User talk:MastCell

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:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

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)

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)

ABC article

Thanks. It sure wasn't/isn't easy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

FDA

Is it a futile game we play? Does it eventually get easier?--Dr.michael.benjamin 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just feeling the same way. In general, when a single-purpose editor with an axe to grind settles in, it can be a frustrating haul. Generally, such people either get tired, or the other option is to bring in outside members of the Wikipedia community (via a mechanism such as a request for comment) to chime in. I think that the editor in question is pushing a point-of-view in a way that won't be palatable to most of the community. The best approach is probably to continue insisting on following Wikipedia's policies (on reliable sources, neutrality (particularly the avoidance of undue weight), etc). The problem is that you and I, who have interests here other than the FDA, will end up spending most or all of our time dealing with said single-purpose editor - I've encountered similar problems on AIDS reappraisal and many alternative medicine topics - to the detriment of adding useful content to the encyclopedia. Another approach is actually to walk away from the article for awhile, rather than contesting every edit, let him do what he wants, and then come back in a week or two to survey the damage and start fixing it. That can be useful for one's sanity. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable approach, as usual. Thanks.--Dr.michael.benjamin 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

not really

I'm not really back, but I have been really impressed with your edits and postings. I think you show an open mind and sense of fair play. I did want to thank you for your email and wanted to let you know that the last thing I did before I cleaned off my page was read your user page. I absolutely love it. You are obviously a quality individual and I would have enjoyed working closer with you. Where were you when we needed you;) -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very kind. I can understand if this was the impetus for you leaving - it was just an unpleasant situation all around. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words, and your presence is definitely missed. The whole Quackwatch thing is a little too exhausting, and it's actually not something I care that deeply about, so I've been trying to cut back my input there and spend my Wikipedia time elsewhere. I hope that after you have a well-deserved break and some time away from this contentious alternate universe, our paths cross again. MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan Club

Just found this while googling, [[3]] Shot info 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... so that's why my ears were burning. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

Hey, MastCell. I added your Featured Article Candidate to the Collaboration Dashboard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I hope that this helps to draw more people to the review! -Severa (!!!) 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I gave the table thing a shot - take a look and see what you think. Thanks for taking the time to look at the article and make suggestions for its improvement. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's good to get break away from the all-consuming abortion circuit and I learned some new things from the article. The table contributes well to the informativeness of the article. I'm glad that my suggestions were helpful. :-) -Severa (!!!) 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the success with the FA nomination! -Severa (!!!) 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cholangiocarcinoma

Just noticed the article's promotion to FA. Congratulations! Fvasconcellos 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I hadn't noticed it went through till you mentioned it. Awesome. MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, MastCell. I'll e-mail you an MRCP and CT scan tonight, approved for release under GFDL 74.12.77.59 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by Navychaps and UCMCPadre

Dear Newyorkbrad and MastCell, request your follow up to discipline or block two vandals NavyChaps and USMC Padre who repeatedly violated the Bio of Living Persons rules by disparaging and posting private information about Gordon James Klingenschmitt, leading to deletion of his entire article. The Checkuser report (which you requested) suggests they also routinely violated Sockpuppet rules. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/USMC_Padre Suggest using your "admin powers" to block these two users, and also Commanderstephanus and MiddleLinebacker who routinely used foul language. I'm not informed of proper procedures after Checkuser confirms the identity of abusers. ChaplainReferee 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I have no admin powers. Newyorkbrad may be able to take care of it for you. It looks like neither account has been particularly active since that article was deleted. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancer and bacteria

Hey MastCell - without wanting to add to your burden, could you offer your opinion on Talk:Cancer in a discussion I'm having with Ronsword (talk · contribs) on the role of bacteria in oncogenesis? JFW | T@lk 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that discussion and was about to chip in with my 2 cents, but real life intervened. I'll stop by. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Input request

You seem to have a knowledge of medicine, so, would you mine dropping into Talk:Pregnancy and reviewing some images that are currently under dispute? Things are getting kind of heated, but, I think another opinion (particularly an expert one) might help sort things out. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a Ferrylodge-vs.-consensus situation, but I'll take a closer look if it continues to flare up. Take care. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, it's cleared up at Talk:Pregnancy. Nandesuka summed up the truth of the matter precisely. -Severa (!!!) 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM

You know, I really enjoyed that essay, you know. Heh. JFW | T@lk 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Victor A. Marcial-Vega

