User talk:MastCell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:36, 24 March 2007

Archives

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Praise

Hey there. I just noticed your edits pop up on the recent changes page, and I have to say, this is some very good stuff.

Not only is it good, useful information, it's well-written.

We need more contributors like you. Keep at it! DS 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC article

Thanks. It sure wasn't/isn't easy. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a scholar and a gentle(person). While indeed sometimes I can get annoyed at things getting inaccurate, after I calm myself it is obvious things were inaccurate to begin with. And only by continuing to bounce opinions and ideas off each other can we arrive at a truly superior article. Quite frankly you are the best person to work with on this article; as we disagree on the conclusion of the ABC issue, but we both see there is enough ambiguity in the evidence for us both to be somewhat wrong. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell

Wow, you've certainly made a productive start here this month! You're additions have been great! I've had fun putting up endoscopy images, but the hard part is getting consent from patients for their release. You should join us at WP:CLINMED, the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject, and at WP:GI, WikiProject Gastroenterology where we have fun bouncing article ideas off each other. If you haven't met User:Jfdwolff, he's a fabulous editor and administrator to work with, and laid the foundations for a tonne of the medical articles here. Take care -- Samir धर्म 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once more, and welcome to WP:CLINMED! Keep the histamine flowing and hope to see you around! PS: If you're interested, we're working on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): have a look!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K Harris discussion

Thank you for stepping in to the discussion and helping to hopefully diffuse the situation between ThuranX and myself. I don't know what exactly set him off, but by reading his user talk page, I'm starting to understand I'm not the only editor that he does not work well with (even resulting in some warnings against him for incivility to others). I'd like to leave it to you and other editors to work towards a consensus on the Trivia section issue. I will still voice my opinions but will not be responding to ThuranX and I've made as much clear on his user talk page. Thanks again, and have a good day. ju66l3r 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ischemic colitis

Great job! It looks fabulous. I had a couple of things I wanted to add, one of which is a picture that I have but need to get patient consent for its release -- Samir धर्म 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanoma edit

I liked your edit of my contribution to the Moh's section under melanoma. Much more fluid now. Cheers. RobDroliver 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article: AML

Kudos on the AML article accolades--well-deserved after your hard work on it. Keep up the quality contributions.

Chavoguero 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

MastCell, thanks for taking the time to make this comment. It means so much more coming from you and I really appreciate your 2 cents;) And yes, your right, we use little CT anymore with MRI available, but most of us don't even order them until they have failed to respond, that is if we don't just send them to the surgeon. Most xrays are to rule out contraindications to spinal manipulation which means two or three views. It's nice to know that someone understands that is a necessary risk to prevent iatrogenic injury. --Dematt 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell -- a fellow Dr Strangelove fan I presume! In any case, if the profanity on the pseudoscience talk page offended you, I apologise, but you're really need to read the archives from three or four days ago to see how we got to that point. Also, Krishna commented to your post here. You may wish to reply (or not). But, if you stick with it for a few days (if you have the time) you might see the dynamic of the page and might even feel tempted to use profanity as well. Also, I echo Dematt's thanks. Jim62sch 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

orthomed

My reply yesterday was hot under the coller because I only read the OM article's dif on an old screen and read it as *commenting out* the entire second paragraph that you had formed instead of just the one sentence that you commented out. So my apologies in another hot zone where small communications errors could cause wider misunderstandings.--TheNautilus 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MastCell 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Junkscience"

Thanks for that sterling work on Steven Milloy. (My specialty is Myron Ebell.) In order to do his job, he has to obscure his conflicts of interest, so by their nature it won't be absolutely transparent. However, it shouldn't take many false and uncorrected claims to cast enough doubt on someone's reliability as a source of information for the media never to speak to them again. Unfortunately, they don't seem to work that way.Goatchurch 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque

