I'm beginning to think that there is an even more fundamental flaw in the so-called dispute resolution mechanism here on Wikipedia than I expressed earlier. The main point of interest I have is whether or not there is a review mechanism--other than an appeal to Jim Wales--regarding arbitration proceedings. Is it perhaps unreasonable to demand such a review mechanism. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there MastCell, I am requesting outside opinion for the Asaram Bapu article. The talk page section in question is "Edit warring on the "potency test". I have read Wikipedia:Canvassing to be certain that I am within WP policy guidelines, and it is my understanding that my request is not considered canvassing, but if I'm wrong just let me know. I left the following edit on the article talk page:
Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"hope—the most important thing in life" Thank you, master of edit summaries, for quality contributions to articles on medicine, for advice on arbitrary arbitration, your compliments, for placing "hope—the most important thing in life" on top, but not without The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 February 2009)!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This briefly blocked user recently requested permission to edit via a VPN, which I declined and you accepted. He lives in Vermont, USA according to his userbox, and I was unable to fathom the reason for his request; he stated in his request it was to increase his security. Obviously I will not argue the point or indeed input any further into this case, but I would be interested to know why you felt that my action was not appropriate. He demonstrated the ability, while the VPN was blocked, to edit directly here, and unless Vermont has been translocated to the Peoples' Republic of China or North Korea I see no reason why he needs the additional security that a VPN possibly affords. I am probably missing something, but would be grateful for enlightenment as to what this may be?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to chime in - there are a bunch of different reasons to edit from behind a VPN and/or use other methods to increase the security of ones Internet traffic. I've been doing it for awhile, but you might see a surge (relatively speaking) in IPBE requests related to people taking security steps in a post-Snowden world. It also adds some protection for information that should remain secure, reduces the visibility of your identity to marketers and others who would like to use your Web activity for business purposes, and defeats some attempts by ISPs to filter traffic based on type (i.e. preserves a degree of net neutrality).
I think it might make sense to become a little more liberal in the criteria for granting the exemption, and I've always found it a little distasteful that we interrogate those requesting it and then make an inexpert judgment about whether they "really need it." It's invasive, carries the potential for placing the requester at risk, and relies on administrators to draw conclusions about circumstances despite the typical absence of any relevant knowledge or expertise. My geographic location, for instance, provides little information about my particular situation or whether I would have a legitimate interest in the security provided by my VPN... yet Anthony points it out as though it were definitive proof that I couldn't possibly have one. I suppose my response to his decline was a little snippy too, but he ought to admit that his rejection was curt and not particularly thoughtful or courteous. Calling it silly is a pretty mild form of reproof. Nathan T 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear MastCell - I am an admirer of the presentation and in strong agreement with the sentiment expressed in your WP:CIV userbox. May I have one on my page? Ta, Plutonium27 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you were the editor who put an indefinite block on User:Rangoon11. I was wondering if this editor has had issues that you know of with continuing to sock after this indefinite block was put in place. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to edit on pages related to the topic of my concern, as a result of discretionary sanctions, so as a last ditch effort, I thought I'd appeal to you, an active editor on the orthomolecular medicine topic, and present my case. What you decide to do with it is your business. These are my concerns:
The fact that some people dropped out of the study means that it is not very helpful to make conclusions about them in the study (e.g. - you state that the stabilization rate in the Monti study was 50% - this includes the people who dropped out. However, if we include the people who actually completed the study, 7/9, or 77% had stabilization - higher than the 60% average of treatment with the traditional drug alone). Also, your statement about the nature of the stabilization (purporting 0% regression) can be challenged by figure 3 of the trial: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029794.g003/originalimage, showing that there was regression, but regression lower than the required standards of RECIST criteria for it to be reported as such. Partial response criteria is at least 30%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_Evaluation_Criteria_in_Solid_Tumors#Response_Criteria, so your statement about ascorbate lowering efficacy seems unwarranted, as gemcitabine/erlotinib do not qualify as drugs evoking partial response, according to the study you gave.
There are some other interesting observations from the study that are noteworthy: "Overall, the safety data do not reveal adverse events other than what might be expected for progression of pancreatic cancer and/or treatment with gemcitabine and erlotinib. Deaths of three patients who died before completing the study were attributable to underlying and rapidly advancing disease, as affirmed by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board. [...] primary tumor size ... specifically decreased in the three subjects who received the highest ascorbic acid dose. [...] It is noted that RECIST 1.0 criteria for stable disease are inclusive of a 19% increase in target lesions [24]. Other studies of gemcitabine efficacy in pancreatic cancer that categorize disease as stable do not provide details concerning target lesion increases under 20%, meaning that subjects with target lesion size increases up to 19% are still considered stable disease. Therefore, the importance of our finding of target size decrease in 8 of 9 subjects may be underestimated. [...] In particular, unlike many cancer therapies, ascorbate does not appear to have toxicity on rapidly dividing normal cells such as those in intestine cells, hair follicle cells, and bone marrow. Because of the absence of apparent tissue toxicity, effects of ascorbic acid treatment on human tumors might be expected to be more gradual, and as a corollary to require longer treatment. This possibility is consistent with observations from case reports of patients who received intravenous ascorbic acid as treatment for several types of cancers. [...] Given the possibility that longer ascorbic acid treatment is necessary to see disease improvement by RECIST 1.0 criteria, and the somewhat encouraging findings in the nine subjects in this trial, studying a longer treatment period at the 100 gram dosage seems warranted."