Hi, I don't see why you're trying to eliminate the article about this person. He's achieved quite some notoriety in North America and elsewhere as well due to the Internet, particularly as regards his popularization of the blood pH theory. Are you asserting that I am promoting this theory by editing articles about him here? I assure you that I am not. But it is absolutely certain that he is a notable individual, if only from his publications and current notoriety. Badagnani 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything about your intentions. I'm saying that I don't see the evidence that this guy is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of the term. If he has truly acheived the notoriety, notability, etc you describe, then it should be straightforward to produce evidence of this, in the form of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If such sources don't exist, then the article should be deleted. I notified you as a courtesy, instead of sending it directly to AfD, since you had created the article fairly recently and perhaps you just haven't had time to add such sources yet. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why delete things you know nothing about!

You marked my entry on Neuro Emotional Technique for deletion. Your reasons for doing so do not fit the deletion criteria as you claim. It has now been deleted and I am blocked from putting it back. I spent several hours working on that entry and very carefully documented it with links and references. Why mark it for deletion? To me that’s just vandalism. I now no longer care about Wikipedia and will no longer be contributing to it as I feel there is no point to it if any one can delete your hard work just because they feel like it.

Thanks very much for ruining my Wiki experience. Maybe someone will have the decency to delete all of your entries for no good reason. If all Wiki articles were marked for deletion based on such flimsy reasoning then there would be no Wikipedia. NegMan April 27th 2007

I'm sorry for the hard feelings. The article clearly did not appear, to me, to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; specifically, there were no reliable secondary sources cited, and I could find none in my searches of Web-based content. I proposed its deletion and notified you on your talk page as a courtesy. As no one stepped forward to either contest the deletion or improve the article, it was deleted.

I see you've already contacted the deleting administrator, which is the first step if you feel a mistake was made. However, I agree with his response; the article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you continue to feel the deletion was in error, you can bring up the subject at deletion review. You can also create a new article on the topic, but such an article would be likely to be speedily deleted unless it provides reliable, independent secondary sources establishing notability, as Wikipedia defines those terms.

It sucks to lose a page you've worked on, but when we release our contributions here, we open them up for others to read, edit, alter beyond recognition, and sometimes even delete. I hope that this episode doesn't lead you to leave Wikipedia; unfortunately, however, a fact of life here is that we can't exercise complete control over our contributions once we've made them. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I am having fun learning the ropes of Wikipedia. Currently adding things related to my fellowship in hematopathology. I have a mindmap of hematopathology and an XML schema for pathology that I will post at some point. Appreciate the feedback.Jdln 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Parenzee

I don't feel strongly about the title, but there probably should be only one article. It may be simplest just to name it Andre Chad Parenzee, even though it will wind up mostly about the trial (it's easier than thinking of a title that makes sense ([[The Andre Chad Parenzee appeal trial]])). - Nunh-huh 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a start and moved your reference list there. Please revise/rewrite unmercifully. - Nunh-huh 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Regulations

Well that's really ethical of you to get me blocked under "Hardrack" as a sockpuppet when obviously I wasn't this "Billy Ego" character. I live in a building with many students who share the same ISP. A mistake was made and you're taking advantage of it. You just want to be able to push your pro FDA POV by any means necessary instead of allowing NPOV. Go ahead and report this account as a sockpuppet as well. It doesn't matter. I'll create a new one right afterwards. I'm going to show up at the FDA article too eventually. Maybe tommorow. Maybe even a year from now. But mark my words I will be there. As soon as you and your couple pro-FDA buddies have matured enough to leave Wikipedia I'll definitely be there. I'll be watching. So you had better plan on guarding it for the rest of your life. You're going to have to wonder which is me and which is not. I don't have to use a newly created account. There are ones that have been active for years that I log into. There are already hundreds more of accounts that have not even been detected that are still being used. Apparently the search function can't find according IP. They just have to pick out usernames that they think might be from the same ISP and check them. The IP from this ISP is constantly in flux so it's not even possible to block this building from Wikipedia without blocking an entire region of the country. I don't even have to log in from this part of the country. (I travel a lot and use different ISP's). Well good luck pushing your POV. Have a happy life guarding the pro FDA POV, loser. I'll go on working to ensure NPOV in various articles in the meantime. I'm not going anywhere. Truent 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)