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)

For administrative bravery

File:Haig-award.png		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar & the General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor
		These barnstars are presented to MastCell for courage and clear thinking in the face of obstinacy. -- Fyslee / talk 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving medical articles one by one

This is going to take forever. But I'm starting with Alzheimer's disease. I removed a whole ton of alternative medicine cruft. Ginkgo has no effect. But, lots of articles published in real journals seem to indicate that there are lots of things to prevent Alzheimer's. Mediterranean diet is one. Anyways, please help. Let's make this article a good one. It matters to people, and they need to have more information. There are a couple of editors that have built a good foundation. Let's get it over the top, so I can add it to my list of outstanding medical articles around here. Besides, a good admin like you will keep the cruft-warriors from getting too crazy.  :) And it's more fun than Abortion and mental health. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's got potential. In fact, all of the necessary references are probably there. The main issue is just stylistic - it's hard to read and over-technical. We can fix that. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat amused that the guardians of NPOV so cavalierly dismiss alternative medicines/treatments. Not that I am any great fan of "voo-doo" medicine, but I like to keep an open mind about things whilst taking same with a grain of salt. Nor do I see what poor quality computer coding has to do with it. Anyhow ... I wonder if this is the kind of reaction that our young Mr. Ernest Duchesne suffered at the hands of the Institut Pasteur in 1897. ;-) JimScott (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like fun!

Hey MastCell,

Got your note. Funny you should ask, I've been thinking about that very thing recently, and your note is the last little catalyst I need. I've waited this long for two reasons: So no one could seriously say that my dust up with Eddie was part of some larger pattern, and so I could address a couple of other items that were either brought up in my last RFA, or (more accurately) probably would have been if the Eddie thing hadn't come up. Mostly AFD participation, RFA participation, and article writing. I've participated in a few AFD's since the RFA (maybe a half dozen or so more, haven't kept exact track, not many), a couple of RFA's, and written the longwinded masterpiece Diaphragm (structural system) (and that was only because I was fixing dablinks for Diaphragm and discovered we needed the article). To add to its impressiveness, it currently has zero references! Won't be knocking anyone's socks off.

The thing is, I don't really like AFD or RFA, and I'm not cut out to write Featured Articles. In the last week or so, I've had something of an epiphany: I'm here because I'm doing what I like to do, not because I want to be an admin. So my latest and greatest plan is to try RFA one more time, and if that fails, just give up on adminship and remain an editor, using AIV, RFPP, ANI, and mercilessly pestering admins I see are active when I need tools. In other words, remove the stress of finding time to do stuff that doesn't interest me, by deciding not to force myself to do the stuff.

So the short answer is, I think the first week in February (I've got a deadline in the real world this Friday). If your offer to nominate me is still open, I'll gladly take you up on it (wouldn't want KMWeber to be the tiebreaker). Another couple of editors have offered to nominate too, let me ckeck with them and see if they want to write a co-nom or not.

Thanks for giving me the shove. --barneca (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to nominate or co-nominate you. Your comments are perceptive; I sometimes consider just giving up the sysop bit, de-watching AN/I, and just improving articles, which is why I started here in the first place. The buttons are definitely useful, but they do change your experience on Wikipedia. That said, you don't have to use them; they're essentially a few extra tools you can use if you like. Anyhow, just let me know when you're ready. MastCell ^Talk 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Whenever you want to start is fine; there's no rush. I'll add a statement and answer the questions slowly, over the course of the week, when I have free 5 minute windows. Then I can transclude sometime next week, when my project is over. Pedro has previously offered to nominate, and I've left him a message. Dreamafter is most familiar with my activities at WP:ACC, and offered in December. I'm leaving him a message right after this, he may still be interested too. Thanks for the ¡vote of confidence. --barneca (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to co-nominate Barneca! Let me know when it's created. Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also dearly enjoy co-nominating Barneca, I have the page (Requests for adminship/Barneca 3) watchlisted, so upon creation, I will glady add my statement. ~ Dreamy ^§ 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be waiting a while on that page going active; I'm hoping/planning on never needing Barneca 3. I'm hoping Barneca 2 is all we'll need. :) --barneca (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be taking a much-needed Wikibreak, but I'll be looking in from time to time, particularly on my talk page. Just leave me a note when you're nearly ready and I'll have a statement of nomination up. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a break! --barneca (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but next time you'll be able to apply the block yourself. Then someone can complain on WP:AN/I about how you blocked someone you were "involved" with, and someone else can say the IP was bitten and was about to go on a featured-article-writing spree, and someone else can offer to adopt the hapless IP while you go before ArbCom to be desysopped... see, I do need a break! :) MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just a tiny one... Enjoy it. --barneca (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MastCell you becoming a regular Troll..:) Welcome to the family, maybe you will get your own article! Igor Berger (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created it myself, so I'd have a place to store answers as I write them. Like I said, I have very little time until next week, so absolutely no rush on anything; enjoy your break and compose at your leisure. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's transcluded. --barneca (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Template created