Animal studies also support synergy, like this one, which concludes that "Gemcitabine-ascorbate combinations administered to mice bearing pancreatic tumor xenografts consistently enhanced inhibition of growth compared to gemcitabine alone, produced 50% growth inhibition in a tumor type not responsive to gemcitabine, and demonstrated a gemcitabine dose-sparing effect. These data support the testing of pharmacologic ascorbate in adjunctive treatments for cancers prone to high failure rates with conventional therapeutic regimens, such as pancreatic cancer." (emphasis added): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21402145
There is a view that ascorbate interferes with chemotherapy. The source for this review is very problematic. As one response to it noted, "On the basis of cell and animal experiments with dehydroascorbic acid, Heaney and colleagues state, "These results suggest that supplementary vitamin C may have adverse consequences in patients receiving cancer therapy". Selectively referring to dehydroascorbic acid as vitamin C throughout the majority of this work may send a clouded message to patients and their caregivers. All known actions of vitamin C are mediated by the reduced molecule ascorbate, not the oxidized molecule dehydroascorbic acid. Mice lacking the tissue transport protein specific for ascorbate (Slc23a2) do not survive because of severe vitamin C deficiency, despite having no impairments in dehydroascorbic acid transport.": http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/22/8830.1.long
A review I highlighted a while ago also noted, "Dehydroascorbic acid was termed as and was used interchangeably with vitamin C, which is incorrect and misleading (79, 80). Such misnomers can muddy the underlying science, and as a consequence of the Internet, may result in confusion among patients and caregivers.": http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78.full
Anyway, this view is refuted with this systematic review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367938
And particularly with ascorbate administered at high doses intravenously to subjects with cancer, there are differences in pharmacology. See the study "Pharmacologic doses of ascorbate act as a prooxidant and decrease growth of aggressive tumor xenografts in mice": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516281/ - the pharmacology of this discrepancy (given the different physiological environment) is explored here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304419X12000509
Recall again this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157892?dopt=Abstract), showing how ascorbate at very high levels can act as prodrug to deliver a significant flux of H2O2 to selectively kill cancer cells, and also the fact that "ascorbate does not appear to have toxicity on rapidly dividing normal cells", quoted in the above trial. Ascorbate has different action in different environments. As an aside, for most people, high dose iv vitamin c is safe. As this review concludes, "Other than the known complications of IV vitamin C in those with renal impairment or glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, high dose intravenous vitamin C appears to be remarkably safe.": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628650
As far as synergy is concerned, another trial also shows some efficacy for ascorbate treatment, as admitted in the conclusion: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00280-013-2070-8
I will admit bias, as I was witness to my mother's suffering with chemotherapy, but at the same time acknowledge that there is a dearth of data on viable alternatives to standard treatments. Because of this, I gained some interest in complementary (and, as we now know, in some cases, synergistic) treatments like ascorbate, after the period of her treatment, so that others would not suffer as much. It is thus important to note that there are 2 studies showing improved quality of life, that show that while it does not have value as an alternative treatment, it does have value as a complementary treatment. One of these is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6811475, and also there is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693, which concludes, "Complementary treatment of breast cancer patients with i.v. vitamin C was shown to be a well tolerated optimization of standard tumour-destructive therapies, reducing quality of life-related side-effects."
I was banned from editing the article per WP:ARBPS (there was a premise that I was "edit warring", I do not feel that the data from the history supports that - see the history of the article edits - I made just one edit before I was reported, and reverted one edit after I was reported because I feel that the "edit warring" pretext was illegitimate, since it was used to revert my article, and I only made one edit). I feel that the fact of reconsideration being pushed in mainstream journals: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78, http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long - means that the WP:ARBPS policies do not apply in this case. My initial concern was to accurately reflect the reviews (which are not accurately reflected in the article at this time).
Phase I trials are discouraged under WP:MEDRS, so I don't think it is appropriate to put them in, whether they be positive or negative. I think a better edit (and you or another user would have to put it in), in light of this information and the discussion on the talk page, keeping everything simple, would be (I am using pseudo-wikipedia code here - the reasons the reviews suggest reevaluation are pharmacokinetics, case series, animal studies, and other pharmacological observations):
"Some research groups have recently suggested that the use of ascorbate in cancer treatment be reevaluated.( http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78 )( http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long ). A retrospective, multicenter, epidemiological cohort study showed that complementary treatment of cancer patients receiving traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy with intravenous vitamin c improved quality of life.( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693 )"198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It has begun. This is your official invitation. Would you like to sign up? I think you'll find the talk page comment interesting. Feel free to comment/join. Would you recommend anyone? I will follow up with an email. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I think your input would be valuable at Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy if you have the time and desire. alanyst 19:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you think Harold88 is
I'm going to bed now. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it's a small fringe world after all. We happen to be connected through this person and this person. The former is currently violating his/her topic ban again and is largely responsible for the current full protection on the Rupert Sheldrake page. No AE action is taken yet so feel free to join in (or not).
Regarding the latter, it is somewhat amazing that this happened and then this happened. In particular this is shocking, wherein lame excuses are proffered with no remorse, e.g. "basically people I have introduced to editing". I would never have checked into any of this were it not for this user's completely weird behavior. I'm not asking you to do anything here; just expressing general surprise and expectations of high conflict. vzaak (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments about my contributions on this thread on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I'm still active, although, not so often as before. My open letter to pharma companies was meant to initiate discussions with them. My point was that they choose somebody from their company to reveal all conflicts of interests on his/her Wikipedia page and only suggest contributions to entries about their own products. This way we could transparently monitor their activities but they could ask our community to help with their entries. NCurse work 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the edits made in defiance of the tea party ban; since your responses would not have made sense without them, I removed the whole section. [1]NE Ent 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kiss. ;-) 69.255.27.249 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear mastcell, thank for your positive comments. I am on a different computer and I don't have my password with me, so I don't get signature here (Hhemila; I must keep password with me in future ...). I decided to write some comments on the basis of your text.
I have been doing research on vitamin C and the common cold for over 20 years (I do have other topics also...), so that my first systematic review on that topic was in 1990 in Finnish. Term systematic review was not used at that time but it was one. Now I am in charge of the Cochrane review on the topic. I must say to you that I am extremely (sic!) uncomfortable in writing a text that has 100% references to my own papers. That is not caused by intention to undervalue other peoples work, but that is caused by the very low interest in the topic in the academic circles so that I am personally not aware of relevant reviews that could be used for the sentences I wrote, in addition to my own papers. There are some reviews commenting the topic by other authors, but some of them are just taking conclusions from the Cochrane review, or picking unsystematically some original trials, etc. so I do not consider them very good (those which I know). Please, try to find something sound and add it/them. That would decrease my uncomfortable feeling, and people might take the page more seriously thereby.
You proposed that the page could be extended. I agree. One possibility is to add sentences about the immune system, and another about the history so that the increase in interest in early 1970s and the decline in interest after the middle of 1970s are described in slight more detail. I deleted the old references, since they are not relevant for "what we currently know," but they are relevant for understanding the history...
