYB, that would probably be sufficient for you to understand where I'm coming from. If you have any other questions or concerns, you know where to find me. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Abilene paradox[edit]

Dear Ten, I have requested that a key external link be whitelisted. I posted the request on Jan. 11 and, as of date, nobody has commented on the request. Could you please assist in moving the request forward by offering your viewpoint? Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I give up—why ask me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why not?
I've read your user page a few weeks ago and found it to be thought-provoking and insightful. The same applies to your contributions. IjonTichy (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Why didn't you respect my objection to the canvassing? (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • "though I note that in the discussion that you linked the consensus established was firmly against your position"

No, the consensus was that non existent article was a POV fork. This consensus is not worth anything. If you ARE familiar with the edit guidelines you know that a pov fork can only exists AFTER the article is created.

You cant blame me for ignoring a consensus of liars. (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you've said explains why you decided to repeatedly delete the talk page discussion Enric started instead of engaging with him over your decision to try to (re-)fork the Pons article. Enric's post wasn't canvassing; the talk page of the article which was the target of the redirect is exactly the right place for him to present his arguments. Unless you can engage in discussion with other editors without inappropriately deleting their comments or calling other editors names, you will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've called editors names? Do you mean calling liars liars?

If so, what should I call a group of liars if it isn't liars? (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was reference desk/talk protected?[edit]

-- (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeated trolling by an IP-hopping banned user. The semi-protection should expire in another few hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Chemtrail conspiracy theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Aaron[edit]

You created the Rachel Aaron article without any sources (aside from an external link to the author's website). Could you please include references when creating new articles? Also, it's important to demonstrate the notability of subjects to show that they merit inclusion. Everyking (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fluoridation thing[edit]

This comment does not fit in perfectly with the scene at the fluoridation pages, but here goes. It seems that a lot of argumentation hinges on the difference between

  • (i) the merits of water fluoridation (FAN and John Birchers and other's claims of conspiracy, disregard, etc)


  • (ii) the declining use of the fluoridation of public water in some countries. The implication is that there is a cause and effect between these two phenomena/beliefes.

We could decouple these issues. The situation appears to be this:

  • (i) fewer countries (apparently NZ, Ireland, and Israel - if one believed the antifluoridationists) are fluoridating their water


  • (ii) mainly because the benefits of the practice are declining owing to the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste and other fluoridation modalities (bread, salt, milk, fluoride varnishes,…), which have dampened the net benefits.

The problem is that the antifluoridation groups are hell-bent on showing that fluoridation is bad, and they often rely on the decline in its practice as evidence for their correctness. When in fact (I think) fluoridation is not bad, just not as necessary as it once was. Of course the antifluoridationists have such a deep file of conspiracies that such a perspective might not work. Or even be true!--Smokefoot (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Hiya, Just wanted to say thanks for making me see sense yesterday at ANI!

It's just I've never had it blatantly copied but yeah in hindsight it was probably a stupid fuss over nothing,
Anyway Thanks :-)
Regards, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Great username[edit]

I love your username. I've made a mental note to use the phrase to describe myself anytime it is convenient to work into a conversation. --Yoda of Borg (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work on Gary Null. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see your[edit]

…barnstars and beers. Would like to offer the same. But why at the NP article, not AGF and ask a simple question (what is going on here?)—instead of getting angry so quickly? Why does the way in which particular editors conduct a very focused, issue-oriented talk discussion offend you? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

PS, one of the best, most interesting User Pages I have seen. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
And belated congrats on making Admin. If you can be of any help in moving matters along at NP, I would be grateful. I am a subject matter expert that is about to punt on the matter. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit]

Thank you for keeping an eye on Talk: Cold fusion, where the unregistered editors were disrupting the talk page. The unregistered editors have now been notified of discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by a previously warned user[edit]

See User talk:Blippy#Edit warring at BlackLight Power. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Liam Loftus[edit]

Hello. In March of this year you pretty much deleted the entire "Cell Disruption" article over an 11 minute period, citing copy violation and advertorial content. A lot of work had gone into that, my own very modest contributions, for example, were referenced against published papers. Had you intended to rebuild the article? What are users now supposed to read on the topic? Why did you act so quickly and unilaterally to remove the article? I think the entire thing should be replaced and then reviewed in conjunction with recent authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamloftus (talkcontribs) 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. In the absence of a response, I will proceed to undo your deletion of 22,577 words (almost the entire article). The article as it stood was of course imperfect but was a useful compendium of information on the topic.Liamloftus (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have had limited internet access of late (note the gap in my recent editing history); please don't mistake my silence for agreement. (And for someone who has been away from Wikipedia for more than a year, a 1.5-day wait is a bit of an itchy trigger, finger, no?) I have reverted your most recent edits, as the problems with them remain.
If you look at the edit history for the article on cell disruption, you will notice that I specifically identified the vast majority of the article as either advertorial content (bad) or copy-and-paste (worse). Most of the material was drawn directly from While that page is no longer live, you can view an archived copy here.
If you copied the material from the external site, it is a violation of someone else's copyright, and cannot be included in Wikipedia. If you wrote the material for that external commercial site, I would be very concerned that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this topic—and the tone of the text would strongly suggest that you are having trouble effectively balancing that conflict with the expectations for editors on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer[edit]