Check out {{recruiting}}. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hi - given that you've jumped into some fairly heated debates, may I ask if you edit using any other accounts, or if your participation here was solicited? MastCell Talk 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked me to participate. Usually I just read Wikipedia, including the policy boards. Fairchoice (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That answers half of my question. The other half: do you edit, or have you edited, using any other accounts, particularly ones which might currently be blocked or otherwise sanctioned? MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?

User:Durova/Sandbox/Harris Coulter Here's a sandbox version from a deleted biography about a person who's probably notable enough for a biography, based upon authorship notability standards. I'd like to raise the neutrality and sourcing to a level where this can move to article space. Your input is welcome. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

THIS is crazy

The POV-nutjobs win. They'll use this stupid probation as a method to continue the anti-scientific bullshit pervasive in this project. Do you know how many articles the Homeopathy promoters have infested? Hundreds? The nutjobs will take this opportunity to flood well-written medical articles (of which, I found zero so far) with Homeopathy POV, and someone, like myself, will attempt to revert or clean up, then get slapped with some silly charge from one of the promoters of the POV. I'm fighting a losing battle keeping the crap out of the medical articles. I'm afraid that there just more POV-warriors than there are truly neutral editors such as yourself. Quackademic Medicine rules!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave them to "win" then. Only once the Wiki is so hopelessly ignored by the rest-of-the-world by being so wrong, will the administration do something. The administration is paralysed by it's own internal systems and is currently operating under the maxim "it worked fine in the past, why do we need to change?" which is a sure sign of pending doom. Shot info (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd suggest leaving the homeopathy article for a few weeks. De-wathclist it and see what happens. There will be plenty of eyes on it after the recent to-do. Any thinking person realizes that the principles of homeopathy are scientifically implausible or impossible. Some thinking people choose to believe in it anyway, but that's based on an innate mindset and won't be changed by the wording of a Wikipedia article. Personally, I think it's much more worthwhile to keep the promotional or fringecruft claims under control on articles like AIDS, cancer, or dietary supplement, because I've seen people actually make decisions based on what Wikipedia has to say on those matters, but that's just me.

I think most reasonable editors support the idea of making Wikipedia into a respectable reference work, and realize that aggressive fringecruft and credulous promotion of discredited ideas undermines that goal. The playing field is not level; it's slanted in our favor. But if you're serious about making the encyclopedia more reality-based, then you (we) have to make it easier for the reasonable editors in the middle to see it that way. That means biting the bullet and going the extra mile to be civil, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. I look at a lot of disputes as an outside party, and it's very easy to ignore or marginalize someone who's always angry, uncivil, or vitriolic, regardless of the correctness of their underlying argument. It's much harder to ignore or marginalize someone who's civil and polite, even when these are a mere veneer for weak arguments or even bad faith. Some editors have grasped this and exploited it. We, as a group, have not. It's not ideal, but it's the way things are here.