One big problem with vitamin C is that many people have strong emotions and beliefs associated with it. Some claim that it is a kind of cure all, and others claim that it does not have any other effects than preventing scurvy (truth is somewhere in the middle). Because of such emotions, I do not know how stable this kind of page can be in Wikipedia "vitamin C and the common cold". I mean that it does not make sense to work for a "good page" if some believers from either extreme come and mess it extensively and often. In any case your suggestion is very good and it does not take much time to formulate some statements e.g. on immune effects and history. I you want to go forward with your suggestion, I will participate.
Best wishes Hhemila 213.28.101.91 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Since I only read and edit Wikipedia very irregularly lately, it has been 2 weeks since these comments, but I'd still like to address them (copied from Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia:No_paid_advocacy_become_policy.3F):
Nowadays, scientists often are required, by their employers or funders to make sure that their research and results reach the general public as well. Contributing to the Wikipedia articles on the subjects they work on is an excellent way for them to do this and is increasingly happening, greatly improving the (often poor) articles on many scientific subjects on Wikipedia. But, since they do it as part of their work or because their funder requires them, this would strictly speaking, constitute a "financial conflict of interest" and the proposed new guideline would therefore, when strictly interpreted, prohobit scientist from editing articles on the topic of their expertise. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey,
I just had a bunch of time away from Wikipedia due to my third year of med school. I've arranged an independent elective like the UCSF deal, but since it's just me I'm focusing on repro health subjects, especially abortion and contraception.
Right now I'm shooting the moon by trying to solve the lede problems over at abortion. I have some smaller goals planned for the month, but thought I'd check if you had any suggestions. Things you think one editor with a bunch of free time could fix.
Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there MC. Could you please get rid of this editor [2]--at least the last seven edits have been childish BS changes. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
For all the headaches it is still a great project. I'm sure I'll be asking for help on things, please ask me if I can do anything for you. JodyB talk 17:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for being on board. Danger^Mouse (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I know, you are a Very Serious Administrator of a Very Serious Project, but here is a kitten that represents a Hug, which you deserve because you are awesome.
petrarchan47tc 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Education noticeboard. I'll just keep going as long as they (meaning paid staff, of which there are more by the day) ignore it. It is time to get a disclaimer on our medical articles. Not just a little note at the bottom that no one will see-- a real disclaimer at the top. It is not possible to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Three of us from Wikipedia gave a few hours of talk (via the web) to the five 4th year medical students who will be starting soon from UCSF. I will be directly keeping an eye on the 5 articles that they are editing. We discussed the keys around sourcing and paraphrasing. The prof is very engaged. Work to set up this educational effort has been going on for nearly a year. We will see if it works.
With respect to the medical disclaimer. I would see it as reasonable on everything that is not either GA or FA. Would be an extra reward for bringing the article to that level. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad68
The thing is that newspapers do not carry this warning. Have you looked at the press around HIV cures lately. Take this one for example [3] People can do a lot worse than Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I support a simple but prominent disclaimer at the top of all articles tagged with {{WPMED}} (and pending changes for all such articles). I came across an article with dosing information the other day. Given that anyone could write any nonsense in our articles - they're by any definition not reliable and we should ensure our readers know that.
Choess, we could form our own scholarly review sub-project, with an independent editorial board inviting independent experts to review our best work. Once an article has passed scholarly review, the disclaimer at the top of the current version can be replaced with a link to the latest expert-reviewed version. Getting the right people for the editorial board is key, and they would probably have to pay the reviewers if we want the best. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Check this out; that sort of claptrap is the source of our malaise with respect to student medical editing, and Jami Mathewson is getting some position starting today. She has a new best friend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at a disclaimer template at User:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer; what do you guys think? It's intended for placement at the top of articles that might be susceptible to misuse as legal/medical/financial guidance. I envision it being eventually located at {{Reliability disclaimer}}. Edits/suggestions/criticism welcome at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer. alanyst 17:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
MastCell, do you remember User:Encephalon? He was my first Wikipedia mentor. Well, so, anyway ... after two most insulting questions/propositions were posed at WP:ENB, I wrote this response as a tribute to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent example of why we do not use primary sources. Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Primary_source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(←) I am coming very late to this discussion. I am humbled by MastCell's tribute. Unfortunately demands on my time in meatspace have substantially reduced the time I can spend on Wikipedia.
I think the core medical articles have been significantly improving in quality, mostly thanks to hard work by James. There is a huge amount of work to do, and I agree that unsupervised editing as part of educational projects is not something I can support anymore - there have been too many incidents and the course directors are themselves too unfamiliar with our community to see how badly wrong things can go. On the other hand, I think we have had much less trouble with POV trolls than we used to in the past. Even massively controversial topics have lively debate and attempts at consensus forming that would have been unimaginable in 2005.
The WikiProject has a huge scope and not as many editors as we might have wanted. That means that some more obscure topics are festering a little bit. Hopefully the consistent drive for improvement in the core articles will eventually "trickle down" to these topics also. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers.
