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)

MEDRS to policy

See my post to Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I commented at WT:MEDRS. I have surprisingly mixed feelings about a promotion to policy, but I think it's fantastic that this issue is gaining some visibility. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the biggest advantage of it being policy is the knock-on effect it would have on sourcing as a whole: " Ideal sources for biomedical [all] material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical [academic] journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" - Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia will ever adopt those sorts of sourcing standards across the board, and it's a minor miracle they've been accepted for medical material. Then again, I suppose we've come a long way since I was told by an Arbitrator (in response to these questions) that it would fall afoul of WP:NPOV to "promote the view" that smoking was dangerous. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But who would "promote the view" that smoking isn't dangerous? . . . dave souza, talk 21:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem, Dave, is that Wikipedia is based, in part, on a postmodernist model where everyone has an agenda, and that it's our job to merely describe these views. That is, of course, challenged by the empiricist view that finds its dominant expression in BLP, where facts actually do matter. But that puts us at odds with Wikipedia's foundationalist philosophy that we should merely be descriptive, not normative, in our articles. Like BLP, MEDRS challenges that philosophy - in fact, it's an even more dangerous challenge, since BLP, in the way it plays out, is still descriptivist, it's still formulaic. There's no need to pick "the truth", just "reliable sources". Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you tell me. It's similar to what I'm encountering on PANDAS articles (a topic much more complex than smoking), where an independent editor weighed in to claim that I was edit warring after one revert (first revert) in the BRD cycle, to remove primary sources and false representation of one (and only one) source on a topic. No respect whatsoever for sourcing, not to mention false claim of edit warring based on one revert. Anyway, someone already launched the ill-formulated RFC at MEDRS, so now we're for sure in for a mess. And Guettarda, your proposal doesn't work for contemporary topics, where there isn't a body of peer-reviewed literature. Hugo Chavez comes to mind. Owners of that article have kept it a hagiography by preventing any use of mainstream reliable sources over leftist publications. The difference, and reason it works and is needed in medicine, is that primary sources (individual studies, yet to be replicated, based on small samples, based on faulty methodology, etc) can still get published in journals. We wait for them to be published in secondary reviews. That's not the case with other content areas, which aren't based on research studies that need replication, analysis, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean it literally - I meant that if MEDRS became policy, it might trickle down into the way people think about sourcing. As Chavez - I looked at the article and it has serious problems that are, I think, entirely orthogonal to the question of pro- or anti-Chavez bias. It's fair to criticise the fact that the second paragraph of this section begins like a government press release. But the solution isn't to to balance it with something from the other side - what's needed is something like a tertiary source, something like a review article, that looks at the pro- and anti- (and 'other') literature and tries to assess what it all means. As an aside, what strikes me about that article is it's First World bias, it's 'outsider' approach. I remember coming home in 2001 and seeing Port of Spain awash with well-dressed young Venezuelans. A Trinidadian who knows their history can learn a lot about what middle class Venezuelans think of their government, simply by looking around. But there's remarkably little context in the article about why people supported, and did not support Chavez, and about what Venezuelans think of Chavez. Even if we applied the rules of sourcing perfectly, we still not get it right.

(As for the rest - I've got a long answer in my head. But it actually works better as a response to the rest of that stuff below). Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Incidentally, looking over the TimidGuy case pages, I'm still bemused by this rather ominous question to Doc James (bottom half of diff; the top half is interesting in its own right, but James handled it admirably). I asked for clarification, but none was forthcoming. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Holy cow. Ummm, were you trying to convince to stay on Wikpedia when I'm already discouraged? :/ :/ You know, I've asked a multitude of questions of the arbs recently that have gone unanswered. [1] One doesn't even know anymore what it takes to be "drawn and quartered", but ... oh, fuck it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  If it's any consolation, in this particular case I think the decision to sanction Will was made early on, based on a global, long-term impression of his editing. There seems to have been a bit of a scramble to fill in the blanks with an actual legalistic rationale for the sanctions. ArbCom settled finally (among other things) on the forum-shopping/private evidence charge. I don't think they're going to come down hard on private evidence submissions across the board; I think this was Will-specific, in that there needed to be a coatrack of a rationale to justify sanctions against him.

  I'm basing this solely on ArbCom Kremlinology and have no actual knowledge of the Committee's deliberations, but it just doesn't make sense otherwise. I mean, ArbCom receives slanted or misleading evidence presentations privately and publicly every day. Certainly I received such "hogwash" routinely when I was active in resolving disputes and adminning at WP:AE. That's part of life - probably every submission to ArbCom is slanted in some way, to make the points its author thinks are most valid. To come down on Will specifically for something that is an essentially universal practice stemming from human nature only makes sense in some sort of broader context.

  The bottom line is that I don't think you need to worry about these principles applying more generally. Unless, of course, you end up on the wrong side of this site's personality politics... :] MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I replied there Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  The notion that one is OK "unless, of course, you end up on the wrong side of this site's personality politics" doesn't warm my heart. I got one response from someone I believe, but it's still incomplete. The take home message is one is better to be very careful in asking questions, even privately, even of trusted arbs, considering some "personality politics". Less and less emphasis on this site is given to content, more and more to personality. Cas, I don't understand your response on that page ... I thought Will did submit it privately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Not all - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence#Outing - my view is that some of these aren't but at least one is. I can't speak for the other arbs on how they viewed each diff provided here and elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, Cas ... are the arbs aware that the wording on that case is a nightmare, rendering confusion? Or am I just exceedingly dumber than the average bear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe because I've read bits of it so many times I can't see it - do you mean the juxtaposition of WBB findings? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think I've got it now (per Roger Davies' last post), but the confusion I think arose because of confidentiality, there was a notion somewhere on some page that WBB had gone wrong by his persistence in e-mailing arbs, which is scary! I was left wondering if I should never e-mail arbs again (some of them seem to be ignoring me on another sticky wicket), along with wondering when I'll be declared in COI status because I know so many people with tics and so many people in Venezuela :) Anyway, Roger Davies' last post clears it up for me. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Our Basic Pact of Honesty

I came across a conversation you had at User:Riskers talk regarding COI and "our basic pact of honesty with the reader". At WP:Paid Operatives I am gathering comments from wherever I find them pertaining to just those subjects and political operatives. May I include your "rant" as you called it. It is precisely the issue that troubles me---our duty to our reader. Thanking you in advance....```Buster Seven Talk 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Messy PANDAS mess

What makes something like this happen? [2] That was previously available on PMC, but is now "embargoed". Messy mess since the NIH runs PubMed, the NIMH put forward PANDAS, and something that was fit for public consumption earlier no longer is ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything sinister going on. Typically, articles presenting NIH-funded research must be distributed freely on PMC, but they're typically embargoed for 1 year from the date of publication before being put on PMC. During that time, the paper is only available in the journal, which protects the journal's business model (they're not happy about having articles freely available at all, but the thought is that most interest will occur during the first year after publication, during which the journal can profit from exclusivity).

It looks like in this case, the article was published in J. Pediatrics in Feb. 2012, and thus will become available for free on PMC in Feb. 2013. I'm not sure why it was previously available, except that sometimes journals/PMC will provide free access to "preprints". Usually once the actual article is published, it's embargoed from PMC for a year. I suspect you've already got access to the article, but if you don't and you'd like a copy for personal use, let me know and I'll email you one. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But ... but ... a conspiracy theory is so much more interesting! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I'm not a Dr and I don't even play one on television, but this isn't on, and my tax dollars are paying for it. Talk:PANDAS#Problem: moving target. Don't like the results, redefine the condition, but so how am I supposed to write a discussion of the problems with the former criteria, using secondary reviews, when they've now changed it! No wonder I'm unable to write this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, your tax dollars pay for a lot worse. Did you know that NCCAM spent $30 million investigating chelation therapy for heart disease, despite the lack of anything resembling biological plausibility ([3])? The trial was ultimately shut down, in part because OHRP identified "multiple instances of substandard practices, insurance fraud, and felony activity on the part of investigators." ([4]) But that money isn't coming back, and meanwhile I see innumerable promising cancer-research avenues wither on the vine for lack of funding.

Again, it's not totally unheard-of to refine diagnostic criteria; there's a well-publicized proposal to narrow the criteria for an autism diagnosis, and a lot of other conditions (e.g. type 2 diabetes mellitus) have had their diagnostic criteria redefined over the years. I think the best approach is to clearly state that the NIH altered the diagnostic criteria in 2010, which has implications for the previously published research. I agree that this raises some concern about goalpost-moving, and it's a little concerning how quickly and blithely they abandoned a role for strep (which was, after all, a dominant part of the initial hypothesis). But that's as may be; we just have to work with what we've got. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

wth, writing that article is hard enough :/ NIMH: read User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37#I need your permission for a good time (you have to skip about halfway down). My talk page used to host regular cage-matches. Oh, wait ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New page patrol

My latest hobby. Will leave

• Vaginal and Oral Interventions to Control the Epidemic and
• Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination

for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:PA and "this seems to coincide with an effort by user|PPdd to turn our article on Paul M. Fleiss in a very promotional, non-encyclopedic direction."