To get anywhere, we need uninvolved but reasonable editors to see the problem and sympathize. They will, because reason and the good of the encyclopedia are behind us, but we drive away potential allies by sounding thin-skinned, vitriolic, entitled, etc. I'm not pointing fingers; I'm as guilty of these things as anyone. Still, I think we have to start from the presumption that most established editors want the encyclopedia to succeed as a respectable, reality-based reference work, but may not see the problem posed by tendentious and undue promotion of fringe views. Instead, we often start from the premise that everyone's out to get us and to coddle the bad guys. Even when there's an element of truth to that worldview, it quickly becomes self-fulfilling. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barneca 2

Hiya MastCell - do you want to put your comments at the top, as the main nominator, and then myself and DHMO as co-noms? Or do you want me to change mine to "Nomination" not co-nom? Or shall we just leave it as all co-noms? No biggie but thought I'd check. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever. Since yours is the most detailed statement, and mine "seconds" it, yours should probably be the main nomination and mine the co-nom. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys could get into an edit war about it, and then I'll swoop in and calm the waters, demonstrating my wonderful dispute resolution skills, and suggest we could perhaps alternate them hourly once it starts... or probably not.

I'm just glad to have such cool nominations, the order doesn't matter to me. Thanks guys. --barneca (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I've changed mine to "Nomination" leaving others as co-nom - now MastCell has to revert with no edit summary, I revert back with an edit summary containing an attack, Barneca weighs in and gets us to agree consensus on the talk page, and the community agrees his dispute skills are second to none. Oh, and then MastCell and I shut down our user pages with a blunt message on how we've lost all faith in Wikipedia and never edit again. Think that's about how it goes ....... :)..... Pedro :  Chat  08:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Barneca deserves to be an admin. Very good skills and I am sure he will do a good job. We need Barneca!!! Igor Berger (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

I think a number of people owe me an apology here. The note above the section says start a new section. Should I do that on the AN/I page? Anthon01 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you with certainty that demanding an apology is a bad idea. The best thing to do is drop it and move on, which is why I archived the thread. If people genuinely feel they did something wrong, they'll apologize spontaneously (c.f. User:Bearian). If they don't, then no amount of complaining or demanding an apology is going to produce a satisfactory result. AN/I is for incidents requiring urgent administrative action. Using it to demand an apology for a perceived slight, particularly when the homeopathy page has already generated so much bickering in the last 1-2 days (not that this is your fault, necessarily), will exhaust everyone's patience very rapidly. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert war @ David Hicks

hi Mastcell. I request your advice about revert warring at the David Hicks article, because you witnessed similar activity on the same article a few months ago. I am concerned because some editors hover over the article with the delete button ready to revert other editors' additions. It's kind of a slow edit war, but it has reached the stage where there is no point changing the article when you know that 2 editors will delete whatever anyone else adds, while at the same time writing "please discuss" in the edit summary window just before they hit 'revert'. The reverting really has to stop, and I'm not sure how to stop it. Regards, Lester 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be those making controversial changes without seeking concensus. I left Brendan's additions stand, while I restored text cut by "Wm", so Lester's statement above does not reflect the reality as shown by the edit history. I think we are making good progress, actually, without slanting the article one way or another. However, more eyes on a controversial article are always useful. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people need to learn that consensus is never achieved via the revert button.Lester 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone in mind, Lester? For controversial articles, the best policy is to discuss and gain concensus, rather than try to sneak something through and hope any watchers are busy with other matters. --Pete (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As we can see, some people have a lot of difficulty learning that the revert button has nothing to do with gaining consensus. I note MastCell's previous warning here for edit warring to cease. The edit warriors who seem to have claimed ownership of the article as if it is their territory, are making it impossible for others to contribute to the article.Lester 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could this be a case of WP:SEI. Igor Berger (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelly letter to Science

I've posted about this at my blog and on Crooked Timber. Lots of fun ensues.JQ (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr and Lucyinthesky