This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:
I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
...and I even managed to find 6 people I could live with supporting for ArbCom this year. MastCell Talk 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The most interesting discussions invariably end up on user talk pages... (I'm sure there is some Wikipedia law about that). Risker's comments above are fascinating, though I am going to have to resist the temptation to speculate as to which past and present arbitrators (including all those present) fall into the 'least productive, sensible and/or effective' classes mentioned. One thing that can happen is that arbitrators approaching the end of their terms may fall into a certain mindset (the 'halfway out the door' mentality). Sometimes that helps, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes arbs gird themselves to carry on or campaign for more, sometimes they re-align themselves to take on fresh challenges. Arbitrating to a consistently high level for 4-7 years as some have attempted to do, is not at all easy. To do those 4-7 years consecutively is another step up again. Risker and Roger were first elected in the same year I was (2009) and they took seats with three-year terms, each followed by a 2-year term. Kirill (around 7 years) and Newyorkbrad (coming up to the seventh year) are (I think) the only arbs to do more than five years. There are only six who have done 4 or more years: James Forrester did around 4.5 years, Fred Bauder did 4 years, David Fuchs is in the second term of a stretch of 4 years (as am I), AGK is standing for a third and fourth year, Risker has done 5 years, Roger 5 years and standing for a further two. I am forever grateful that I only had an initial 2-year term. This was followed by a 2-year break (mostly spent decompressing). Having that break does provide a different perspective, but whether is was a useful difference in perspective, I'm still not sure. Looking at Risker's list above, I agree with those points, especially the non-admin bit. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi MastCell: Can you tell me please what I've been evasive about? And what you find so troubling about my thought processes? Can you please tell me what the committee (who were remarkably unanimous) could and should have done differently in the TM case? Roger Davies talk 10:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I also oppose Roger for the reasons that MastCell presents above very succinctly. There is a lack of WP:CLUE here. Arbcom needs to be given much less authority. I have no opinion of TM beyond that of the best available literature. What we have here is a small religious movement selling a very expensive product via Wikipedia and based on what they claim to be "science". We are more or less being used for advertising and arbcom come out in support of use being used in this fashion. The so called "outing" occurred in an email to arbcom and a number of other Wikipedia functionaries including Wales. It is amazing to read the diffs that are presented to justify his ban [9] He spoke out against arbcom's lack of concern for COI and this is part of the evidence used to ban him. Sort of emphasis that if one speaks out against arbcom they will be indefinitely banned. And no community consensus is able to overturn it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Wikipedia, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Wikipedia's dispute system. [10]
Roger and Risker, thanks for the responses; I've separated my commentary to hopefully interfere less with your discussion with MastCell. I share the views of II and MastCell on relatively benign practices like meditation (and I extend that to acupuncture), and I understand the behavioral issues that led to WBB's ban. I remain concerned that this discussion did appear to weigh in with respect to content, and am concerned that we have COI funding brought to bear in numerous other suites of medical articles where our content potentially has a more serious impact on human health.
I agree that you are one of the few arbs who has the perseverance, vision, professionalism, experience, and gravitas to bring reform where needed, hence I've voted for you. But my overriding concern is that, if something can't be done about COI editing with substantial backing from advocacy groups affecting our medical content, then the rest of what happens in here will become increasingly dangerous, not only in terms of the substantial harassment and outing issues raised in the TG ban appeal, but in terms of medical effect on hundreds of thousands of readers.
I can think of three possible outcomes to this dilemma (there are surely more): a) MEDRS is elevated to a policy more akin to BLP (recognizing that health information can have as much impact as BLP); b) a medical disclaimer is placed on our medical articles; c) experienced arbs aren't re-elected, they spend a year in the trenches realizing how very bad things are, ArbCom goes through a tumultuous period, and stronger arbs emerge to be elected or re-elected the next year. In other words, do things have to get much worse before they can get better? Just this week, in spite of my best attempts to engage sources, content, policy, guideline, and good-faith discussion on medical article talk pages, the editors adding poorly sourced content and original research-- generally from advocacy websites or primary sources in spite of the availability of voluminous secondary medical reviews-- simply responded with, basically, "we'll be back with reinforcements". And there is funding in that content realm for them to be back with significant reinforcement. Something needs to change, and the direction that COI could go relative to these past conversations with arbs in this realm concerns me. MEDRS may be only a guideline, but it is a guideline that informs WP:V policy; I hope to see strong support for that among arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
There was no element of the COI that could not be applied to a goodly number of editors within WP:MED itself, not to mention hundreds of other editors throughout the project working on a huge range of topics. Stating that one should not edit in topic areas related to one's belief system would eliminate all Catholics from editing about the Pope, Jews from editing about the Torah or Chanukah, and so on; we don't want that, and in many cases these editors are actually the "experts". (Think about it: does anyone from WP:MED not hold beliefs about the effectiveness of treatments or procedures related to some of the articles they're editing?)
Hi Sandy. Just so you know where I stand. You have my full support in any move to give extra BLP-like protection to medical content. It is important and without special measures is vulnerable in an environment which anyone can edit. I do not support any creep of WP:COI to legitimise outing. Outing and intimidation is despicable and reaching epidemic levels. I have been working to get the WMF to take a more active role in stamping it out. Roger Davies talk 22:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that in the German Wikipedia SG is short for "Schon gewusst?", the little sister of DYK, like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
On top of the hall, SG saw a mathematician, a sculptor and a women believed to be a witch, among others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
RE this edit, I was thinking the exact same thing, ha! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you aware of these threats by User:Orrerysky? They should be factored into the length of any blocks:
These are threats to "escalate" his disruption (WP:BATTLE), use sockpuppets, and likely meatpuppets. Since one of the first things that happened after his block was a revert on the Plasma cosmology article by a new editor, long-term protection of Wikipedia may be necessary. Read the edit summary here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Does any of this interest you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Section Blanking Reason NPOV.The discussion is about the topic Cholangiocarcinoma. Thank you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I took the liberty of deploying your recent comment on Sue Gardner's talk page on my user page, where I already had a brief rant on why paid editing is a problem that needs to be dealt with by the Foundation. This used to be part of a much longer rant on paid editing, which I removed after concluding that I was working myself into a sweat about a problem that 1) I couldn't impact and 2) in which the people most directly affected were silent. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Mast Cell,
I noticed you worked a bit on ALEC, and bumped into Dr F. Because I have only short bits of time to spend on wiki, I am going to be very blunt. Something needs to be done about the fact that multiple editors across multiple articles are dealing with what I am going to call a spin doctor. I don't care about proving COI. We are not brain dead. "If it quacks like a duck" must come into play at some point, no? Anyway, please consider assisting at Edward Snowden where the Dr continues to play games. It seems he feels comfortable simply complaining. We are too nice to Snowden, or we have too much information about him and not enough of the government's stance.
Two things that struck me tonight: the US government considers Snowden an enemy, and is charging him with espionage, making the USG a most POV voice with regard to this article. Therefore, it is doubly prudent to look into whether the USG has - for whatever reason (good luck?) - an editor representing them, or editing and commenting in a way that looks identicle to someone who does. At the recent anti-paid editing discussions, I kept hearing that Wiki has a great response in its guidelines to POV editing, but frankly, unless some PR firm, or someone working in the US Senate building, gets busted red handed, I see no common sense action take place.
The other thing that struck me, when considering the consistent onslaught of the complaints, is that there might be an attempt simply to take time away that could be spent updating and doing needed work on the article, .
