User talk:MastCell

Archives

(Date ranges are approximate)

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: i

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]

User:70.110.190.189

Hello, MastCell. I noticed that you recently blocked the anonymous user at 70.110.190.189 (the user in question has also edited from other 70.* addresses, and as User:Stevewk)- I just wanted to alert you that he appears to have returned, recognizable from his hostile edit warring pattern and pages of interest, as User:Gwilmont. I wasn't sure of the right avenue to pursue to deal with this problem, so I figured you might be able to advise me on it. I've been away from the Wikipedia project for a while and am trying to get reacquainted. Thanks. --ForbiddenWord 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious sockpuppet; I've blocked the account indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast reply! You're the man, MastCell! :) --ForbiddenWord 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology

Many thanks for sharing your information about Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology and for having unearthed the documents showing the close ties between this publication and the tobacco industry. These documents are illuminating, and they deserve to be made more visible and easily reachable for future reference. They are currently somehow difficult to locate, being deeply buried in a very long Talk page which contains a lot tedious discussions.

In passing, you may be interested to know (in case you didn't know already) that a somehow similar situation exists with the journal Inhalation Toxicology in which Enstrom and Kabat published their meta-analysis. The editor-in-chief of this journal, Donald E. Gardner, is a tobacco industry consultant who was recruited on behalf of Lorillard by the law firm Covington & Burling in 2000 (see [1], [2] and [3]). --Dessources 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling, based on the journal's name, that it was tied to the industry. By the way, at some point I'd like to create a set of articles on the International Society of the Built Environment and its journal, Indoor and Built Environment. This, as you probably know, is a well-documented example of a society and a journal created by the industry as an outlet for industry-friendly "research" which would not survive standard peer review. See, for example, PMID 15733724. I believe the society and journal are still operative; in any case, they were quite respectable to all appearances until the relevant documents were made public. If you're interested, let me know. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am interested. --Dessources 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

Great job adminning so far! You're doing a brilliant job; we appreciate the hard work -- 205.211.160.1 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Ionas68224

You invited comment on your block of User:Ionas68224. Although the user's behavior might fairly be described as trolling and might merit a block under other circumstances, I think we should be extremely reluctant to block anyone based on comments on an admin RfC. In the interest of transparency and accountability, which I mentioned in my outside view on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong, we should bend over backward to ensure that criticisms of admins may be aired. Having some junk on the RfC page is an acceptable price to pay. Therefore, I don't agree with your block in that it was apparently based on the user's comments on that page. I haven't looked at the user's emails or edits to other pages. JamesMLane t c 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and that's one reason I wanted to invite comment on the block. I have a slightly different take: RfC's are intended to gather community input, but as they single out a user for criticism they can turn into free-for-alls. There's recently been discussion about the number of productive users we've lost by being overly tolerant of clear harassment; perhaps that's influenced my take on the situation. I don't have a problem with him, or anyone, being critical. But it defeats the purpose of the RfC to have a huge sideshow created by someone who's basically shouting, "Hey, look at me! You're all Leninists! I hate the Kabbal [sic]! I mentioned Daniel Brandt! Here's a Wikipedia Review link!" I just don't see a lot of constructive input there. I won't get into the emails or post-block contributions, because I hate it when admins justify a block by pointing to the user's behavior after the block. I am sensitive to the need for transparency and accountability; in fact, just today I complained on AN/I about the deletion of what seemed to be a properly certified RfC, so I'm wondering if I'm being consistent here. MastCell ^Talk 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that we certainly don't want to lose productive users because of harassment. On the other hand, admins have to expect a certain level of harassment. Those who don't want to be scrutinized in their use of the special admin tools shouldn't ask to be given those tools (or should relinquish them); they can contribute productively without being admins. I would definitely apply a different standard to admins. It's important to have a check on possible abuse of admin powers. From the point of view of the project, it's also problematic to impede criticism of admins, precisely because that provides ammunition to those who charge "Leninism" or who see a cabal. JamesMLane t c 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; in fact, one of the concerns I raised at Ryulong's RfC was that of being overly sensitive to criticism. Certainly Ryulong's use of the tools is being scrutinized. I'm generally a big believer in accountability and such for admins. But that particular contributor, in my judgement, went beyond criticism or demanding accountability to simply trying to generate controversy for its own sake. Allowing and encouraging feedback, accountability, and constructive criticism of admins doesn't mean that we need to tolerate people who appear to be acting in bad faith or solely to generate controversy and get a rise out of people. Again, it's a judgement call. If another admin thought it appropriate to unblock him, I would be fine with that. An alternative, since his requests have already been declined here and on unblock-en-l, is to post this situation to AN/I in the interest of getting community feedback and accountability for me in terms of the block. I'd also be fine with that. Right now, though, given his behavior immediately before and after the block, I don't feel it would be appropriate to unblock him myself. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an admin, I would've unblocked him, but I'm certainly not going to take the time to post it to AN/I. One reason I'm not an admin is that I don't want to spend time on stuff like that. :) JamesMLane t c 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:University of Oxford