Hi Tariq - I left a comment on WP:AN/I re: blocks of User:Nealparr and User:Lucyintheskywithdada. I certainly think Neal was participating in an edit war and the block was reasonable, but my 2 cents would be to unblock him and commute the block to time served - based on his otherwise very solid history of constructive editing, and possibly considering the checkered history of his "opponent", who has since been indef-blocked by JzG. I think Neal has hopefully learned something from this, which appears to be an isolated incident in an otherwise laudable Wikipedia career, and I'd lean toward clemency. Just my 2 cents - while I'd probably have handled it differently, I think your block was certainly reasonable and within policy, so I'll leave it up to you what to do. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your comments at ANI, I have the feeling that you were unaware that I found out about the connection between Lucy and the other account after I had blocked Neal and Lucy. Neal did mention allegations of sockpuppetry on the AN3 report, but you can see that he was also requesting a checkuser. He made no note of the fact that Lucy admitted they were the same user, and perhaps was not even aware that such an admission had occurred.

Additionally, I'm not sure why, alternate account/sockpuppetry aside, you believe I should have given Neal the benefit of the doubt for anything. He apparently has been editing Wikipedia since 2005... yes, and for that reason he should have been aware of the rules. When disruption is as apparent as it was in this case (and even in many less severe cases), I do not look at the tenure or the (for lack of a better term here) status of the editor in question. I don't care much for people who believe the rules are different for them because they have a couple years on their adversary. For this reason, he should not have complained that his block was invalid because he didn't receive a warning; that's to ensure editors they know about the three-revert rule (and I'm sure Neal already knew about it). The appropriate action to resolve this issue would have been to file a checkuser, go to WP:ANI, or use WP:SSP (did you see how quickly Lucy was indefinitely blocked after my ANI report?). Instead, though, Neal continued to revert across multiple articles.

As for the block, I would think it would be better for more people to respond to the ANI report. However, I'm afraid that's not going to happen. So, at this time, I'm just going to have to stick with no further comment. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I sense from your tone that I've offended you a bit, which wasn't my intention. Like I said at AN/I, I think your block was reasonable and within policy. It's not what I'd have done, but I'm certainly not going to unblock, or push the matter further beyond bringing it up with you. I completely agree that Neal should have handled the situation differently, and I'm not making excuses for him. The block was preventive to forestall further edit-warring. Since his "opponent" in the edit war has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet, I don't see a further preventive purpose being served. I think he's taken the point that he went about things the wrong way, and commuting the block would be clemency for an otherwise solid editor rather than validation of his admittedly inappropriate behavior in this one instance. It's not so much that he deserves special treatment because he has a few years on his adversary; it's that one is an otherwise constructive editor with a good track record who made a mistake, and the other is a 4th-incarnation disruptive sockpuppet. That doesn't mean Neal should get away with murder, but I'm not sure these accounts should be treated as equally valuable to the encyclopedia either.

But let me just say, again, that I respect your call. I think your decision and rationale are completely reasonable even if I don't fully share them. I didn't mean to criticize or offend you, though I did want to give you my perspective since it differs somewhat from yours on this particular matter. I agree with you 100% about the more appropriate avenues Neal should have used, and I suspect that in retrospect he agrees with you as well. I'm not going to push it any further than that; certainly Sandstein agreed with your block, and he's got lots of experience and excellent judgement about such things. If you decide an unblock is warranted, then I support that 100%. If you decide it's not, then that's fine too and I'll leave things there. Again, I apologize for any offense I've caused. (added) The whole point may be moot since Neal is accepting of the block at this point, so I don't want to trouble you further over it. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've offered my comments by email. Orderinchaos 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like a change to clarify matters directly with you as you have made prejudicial comments, or taken a position specifically over this use of the word sockpuppet, and take advice from you. I have left a very short version of it at the end of my talk page [1]. I have never been indefinitely banned, have no other blocks outstanding and do not operate any sockpuppets.

My name change came about because my previous accounts were deemed too similar to real people (wachowski is a fairly common name) and a further accusations of that name change being puppetry was deliberately contrived by someone with a direct interest in the topic we were editing on. At that time the topic was subjected to the attentions of a genuinely and indefinitely banned user IPSOSS and proven socks. It was a highly artificial situation I was subject to but if you check my editing record, you will see a very high propertion of well presented citations and references and general copyediting.