At the end of the day, it seems disrespectful to other wiki editors to allow this to go on. I still say, from my experience here of late, wiki seems to consist of around 90% spin doctors and/or über-conservative idiots (I am not referencing anyone specific with this comment). Thank you for your time, petrarchan47tc 11:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi MastCell, I just noticed this as I was notifying you of my COIN report. Thanks for the kind words. I don't know what Petrarchan47's beef is with me but I want to note that I consider his/her solicitation of you here inappropriate canvassing and an attempt to game the consensus-building process. Sorry to be such a downer. :-( --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Heads-up on this COIN report. I'm notifying you because of this comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not "insert" any BLP violation -- the material which had been removed had been in the article since 2008. I did now remove it per your objection, but the rest clearly does not violate BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I am not "on the right of the political aisle" at all -- I was raised as a "Rockefeller Republican" and friends with Lowell Weicker etc. while my uncle was a friend of JFK etc. Anyone who views this as "right wing" has a very poor sense of direction. I really would like this type of name calling to cease. In fact, I was called "left wing" by some folks for my edits on Johann Hari and some Australian politicians <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
You always have the best quotes. #4 is both funny and sad at the same time. Yobol (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
So you can see, Mast Cell, it is a tricky and time-consuming subject to cover in a good way. As I've said, I certainly can't do the fact checking and research for big picture/context for the whole slew of articles by myself, so have invited one researcher, and another armchair researcher, to help out. I wanted to check in about how to be completely above board and legal, obviously, and how to welcome and help educate them on all they'll need to know. I've never helped a new person become an editor, and feel like a newbie myself, frankly, especially when it comes to understanding the guidelines with regard to need for and proper use of MEDRS. I think it would help all of the editors working on this matter to get very clear about the boundaries for MEDRS. (Should our coverage of the history of the DEA and cannabis law in the US use only MEDRS sources? I don't think so, but am being told MEDRS is required even for that.)
I'll ask the two new editors to state on their page that they were asked to help with this specific subject by me, does that sound kosher? What else do we need to know? Maybe Project Medicine has someone who welcomes and helps school newbies on MEDRS? Thanks again for your continued guidance, it's most appreciated. petrarchan47tc 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
A talk page requesting RfC user mastcell has been made
Maybe some third party eyes will help . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#novocure
Why do you assume that instead of good faith? Thats terrible. I have all sorts of regrets but to assume I will be what you say.. On his talk page no less..... I got others to notify . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure you saw this lovely line on factionalism:
I'm thinking that there are many more of these irregular verbs on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps:
What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "novocure". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
As a senior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.
1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?
2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say?
3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?
Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:
David F. Haight, [20] Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.” [21]
Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.[22]
Adam Lucas, [23] writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."
But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:
Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.[24]
Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.[25]
Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post [26]
Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post [27]
Rudolph E. Tanzi,[28] Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post [29]
Neil Theise,[30] Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post [31]
All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose
Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.
David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision
Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics
Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist [32]
Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian [33]
Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex
A final point
One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. [34] contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. [35] [36] [37] [38]
Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content.
I eagerly await your response. Thanks Barleybannocks (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers.
Why/how was this article recreated after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi MastCell, regarding my closure here of the AE case regarding Alfonzo Green, it was brought to my attention that perhaps enough time wasn't given for further consideration of Alfonzo's comments due to the holiday yesterday. Did you have any intent on making a substantive change in your position regarding that case after Alfonzo's comments and before my closure? Please let me know if so... Thanks. Zad68 21:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
And in case you hadn't seen, this... Zad68 15:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that a block based on what you "think" is true where sufficient evidence has been given otherwise would be improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Please strike through the following comment: "and which even its originator admits is simply a continuation of his original, disruptive argumentation." Nowhere do I admit to engaging in "disruptive argumentation," either now or at any time prior. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I was reading this comment (saying that Roccodrift "should be using his/her main account, rather than using this account to segregate agenda-driven edits...") and I just thought I'd clarify that the main account has been indeffed for almost a year...As best as I remember they had edit warring problems and kept getting escalating block lengths until they started socking to evade the blocks, which led to the indef. Anyway, whether it's him or someone else, I think the main charge is block evasion, not sock puppetry. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"In addition, as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic and I always edit with WP's best interests foremost in my mind." Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MastCell,
You recently reverted my edits to the abortion page. I know in your edit summary you briefly explained why you did so but I have a couple of questions.
My understanding is that we should include other polls and public opinions on this topic, not just the US. Let me hear your thoughts. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw what you said only after the RfA was withdrawn and closed, and I figure that courtesy indicates that I ought to reply to you here. Of course it's all moot now, but at the time of my comment to which you replied, I had understood it as editing from the same area, but not the same computer. If it actually were the same computer, that would probably have bumped me into oppose. Anyway, thanks for your attention to the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Risker, you wrote: "Incidentally, one could wonder about the COI of editors who hold fervent but diametrically opposite beliefs, and whether they have a conflict of interest as well; for example, if someone consistently adds only negative information to articles relating to a specific topic area, sometimes to the point of undue weight, perhaps their COI is just as real as those editors who add only positive information to the same articles. Neither party is being neutral." The problem here is only if this editor takes the negative within the article "to the point of undue weight" and not whether they "consistently add only negative information". Because being neutral isn't about balancing the good and bad viewpoints evenly. I hope you understand that, unlike the BBC, say, who still haven't got their head round it. If our best sources are negative on a subject then negative is how our articles should be and neutral edits in that area would generally be negative. The issue with TM isn't about beliefs where good people can agree to disagree, but about medical claims that are testable. -- Colin°Talk 08:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading all of this about COIs and so on with respect to the TM pages, I'm starting to understand more of the issues that I wasn't aware of before. First, disclosure time here: I don't have any financial conflict of interest as I am unemployed, living on food stamps at teh level reserved for people with zero income, and any income I hid from you from the TM organization would be used against me in legal proceedings for fraudulently obtaining food stamps. Now, emotionally, I have clear biases: I have been practicing TM for 40+ years, and am a well known TM advocate (at least in my own mind) on a first-name basis with most of the upper level of the TM organization (at least in the USA) simply by being a 40 year TMer. That said, I pride myself on trying to be as honest as possible. Should I refrain from posting, even in the talk page?