Your ad hominum attack on me, "this seems to coincide with an effort by user|PPdd to turn our article on Paul M. Fleiss in a very promotional, non-encyclopedic direction." is entirely unjustified and violates WP:PA]. Paul Fleiss, in my opinion is a nutcase believer in alternative medicine, even homeopathy. However, his lifelong large body of work should not be overwhelmed by WP:Undue focus of a bizarre unproven accusation by a person who denies the existence of the AIDS virus, or of a frustrated prosecutor's efforts to get at his daughter by attacking her family, a minor incident in his life, and so not encyclopedic to overwhelm the article on him. I had planned on taking his article in the direction of focusing on his own nutball beliefs, not on two minor incidents in his own life that are about his his daughter and the AIDS virus denier, not major things about him. I ask that you please strike your ad hominum (and utterly false) ad hominum attack on me, which violates WP:PA. PPdd (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely close to a personal attack in that statement (which from the the look at the Paul M. Fleiss article, looks to be an accurate assessment of the way the article is turning). Yobol (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"an effort by user|PPdd to turn our article" is a statement about me, not about my edits, and violates WP:PA. I am making no such effort. It is entirely different from stating "This series of edits is unencyclopedic", which is about my edits, not about me. PPdd (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your edits at Paul M. Fleiss take the article in a promotional and unencyclopedic direction. I said as much on the article talk page. I don't see how it's possible to collaboratively build an encyclopedia if we're not allowed to discuss the impact of each others' article edits.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't think the article should disparage Fleiss is a "nutcase believer" in anything. Nor should it promote him in excessively fulsome terms as pediatrician to the stars and the second coming of Aldous Huxley. The article should just convey what independent, reliable sources have said about him. It certainly wasn't perfect before, but it's not going in the right direction now. MastCell ^Talk 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply think a famous scholar, pediatrician, and speaker on social issues, should have an article asbout his scholarly work, pediatrician practice, and speeches. It should not start off with MOS violating specifics in the lead abuot "circumcision" and "breast feeding", like a Hollywood sex scandal rag. These are admittedly two medical topiucs among hundreds of articles and talks he gave, but are grossly WP:UNDUE for the opening in the lead, which should be general and not specific. PPdd (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to start. You keep saying Fleiss is a "famous scholar", but as we've been over repeatedly, the sources I've seen don't support your claim. That doesn't stop you from repeating it several dozen times a day, which makes it hard to have a constructive discussion. It's mostly like this: "Fleiss is a famous scholar!!!!" "Er, he hasn't published much... what sources describe him as a famous scholar?" "Fleiss is a famous scholar!!!!!" and so on.

Secondly, there's nothing inherently salacious about circumcision or breast-feeding. It is literally incomprehensible to me why you equate mention of these topics with a "Hollywood sex scandal rag". Finally, as best I can tell, most of Fleiss' published work (mostly letters to the editor) are about circumcision, so I fail to see merit even in your claim of undue weight. I am completely at a loss in how to deal with your editing. MastCell ^Talk 05:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If I may offer a suggestion, the first need seems to be a review of wp:RS and wp:BLP. Much of what is being used in the article is completely inappropriate sourcing, e.g. publisher bioblurbs. I'd suggest the editor step back temporarily while studying the policies and allow others to bring the into compliance with them. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you are suggesting that I step back. I came to an article with no significant edits for a year, that said bizarre things about a living person without any citations, and I threw up a construction tag. I did a few hours of work adding sources and removing unsourced material and went to sleep. When I woke up the article suddenly had a large number of editors excliaming the merits or the unsourced original article. I never even started putting in the material I had gathered which caused me to originally put up the construction tag. Then my newly created Jesse Fleiss article got an AFD within minutes of having started it, also with a construction tag, with delete arguments essentially claiming that reality televisoin is so bad that its central "artistic" co-creators get a different standard than that in WP:CREATIVE, just because they are hacks whose work does not deserve to be notable when it is. Why should I step back from and article I just put a construcion tag on, or allow unsourced negative information in a BLP as I found it? I will do as you suggest, but please respond to that question. PPdd (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You've made close to 100 edits to Paul M. Fleiss and the associated talk page in just the past day or so. That's why people are asking you to slow down and step back. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was one of the purposes of a construction tag I put up, to have other editors step back from interference for a brief time while an editor does some major reworking, so as not to disrupt work. I never even put in the material I intended to include because once again, coming back to WP, I am spending most of my time on talk pages instead of articles, fighting deletions of information. I imaging a demographic analysis of WP editors would show new editors becoming less and less frequent because of this, as it makes me just walk away again each time I come back. PPdd (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Burzynski

Hi. I have been watching the Burzynski shills on Twitter and elsewhere, good work keeping the article stable. Let me know if you need backup. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disease classification

Huh? "To be classified as a disease, a disorder must show that a particular part of the body is affected or that the symptoms occur if and only if the trigger or cause occurs." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, if the disorder doesn't file the appropriate paperwork in a timely fashion it will not be classified as a disease. We don't want any slacker disorders making it in under the radar into the elite club of diseases! Guettarda (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got it mixed up. In order for a malady to progress from an affliction to a disease, you have to first show that it's not an infirmity, which requires that a specific body part be affected unless the symptoms occur only on Wednesdays or after a heavy dinner. Otherwise it's just a debility. HTH. :P MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

HybriCell

Cancer vaccine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, cancer vaccines are the Next Big Thing. And have been for the past 20 years. The idea is so simple and appealing - you just stimulate a patient's immune response against antigens associated with their tumor, and sit back and watch - that 20 years of disappointments haven't dimmed the medical community's enthusiasm for this approach. To be fair, there is one FDA-approved cancer vaccine - Provenge - but that vaccine's approval was a soap opera about which books are likely being written as we speak, and I don't think the scientific verdict is in yet (e.g. [5]).

Then there's TroVax, which worked great in animal models and produced the ubiquitous "promising" and "encouraging" results in Phase I and Phase II trials. But then someone went and actually conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (PMID 20881001), which didn't show any benefit.

Haven't heard of HybriCell. It looks like the approach was tried in the early 2000's (PMID 15185011), but the literature on cancer immunotherapy should incline one to extreme skepticism of any approach that hasn't been tested in Phase III randomized controlled trials. Our article on TroVax needs some serious work - it reads like an out-of-date drug-company recruiting website, and HybriCell should probably get a bit of work done as well. MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there other therapeutic vaccines in use today?I'm curious because I'm not sure I really understand how they would work. Prophylactic vaccines against something like the flu or typhoid make sense to me—you allow the body to create the memory T cells (?) that would allow them to create a faster antibody response the next time they see a virulent strain of the virus or bacteria in question. But there is no next time for therapeutic vaccines; the disease is already there and the lymphocytes should already be at work... NW (Talk) 01:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Vaccine could use some work, particularly Vaccine#Experimental and Vaccine#Trends. In the trends section, it does mention CYT006-AngQb, a therapeutic vaccine for hypertension. Post-exposure treatment with a rabies vaccine schedule is also pretty common, but I'm not sure if that would properly be classified as therapeutic. Nathan ^T 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Vaccine" may not be the best word; these are actually forms of adoptive immunotherapy. Immune responses are clearly capable of eliminating malignancy in some cases. For example, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation works, in large part, because donor T cells attack and destroy residual cancer. If you give patients with metastatic melanoma or renal cell cancer high-dose interleukin-2 (a potent immunostimulant), then you'll reliably observe dramatic responses, even cures, in about 10-15% of them (unfortunately, no one knows how to predict which 10-15%). Even more interestingly, if you administer an agent like ipilimumab which modulates T-cell costimulation, you can "break" self-tolerance and get someone's T cells to attack their melanoma.

Most cancer vaccines are a variation on a simple idea. You take a person's T cells, grow up a clone that recognizes cancer-associated antigens, and then you re-infuse them. Often this is done by co-culturing antigen-presenting cells (for example, dendritic cells) loaded with the antigen of interest. The APCs present antigen to T cells, you sprinkle in a few cytokines, and you end up with a bunch of activated T cells specific for the cancer-associated antigen. Alternately, you can transfect the T cells with the gene for a T-cell receptor that recognizes the antigen of interest, and wait for the cells to express it. Hypothetically, once they're reinfused, these cells should home to cancer cells and lyse them safely and effectively, the way a vaccinated and primed immune system eliminates pathogens.

Of course, it's not that simple. For one thing, there aren't that many cancer-specific antigens (which makes sense, since cancer is mostly just your own cells, and your immune system is optimized to tolerate your own cells). For another, the antitumor T cell clones tend to peter out and dissipate in weeks to months, presumably because of downregulatory signals intended to prevent runaway immune reactions. Finally, malignant cells are tricky and they evolve (or are intelligently-redesigned, in the interest of "NPOV"). They downregulate or hide the antigen of interest, and since the T-cell response is monoclonal instead of polyclonal, that's often enough to evade it. Or the cancer cells start expressing costimulatory molecules that promote anergy instead of cell-mediated lysis. Or any of a dozen mechanisms that no one understands yet.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, and it's a bit outside my field. An actual cancer immunologist would probably laugh at that explanation, but it's interesting stuff. MastCell ^Talk 01:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should tell the world about this amazing product: Template:Did you know nominations/HybriCell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Breast cancer question

Hola,

Does this section look right to you? I simply don't have the background, but I do know Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs) has added his own research to various page. This particular section was a duplicate of one I've already trimmed but rather than get further in over my head I thought I might ask an expert. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's OK to mention it. There seems to be some limited support in an animal model, and no doubt some of these folks are trying to drum up funding to look at the question in humans. (In fact, the text in question reads like it was taken from the Specific Aims of someone's grant application). I think it's fine to mention it, as long as the text makes clear that this observation is limited to animal models and that its significance for humans, if any, is unclear at present. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alkaline Diet

I want to say I really appreciate what you did to the Alkaline Diet article. That article was a mess that gave bad impressions! It required a few touch ups since but the format and negativity in the article is much improved over the every statement followed by the "but he is an idiot" phraseology due to some ownership exerted there. Many attempts have been made by many editors over the years but ownership by a few has prevailed to deter any new editors from contributing. A simple google search will display many public outcries against wikipedia for this attitude on fringe health articles. Much better now, despite a few raids still from some, and counter measures by the "owners" . It could be lengthened with some supplement testing studies (all reverted) and specific diet food lists although I believe most of the specific foods are quite controversial between proponents, yet. Thanks again.99.251.114.120 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserting disputed material.