Hi, I was reading through the article talk page here, and referred myself back to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines to see if the sort of content under the section "Most selective? Discuss" was appropriate and what the guidelines where for removing text which constitutes a personal attack, and misrepresents other people. The guidelines also say in bold at the top of the page "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". I wondered what advice you have on this? The guidelines on removing text from talk pages seem to be contrary to the guidelines on how talk pages should be used. Should I go ahead and archive the off-topic discussion about selection? Coldmachine^Talk 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what the best approach is when an article talk page degenerates into random speculation, off-topic discussion, etc. Clearly the talk pages are meant to be used to discuss concrete improvements to the article, and not as a discussion forum on it (that's what USENET is for). In general, removing text from talk pages is a pretty drastic step. You can warn the ofending party with {{uw-chat1}} through uw-chat4. You can gently but firmly try to redirect them. Often this is enough. If it's not, then you can consider removing or archiving blatantly inflammatory or off-topic posts, but this is often a controversial action. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passive smoking

MastCell, I wasn't even referring to you. While I disagree with you wholeheartedly, and loathe your editing, I perceive you as one of the cooler, more reasonable heads. For one thing, if you examine the record, I've been accused of the same things: bias, being misleading, advocacy, and so forth. I've even had Holy Scripture hurled at me, accusing me of damnable hypocrisy. I do, though, wish that you would see that accusations of bias and misleading contributions do not rise to the level of WP:NPA. What it does mean is that you are (or I am, whoever the object is) allegedly guilty of poor editing, and -- yes -- even of motives borne out of personal interest(s). I do think you are abusing the "good faith" assumption -- but you aren't the only one. You cannot make deliberately misleading edits and/or contributions (saying far more than the source does) under cover of "good faith". Chido6d 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the Review Aritcle

Hi MastCell - how is the article on statins coming? Wiseoldowl 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten around to working on it yet - in fact, I don't think I've made a single edit there since we last spoke. Amazing how many things come up around here... MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably do CML first, and then acquiesce to Wiseoldowl's request[4]. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased! Wiseoldowl 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at political correctness. From my perspective, this article was in pretty good shape until recently, but has come under attack from a couple of determined POV-pushers, similar to problems encountered in Passive smoking and elsewhere. Of course, YMMV. JQ 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. I'm sure that article is a magnet for POV-pushing. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China allegations AfD

Thanks for your comment on the proposal. Perhaps you would consider revising your own vote on the AfD page? For example: "Merge and redirect to Human rights in China, and failing that, (H1.b)". In any case, I appreciate your consideration. HG | Talk 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted warning by MastCell

I have been threatened with being blocked from editing by the above user, who has taken little part in the discussions apart from criticising my seriousness. This, he says, is because I continually revert and there is a revert war on this page.

By my count I have reverted twice today, and once yesterday, and that's it, in months! If this is a revert war, then I'm not in it, am I? Can I have an appology? I never break the 3-revert rule, and three reverts in two months represents restraint by most peoples standards? --Memestream 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply making you aware of the three-revert rule, if you weren't already. The other involved editors are already aware of it, but I didn't see confirmation that you had been apprised. You are, indeed, involved in an edit war. I'd suggest discussing your proposed additions a little further rather than reinserting them, as they seem to be meeting resistance from several other editors. Three reverts is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the bottom line is that edit-warring is bad, and the onus is on editors who want to add content to justify it. I'm not threatening to block anyone at the moment; I just want to be sure you're aware of our policies on edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bottom line is that reverting is not to be used to remove additional material, no matter how much it may appear POV. My careful contribution has been repeatedly deleted by reverting, and that is a clear contravention of the rules which say discuss and change but do not revert. Revert is for vandalism, which this is most certainly not - never for taking out material. You seem to consider me naive. Read the rules (as copied by me onto Political correctness and then tell me that they do not say this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memestream (talk • contribs).