Regarding the specifics of all this stuff about shared coffeehouse internet access. It sounds plausible to me. About 30 years ago, the TM founder, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, put out a call for 7,000 people to meditate together every day, in order to bring about world peace via group meditation. Over the years, about 2,000 of the most ultra-fanatical TMers have moved to the middle of nowhere, AKA, "Fairfield, IA," in order to meditate together every day. Many receive/have received a monthly stipend from the Howard Settle Foundation in order to allow them to devote 8 hours a day to this group meditation practice. Obviously, such a group of hardcore true believers would be prone to have a very lock-step view of TM, and given that many are living in low-cost quarters, since they have chosen to make meditation their "full time job," they would end up using public internet access to express themselves. It sounds like this is, at least somewhat, how the situation has arisen. Does this sound right? I can see how such people would be considered to have a clear COI. However, is it any worse than mine? Having outed myself as a hardcore fanatic with 40 years practice, should I be banned as well? Sparaig2 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I decided to look back here, and it continues to be very interesting to me. Although I never followed the TimidGuy case, my overall experiences with conflicts over COI make me see things much as Risker does. And it comes from some experiences that relate in an interesting way to some things SandyGeorgia referred to. I was a mostly quiet observer of the cannabis dispute to which Sandy refers, and a big part of the reason is that I had, just a few months earlier, found myself in another dispute, for which you could substitute "Monsanto" for "TM" – and the same group of editors who were in dispute with the WikiProject Medicine editors with respect to cannabis had just been incredibly mean-spirited in the Monsanto dispute (one of them got a three-month block). But here's the thing. The editors who were, in my opinion, tendentious in both disputes were the ones making COI accusations. In cannabis, they accused the editors who are physicians of having a COI by virtue of being physicians. In the Monsanto dispute, they accused anyone who questioned harsh criticism of genetically modified food crops of being paid by Monsanto. I've been around here long enough now that no one was quite willing to level that accusation at me, but the stuff that was said to some younger editors really appalled me. One such younger editor actually went so far as to report himself at WP:COIN, and got an oversighter to confidentially look into who he is in real life, and definitively exonerate him from the COI accusations. And the accusations continued nonetheless! It was like, either you are here to right great wrongs, or somebody is paying you to edit. That's why in the RfA, I felt that there needed to be diffs showing actual POV pushing, because editing from "the same small local ISP. There was no overlap except for the local Wifi coffee-shop/bookstore", quoting Risker – and not, apparently, from the same computer – did not seem to me to establish COI editing, unless the edits themselves were pushing a POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand that you don't see yourself as particularly biased against TM, but since the wikipedia pages about other forms of meditation don't seem to make mention of any caveats made by reviewers about the quality of meditation research in general, while editors bring it up over and over again on the TM research page (which has been folded into a tiny section that doesn't even mention all the different avenues of research that are being investigated), surely you can see how I might get the impression that TM is being singled out?
I'd like to ask you a question about research design? What would need to be done to make a TM study better in your opinion? The best designed study on meditation that I am aware of was conducted by a team of researchers who were actually advocates of several different practices. They attempted to ensure that all meditation teachers were as professional looking/sounding as the TM teachers, with well-memorized, professional presentations made while wearing business attire, using professionally done materials that presented slick charts that made reference to real research on the kind of meditation practice they were teaching. Subjects were randomly assigned, given the lecture by the meditation teacher, and then given a questionnaire to see if there were differences in expectation between groups (there were not). Data collection was done blind by graduate students from Harvard University and researchers were also blind to group participation: Transcendental meditation, mindfulness, and longevity: an experimental study with the elderly. If future TM studies were done along these lines, but on a larger scale, would this make the results more acceptable to you?
You should be aware that I have been in touch with all the major players in the TM organization pitching the concept that teh David Lynch Foundation should make it known that they are willing to instruct subjects in studies on other meditation practices TM so that such studies can become official head-to-head studies of TM vs <whatever>. The TM hierarchy seems at least somewhat receptive towards doing such a thing, but I'm not convinced that researchers into other practices will be. Do you think that such studies should be done?
By the way, this study was done by researchers who don't practice any form of meditation, as far as I know, Reduced functional connectivity between cortical sources in !ve meditation traditions detected with lagged coherence using EEG tomography, but TM researchers have convinced the original authors to conduct a followup that examines long-term TM practitioners specifically. If the TMers are shown to be different in some significant way from the practitioners of the other practices, how should such a pair of studies be reported, and what wikipedia page should it be reported in?Sparaig2 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Sparaig2 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles. Appreciate it.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I kept wishing for a social-media-esque 'Like' button as I read through your user page. Thanks for sharing. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MastCell - I don't know if you remember this thread, but it's one where Esoglou repeatedly made disparaging reference to my sexual orientation as a reason why my editing was not acceptable to him, and now he's just gone and done it again over at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Can this just be dealt with? Or do I have to go over to AN or ANI for it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand the purpose of the MOS for dashes in article space, but whats the point of doing it for something like workshop comments? Why bother? Is it something we should be doing in talk page comments etc? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MastCell. What you might do to pretty quickly gain an accurate idea of who's behind the recent incivility at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism is to peruse its current Talk page from the section "Don't make stupid edits", created on January 18, to the present. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) incredibly foolish, assuming you have any desire to continue editing wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Move Like Thisby 28bytes
With thanks for cheers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I made ONE revert, which isn't exactly risking 3RR, is it? As for the information I added being contentious, it isn't. Stan the mechanic does not have a medical qualification and he did claim to have found longitudinal results from a cross sectional study. I accept that (medical) Dr Siegel's blog isn't an RS and will look for a better source, but let's not pretend that Glantz's "research" is universally accepted.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm thinking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson GQ interview controversy should be overturned to no consensus but would like your opinion and possible support, if you agree. I think this help answer some of the due weight issues at both the Phil Robertson BLP, and the Duck Dynasty article from where it was spun out. The admin has been unresponsive after initial dismissal of concerns. I'm concerned we are white-washing the notable impact of the events, and I think a stand alone would help address that. I've also asked DDG for their opinion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi MastCell. I know dealing with conduct issues isn't generally your bag but I'm hoping you can help me here, as you might be the only person Petrarchan will listen to (based on this thread and this follow-up comment). She has made lots of great contributions to Edward Snowden and The Day We Fight Back but she's become increasingly disruptive while exhibiting extreme and ongoing WP:OWN, WP:AGF, AND WP:NPA issues (among others). In a nutshell she seems to resist any efforts by other editors to tweak her work, and often resorts to tactics that I think are way out-of-bounds. In the past I've repeatedly tried discussing these issues with her directly to no avail. (And she told me not to post on her user talk anymore.) Rather than giving you the long story I'll simply point you to some of the worse recent talk page discussions and let you make your own assessment:
To be clear, I'm hoping you'll address the conduct problems rather than the content problems. I have no problem with the fact that she and I disagree some things; I would just like to be able resolve those disagreements in a civil and intellectually honest manner. If this is something you absolutely refuse to assist me with, I understand, but perhaps you can recommend some other avenue I might try. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry MastCell, I hope we didn't scare you away! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you find the single sentence I give on the talk page as conveying the gist og the NSA actions without giving it undue weight and detail? Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have finally created Wikipedia:Irregular verbs on Wikipedia.