Er, did you mean to revert Rtc's removal of the Sebastian Anthony source?[5] Bishonen | talk 12:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Ha. Oops, no. Undid the wrong edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"[edit]

In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For putting up with my less than commendable edits (such as the whole Lukewarmer debacle) and explaining the problem with them to me. Everymorning talk to me 04:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting addition of benzalkonium chloride from See Also section[edit]

Hi, I would have appreciated if you had perhaps asked me about the connection of thimerosal to benzalkonium chloride instead of just reverting my change. For your information, thimerosal was a first-generation preservative for ocular pharmaceuticals. Benzalkonium chloride is second-generation, while EDTA, etc. are now increasingly used. WitheredLimb (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IMS thing[edit]

Hi Ten, we have not interacted a lot, but I have been impressed with your cluefulness. I would be really interested in your thoughts on the IMS thing. Would you please consider commenting here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#IMS_is_back? If not there, maybe here, or in an email to me? Whatever you are comfortable with. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dichloroacetate page[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to express my concern that the dichloracetate page is being hijacked by an individual who appears to have strong unscientific bias against the use of this chemical for human cancer treatment. This user (Formerly98) has aggressively removed references to valid research publications that are Medline indexed and peer reviewed. There is a challenge raising enough funds to conduct clinical trials on this chemical. As such, carefully documented case reports of patients responding well to treatment with DCA are important to establish the value, or lack of value of this drug as a cancer treatment. Formerly98 claims that case reports published in peer-reviewed medical journals are the same as anecdotes, and therefore banned from Wikipedia. Any physician knows that this is completely false. Documented case reports are only possible because the physicians involved in the care of the patients have their medical files with confirming laboratory evidence that shows if and how well they respond to treatment. The physicians are also able to tease out confounding factors, such as concurrent conventional therapy. Further, cases are peer reviewed prior to publication. In addition, journals that are indexed in Medline are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny. I would like to know if referencing such publications on the subject of DCA use in humans is permitted according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Dichloroacetic acid. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kylee Lin[edit]

"Looking at the history of the now-deleted article, it appears that you created this article in February 2008. The subject was, apparently, a winner of the Miss California Teen USA pageant in 2007. It appears that she made very little impression on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)"

I'll overlook your snarky response to make the point that SIX YEARS AFTER this was created, someone now has an issue with it? I'm sure YOU don't remember every article you created, either. BTW, while you and the deleting administrator obviously think winning Miss California Teen USA is not a big deal, I am sure Ms. Lin would disagree! Worc63 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Replied in context on your talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment committee[edit]

You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A drive-by thank you...[edit]

Your description of RS was superb in its generality, specifically....A second misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) Is it ok with you if I modify it to achieve a tad more generality so that it doesn't apply only to MEDRS? Just wondering what other important guidelines we could use? I think you've presented the most intelligible, comprehensive and succinctly presented response that I've ever read. AtsmeConsult 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

ancient (and recurring) RD history[edit]

Hi, Ten. In this edit (in a thread seven years ago, which was already titled "Medical and legal questions (for the nth time)"; I wonder which time we're up to by now?), you wrote: "Mike Godwin was asked for comments on the [RD] guideline back in August 2007; as far as I know he has offered no objection then or since." By any chance do you remember where that discussion took place? I couldn't find any mention of it in the RD talk page archives; the closest I could find was this edit of Theresa Knott's a few months later, in which she mentions Brad Patrick. (But please don't spend a lot of time looking. The current discussion, if you haven't come across it and if you care, is here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Poking quickly through the respective talk pages, it looks like Mike Godwin was invited (User talk:MGodwin#Medical advice guideline) to comment on the medical advice guidelines in August 2007. As far as I am aware, he offered no response or objection in that thread (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice/Archive 1#Serious concerns with this content) or anywhere else. I'm afraid that's all I can come up with.
To be honest, I took WT:RD off my watchlist ages ago, and I'm seldom active on the Desks themselves. The Science desk used to be a remarkable resource, where editors made a serious effort to find useful sources and references and citations. Now it's mostly just StuRat bullshitting off the top of his head. (The problem with StuRat is that he's almost as smart as he thinks he is, and he trusts his own best guesses a little too much. His answers are often correct, but it's impossible for the poor sods reading his 'wisdom' to tell what's based on real knowledge, what's a guess, and what's a wildly inaccurate but clever-sounding stab in the dark. And prolific as he is, he sets a bad example for the ever-decreasing number of new editors who might volunteer there.)
Meanwhile, the talk page is a cesspit of bickering among certain 'regulars', interspersed with libertarian bleating about having a right to spout whatever nonsense dribbles out of people's imagination, actual references be damned. Just not worth it anymore, and it's little wonder that the traffic on the Desks is so much slower than it used to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! (Can't argue with much you've said; the decline of the RDs since their golden age has certainly been sizeable and sad.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)