• The accounts have never been used simultaneously (I locked my self out during a password change of the first and reported the change to admins immediately). I suffer from editing mainly on fringe subjects where passions run high.

I will return to editing the spiritualistic topics as it is my specialist area. There is a situation there than needs attention. I am not the sort to go dragging admins into to do my work but I believe the current situation warrants it; the same individual that lost a nomination for deletion of a template [2] has gone about deleting from every page it is on [3] without any discussion or refinement having been made, embravened by and repeating Nealparr's inexplicable wholesale rampages - which removed other similar templates not even of my placing.

Honestly, if you look at the edits, or ask me to document them for you, you will see that stepped out in good faith and I attempted to discuss with all parties in the first place. My first edit will be to revert a bad faith revision of the Spiritualism (religious movement) by the same individuals done when I was blocked removing all of my edits with any discussion.

I am not utterly stupid, I am not unreasonable and I know my subjects well enough to know I am not entirely wrong. It is very difficult not to become defensive when false allegations are being repetitively made about one by an individuals who knows it is not true but I am here to take advice. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring with Neal was disruptive, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your position in the underlying dispute. But to address the "sockpuppet" issue: I would suggest you ask User:Orderinchaos, or another admin familiar with the totality of your situation, to make a few changes. Your other account userpages are all tagged as "blocked as a sockpuppet". Those tags ought to be changed if the accounts are not, in fact, blocked as abusive accounts. Also, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski was closed with a finding of abusive sockpuppetry, and the alternate accounts were blocked as such. Since this apparently does not reflect the full situation, it would be useful to amend that page to specify that a) you are in fact connected to those other accounts, but that b) they were not used abusively or in a way which violated WP:SOCK. I would suggest you have Orderinchaos or some other neutral and knowledgable party make these corrections, because those sockpuppet tags and the closed WP:SSP case are among the first things I turned up when looking at the situation. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I wanted to say thank you for the vote of confidence and that the wikibreak was beneficial. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, I raised the issue about the Anthon.Eff who nominated the template for deletion, lost the vote and then went about deleting it from every page once before and then immediately after Neal did. The deletions remain.

That would not seem reasonable. What is the right thing to do? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I removed the template from inappropriate articles only. I have no idea what edits Anthon.Eff made, but my removals were because the articles were not predominantly related to subject of the template. I left it on articles where it was appropriate, quite a few articles in fact. That's before my block. After the block I spent hours making the template more visually appealing and fixing the float and collapse function so that it doesn't have to dominate articles. If you'd like to go through WP:DR, it sounds good to me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So, can I restore them and then go through WP:DR? Or do I have to accept defeat as the victim of a mental slamdancing episode and then waste contributing time wasting admins' time?

Accuracy to the point, please. Neal removed all the infoboxes on more than one occasion AND many incidents of the other "spiritist and spiritualism" template made by another uninvolved author.

He also chose to entirely re-interpret the 'infobox' and give it an entirely different meaning, some what redundant and duplicative of the 'template' mentioned above ... visually appealing is POV. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's a dispute about restoring the infoboxes, then yes, you should go through WP:DR. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I do something disruptive here?

[4]--Filll (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy probation

Hi. Could you please have a look at the edits of User_talk:86.134.27.61 on the water memory page. He's in violation of the probation, I believe, and has been made aware of it. Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed the IP on 1RR and notified them. Let's try to err on the side of assuming this is a new user unfamiliar with the dispute and try to explain policy without the 3-letter acronyms, but at the same time, if they continue edit-warring rather than discussing on the talk page, I will impose a short block. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It turns out it's the infamous Martin Chaplin! -DrEightyEight (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Userfying a template ?