Floquenbeam, I quoted one of yours out of the archives of MastCell's talk page.
(I'd be happy to have the page expanded and reorganized by anyone who is amused by it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an unblock request at User talk:204.101.237.139. You blocked it as an open proxy, but I can find no evidence at all that it is an open proxy. Can you let me know what evidence you had? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I think you did a small mistake and placed it in the wrong section. As I understand you are not a party to the case so it should be placed in the "Comment by others" section. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(This one) made me smile as I realized there was an ambiguity regarding whether it was the curiosity that approximated the curiosity of anthropologists or the subject matter of interest that approximated the subject matter of interest to anthropologists. Any way, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto and etc. etc. Keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Kindly note that Wasted Time R is in the exact same position as I on that article, and so I left him the warning that you did not give. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
MastCell, my apologies for this situation. I did not think either of us was edit-warring, but rather that we had fallen into a series of BRD actions over different pieces of text, albeit in the same section of the article. But I can easily see how it looks like edit-warring from the outside. In retrospect, after the first revert I should have posted each proposed addition to the Talk page first, but I didn't think my changes were very bold, I thought each next change had taken into account Collect's objections, and I was honestly taken by surprise by each revert.
So go ahead and per Collect's request, revert my last edit, so as to return the text to the status quo ante - I obviously can't do that myself. I am withdrawing from any further editing on the article, so you won't have any more trouble on this. I'll make a couple of posts on the Talk page there about open issues and that'll be it.
I do want to take this chance to say that I am proud of the research and writing work I did to create a completely revised and greatly expanded article back in 2008-09 and get it to GA. I believe it is a good article, figuratively as well as literally, that fairly treats a complex and controversial subject. And I think Wikipedia was well-served by having it available when Keating died the other day and there was a readership spike. In particular, I think our article did a much better job at capturing all the different aspects of his life than did any of the newspaper obits I saw.
But again, apologies. I try my best to avoid drama but failed in this case. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
MastCell,
I can't imagine you would have any more energy to read this than I have to write it, but hopefully it doesn't take too much of your time. The BP oil spill articles (BP, BP oil spill, and Corexit) began having lots of activity recently, and it's hard not to note that also recently the date for BP's last phase of their trial was announced - the Clean Water Act trial, worth multi-billion$ as you may imagine. Suddenly edits to these very issues - right to the heart of them - came along with some intensity. The attitude behind the editing is not dissimilar to our old friend, R11, though that's likely a coincidence.
Corexit was used during the spill to break up (or hide) the oil. Not much science was done prior to the spill, but one very damning study done since that was well-covered found that the dispersant created a mixture that was up to 54 times more toxic than the oil alone. I knew that if one was to try and do some pre-trial whitewashing, this study would be attacked first. So it wasn't difficult to take note of some activity that was *interesting*, however I don't have the energy these days to fight this stuff. I do still like editing here, though, and think I need to get this person off my back at the very least. What type of action would one take, or is this just considered par for the course?
Maybe you have an idea of someone else I should ask, I really don't want to bother you (or anyone) with this crud, but I also don't want to be called names whilst doing my editing here, so something needs to happen. Thanks again, petrarchan47tc 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
[48], [49].
Actually, never mind, MastCell - I see this was your response a month ago: "I don't have the energy (or, at this point, the tools) to mediate a dispute...I just don't have it in me to take this on right now." I do apologize for bringing you yet another hairy mess when you've already stated that you've had enough of this stuff. FWIW, things calmed down tremendously after simply voicing my concerns here, so thank you for that! Best, petrarchan47tc 04:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, this is not "solved" and I'm still hoping for a response. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The correct link for the 12:43 edit on Keating is now in place on my user talk page - I hate Windows 8. Lurkers who make comments about my maths skills can rewrite their snark. Collect (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRoNGRoN&oldid=604520139 It basically says it all. The editor IronGron became very upset when I edited an article on the A-12. I tried to correct a ambiguous sentence and was mislead by what it stated due to the ambiguity. My edit was incorrect but the original sentence was unsourced and I used my 25 years of experience as an aircraft maintainer to try to sort out what the confusing sentence was trying to state. The editors response was well under the bar of civil discourse. I have tried to address that with the editor and it appears that the editor may be sufferring from a mental disorder based on their comments. Possibly schezophrenia but it may just be someone who is intentionally deceptive to win an argument. So my question is how does one go about address editors who curse and are extremely uncivil? Somewhat new but I understand there is a warning process but unsure of the protocol.
Thanks. I have decided to repost this to Milborneone. I just found out that he is an aviation related admin and would be more familar with Irongron. 172.56.3.87 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
...you've noticed that too. Very concisely and nicely put. Oh, and absolutely true. Antandrus (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I'm not supposed to begin editing any article that I haven't edited before, if a certain editor is already editing it, I'll ask this question on your Talk page. At what point in the 60 Minutes clip on Becky Bell that we are using as our source, did it describe John C. Willke as a "controversial physician"? Badmintonhist (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Also, at what point in the actual video presentation (as opposed to the blurb describing it which may have been dashed out a couple of decades later) does 60 Minutes state as an "undebated fact" that Becky died after an illegal abortion? If you listen to it carefully you will instead hear very hedged language : the Bells say . . . ; the coroner says . . . Badmintonhist (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
{{cite news}}
|date=
I see you've blocked Useitorloseit (talk · contribs) for one week for edit warring. He's asking to be unblocked to participate in the discussion at the article's talk page.