You can see that material on the talk page. It changed according to a critique of the person who took it out. Twice. One reversion occurred, and I would never be so offensive. Please remove your semi-protection of prion. It was not necessary. I was leading a consensus. I capitulated. You interfered. 137.186.47.81 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to continue discussion of the disputed content on the talk page (Talk:Prion). If you are, in fact, at the forefront of a developing consensus on the talk page, then I'm sure other editors will be happy to include the material in question. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, the edit warring by 137.186 is just the tip of an iceberg of user conduct issues. He has entered an area where the terminology can be confusing to the newcomer, but he is unwilling to do the necessary reading (or listen to more knowledgeable editors) in order to avoid making serious errors of fact and grievously misinterpreting the literature. It's taken a few days for him to grasp (after much abuse of other editors) that PrP, the major prion protein, is not the same thing as APP, the amyloid precursor protein; unfortunately there are still a number of additional misconceptions that he needs to work through. I suspect that what happened is that he learned (correctly) that PrP aggregates in the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are amyloid in nature, and on that basis he concluded (very incorrectly) that all amyloid is the same stuff, and further that all amyloid is composed of prions.

Unfortunately, it takes extraordinary and heroic efforts to persuade him that he has ever made even the smallest error; any challenges to his edits are met with petulance and taunting. He keeps showing up to taunt and insult and threaten on my talk page, creating four new sections on my user talk page in the last ten hours. He uses deliberate misspellings in his talk page posts, claiming to be a linguist (embracing such variant spellings as wuz for was). Worst of all, he has just speciously accused another editor (a recognized researcher in the field) of "sabotaging a competing theory" and having a conflict of interest. Unless there is a dramatic and immediate change in his approach to editing and interaction with other editors, more direct administrator intervention than page protection may be required. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

...and he's back; this time attacking Joannamasel (talk · contribs), accusing her of "sabotage" on her talk page. (For reference, Joanna Masel is a PI at U. Arizona, working in computational biology. Her PhD work concentrated on prion biology, so she can be expected to be professionally clueful in this area.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to assign some non-zero value to the time and effort of knowledgeable, serious, patient volunteers (although I realize that doing so puts me distinctly out of step with Wikipedia's prevailing ethos). On that basis, I have blocked the IP for 24 hours, I've described the basis for the block on the IP talk page, and I will follow up with additional sanctions if the problems persist or recur. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It drives me up the wall to see competent, qualified editors accused of serious misconduct, and attacked for trying to be helpful. (From a bureaucratic-hoops standpoint, your block of the IP editor is also supported by the provisions of WP:BLP, as the IP was making unsupported accusations of ethical misconduct against an editor who writes under her real name.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

That's an interesting quote you have there. My recollection is that someone pointed out another, during/after ARBCC, where Cla boasts of stirring up edit wars. I don't suppose your superior WR search abilities can find that? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Over the counter birth control pill

I know this isn't your area, but I thought you might be interested in this paper by Trussell et al and its accompanying editorial by Professor David A. Grimes (who I think has come up several times at abortion). A friend of mine sent me the article, and after rereading today's featured article, it made me wonder why the Pill isn't available over the counter or even in the same fashion that emergency contraception is currently available. Might you or one of your talk page watchers have an idea? NW (Talk) 23:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two barriers to over-the-counter status for oral contraceptives, one political and one more substantive. The political barrier is, sadly, obvious, especially at a time when the de facto mouthpiece of one of our major political parties attacks women interested in insurance coverage for contraception as "sluts" and "prostitutes" and insists that they should be compelled to submit footage of their sexual encounters as the price of access to contraception. And, of course, other leading Republican voices mildly object to his word choice, but not the underlying thought process.

I think drug-makers—who are exquisitely sensitive to political undercurrents—realize it would be suicidal to file an application for OTC status in the current political climate, particularly since the Obama Administration has demonstrated an inconsistent level of support for scientific decision-making on these issues (cf. the decision to overrule FDA on emergency-contraception availability). The OTC approval process for Plan B, both during the Bush years and currently, make it abundantly clear that politics is the dominant factor in these decisions, and the scientific recommendations of the Advisory Board carry essentially zero weight in the face of political calculus. It's not out of the question that someday the political will might exist to actually follow through on a rational approach to the subject, but it's not going to happen in an election year.

There are also more reasonable barriers to OTC access. To my knowledge, FDA has never approved an OTC that's meant to be taken continuously on an every-day basis. OTC approvals, to date, have been for symptom-focused, short-term treatments (of course, many people take ibuprofen chronically for pain, or aspirin daily for its cardiovascular benefits, but the actual approvals for these drugs were based on time-limited use for musculoskeletal pain). This isn't an insurmountable obstacle for a drug-maker—they could make the case that OCPs should be the first continuous-use OTC—but it's a consideration.

There isn't any logical safety argument against OTC status for oral contraceptives. The safety profile is no worse than that of other OTCs, and in fact they're basically overdose-proof (in contrast to Tylenol, for instance, which is highly lethal in overdose, a major cause of liver transplantation, and a highly prevalent means of suicide). There are clear warnings and contraindications, but evidence suggests that women can self-screen as effectively as physicians can screen them.

So in the end, I think it comes down to political climate, the willingness of a drug-maker to submit an OTC application (which is highly dependent on the political climate), and FDA's interest in breaking ground with an every-day OTC. I thought at one point that statins might break that last barrier, but it hasn't happened yet, for a variety of reasons. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Still around my friend and thank you for your note. I am quite well. Just busy, as I suspect you are as well. Hope that you are are keeping well MastCell and hope that there is little cromolyn affecting you (aren't I punny) -- Samir 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Contraceptives and cancer

Hi MastCell - I wonder if you could check out the recent edits at Risk factors for breast cancer. The changes are cited (most recently) to reliable sources, but I question whether the user is accurately representing the source and I don't have the skill/experience at reading science/medicine stuff to properly figure it out. Could you please take a look? Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic of oral contraceptives and breast cancer is a complex one. It's worth situating the question by looking at the effect of oral contraceptives on all cancers. OCP use is associated with increased risks of cervical and liver cancer, but decreased risks of endometrial, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. Overall, OCP use isn't associated with an increased risk of cancer, and may in fact modestly decrease the overall risk of cancer (see PMID 17855280).

With respect to breast cancer, most major expert bodies either take a neutral position or state that OCP use may slightly increase the risk of breast cancer in the short term, with the risk returning to normal 5-10 years after stopping OCP use (e.g. American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute). That view is based largely on a 1996 British study (PMID 8656904). It's worth noting, in passing, the increased risk of breast cancer reported in that study: between 0.5 and 4.7 additional cases of breast cancer for every 10,000 women using oral contraceptives; also, the breast cancers diagnosed in OCP users were earlier-stage, less clinically aggressive, and more treatable.

More recent evidence comes down heavily on the side of no association between OCP use and breast cancer. The 1997 Nurses' Health Study showed no excess risk in OCP users over 40 (there was insufficient data to talk about younger women; PMID 9051324). In 2002, the CDC published an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine finding no excess risk of breast cancer with OCP use (PMID 12087137). Finally, in 2007, the Royal College of GPs published a large cohort study, with over 1 million person-years, demonstrating no increased risk of breast cancer with OCP use (PMID 17855280).

Personally, I don't think most of the major organizations' position statements have been updated to take these studies into account (for example, the NCI page doesn't even cite the 2007 study, which I personally found the most persuasive). Of course, it's just, like, my opinion, and in the end we're obligated to reflect the positions of expert bodies, which presumably will be updated to reflect more recent evidence at some point.

Regarding the edits in question, your instincts were correct and they warrant some scrutiny. I'm always a bit suspicious when people play up the IARC Group 1 carcinogen thing. Yes, "asbestos and formaldehyde" are also Group 1 carcinogens, but so are sawdust and salty fish. It seems a bit like scare-mongering, especially since the IARC determination means only that a substance is biologically capable of causing cancer, not that it increases the overall cancer risk in clinical use (see the above studies, which suggest that the overall effect of OCPs on cancer risk is neutral to favorable).

Moreover, this edit inserts some rather dubious criticisms of the 1996 British study (which is a bit dated to begin with). Worst of all, it cites Kahlenborn et al. (PMID 17036554) as the final word on the subject. It's perhaps worth noting that the lead author of that paper, Chris Kahlenborn, is an anti-abortion activist who runs something called the Polycarp Institute ([6]). In 2001, he published a book entitled "Breast cancer: its link to abortion and the birth control pill", which rehashed pretty much every dismissed and discredited argument to make the case that abortions cause breast cancer. The senior author, Walter Severs, is also an opponent of abortion and a close collaborator with the dean of all anti-abortion researchers, Joel Brind ([7]). None of that means that their work should be dismissed out of hand, but it does make one wonder, at the very least, why their findings - which are discordant with the vast majority of medical literature and expert opinion - should be featured as the final word in our article. It seems a bit, shall we say, artificially selective.