Edits which violate Wikipedia's policies are reverted all the time - it's not just vandalism. Bottom line: you need to work toward consensus on the talk page. Engaging in an edit war is not going to have the effect you want. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. While the general sentiment is correct, and exactly what I have been formost in doing, with support from another editor who treads carefully now after the page was improperly protected to shut him up, the use of revert that you suggest is strictly against policy:

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. MERE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SUCH PROOF.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

Which bit of this do you not get? --Memestream 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing further with you. Read WP:EW and don't edit war. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell please check out the editing at Evolution and Talk:Evolution. This individual also engaged in a personal attack here, which was rather strange. I think we have a problem with this user. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when I told you I could spot a sockpuppet? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's Raspor (talk · contribs)? MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) and ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs). Exactly the same editing style. I'm trying to complete a FAC for Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, so I'm not paying attention to other articles too carefully, but I got involved when I saw a large number of odd edits to Evolution. The editing style and comments remind me of what I've observed previously, specifically at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy and the article itself. The claims to being a scientist, then completely missing the point of science is exactly the same. I need to do further research, but it would take me a day to build an appropriate case. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit

Hi, Thanks for protecting G-Unit, its been real annoying having to revert vandalism every 10 minutes every day all day. Thanks again! --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You can always try WP:RFPP if it flares up again after this round of semiprotection expires. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

WHICH PAGE CAN I CREATE?! I wanted to create an article about my profile on YouTube!KiaraFan13 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ego / RJII sockpuppets

Operation Spooner appears to be the most recent. A ham-handed checkuser request seems to have got him off the hook for now. The endless-edit style is gone, for now, but it was also a matter of very public record that this was a tell-tale. The content of the edits is all too familiar. You've shown some interest in this case in the past. Thanks for that. For myself, I'm seriously considering moving my efforts to other encyclopedia sites. Wikipedia seems destined to be primarily a source of misinformation in my areas of interest and expertise. FWIW. Libertatia 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably block evasion

A user you blocked August 2 and apparently received abusive Email from, Ionas68224 is likely trying to bypass his block using the account Jdmorrison. The user seems to have gotten his new account blocked from 24 hours already for continuing his activities and is an admitted vandal from when he editted from IPs. The user included the iw: link on his Simple: userpage [5] to his new account. It may require a checkuser to verify the accounts are socks, but the edits are notably similar enough to leave little doubt that he is both accounts. Creol 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (simple:admin)[reply]

Yup, it's him. He's already been indefinitely blocked for trolling. MastCell ^Talk 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartanad

Thanks for your intervention. Unfortunately it looks like User:Spartanad just blanked your blocking message. I'm hoping that we can still keep him/her from going completely over to the dark side. Notmyrealname 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that--that's what I understood the rule to be. I thought you could archive these things, but deleting warnings and such was not allowed. Now that a few other editors are involved, I think I'm going to check out of this whole thing for a little while in any case. Notmyrealname 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not coming off as petty, but a newly-minted user by the handle of Tteppupkcos just posted a comment [6] on the Talk:Arnoldo Aleman page that reads like something User:Spartanad would write. My concern is really that Spartanad might be using sockpuppets while on a block. Since you're the one who initiated the block, I'm posting this here. Notmyrealname 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely suspicious and worth keeping an eye on. If the user declares themselves as another single-purpose account pushing the same viewpoint, then I'd probably take action. For now, let's keep an eye on the account and the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assistance

MastCell - thanks for your assistance in the past. I was wondering if you can assist with a current dispute on an article. I am asking several admins to review a list of links for reliably. If you can simply take a moment and comment on those sources which are reliable enough for WP policy. Please see: User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1 Thanks in advance Tiggerjay 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Britney Spears' album sales, but the only sources on the list that look reliable are Time and Forbes. Those should definitely take precedence over the other sites of more dubious provenance if their numbers don't agree. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm no expert either, somehow I got caughtup in the edit war while RC Patrolling. :) So I decided to dive in a see if I could help facilitate a consensus. Tiggerjay 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please

Don' be sorry, that's fine.