Thank you for doing the right thing. Just to be sure, you are aware this article was already nominated before but unfortunately survived? Did not want to nominate myself since I started it last time. Cheers! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that AfD. I think the idea was interesting (keep as a prominent health fraud), but in hindsight it was probably predictable that a POV warrior like User:Heelop would show up to bowdlerize the page. It's not even a notable health fraud, really - and thankfully WP:FRINGE exists to establish notability criteria, which the article/topic clearly fails. MastCell 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already added my 2 cents, guess! Anyway, have no objection to it per se, if it is possible to keep it as it is now, clearly stating it is nonsense. However history shows us that editors quickly forget and that's when the less scrupulous appear and rewrite it to become an advertisement. So, all 'n all, good nom! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know the previous AfD closed with "let's keep the article to warn people it's a scam". That sounds good in theory, but the problem is that the article falls off the radar screen - and then a single-purpose account shows up to whitewash it into a promotional article. Next the article is scraped onto Answers.com and such places, and instead of a scam warning, it becomes an advertisement. The article needs to go, for that reason and for notability. MastCell 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, MastCell. Just wanted to say thanks for working on the article Vaccine controversy. Great job. :-) -Severa (!!!) 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... not sure I accomplished much. I can only take on a few medical controversies at a time without getting exhausted. I did think it was important to set the record straight about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons... seems kinda sneaky to use a generic, respectable-sounding title like that for what is essentially a right-wing/libertarian version of Pravda journal of political commentary. But that's just my opinion. MastCell 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I was completely unaware that the journal was more editorialistic in nature than academic beforehand. It sort of calls into question the anon's defense of the JPandS on my user talk page — at one point referring to my "strongly held views", when, in fact, I'd never lodged an opinion on anything related to the matter. And, certainly, when an anonymous editor turns up with an apparently in situ knowledge of what AN/I is, it sets of the alarm bells. -Severa (!!!) 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel like recently I've run across quite a few folks determined to propound minoritarian views on vaccines, autism, AIDS, ephedra, the FDA, you name it. Not that these things shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but WP:NPOV does suggest that ideas should be represented in proportion to their representation in the expert literature/scientific community, which I find to be an impossibly idealistic goal. It's tough to stay engaged with 3 or 4 single-purpose accounts at once; I feel much more productive improving non-controversial articles. I'm sure you experience something similar on the abortion pages. MastCell 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of activity from single-issue accounts on the abortion-related articles recently. A lot of the time, it feels like I'm trying to take on an entire army with only a few fellows-in-arms, or that I'm even jumping into the fray single-handedly. I've worked successfully with editors of various perspectives, but, it's the ones who cannot leave their personal perspective at the door and are determined to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting their own worldview that present the greatest problems. Editors like this often get let of the hook under AGF long after it's become apparent that their apparent lack of concern for NPOV, POINT, V, NOT, etc. is not attributable to their unfamiliarity with these policies. -Severa (!!!) 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd alert you to this edit recently made to Vaccine controversy. The fact that the editor has only one contribution is likely a point of interest. -Severa (!!!) 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Actually, I think that revised description is fine, but I'm always a little wary about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons - I find it's cited on Wikipedia way out of proportion to its scientific relevance (which is essentially zero). I mean, it may as well be titled Annals of the John Birch Society. That anon was recently arguing that the Cochrane Library and JPandS were essentially equivalent sources in terms of scientific weight... MastCell 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you left a welcome message on User:Elphen's page. Someone with enough knowledge of Wikipedia to write a coherant edit summary probably isn't new, but the housewarming was a nice gesture, all the same. :-) -Severa (!!!) 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but the edit wasn't too bad, and I figured I'd assume the best. Time will tell. MastCell 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Action on completed checkuser case

Hm, that's a tricky one. To be honest, not sure what should be done about it. =\ In the past, it's been suggested that people in those situations should be treated as the same user, for 3RR's purposes -- don't know how much community consensus is behind the idea, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Do you have to give sources for a category? No one seems to treat them that way, but my impression was that categories were there to say there is a connection. If there is a connection with science, as there is in the case, say, of John Edward, why shouldn't I put it there? And if, as is seemingly the case, no one has to give sources for a category, why should the ones I think are good be reverted, while the ones other people think are good stay? More to the point: How do I put a citation request on a category??? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do answer that question about sourcing categories. Because normally you can get rid of an unjustified thing by putting in a citation request, or put what you want in if you can source it. I don't know how to do this with categories. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to do it is to raise the issue on the article talk page and explain why you think the category is justified or unjustified. I'm not familiar with John Edward, so I'm speaking from ignorance, but generally psychic mediums (media?) are not considered to be within the realm of "science" as it's classically defined. But again, the best way to approach it is to raise the issue with the involved editors on the article talk page. If that doesn't work to your satisfaction, you may wish to pursue some of the steps in dispute resolution (e.g. request outside input via a request for comment). MastCell ^Talk 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, there really is no WP:RS check here? It is just a pure vote? That is really bad, because Cats are used as weapons, as ways to put down or uphold pages. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the reply (= Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a vote... if you firmly believe you're correct on the basis of policy but are being "outvoted", then it's best to follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Specifically, a third opinion or request for comment can bring in outside, uninvolved editors to give their opinions. Unfortunately, if you still find that the consensus is against you, then you'll probably have to live with it as disputes are ultimately resolved (ideally) by WP:CONSENSUS. In general, the use of categories to make a point is frowned upon - they're intended to make Wikipedia easier to navigate, not to make a statement about the subject. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't mind mediation- it tends to go well for me (: I don't argue things that a neutral would say are POV. In other words, for instance on the parapsychology page, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the AAAS; so it is, to a neutral, a scientific field (the only half-way decent source to the contrary is a Russian Academy of Science statement from 1998). Even parapsychology's best/worst critics say so it's science. But they just deleted it as a science, and put it in as a pseudoscience saying "this is manifestly not science", and called me silly- well, on one of the summaries.