I will try to take a closer look at the article in the next few days; it's an important one, and could certainly use work. MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice earlier that you'd responded. Thanks very much for the very informative answer - I'll try to edit the article to reflect the material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese and Mastcell, let's please take this discussion to the talk on Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in a new section I started ["Risk_factors_for_breast_cancer: Contraception"] Thanks, I hope to see you both there Frankgyn 03:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankgyn (talk • contribs)

Thanks MastCell for keeping an eye on Frankgyn's disruption as it spreads from medical articles to law articles... *sigh* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

You seem to do a lot of arguing against blocking. Do you even see the irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.250.226 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's funny you say that. I usually perceive myself as being fairly hard-line, at least compared to "the community", which is generally willing to extend an almost infinite degree of forbearance (as long as the problem user in question doesn't directly impact their own editing). I don't think a block is the best answer to every problem, but they have their uses. Where do you see me doing "a lot of arguing against blocking"? MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This particular IP appears to be stalking my recent edits, with some bizarre comments. Any suggestions on how to handle it? Yobol (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another admin blocked the IP... sorry for the delay in getting back to you. If it continues to be a problem, let me know and I'll take a look. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Another IP popped up later, but it has been blocked as well. Yobol (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I request semi-protection for my user talk, please? Yobol (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Neuvax

I guess it's all the rage: User:Louphatton/Sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Hey there MC. Could you give some advice/help re that editor that I "warred" with? Apparently he uses the insecticide imidacloprid in his work - killing the emerald ash beetle which is killing trees. Although his repeated edits amount to vandalism, that is not his intent, rather it is that he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is. He keeps trying to turn the articles into label instructions and its almost impossible to keep up with his edits. Please see the beetle page and the imidacloprid talk page. What can one do? Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've sometimes done in these sorts of cases is to impose a 1RR restriction on the editor in question (in this case, Tcprosser). That way, they can still edit and improve the article, but it helps them recognize that they're simply not going to be able to "force" their preferred content. It also takes some of the onus off the other editors so they're not forced to spend all their time reverting disputed edits. Finally, with 1RR, the editor is pretty much forced to use the talkpage to gain consensus.

I'd consider 1RR for Tcprosser on imidacloprid in this case, although if there's another admin already looking at the situation my preference would be to defer to him/her since I try to limit the amount of admin-type stuff I do these days. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, I've been trying to follow the troubles at imidacloprid, but have not decided what (if anything) would be an appropriate admin action. Would be interested to hear your recommendation. The article at clothianidin may have similar difficulties. In the past I have been alarmed by some edits by Tcprosser. Both Tcprosser (talk · contribs) and Gandydancer (talk · contribs) were blocked in February for edit warring at imidacloprid. Gandydancer's recent edits look fine to me. I also exchanged some mail with User:USEPA James who felt we were overstating some of the bad effects of these insecticides, and had been accused of a COI for his edits in this area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you will both take a look at the emerald ash beetle article as well. It needs repair but I am waiting for advise so as to not waste time there. About the COI accusations at the clothianidin article, I believe that they were made by one of the several socks that have been editing that article. Gandydancer (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I share your concern about some of the edits by Tcprosser, and more generally about the fact that his/her participation on Wikipedia seems motivated solely by a desire to portray imidacloprid more favorably. I would actually go ahead with a 1RR for Tcprosser (on insecticide-related articles) for now, and see how that works out. I try to be optimistic about these things, but realistically, my experience is when someone comes to Wikipedia specifically to argue one side of a single contentious issue it's really hard to turn them into a productive, encyclopedic contributor (the cynical version is #17 here).

We often bend over backwards to try to get something useful out of these sorts of editors, but it never works. I think we're best off a) clearly informing them of this site's goals and expectations, and b) firmly but politely restricting their editing if there isn't a clear turnaround. I think the 1RR is a good step, because it will quickly clarify whether this editor is capable of working within our system of dispute resolution and building consensus etc. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A 1RR sounds good to me but how do you do it? It would appear to need a consensus for a community 1RR at a noticeboard or a relevant Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

MC, I am trying to fix the beetle article but it is turning into a nightmare. Could you go ahead and just revert everything to where it was before he started editing it? Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm not willing to administratively endorse any specific version of the article, mostly because I haven't put in the necessary background to understand which, if any, of his changes have merit.

Ed, I guess I'm old-school, but I've usually just told people that they're under 1RR (for whatever period of time). I am not of the opinion that you need pre-existing consensus to impose such a restriction administratively, just as I think individual admins can issue topic bans without prior consensus. I would offer him the opportunity to appeal the 1RR in a suitable venue (e.g. WP:AN), but I've always operated under the belief that 1RR and topic bans are tools available to individual admins to resolve situations short of issuing an actual block.

Since I think 1RR is warranted here, I would be willing to take responsibility for imposing it. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You should boldly go forward with the 1RR. After writing an appropriate admin rationale, of course. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to close the loop here, Tcprosser (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since 22 March. If he starts editing again and the same issues are manifest, then I'll probably go ahead with the 1RR. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I don't know English. そのため日本語で書かせていただきます。 今日本語版wikipediaではコピペ荒らしが発生しております。英語版wikipediaのP-28 turntableでも同様の記述がありました。そのため削除依頼に出してもらえませんか？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ひとつの西船橋 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the editor objects to this edit. The editor has already reverted it, but requests that it be deleted (revdel, maybe?) as copy-and-paste vandalism (perhaps a copyright violation?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... that's a bit odd. Unfortunately I don't speak any Japanese, but according to Google Translate, the IP in question inserted (Pokemon?) plot lines into two articles. Both of their edits have been reverted already. I'll go ahead and rev-delete them in an excess of caution (they seem to qualify under "purely disruptive material" in any case) and I've blocked the IP for 31 hours. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your deal.　--ひとつの西船橋 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

www.naturalnews.com

Hi,

Can you point out to me where and on what basis naturalnews.com is determined unencyclopedic? They appear to be non-profit and have a statement of journalistic independence on their site. Articles are attributed to authors, and have a list of sources at the bottom of many of them. Dialectric (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm basing it on this site's guidelines for appropriate sourcing, and in some cases the slightly stricter sourcing guidelines for medically related material. Sources are reliable if they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As far as I am aware, naturalnews.com lacks such a reputation. The fact that a website "appears to be a non-profit", claims independence, or contains bylines and footnotes do not actually bear on whether it's reliable. On what basis do you think naturalnews.com has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Live blood analysis

Hi MastCell, I saw your edit removing dark field microscopy from the article but the lead sentence of the article still defines it as dark field microscopy. What should this be changed to, other than fraud or crankism? I know little if anything about diagnostic tools,,,.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Infact in the 'overview' section it is also still referenced as 'dark field microscopy' and cited (appropriately or inappropriately??) to reference number 7 in the live blood analysis article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky. Dark-field microscopy is a legitimate diagnostic technique for diagnosing spirochetal infections, particularly syphilis (although it's mostly of historical interest at this point; modern diagnosis of syphilis is typically based on serology). Live blood analysis may use similar microscopic techniques, but with the (incorrect) claim that it can detect cancer, HIV/AIDS, etc. The reference in question (PMID 15985779) was basically a disproof of the claim that dark-field microscopy can detect cancer (a central claim of "live blood analysis").

I guess it's most accurate to say that while live blood analysis uses the technique of dark-field microscopy, it applies this technique in ways that have no scientific basis or validity. My concern is that we shouldn't let the legitimate use of dark-field microscopy in other branches of medicine lend an inaccurate air of legitimacy to live blood analysis. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you MastCell, that makes sense. I think the article does a good job of saying about how the test is misused. I wasn't sure if the test was actually dark field microscopy or not.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving a file

Hi. I made an error in identifying the subject of an image file. Please could you move File:Sermon-on-the-mount-german-stained-glass-panel-1350.jpg to File:Transfiguration-german-stained-glass-panel-1350.jpg. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done... do you want the redirect left behind at File:Sermon-on-the-mount-german-stained-glass-panel-1350.jpg? Or should I delete the redirect? MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Please just delete the redirect. Mathsci (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pig stuff

Just wondering, that proverb about wrestling with a pig on your userpage, is that original to you? It's a good one, and I recently used it with real live people to talk about a situation completely unrelated to Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not original to me; it's a saying ancient as the hills, at least where I grew up. Like any piece of resonant folk wisdom, I assume it's been attributed to Abraham Lincoln, Yogi Berra, and/or Mark Twain, but I think it's just an old Southern proverb. Or maybe it's Biblical, as in Deuteronomy 14:8: "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor contend with them in the mire." :P MastCell ^Talk 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, regardless, it proved useful to me in a real-life discussion, and everyone around me found it very good advice. No one else had heard it, so I guess it hasn't reached all the relevant hills that it's as old as. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The hills in your area must be newer. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My favorite pig quote, usually attributed to Mark Twain: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig." Best wishes, hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: I was trying to find out where, if anywhere, Twain mentioned the singing pig. I didn't find a real ref to Twain; there is a reference to Robert Heinlein, but I doubt he made it up.