I got a bit upset by the WP:SPA reference, and I logged off to think about these problems (that's what I usually do to avoid stupid unnecessary disputes). Thinking about it, you were perfectly right ; no matter how many contribs I have on the French-speaking project, I'm still barely a WP:SPA on this WP... And I had not thought I was being provocative on the talk page, but yeah, again, my exasperated answers to his hijacking comments may look so.

Sorry for making such a mess of a few comments... Sometimes, it's just, too much. NicDumZ ~ 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page... I apologize. I wasn't referring to you as either a single-purpose account or as provoking Greg. I was referring to Jeemde (talk · contribs) in both cases. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell ^Talk 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your precisions then. Not every contributors makes the efforts you do to be this courteous... I do appreciate this gesture. À la prochaine ! NicDumZ ~ 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Hi, I appreciated your comments on the China AfD. Trying to sort out what I've learned. Perhaps you could give me some feedback on the framework, tone and content of my effort at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Exploring the grounds for a consensus. Please reply on there or on my Talk, as you deem appropriate, or let me know if you'd rather not. Thanks! HG | Talk 12:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have A Question

Excuse me, do you know what kind of articles I can type? KiaraFan13 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my earlier response on your talk page, describing the criteria that new articles need to meet. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Znypes

Hi, thanks for the support on this. All Znypes' socks were blocked indefinitely a while back but this one was not for some reason.... figured I'd give him/her the benefit of the doubt at least for a while, but the Love Train has officially stopped. I'll be on the lookout for "new" user names from this person, too. See ya! - eo 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I did confuse your recent indefinite block with a previous "month long". The sock is still blocked now anyway. Regards, --Asterion^talk 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anoshirawan

thanks for blocking user:anoshirawan, but i think it's not enough because he/she will resume vandalising pages as soon as his block expires. this individual is not here to contribute but is here to vandalise all articles that he/she doesn't like. his/her's history has no contribution but just vandalising articles, especially those related to afghanistan. he/she believes that there is no afghanistan and that all the history of afghanistan should be history of iran. it's bizarre thinking but this is how all vandals think. i believe blocking anoshirawan permanently is the only solution, thanks.Mirrori1 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they continue their behavior after the block expires, then they'll be blocked for a signficantly longer period of time. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, he/she has a tag-team partner, user:beh-nam, both have same identical p.o.v's on every subject.Mirrori1 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:anoshirawan is back now, in edit-war with me and other users. i warned him/her about 3RR and not to remove sourced info but the user ignores. please, if you can, fully protect Hotaki dynasty, Durrani Empire, and Ahmad Shah Abdali articles. there is not much to be added to those articles and please revert user:anoshirawan ridiculous edits. thank you,Mirrori1 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:beh-nam was previously adding tags on user:anoshirawan's user page.--->check here!.Mirrori1 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Mirror to provide sources for the following article and he like the others ignored my sources and still removed them. I have nothing against Mirror or any of them but they cannot remove information that has more than one citations. I was blocked yesterday because of the 3RR but my information is not POV and it has been backed by sources always, for instance, In the Ahmad Shah Abdali article I provided numerous sources in english and Persian and they were removed by khampalak and Mirrori1, so I was forced to revert their vandalism. I hope you understand and these fake reports on me having close relations or a partnership with Behnam is not true. Thank you --Anoshirawan 08:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your baseless accusation

I have not made vague accusations of antisemitism against anyone. If you read what I wrote, it's readily clear that others have made this accusation, not me. As for the rest of your bloviation, I'm not interested, thanks. Tomer ^talk 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be interested. Just don't do it again; it violates WP:NPA in a pretty major way. The diff is here, and it's obvious that you are making the accusation. Hiding behind the passive voice ("charges have been leveled") and then denying you've made the accusation doesn't reflect very well on you, either. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hiding. If you're interested enough in the situation, go look. The charges have been made. What is obvious is that you'd prefer to attempt to intimidate me, for whatever reason, a violation of WP:CIV based on your misinterpretation of what I said, violating WP:AGF in the process. Still more bloviating, which doesn't reflect very well on you, either. Tomer ^talk 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quote policy on civility and good faith to me after your previous comments. If you're going to sling serious charges around, it's incumbent on you to actually back them up, or stop making them. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have slung nothing, except the accusation that you are perhaps more interested in commenting on discussions you know little to nothing about, rather than in participating in them. You, on the other hand, have slung serious charges against me, with no other evidence than your complete misinterpretation, willful now, obviously, of what I said. In any case, I'm not interested in further discussion with you. Good bye. Tomer ^talk 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Twilight Zone. You charged other editors and admins, one named and others alluded to, with anti-Semitism [7] and provided no evidence, just bluster. Then you came here to spin your remarks and quote WP:CIV and WP:AGF to me when called on it. I'm fine with dropping this, so long as you don't make such egregious personal attacks without substantiation again. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kiss kiss