What are the the specifics of userfication does it mean that no other users can adopt it  ? Albion moonlight (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can use it. Userfying it is more of technical solution that moves it out of template-space. If you want to use it, you just need to put it on your userpage by finding the template and enclosing it in double-brackets (for instance, a couple of my userboxes are in my userspace, and I include them with {{User:MastCell/Strangelove-UBX}}). But anyone would be welcome to use it if they wanted to on their userpages in the same manner. Does that make sense and answer your question? MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does and thank you. I also think that it is a good compromise. I hope it wins the day.: Albion moonlight (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stonewalling Claim

I am putting together diffs to defend myself against the accusation of stonewalling. It is going to take a many hours for me to find an organize my defense. My life intrudes. Should I post that in a new subsection of the current Anthon01 AN/I or should I start a separate AN/I for that. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Will others be required to spend a comparable amount of time to counter these claims and support the blocking admin? I believe the actitivity is prima facie evidence of the behavior, in and of itself. --Filll (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused of stonewalling. Will I be getting any proof so I can properly defend myself? WP has a culture onto itself; I have no diffs or policy to know what I am defending myself against.

Filll: Your kidding? You want an accusation to stand without any diffs whatsoever? Anthon01 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyer and engage in tendentious argumentation all you like. I will leave it to others.-Filll (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you are very involved in this, even though earlier you said you wanted to stay out of it. All this may be obvious to you, as I suspect you've been here much longer than me. I am new to this process. Are you suggesting that I defend myself without getting diffs the help frame the act I am accused of? I don't even get why this is wikilawyering. Anthon01 (talk)

Planned Parenthood reversion

In re to your reversion based on "remove POV wording and unreliable source addition (anyone can post to YouTube, it's essentially self-publishing)".

What part of actually recorded conversations (ie FACTS) are you objecting to? Or perhaps you are objecting to someone making note of the FACT that PP breaks (or encourages others to do so which is much the same thing legally) Federal and state notification laws in regard to parental rights (where applicable of course) and in the reporting of statutory rapes? This is NOT my POV. These are just the FACTS. I'm sorry if your POV is offended but you will have to take this up with PP as they created the FACTS, not me. I would appreciate it if you would return the material you deleted. If you feel my precise selection of terms was inappropriate, feel free to NPOV it up. However, deleting FACTS, as I understand the guidelines behind Wikipedia, is expressly frowned upon. JimScott (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The recording(s) released to YouTube has(have) already been introduced into evidence in various law suits that have been filed against PP. Releasing content to YouTube neither validates nor invalidates the content. Is this a straw man? Using YouTube merely provides a universally convenient method of sharing the content. Please advise what would meet your requirements of validation. Thanks.

MastCell is taking a wikibreak. In MC's absence, allow me to be presumptuous and suggest that if the videos have been intro'd in lawsuits, they ought to be easily referenced in some reliable secondary sources. WP is not about truth, but verifiability. Consider MC's deletion a matter of sources, not facts. Hope this helps! -Phyesalis (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since my Wikibreak has basically not gotten off the ground thus far, I'll just second what Phyeslais has said. I don't object to facts. I object to bad sourcing. Provide a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia. Also, despite your aggressive tone, I'm sure you realize that edits like this are not "factual"; they are editorial opinion and generally get reverted on sight anywhere that responsible editors notice them. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Being bold on electrotherapy

Kudos! You're a braver (or bolder?) man than I... Tom Harris (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a case of fools rushing in... MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Many thanks for moving it back. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If it happens again, I can move-protect it (or move-semi-protect it). MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perversely proud it happened. I think there's 4 vandal accounts so far that have popped up after I rolled back some edits and asked for account blocking :) --Blowdart | ^talk 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Orangepith