There are some more, from the same page in Wikiquotes. "The chicken is involved but the pig is committed" is especially snappy. "Never trust a pig selling pork sandwiches," from Tom Robbins, is pithy, too. But don't let me tempt you into cynicism. ;-), Postpostmod (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My favorite. "Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered." ```Buster Seven Talk 16:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It apparently emerged during WWII.^{GBooks --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)}

Re BLPN

Regarding [8] - BLP does not apply to disenfranchised individuals - otherwise, they'd be franchised. Unless you are a conservative political figure or a celebrity of minor note BLP does not apply. Surely, you know this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on - I'm making an effort to shed my cynicism, although it's not easy. (Incidentally, when I drafted my cynic's guide to Wikipedia, I originally wrote that "BLP enforcement" was the last refuge of a scoundrel, but thought better of it and changed it to "Jimbo's talk page"). Anyhow, some of the attitudes I've heard expressed on Wikipedia regarding this shooting are sufficiently disturbing to me that I think it's best I just de-watchlist and ignore all related discussions, for my own good. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, you know what? You're right. BLP is a bad joke. Apparently, describing Fred Singer—a retired physicist—as a "retired physicist" is an egregious, malicious, abhorrent BLP violation, no matter how many reliable sources describe him in just those terms. The BLP big guns mobilized on that one. Not on our website will you dare to suggest that Singer is a "retired physicist" just because he's, well, a retired physicist! Because calling him "retired" is an unacceptable and unethical affront to his personal dignity. Got it.

  Now suppose an unarmed teenager is accosted, pursued, and shot to death on his way home from the store with snacks. Clearly, his entire school disciplinary history belongs in our article on his shooting. Because it's been reported in the media, so we have to put it in our article, WP:BLP and dignity be damned. I mean, as long as we don't call him "retired", because that would be unacceptable and unethical. MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

MastCell. Can I borrow your brain for a few weeks? I need to do some serious thinking and mine just doesnt have the insight that yours seems to find, easily. It is always a pleasure when you join a discussion. As to above...we could call him 'Dead'. I dont think the BLP big guns will have a problem with that. On second thought, I'm not so sure! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a number on the brain borrowing thing:) And yup....BLP is a favorite amongst the pushers. Unfortunate. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddness

You've apparently had dealings with Karmaisking in the past.... What do you make of this and that? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it would be inappropriate to speculate, in this venue, on the underlying psychology at work here, but yes, that's him. If more sockpuppets continue to appear, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Peters

It seems that you are familiar a little with recent "work" by banned User:Jacob_Peters. He apparently uses floating IP numbers [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], along with named accounts, e.g. User:SadSwanSong. What should be done about this? A new SPI report? Semi-protection for a number of articles? What would you suggest? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Usually, revert, block, ignore is the way to go, combined with semiprotection of his usual targets. In the past, I believe that IP rangeblocks have been used against his ISP, but that should probably go through a checkuser to ensure that there wouldn't be collateral damage. Let me know if any of his socks/IPs are currently active and I'd be happy to help. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to semi-protect for a year Decossackization, Red Terror and Cheka. As you can see, he is using a number of different "through away" IP accounts. Some of the most recent IP (132.239.90...) belong to University of California, San Diego. I am sure this goes against University policies on ethical use of computational resources. Unfortunately, I am not very active in the Soviet Union-related subject area at the moment and do not watch these pages. But if I notice something, I will let you know. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he hasn't been active on those articles for at least the past several weeks to months, so I'm going to hold off for now. The next time you (or I) notice that he's been active, let me know and I'll semi-protect the relevant pages. I've toyed with the idea of creating an edit filter to catch the use of Ratkovsky as a source (a hallmark of JP's editing), but he's active at such a low level that I'm not sure it's worth the effort or performance hit. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment in wrong section?

I think you put this[16] in the wrong section (which is about 9/11, not abortion). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; you're right, I messed up. I've moved it. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco plague of 1900–1904

You might have seen my new article San Francisco plague of 1900–1904 as I have studded its wikilink into 15 other articles to save it from being an orphan. Can you watchlist it? It's nowhere near done but before continuing with it I have to catch up on some other projects.

I'm no medico so I would appreciate any corrections if I misused a term or misunderstood a source. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article... I've watchlisted it, and will contribute as time permits. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 03:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My neutrality on Trayvon

Please take a look at some of my edits and stances. I am neutral and not pro-Zimmerman.

Martin

• Against unarmed in the place where I just recently removed it. From March 30th. [17]
• Countering 'drug possesion' for inclusion. [18]
• Nickname Slimm removal. [19]
• Against adding Previous suspensions. [20]
• Against Gangsta photos [21]
• Against adding Email hacking incident to article [22]
• Against race prominence in lead [23]

Zimmerman

• Removal of Mugshot per WP:MUG [24]
• Removal of Political affiliation [25]
• Racial slur used? (Oh ya this is before CNN in which I cite 'goon') [26]
• Weight issue [27]
• ABC's no visible wounds vs visible [28]
• 46 phone call issue [29]
• Against race prominence in lead [30]

Other

• NBA Game statement. [31]
• Double info box removal. [32]
• Removal of pseudo-bios and irrelevant negative bios [33] [34]
• 7-11 distance [35]
• Spike Lee Tweeted address [36]

Times accused of POV: MANY

Notice how I take both Martin and Zimmerman issues even if they are unpopular? Why would I argue to keep off negative attacks Martin if I was pro Zimmerman? Why would I argue to keep off negative Zimmerman attacks if I was pro Martin? What about the other issues unrelated to them? I've acted with the flow of info, and been attacked for my stances on both sides. Yet as a whole, my stance and edits are neutral and careful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the article talk page that you handle pro-Zimmerman material rather differently than you handle pro-Martin material (you're not alone in this; it's an increasingly dominant trend on that talk page). For instance, you default toward suspicion and disbelief when reliably sourced eyewitness accounts reflect negatively on Zimmerman, and demand an extremely high bar of proof (e.g. [37]). Simultaneously, you credulously and uncritically repeat a bunch of claims that Martin had a violent past ([38]). I asked you for sources for these claims and you haven't yet responded, although I assume my request just got buried in the high volume of talkpage posts and you haven't seen it.

In any case, my main problem is that Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin bears no resemblance to what a Wikipedia article talk page should look like. It's essentially being treated like a partisan blog, where people breathlessly post the latest breaking news together with their personal analysis. It's a fact that the partisan conservative media has increasingly attempted to cast Martin as a menace (New York Times), and that a concerted PR effort is underway on behalf of Zimmerman (McClatchy). (Of course, you won't find those reliable sources in our article on the shooting, because the "media bias" section is reserved for the standard partisan complaints about the "liberal media").

In any case, the talk page increasingly reflects a bloggy exposition of those pro-Zimmerman talking points, rather than serious discussion of how to encyclopedically cover the subject. You're not the lone offender, but you're among the more prolific, and I'd really like to see the talkpage guided more by our talkpage guidelines and less by editors who treat it like a blog or sounding board. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not read this comment until I viewed your response to me on the talk page in which you negatively misattribute a diff to my stance. First of all, I've posted a lengthy segment about my defense in the article talk page. I hate to do such a post there, but I am the target in discussions I am not even replying to. The talk page may be a bit bloated, but it is not 'bloggy' and specific details should be debated before inclusion. I believe more this way because of 1RR (as some have stated) and the fact even a minor set of changes could end up crossing 1RR and yield a block even without actually edit warring. I have a list of changes I want to make, but cannot because I'd spark an edit war if its not discussed first... which is why I bring it to the talk page in a relevant section. Without talking few key changes will ever be done. Oh.. and these include Martin as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• The talk page is not a bit bloated, it's hugely bloated--and it does read like a blog. "OMG another trivial thing was disclosed--let's discuss it!" I'm all in favor of having a 1Y restriction: that events may only be written about 1 year after they occur. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your user page

I just read it and enjoyed it very much. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's sort of a labor of love, so I'm glad you enjoyed it. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Drmies likes this.

A cheeseburger for you!

You may need some sustenance since you've been on the Trayvon Martin case for quite a while now. Hang in there--your work is appreciated. Which reminds me: I had an edit request, that we include the number of nose hairs counted in recent photographs of each of the two participants; can you just stick that in? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheeseburger. I'm planning to eat it while I de-watchlist all articles related to the Martin/Zimmerman case, for my own sanity. I can tell I'm getting frustrated, which is when I'm at my least effective, so it's probably time to cut my losses and move on. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OH NO PLEASE DON'T! Tvoz/talk 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't blame you, MastCell. For the sake of the world, I hope you'll manage to postpone that moment... Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It all comes back to the pig stuff (#1 in my cynic's guide to Wikipedia). The only way I've been able to survive 6 years here and stay "civil" (according to this site's juvenile and superficial definition of "civility") is to know when to walk away. Depending on your worldview, that's either a cop-out or a survival strategy. Or both.

Wikipedia doesn't give us any means to actually "enforce" this site's content policies in the face of large numbers of misguided editors. That's the hand we've been dealt as editors here, and our only decision is how to play it. I can go all in and lose all my chips, or I can fold and move on. Actually, I put the quote from Khodorkovsky on my userpage in order to inspire myself to be a little more courageous about taking on these sorts of situations, but you can't change your worldview overnight. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw the pig, yes. I'm wearing a nice green shirt today, and that's why I'm staying away from that article: it moves me too much. Your point about enforcing content policies is well taken, and I have no answer. Common sense is usually helpful, but in cases like this (and fan articles--K-pop, anime, rassling, etc.) all common sense goes overboard: passion and common sense don't go well together. A year from now, if we're still here, we'll come back and prune this down. Hey, right now, it's either grading bad essays or Wikipedia, so at the moment I'll choose Wikipedia, until it's cocktail time. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also avoiding a work deadline - in my case, I have to finish generating a WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source drafting a review article. Anyhow, there are two things about the situation that deeply disturb me.