why was kiss kiss deleted it is the second single off the album, all other artists have pages for their singles. --FSX-2007 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to have evidence of notability - see WP:MUSIC for guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

Hi, you left a note on my talk page about a speedy deletion. Did I make that article? Was it just a redirect? No biggie either way. I don't remember it and it's not like me to make a spam page. Gil Gamesh 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, looks like I left the note for the wrong person. More on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.115.162.235

Since you previously issued a block for similar behaviour, I thought you mind be interested to know that User:Jebbrady has resumed editing under this IP, as well as another IP at 208.253.158.36, all on the Herbert Armstrong article and related talk page. 24.6.65.83 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblock

Thank you for reviewing and unblocking User:Jeeny. With it being a 10 hour block, I was afraid that the block would expire before anyone reviewed the case, which would leave a stain on Jeeny's block record. Looking forward, I think that the user knows to be more careful, and also knows that if he does lose track that he can recognize and amend the mistake. That's particularly good because the user realized plainly that he had slipped up but didn't know that he could still make up for it by self-revert. That article (and related) can be pretty tense at time, but hopefully we won't have to go through this again. The Behnam 04:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppard

Hi, re your deletion of my entry for F.S. Grimwade, I think you should restore it. He is an historically important figure, and as was indicated in the text, a member of a state legislature (see criteria quoted below). Also he has an extensive entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (cited), indicating his importance and also the source for his dates.

thanks

"Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures."

Coughinink 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Inhofe

I don't know if your statement that the "scientific consensus" on global warming is beyond question is OR or not, but I have added data on a study of the published literature, which does not support your contention on this issue. People can agree or disagree on "scientific consensus" and global warming, but there is a lively debate on this subject, and deleting any reference or note to such debate to suit personal convictions would be wrong, in my opinion. - MSTCrow 23:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific consensus itself is not beyond question - certainly there are still dissenters, and disagreement about specific predictions, etc. But the existence of a scientific consensus is well-supported. Calling it an "alleged scientific consensus" in the lead is POV, prejudicial, and inaccurate. If it's a matter of going around in circles about the definition of scientific consensus, then I'd favor something like "Inhofe is a critic of the widely accepted scientific belief that climate change..." MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of consensus on the topic of climate change may be quite well supported. This does not mean that the other side is not just as well supported. Going by the published literature on climate change, Dr. Benny Peiser of John Moore University found that at most 1/3rd are in agreement with the "scientific consensus," and using an international study, German climate analyst Dennis Bray found that fewer than 1 in 10 climate scientists believe that climate change is primarily man made. I am not challenging the proposition that some believe there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming, but ignoring studies that would indicate the "scientific consensus" is a minority opinion would be wrong. Most people would not be aware of such things, and I think Wikipedia can help by presenting both sides of the issue, and not advocating one over the other, regardless of our personal viewpoints. I hope we can work together to ensure that all sides are aired, and presented in a non-biased fashion. - MSTCrow 00:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you cited the Peiser paper, which if I understand correctly is from the early 1990's. You'll understand if I question its relevance in a discussion about whether a consensus exists today. There are a number of articles and POV forks dedicated to rehashing just these arguments. Surely on Jim Inhofe we can find a mutually acceptable wording which acknowledges the fact that most scientists and scientific organizations accept human activity as a cause of warming, rather than fighting the battle every time the term is mentioned? MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pesier paper was written shortly after, and in response to, the Naomi Oreskes paper of 2004, titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climage Change." I hope this clears up the issue of temporal relevance, as the Oreskes paper is certainly a frequently cited paper in support of the existence of scientific consensus on the subject of human activity and climate change.

What wording would you suggest? - MSTCrow 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]