Well, anyway, you don't want to hear all this! Thanks for explaining things (= I guess I really should take more advantage of the official channels. You're good at being an admin. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... thanks, I'm flattered, but in fact I'm not an admin. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should be. I thought you were because you responded to the template. Well, templates must show up on some page, and people must monitor them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garlic

I'm staying away from the article until an admin responds to my request to look into Alan2012's behavior. Meanwhile, from my perspective he's extremely close if not already past the need for another NPOV warning. I admire your patience with him. --Ronz 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I got archived without response [1], right before it looks like a bunch of admins jumped in and started addressing the backlog. I've restoring it - seems like the right thing to do. [2] --Ronz 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It seems he's not been editing much recently, so it may be a moot point. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't edit often. --Ronz 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response on ANI again! Any suggestions? This guy's behavior is just getting worse and worse. --Ronz 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS conspiracy theories

Please read Template:Unreferenced, where it says that "most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." Your edits to that article have a somwwhat tendentious pattern to them and are not recognizably, in my humble opinion, aimed at improving it. Is it just me or may I ask why? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read Template:Unreferenced; the part of the quote you left out states "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template." I've generally seen it at the top of articles, and never in the references section. Interestingly, I note that on your user page, you state explicitly that you prefer placing the tag at the top of the page, to "productively annoy" people into adding sources. Me too. I just don't get it - why do you think, in this instance, it should be at the bottom if you generally put it at the top?

As far as my edits, could you be so kind as to be more specific? You're welcome to disagree, but "tendentious"? From where I'm sitting, you're making a fuss over the template placement when "there is no consensus" and your own userpage suggests you usually put it at the top, and you're characterizing my edits as being tendentious and unconstructive. That's an awful lot of bad faith to assume in one sitting; am I missing something? MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That text on my user page is old, thanks for reminding me to revise it. I changed my opinion a while ago after I read Template:Unreferenced and especially after I realized that there is a tendency of people to tag articles with the intent of downgrading their appearance and appeal to readers (one may call it "sly POV editing").

"There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." Here's the full quotation from Template:Unreferenced. Which part is more important now? I'm not implying that you broke policy (as in "there is consensus" and you didn't follow it), I'm just quoting the relevant part of that sentence, as I perceive it. Arguably tendentious is to make the tag more visible again, directly after I put it where most suggest it belongs. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Why don't you update your userpage then, leave the template wherever you currently prefer, and try a little harder to assume good faith. I'll do the same. If you're truly interested in the quality of the sourcing in the AIDS conspiracy theories article, your help in finding sources for the unattributed claims would be useful. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update my user page today, promise. And I'll look into getting sources whenever I get around to it. But please WP:AAGF. I just looked at your most recent contribs and, well, you didn't exactly format the citations, did you? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're implying; I do plenty of citation formatting (see garlic for an example from within the last 24 hours). However, my time and resources are not unlimited, which is why I think your help would be useful. Have a good day. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Hey, I revised my user page a little and would appreciate any comments. Also, I wanted to let you know that I'm always open to criticism. I mean it, don't be shy. Wikipedia is a continuous learning experience for all of us. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sorry to make a mountain out of a molehill here; it's been a long day. I didn't mean to give you a hard time - I was genuinely a little confused by the userpage, but now it makes sense. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margulis

Let me get this right -- it's more believable to you that some dissident somewhere got the idea to FAKE Margulis's review and blog postings... together with the complicity of a mainstream biology professor who personally verified that she did post her views herself... essentially, that her announcement re: her AIDS views are some kind of HOAX?? (as if, she wouldn't immediately announce it as a hoax to the eternal embarrasment of dissidents!) THAT is easier for you to believe than the simple explanation that she is an AIDS dissident??

You are beyond hopeless...

68.35.72.13 13:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my position... while it may be a debatable point whether an Amazon review or a blog thread is a "reliable source" to use at Wikipedia (I personally think it is given a supporting piece of evidence, e.g. CALLING THE PERSON HERSELF OR THE OWNER OF THE BLOG PERSONALLY), you are completely, 100% wrong if you think she is actually NOT a dissident or that the review and blog postings attributed to her are not 100% hers:

Um, Tara can you double check with PZ that that post was actually from her? Look at the wording/syntax-- thats not how scientists write. That looks like lincoln with gel in his hair.

PZ's not raised any red flags, and the second quote was from the live chat. The visit was to promote this new venture of hers. Unfortunately, I have no doubt it's her.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 13, 2007 05:49 PM

Yeah, I'll confirm it: that was Lynn Margulis on the site and in the chatroom. <sigh>.

Posted by: PZ Myers | March 14, 2007 08:51 PM

That sigh was because I thought highly of Margulis; she has done some excellent work, and is always a source for original ideas. Unfortunately, the HIV denialist comments were all ignorant crap that only a deluded fool would find convincing. So that was a sigh of disappointment.

Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2007 09:16 AM

Furthermore, I know form personal communication with Harvey Bialy that Lynn Margulis did communicate to him personally her positive review of the book. So, while the question of what's a "reliable source" may be some issue, I just want you to know if happen to have any doubts, that you ARE 100% completely factually wrong if you claim (a) her statements and viewpoints attributed to her are not hers, and (b) she is not a dissident. Unless you really believe that a mainstream biology professor is (without any motivation) committing some kind of hoax, or is himself being impersonated by someone. That's what I was referring to when I said you were "beyond hopeless". 68.35.72.13 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]