The first is how cynical and opportunistic "BLP enforcement" is. It's a "BLP violation" to use an insufficiently flattering photo of Rush Limbaugh in his article. It's also a "BLP violation" to describe a retired physicist as a "retired physicist". But when it comes to an unarmed teenager shot to death on his way home from the store, it's apparently just fine to include every school suspension and self-aggrandizing tweet in that person's history. I don't think one needs to be particularly sophisticated to postulate ideas about why these cases are handled so differently.

The second thing is this. I'm white. I went to an expensive private school. The kids there smoked pot, shoplifted, and engaged in macho posturing all the time. Hell, I may have engaged in one or more of those behaviors at some point, without being specific. These are the behaviors cited disapprovingly to indicate that Martin was "no angel", and to insinuate (but never actually say) that he was to blame for triggering Zimmerman's suspicions and, ultimately, for his own death.

So let's suppose that I—a white, upper-middle-class kid with a history of minor disciplinary trouble at school—was walking home from the store with Skittles, and I was accosted and pursued by a large, armed African-American man who was muttering under his breath about how "these assholes always get away". And let's say that I ended up shot to death by that African-American man.

Does anyone in their right mind think the police would release the shooter without any serious investigative effort, or that his claim of self-defense would be taken unreservedly at face value, even in a state with laws as benighted as medieval as Florida's? Would anyone bring up the fact that I'd once smoked pot as an excuse for the shooter to have pursued me? Would the conservative media jump to the shooter's defense and try to denigrate me posthumously as a thuggish menace (on the basis of my having smoked pot, or shoplifted, or bragged on social media)?

I think the answers are obvious. And people who don't understand that, don't understand anything. They're not racist; they're just clueless, or in denial. Trying to talk through the ways in which our coverage is biased, and the ways in which we uncritically regurgitate and amplify the conservative media's efforts to spin this incident, is just going to frustrate me. So I'm not going to do it. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Fascinating discussion, by the way, on "retired". I couldn't agree more with the second thing, including the clueless part. I don't know about spin, maybe I don't care enough about analyzing the media (though I also think they are far from liberal), but I do know there are much more insidious ways of depicting character negatively than just making a colored person look more black on the cover of a magazine, and on that talk page we see some of them. You know what, maybe it will be revealed soon that he looked at a white woman. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Guess who's in jail. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I just hope we can finally focus on the real victim in this tragedy: the National Rifle Association. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just read much of Talk:Abortion and mental health. Your patience and eloquence in defending the page against POV and explaining Wikipedia's policies on evidence are inspiring, as is the high quality of the article itself. Thank you so much for your contribution.

mcs (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to read all of that... even thinking about it gives me PTSD. I recommend avoiding the talkpage archives at all costs, if you haven't delved into them yet. :) I appreciate the thought, and the kind words. Cheers, and happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede image Major depressive disorder

I came to your Talk page via SandyGeorgia's Talk page (who has however sent me packing, so that's me bang to rights ...).

I get the impression, at a quick glance, that you interest yourself in the kind of conflict I have recently been involved with at Major depressive disorder.

For the past five years or so that article has been illustrated by a painting of Vincent van Gogh's traditionally called At Eternity's Gate. This is an 1890 painting based on an 1882 drawing that depicts a weary old man contemplating his passing from life in a calm and resigned manner. In his letters van Gogh makes that very clear. He was at especial pains to emphasise its divine ('something on high') nature. In 1970 it passed into collection of the Kröller-Müller Museum and they gratuitously renamed it, for reasons I don't know, Sorrowing old man ('At Eternity's Gate'), whereas in the 1970 catalogue raisonné which appeared that year it was given the name Worn Out ('At Eternity's Gate'). The painting has sometimes been misunderstood as a result, but never in good scholarly sources.

Beginning this year two editors on that Talk page, a Swiss art collector and an Amsterdam auctioneer resepctively, have ventured to suggest that a painting essentially celebrating a passing from life into eternity is not a very suitable one for an article illustrating a psychiatric condition characterised by its risk for suicide.

Both have been permanently blocked by the Wikipedia community because of their association, which is not disputed (indeed he alerted me and I them), with a blocked user Rinpoche. I expect my own block imminently.

You can inspect the socking and cookery that SandyGeorgia says we must expect editing pyscholgy articles (but we weren't editing the article) here.

Simply to add to your collection of this sort of thing :). LHirsig (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant kookery, not cookery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes of course. I did mean to quote you and it's just a typo. Losing it a bit at 64 years of age, but one struggles on and one is always very obliged of course for these little assistances. Thank you. LHirsig (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly the kind of conflict I try very hard not to interest myself in. But it does raise an interesting, if not entirely novel, philosophical question: when interpreting a piece of art, are we bound by its creator's original intent? Or are we free to appropriate it and superimpose our own interpretations? Personally, I tend to come down in the latter camp. When you create a piece of art, you forfeit the right to dictate what it means.

In any case, I think it's naive, if not outright fallacious, to pretend that we know whether Van Gogh intended the piece to illustrate "depression". I tend to view fidelity to the artist's original intent the way I view Antonin Scalia's "originalism": as an intellectually dishonest excuse for layering one's own prejudices onto a document while denying other people the right to their own interpretations. But that's just me.

Personally, when I look at the painting, I don't see an old man contemplating his passage into the eternal in a calm and resigned manner. I see someone who's depressed. But again, that's me. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I say the former via Heidegger's aesthetics, although we must be alert of course that the artist might not be visionary. But Vincent unquestionably wanted to depict the nobility of a simple old man contemplating eternity. He would have been horrified that his painting is used as an icon of mental illness. When I see this painting I see a frail old man praying. But that's because I knew this painting before Wikipedia decided it was about depression. Of course we are free to see it any way we like, as a frail old man deperately fiddling with his iPhones because a James Blunt song has just come on, whatever. But if Wikipedia wants to suggest that, by placing the image as a lede in an article not contributed by AC about post traumatic stress disorder induced by listening to Blunt's songs, then it ought to cite some RS in its current model. But there's the problem. It hasn't cited sources and in fact I don't think it can be done. The painting has certainly been misuderstood, but never that badly misunderstood in an RS. I'm contacting the Kroller-Muller Museum about it. Curious to know what they say, whether in fact their website made a simple mistake in labelling it Sorrowful old man. Whether they are concerned it has become an icon for mental anguish in this way. Thank you for your time and effort. Appreciated. Don't know Scalia's work :).138.199.79.89 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can really know how Van Gogh would have perceived our use of his painting. I'm not confident in my ability to get inside the head of a mentally ill 19th-century Dutchman and extrapolate his hypothetical reactions to modern interpretations of his work. And I'm skeptical of people who think they can. I do take your point about reliable sources, though. If there's a long tradition of viewing this work as representing a dignified acceptance of mortality, rather than despair, then maybe we should re-think our use of the painting. And the James Blunt thing reminded me of this, from long ago. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:) ... but come on, it's such a fascinating article. That's quite right about 'long tradition'. I don't have access to a good enough library to assert 'long', but Naifeh and Smith's 2011 biography, by far the most comprehensive and likely to become the standard, devote pages 313-320 to the original 1882 drawing in the context of just this theme:" ... set out to capture the same pathos of inexorable death." etc., and you can review their sources here, especially at note 342. Thanks again. I'll add briefly here if I hear anything interesting from Kroller-Muller. 62.212.66.205 (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Erickson, Kathleen Powers. At Eternity's Gate: The Spiritual Vision of Vincent Van Gogh (1998). Numerous references including this at p 86 where dear Kathleen, a theologian and not an art critic, has her wafer and eats it too washed down with a healthy incredulity inducing slug of the altar tipple: "Belief in a "life beyond the grave" is central to one of van Gogh's first accomplished lithographs, At Eternity's Gate ... Executed at The Hague in 1882, it depicts an old man seated by a fire, his head buried in his hands. Near the end of his life van Gogh recreated this image in oil, while recuperating in the asylum at St. Rémy. Bent over with his fists clenched against a face hidden in utter frustration, the subjects appears engulfed in grief. Certainly, the work would covey an image of total despair had it not been for the English title van Gogh gave it, At Eternity's Gate. It demonstrates that even in his deepest moments of sorrow and pain, van Gogh clung to a faith in God and eternity, which he tried to express in his work ...".

Dear Kathleen, who famously compared Vincent's brush work as like unto the trumpet blasts of The Last Judgement, has no problem at all getting into crazy Vinnie's totally lost it head here thank you very much I'm a theologian and jolly well ought to know because that's what we do. Still it's an RS and I'm pleased with my find and I shall put it in the article directly the Wikipedia way :). Van Gogh in fact repudiated Christianity for ever at the end of 1881, a somewhat complicated consequence it would seem of his infatuation with his cousin (yes, yes but this is Holland) Kee Vos-Stricker. 31.6.27.237 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now found what I believe to be the source of all this here. This book was published on 19 June 2006 and the edit placing the image at MDD dates from 28 May 2006. I shall contact Cambridge University Press about this. 216.166.10.218 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for giving your two cents worth. Again and again.