Hi MastCell. It looks like this user didn't commit any further vandalism since the last warning I gave them a few days ago, other than blanking their talk page, which I think is normally allowed. Do you have any objection to my unblocking as they request? I will guarantee to keep an eye on their future edits. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the talk page blanking was no big deal. I came across that account in response to this report at WP:SSP. It looked like Orangepith (talk · contribs) as well as Dagophet (talk · contribs) and Hippytrout (talk · contribs) (at least) were all engaged in pretty much the same sort of vandalism simultaneously, so it seemed likely these were sockpuppets, or just kids in the same study hall. I blocked them all based on the apparent use of multiple accounts. That said, I have no objection if you'd like to unblock him; the quality of mercy blesseth him that gives and him that takes, and so on... :) MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have unblocked and now hope I won't live to regret it. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't think there's too much to be lost by giving him a second chance. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm very sorry if you took offense to my comment. My observation shows that, in over several dozens of cases, the articles you have attempted to have deleted from Wikipedia were of a certain type. I, on the other hand, edit articles of all types and if I believed an article was written about a non-notable subject, I would not do so in such a focused manner, on a single subject. Thus, it appears that you are here for a "mission"--to debunk what you consider to be "non-scientific" topics; not by actually adding to articles, but by attempting to have them removed from Wikipedia. This is just my observation. Badagnani (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Always good to follow up a set of personal attacks and bad-faith assumptions with a non-apology apology and a dubious claim to the moral high ground. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "POV Pusher"

I've learned from WP:POVPUSH that it is never civil to call another editor a "POV Pusher". I noticed that another editor (Shot info) was using the term to describe others a lot recently and I tried to politely notify him about the policy and to cease using the term. Unfortunately, he threw it back in my face, now calling me a "POV pusher". See here. I am really trying my best to encourage civility - especially in these trying times. What do you suggest I should do about this continued incivility? Ignore it? I always appreciate your advice, MastCell. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your "concern" a bit "disingenuous" as you like to put it: User_talk:Levine2112/archive6#Please_chill. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear why you feel that shows me to be disingenuous about my concern to maintain civility. What I see is you asking me to reword for civility and me being open to the idea, then another editor giving me a better option (IMHO), and then I went ahead and re-factored based on both of your advice. Anyhow, I did not post here to once again have you throw my very sincere civility concerns in my face. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"I am unclear why..." That's the problem. You're unable to see yourself as uncivil or worse, and choose to look to what you see as misbehavior in others as an excuse for your continued misbehavior. If you were sincere, you'd stop wasting time with these complaints of yours, and instead review the times you've gone to WQA with such frivolities. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Or I am legitimately concerned by the usage of the uncivil "POV Pusher" and the fact that both you and Shot info threw my concern back in my face. WP:AGF. Please. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so legitimately concerned that two editors threw your concern back in your face. Is this why you are starting down the path of forum shopping? If you don't like reading my talk page, don't visit my talk page. Actually here's a clue, take a lession from JzG and never visit my talk page again. Do you need some more applications of WP:TROUT or maybe a smack in the face with some WP:SPADE? Shot info (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was reading User:Jehochman's talk page when I came across your incivility. And no, I was not forum shopping. I posted here because I respect MastCell's neutrality and Wiki know-how. And I posted at Jehochman's page to inform everyone there to remain civil. Please, just don't call other editors "POV Pushers" and you want have to hear from me on this ever again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikilawyering Levine... Mastcell, your problem it seems, enjoy... Shot info (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let policy and fairness prevail on Aspergers

In response to SandyGeorgia's warning of off-wiki canvassing and POV-pushing on the Asperger's page, I would ask that a) all parties assume good faith, b) dispassionately adjudge sources without regard to this article's history and c) refrain from inferences about motives and conspiracies. I have not been solicited to contribute here.

The balancing of Due Weight is a tricky and subjective matter, and I would welcome administrative oversight to this article to assist in this.Sitadel (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue so long as we're all working together, discussing edits, and following policy. I'm not judging your motives, nor implying that you've been solicited to edit. I don't think there's any need for administrative tools per se on the page at present, but I'm happy to watch the discussion and contribute with the goal of building consensus. I think you'll find that the topics you're raising will be reasonably received, as long as the sources are there, and that much of the discussion will revolve around WP:WEIGHT. But like I said at the talk page, no one is out to belittle anyone, and I think everyone has the goal of creating a better and more complete article. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So...

I guess it's pretty obvious I've been here before. Don't worry - I'm not gaming the Wikipedian system by any means. Mistery account (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)