I'm thinking of offering an unblock with the following conditions:
What's your take? Is 1RR sufficient, or should we go all the way to 0RR? —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi MastCell. I have a conflict of interest. I've put together a proposed draft at User:CorporateM/Barton that I think should be a large improvement and ready for a GAN. If I was submitting it to AfC, it would be easy, but since the current article is well-developed, it would be very difficult for a disinterested editor to compare the two versions and review the sources. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the best process for me to suggest improvements.
I find that in most cases editors say it is easier in small chunks, but I don't find that to be the case. Inevitably editors end up disagreeing on petty items and the process breaks down without bold editing. Also, it can take 2-3 weeks to get each chunk considered, which would place the timeline on making a page GAN-ready into almost a year. So I am trying to find the best way to improve articles where (a) I have a COI and would like to follow best practices (b) the current article is well-developed making it difficult to compare the two versions and (c) a large number of changes are needed that cannot practically be explained individually. I would be interested in your thoughts. CorporateM (Talk) 23:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if this article indexed at Pubmed was a legit source. We are trying to delineate what constitutes "fringe" practice and to what extent the practitioners hold those beliefs. Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC) EDIT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922917/
The Arbitration Committee is currently hearing a case relating to US Politics. The case information page is here. Your name was mentioned, so this is a courtesy post to inform you of this fact. The evidence phase of the case is now closed, but the Workshop is not yet closed. It is scheduled to close today, but if you choose to respond, we can extend the deadline. Please let me know if you plan to respond. For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You wrote that you thought you'd finally figured out Table 3 of the paper rating Wikipedia medical articles, also that you were thinking of contacting the authors. Did they ever say anything? The problem I have with Table 3 is that "concussion" is specifically listed in the text as the good article, yet the stats for concussion are 40 24 22 26 62 50, i.e. huge levels of "discord" in every category. By contrast the category before it had one reviewer who found no discord at all. This is being discussed at [54] and your input would be great there! Wnt (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Should this disruptive section be collapsed? Or removed? Writegeist (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you made what's currently the last edit on Sam Slovick, you may be interested in this, in another part of Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 08:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
They tended to take the conventional view, that the world existed independently, in all its mystery, awaiting description and explanation, though that did not prevent the observer from leaving thumbprints all over the field of observation. Beard had heard rumors that strange ideas were commonplace among the liberal arts departments. It was said that humanities students were routinely taught that science was just one more belief system, no more or less truthful than religion or astrology. He had always thought that this must be a slur against his colleagues on the arts side. The results surely spoke for themselves. Who was going to submit to a vaccine designed by a priest?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Britain First, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
My interests are not "Ugg boots and politics." My interests are journalism, reliable sources and as a hobby, genericized brand names (such as "Hoover," "Kleenex," "Q-Tip," "Xerox" and "Band-Aid") and the process of how they lose their trademark status. I may discuss other topics, such as Ugg boots and politics, whenever they brush up against these interests.
I ran into the P&W accusation at Talk:Ugg boots, so it seems fair to discuss it here. Judging from his contributions, he is fond of the Tea Party and sex scandals involving teenage boys, two topics I endeavor to avoid. Mainly you'll find me on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and when a political dispute arrives there in a huff, you'll find me .... discussing the reliability of the sources used.
I did take exception to your characterization of Emily Miller. I've read parts of her book through online excerpts and finding a copy on a friend's coffee table, but knew of her well before that, as she was nearly swept up in the Abramoff scandal due to nothing more than who she was dating at the time. She was a victim of circumstance and it almost ruined her career.
Before that she was working at ABC News and NBC News for several years, with well established bona fides as a genuine journalist, and an award for investigative journalism. Her book is certainly not the "polemic screed" you described and I suspect you've never read it, but relied instead on some critic who sharply disagreed with her political position.
She was victimized in her own home by an intruder. There are two proverbs in American politics: "A Democrat is a Republican who got arrested," and "A Republican is a Democrat who got mugged." The latter seems to fit her. After that harrowing experience, she avoided the conventional, militant feminist route of bitching, whining and expecting someone to solve her problems for her. Instead, she chose to own the problem, and accept responsibility for her own personal safety. I find that admirable.
As a law-abiding citizen in DC, she found it to be almost impossible to legally buy a firearm for self-defense. It was at that point that she decided to start bitching and whining, and she does so reasonably and in a professional manner. The title is rather unfortunate but I suspect that was a decision by the publisher, not the author. Reliable 1too (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you struck through some sock puppet comments in an RSN discussion. Thank you! Could you do the same in these other two discussions? [55][56] Lightbreather (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Since you closed the GoRight unban discussion on AN, could you please reblock GoRight? He was unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in that discussion. Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MastCell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hey MastCell - Lately I'm being harassed by an IP range in 174.236, who are persistently reverting my edits on Courage UK and Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism without explanation in the edit summary or the talk page. While of course it's an IP range that keeps changing address so it's hard to track its previous activity, it doesn't appear to have been working on either page before, so it clearly followed me to both based on ???. I doubt RPP would protect the pages on the basis of this harassment, but I know admins are also often reluctant to block ranges. How should I handle this situation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Letting you know about this because I think you were the last person to block for it, but let me know if I should direct this to someone else - but Badmintonhist has again stalked me to an article in order to revert me, despite a huge number of warnings and two prior blocks for stalking. [60] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is that Badmintonhist is banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, they may not revert or undo Roscelese's edit in any way.
Hey, this isn't an accusation or anything, I'm just confused. I was under the impression based on some of the things NK has said that you are acting as an administrator on this article. But then I see you're making some comments about content. Is NK just confused about what you were saying?--v/r - TP 22:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
...for getting the ball rolling with this. That article has needed an enema for years. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 601st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please block user:2601:6:6F00:538:9CA:E037:BEFD:3674 who has been a real pest at the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article. Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