[MOVED TO User:MastCell/Barnstars]

It's sock central in here :)

Does anyone recall who was the editor who always added non-MEDRS compliant text to herbs and other Chinese remedies? Lots of copyvio found here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since about 90% of the editors who edit herbal and Chinese-medicine articles add non-MEDRS-compliant text, I can't say it rings any specific bells. :) I'll think about it and see what I can come up with. You may want to go through the hassle of a WP:SPI filing, if only to get a checkuser to look at the underlying IP range. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Giancabette is engaged in large-scale copyright violation, a quicker block is possible on that score. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was actually about to just go ahead and block the account, but then I saw that s/he hasn't edited since receiving the warnings about copyright. I'm just barely willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that this editor will take on board to copyright issues, but if they don't respond constructively then I think an indefinite block would make sense. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Any response that acknowledges the copyright problem would be a reason for longer discussion. I'm not optimistic. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One more "is" a BLP violation

For your list - following WP:FULLNAME ex Bobby Jindal. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh em eff gee. Actually, I thought the BLP violation was your description of Brown's combined undergrad/medical school program as "elite". That's just unsourced peacockery. :P MastCell ^Talk 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Palliative radiotherapy reference needed at "Lung cancer"

Hi, MastCell. I am currently re-editing "Lung cancer". There is a sentence that states "Unlike other treatments, it is possible to deliver palliative radiotherapy without confirming the histological diagnosis of lung cancer." The sentence (not added by me) currently does not have a reference. I believe that the statement is true, but I am struggling to find a reliable source for this. Can you help? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd say it's possible, but not necessarily a great idea. It's happened that patients are referred with a working radiologic diagnosis of lung cancer who turned out to have lymphoma, and it would have been a serious problem if they'd been irradiated without a tissue diagnosis. Also, since the lung is among the most common sites of metastasis for any solid tumor, how do you know you're irradiating a primary lung cancer rather than a metastasis from a potentially hormone-responsive solid tumor (e.g. breast cancer or prostate cancer)? How do you know it's not a met from a highly treatable primary, like testicular cancer, or even an extragonadal germ cell tumor? How can you be sure that it's NSCLC and not small-cell lung cancer, which would potentially respond very well to chemotherapy?

That said, I'm sure there are circumstances where it's reasonable; for example, palliative irradiation of painful bone metastases could be considered without a tissue diagnosis. Even there, though, there have been cases where patients billed as having bony mets from an unknown solid-tumor primary turned out, upon investigation, to have multiple myeloma.

But you asked for references, not the opinions of a pseudonymous Wikipedian... :) I can't say I have any at my fingertips. I suspect most clinical guidelines would strongly encourage a tissue diagnosis prior to radiotherapy, but I'll look around. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to debate the validity of this treatment approach with you. (I am a pulmonologist, not a clinical oncologist.) I have only anecdotal evidence: I have actually seen this treatment given. It is only done in patients who are unfit for surgery, chemotherapy, or radical RT. These are typically older patients with performance status 3, often with co-morbidities. In these patients, histological biopsy is unlikely to change the patient's treatment.

Anyway, thanks for looking for a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist. :) I'll let you know if I find anything. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is this not a violation of this? What am I missing? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're missing is that administrators are generally or completely unwilling to deal with disruptive accounts that are not incivil. In order to get said account dealt with, you need to follow hoop-jumping steps 1-10 in triplicate. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the situation, but that account appears to be topic-banned. Incivility is not required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tick-tock. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot... so many topic-banned accounts to keep track of. I will go ahead and file a report at WP:AE. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't want to jump the gun only to find out the editor's ban had a talk page exclusion. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, one thing I learned from my involement in the abortion article nightmare and resulting arbitration; the hoop-jumping steps go to 11. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Awarded to MastCell, for telling it like it is. JN466 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... that's kind of you, especially since we haven't always seen eye-to-eye. Cheers. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Jefferson and Bork

ArtifexMayhem deleted my response to you on his talk page. If you missed it here it is. I also agree that the Founders believed that the Constitution should evolve, that is what the language allowing Constitutional Amendments was for.

Re: Your preference to Jefferson versus Bork

I also personally prefer Jefferson, HOWEVER Bork's statement above is a PERFECT example of modern legal thought which attempts to find ways to EVADE constitutional limitations rather then to enforce them. For instance per the Constitution you have the right to "be secure in your person". Are you secure when groped by the TSA at an airport? The same treatment may be coming to railroad and bus stations next. If you can be groped at an airport then it seems only natural that you can be groped at at a train station, which then expands to bus stations, taxi stands, entrances to government buildings and then on the sidewalk and finally in your own home after an unconstitutional forced entrance without a warrant from a judge on probable cause. Many people at this point believe that the only part of the Constitution being enforced is how to elect officials and many believe that those elections are fixed as well.

The Framers put in language allowing "original intent" to be super ceded by later intent through something called a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think it was their "intent" that the Courts had the power to overturn the plain meaning of the law, or the plain intend of the law.

Back to the topic, which is the banning of paper money at the Constitutional Convention. Later Jefferson tried to get a Constitutional Amendment passed stripping the power to borrow from Congress because he thought that eventually the power to borrow would be used as a backdoor method of restoring the use of paper money. That is EXACTLY what happened. Jefferson called it PERFECTLY!

I cited Bork because his comment was cited in the Legal Tender Cases article. If the intent of the Framers is not considered when a power is stripped from the Constitution (such as the power to issue paper money) then it is only a few steps to disregarding their wishes on expressly banning a power. Take torture, the Founders considered torture banned through the 5th Amendment. It is after all nothing but compulsion in its worst form, yet Bush engaged in rendition (sending prisoners to torture chambers in countries which still practice it), Obama one upped him by ordering the execution of a US citizen of Arab descent engaging his right to free speech. The latest is the trial balloon, of strip US citizens of their citizenship, which would make it possible to then send them to overseas torture chambers. First you call them a terrorist, which makes them an enemy, which means you can strip them of their citizenship, which means you can deport them, and there is this convenient torture chamber waiting for them at expulsion. This all happens outside of the courts and not subject to the reality check imposed by a jury trial. At this point torture chambers for US citizens on US soil is only a step away. It's called power creep and why so many are now pushing for a much more strict adherence to the 10th Amendment. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

/* You are not expected to understand this */ context

You may be interested in the context of the /* You are not expected to understand this */ quote you have on your user page: [39]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

About the edit war you started

Your recent editing history at Gary Null shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.173.7 (talk), who is presumably Nononsenseplease (talk · contribs)

Homeopathy

Regarding this change, it's an improvement over what was there originally, which was a quote from a homeopathic advertising website. Natural News fails RS if you're trying to convince someone that homeopathy works, but it's the best reference if you want to show how even homeopaths don't think much of their "water." Maybe we've set off the irony meter too much in Wikipedia, but almost everything in pseudoscience has a boatload of irony associated with it. Anyways, I got beat up for adding something to a vaccine article that I thought was RS, and my intent here was to also provide an RS. I know that admins have trigger fingers, so I hope that I haven't offended anyone. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't harbor any concerns about your editing. It's just a general principle. In my opinion, naturalnews.com shouldn't be cited anywhere if we have any pretense of being a serious reference work. If the opinions in question are so non-notable as to be expressed only on that website, then they're beneath notice for a serious encyclopedia. Naturalnews.com happens to be one of a handful of particularly egregiously poor sources which have also historically been widely cited in our medical articles, so occasionally I tabulate citations to the site and look at them (see User:MastCell/External link results). Anyhow, nothing personal, and no worries. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thou shalt always kill

That was really good. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a fan. If you enjoyed that, you should check out "A Letter From God To Man". They're my 2nd-favorite obscure postmodern hip-hop act, next to Das Racist. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be a young person. Enjoy it while it lasts. I Facebooked that video already so I'll never forget. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Youth is highly contextual. When I'm surrounded by my professional colleagues, I feel quite young. When I deal with the particular brand of sheltered, provincial entitlement that characterizes the Wikipedia "community", I feel very, very old. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I like you, MastCell. Any time you want to come by and complain about the universe, there's a couple of cold beers here for you. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Page protection

I did not realize that they were sockpuppets. I've reduced the protection. Thanks for the info. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi, MastCell. I am hoping to alter WP:MEDRS. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

trayvon

more devils advocate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Frankly, I don't think it's useful to muddy the waters like that. There already seems to be a determination to squeeze in as much low-quality and partisan sourcing as editors there can possibly get away with. It would be helpful to take a stand about high sourcing standards, because it seems like the most active editors of the article are, by and large, more interested in reflecting talking points from the conservative blogosphere than writing an encyclopedia article.

So I raised that concern, and you responded, more or less, by equating NBC and CNN ("liberal gun-control" advocates) with a bunch of random partisan websites. I think you know that's a false equivalence, especially by this site's sourcing criteria.

You're one of the best editors active on that page right now, and I've seen you take a stand for good sourcing and against some of the more openly biased and agenda-driven edits. If we want the article to get better, then we need to insist on using high-quality sources across the board. Right now, the dominant approach is to find a barely-adequate or unsuitable partisan source which agrees with one's viewpoint, and then defend it to the hilt with wikilawyering.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to be overly harsh on you; like I said, I think you're a good editor. It's just frustrating to have every attempt to set some kind of minimal sourcing standards rebuffed with the claim that NBC and CNN are no better sources than randomconservativeblog.com. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points/arguments, 1) the general argument. 2) the specific argument under discussion on the talk page.

General : I am in absolute agreement with you on high quality sources. I was more arguing that the logic you were using to determine which sources were high quality was flawed, as it could be turned around against the more quality sources pretty easily. Frankly I think there is the potentially for a wonderful meta-discussion about the shooting, and its coverage, and how that coverage reveals various biases in the media, and flaws in their fact checking etc (in general, not just as related to this case). Obviously that meta-discussion is off topic for the article and its related talk page. However, assume that we had that meta-discussion. There are certainly some sites being referenced in this article which are genrally considered unreliable. However, I think it is quite revealing to see how often some of those sites were debunking the jump-to-conclusions of the "reliable sources". Granted, you got a whole boatload of racist stuff, and just-as-jump-to-conclusion-the-other-way crap along with it. However, in this case, I don't know that there are actually "good sources". The mainstream people fell down on the job hard core, and are notoriously loathe to do the true introspection on themselves as to what their mistakes and biases are - therefore we have to go down the chain a bit in this case (the article overall). So While I was playing devils advocate, I think there is some truth in the position as well.

Specific : However for the actual statements/sources that were the point of talk page, there is no reason to go to the crappy sources, as those particular statements can easily be sourced from better locations. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this gets to the point: what makes a source "reliable"? Reliability doesn't mean that a source never makes errors - certainly NBC, CNN, etc. all make their share. Reliability stems from accountability: if these sources do make an error, is there the will and mechanism to correct it? That's the difference between NBC and a random blog (or, for that matter, Fox News). If an error is identified in NBC's reporting, then the network addresses it, issues corrections as appropriate, and disciplines the people responsible. If a blog makes an error, what happens? Is there any accountability? Any effort to correct the error and repair the damage? That's where reliability comes from.

This comes up a lot: for instance, people dismiss CBS News as a reliable source because of Memogate. But they miss the point: when Memogate occurred, heads rolled at CBS. They appointed an independent commission (led by a Republican politician) to review their handling of the incident, and ultimately fired their most prominent TV personality in part as a result. I assume that CBS News will continue to make occasional errors in their reporting, but I also assume that they'll respond seriously and appropriately when those errors are identified. I don't think one can have anything approaching that level of confidence about a partisan magazine, or partisan website, or Fox News (which has an abysmal record of accountability when it comes to handling errors in its content).

Look at it this way: the New York Times publishes far more corrections than does Fox News. Does that mean that the Times is less reliable? Or does it mean they're actually more reliable, because they bother to follow through and correct errors instead of ignoring them?

To return to one of your points, yes, the mainstream media has done a pretty poor job on this case. They live in fear of being scooped by some blogger somewhere, so they push the envelope. But they have more to lose: if NBC makes a mistake, they lose credibility, whereas if a random blogger or opinion columnist jumps to an erroneous conclusion, they have no credibility to lose. It's a Catch-22 for the old-school networks - they can either do careful journalism and get scooped by the bloggers, or try to compete with the bloggers by sacrificing on careful journalism.

As Wikipedians, though, the solution is blindingly simple. We are not a news site. We don't need to rush everything into our article as soon as it pops up on the Web. If we were to wait even 48 or 72 hours before including the latest breaking news, we'd avoid the cycle of errors and corrections completely. But that will never happen - if you look at the talk page, 90% of it is people rushing in with the latest breaking news and figuring out how to get it into the article. The other 10% is people griping that the breaking news they insisted on rushing into the article turned out to be wrong, and blaming the media. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to the both of you for your continuing efforts on behalf of the Trayvon article and, bigger picture, Wikipedia. Most editors are not willing to suffer the strident atmosphere that seems to be a constant undercurrent at articles of this sort. Your pursuit to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard of the "blog situation" was educational. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi MastCell, nice to see that you're still here. I notice we've crossed paths at WP:ANI already. I'm hoping that Wikipedia is better at handling tendentious editors than the last time I was active... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. But the good news is that there are a bunch of new Javascript gadgets and a WikiLove button! MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Data Diving - The Scientist's article on clinical study reports

Thought you might find this article intriguing: Data Diving. Apparently the information underlying published reports was eye-opening even to veteran researchers. Incidentally, there's no clinical study report article, nor does the phrase appear anywhere in our "clinical trial" article. II | (t - c) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article... I have a few thoughts about it which I'll probably share once I have time to organize them. BTW, the closest formal term for the "clinical study reports" described in the article is probably case report form (CRF); we do have an article on the subject, under that name. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping

• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Subject matter experts and reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Crazy pill

Don't worry, any crazy pills you are taking are clearly of the homeopathic variety =p a13ean (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... every time I look at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, I feel like I've stepped into an alternate universe, one that destroys my fragile faith in humanity. I happily de-watchlisted it for awhile, and should probably do so again for my own sanity, but thanks anyway. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I added it to my watchlist right after it happened, but it went totally nuts within a day or two. I just don't have the time or sanity for it. a13ean (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Talk:Shooting]] should/could be a gated community within that alternate universe. Now I only look over the fence to watch the goings-on. Too many agitators for my liking. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance

Some assistance, please? Yobol (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. Who does the blocking honors? Does this need to go to ANI, AIV, SPI, or can someone just block? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone can just block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's KBlott (talk · contribs), of whom the less said the better. He's very banned, so should be reverted, blocked on sight, and ignored. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, can I also request my page be semi-protected? Yobol (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I semi-protected it for 2 weeks; let me know if that works for you. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't know you were around MC, or I'd have not stuck my nose in. Figured you'd know who it was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Let me know if it was okay to ask here (I figured there'd be some talk page lurkers who could help), or if I should take it to another venue in the future. Yobol (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably fastest just to bring it up here, since I've dealt with him quite a bit recently. MuZemike (talk · contribs) also handled a lot of his IP socks, and rangeblocked his ISP at one point, so you could ask him directly. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin shooting

There is no consensus for the material you selectively edited. The general feeling is we add all or none. But "all" has BLP issues. Hence, until consensus is reached, stop adding such material or selectively editing it, as you did in your recent edit. And as an aside, as an admin here you should know better than this. Whatzinaname (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed material from a WP:BLP article where there was no consensus to include it (for reference, the active discussion is here). That's my understanding of how policy works. I'm not going to edit-war over it, but I think you're misapplying the policy you're citing here.

Since you brought it up, I think the discussion could do with a little outside input. The article and talkpage are dominated by editors who focus on nothing else but the Martin shooting, and any sense of perspective is woefully lacking as a result. I mean, it basically took a federal case just to get blatantly unsuitable blogs removed from this article, because of entrenched resistance. I'm not exactly optimistic about tackling the more complex problems with the article in the current environment.

The question is whether a dead individual's school disciplinary record has any relevance to his shooting, and I'd invite anyone reading this to review the talkpage thread in question and offer their input. (Note that the article—Shooting of Trayvon Martin—is subject to 1RR). MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You removed material about trayvon, but did not remove similar material about zimmerman. If you chose to remove part, you should have chose to remove all for the very same reasons. As you have obviously read the talk page and I assume know about BLP, playing coy is rather poor form. No one in their right mind would say any consensus has been reached on the matterWhatzinaname (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

An arrest for getting violent with a police officer is not "similar" to a school suspension. One involves an encounter with the criminal-justice system, and the other involves missing a few days of high school. This is the lack of perspective I'm talking about. In any case, your comments here and at the talkpage (e.g. [40], "black doogie howser", etc.) are exactly why I think outside input from editors with less of an axe to grind would be helpful. MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

well, I thought you'd do a mea culpa instead of a you-ah chumpa. Good faith fails me again. Don't turn your editorial misconduct on me. How people like you become admins here is mind boggling, and it speaks to the deep and flawed administrative oversight of this placeWhatzinaname (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Yes, MastCell, looking at your years and years of contributions, wise advice, and janitorial work, it's hard to understand how you became an admin. If only you were as calm, reasonable, neutral, and smart as Whatzisname. Sarcasm aside, I was torn between giving you an admin's barnstar, and creating a "How The Hell Do You Stand Dealing With These Fuckwits" barnstar, but I figured if I gave you the latter, I'd get in trouble for personal attacks (and horror of horrors, have my own adminship questioned). It should be obvious, but perhaps bears repeating, that outside of Bizarro World, you are valued very highly by the grownups. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Whereas I for my part, MastCell, was torn between biting you shrewdly on the ass and merely reminding you to go vote at my request for adminship. How people like you become admins and people evolved fish like me don't (yet) is worse than mind-boggling, it's a crime. darwinbish ^BITE 23:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
  • I support full equality for evolved fish, especially since I am one, on some level. I'm not sure how you bite someone shrewdly, but consider me canvassed. Except, of course, that I already voted a mere 18 months ago (see support #8 and its irrefutable logic). MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oops. All right then. darwinbish ^BITE 07:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Fuckwit? Pretty mature. I'm shocked you presume to be a friend of mastcell's. Yes, that's complete stunner. Years of wasting your life away here doesn't afford you the right to ignore wikipedia policiesWhatzinaname (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuckwit! darwinbish ^BITE 11:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Fuck is a legal word on Wikipedia? Can I get a Fuckwit barnstar? Seems like the only one that's worth receiving. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A "How The Hell Do You Stand Dealing With These Fuckwits" barnstar sounds like a pretty good idea to me; I can think of quite a few other editors who would also deserve it. Not me, obviously, since I seem to have finally given up dealing with the truckwits, myself. Oh well. By the way, good to see Darwinbish here! Heimstern:Away (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[Darwinbish is cheered, but not into complete blandness.] Hia Heim! Can you believe User:Floquenstein's monster still hasn't supported my RFA? Completely up to him,and I wouldn't lower myself to canvassing the creature, but I'm surprised, that's all. It's a stunner, as Fuckwit would say. I mean, FM is a monster, he's a sock, he's friends with Bishzilla! <subliminally>Wonder if it would help to bite his puppetmaster somewhere? Shrewdly?</subliminally> darwinbish ^BITE 17:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC).