Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:06, 7 April 2009

I'm Off The Case. I'm stepping back from most administrative matters for the foreseeable future. I will try to stay on top of a handful of issues where I don't expect anyone else to step up, but I can't guarantee more than that.

Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–March 2008 March 2008–May 2008 June 2008 June 2008–July 2008 July 2008–September 2008 September 2008–October 2008 October 2008–November 2008 November 2008–December 2008 December 2008–present (Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy MastCell's Day!

User:MastCell has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as MastCell's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MastCell! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that's quite kind of you. MastCell  05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, I'll wear the official MastCell Day lederhosen with pride. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely see my shadow in the light of this star. Happy MC/G-hog day. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

See here. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Passive smoking

{{sprotected2}} for a week. Hopefully that stems everything. Sorry for being so slow to act, but I'm not a big fan of using admin tools to solve edit disputes unless I really, really have to (which was the case here). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You da man. MastCell  05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, you charismatic stallion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

more Nrse socks

recently you banned some nrse socks verified by checkuser. A new, obvious one has appeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ewalsh19842477 (it is a similar name to another banned sock, and it's reinserting the same material). when i went to the nrse checkuser page to add the name, i saw that the page was archived, and cannot be modified. so i figured i'd tell you and maybe you would know what to do. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the account. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell  05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

now he has a new look-alike account http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ewalsh198477

Operant conditioning

So many things about the English Misplaced Pages are new and innovative that the community of editors have had to come up with a number of novel approaches to solving problems that are, for the most part, unique to this project. Innovating from scratch has become a sort of native process to Misplaced Pages and for Wikipedians, but the knack for invention is only helpful as long as we don't stray into reinvention.

One thing we should all be able to agree on is that civility, and molding and preserving conditions for a civil discourse, is not really a Misplaced Pages problem; its a human problem. Like many human problems, its one that has been addressed in different ways at different times with varying degrees of success. I don't think anyone has really nailed it, but I'm not at all a scholar of that sort of thing. On the other hand, I think the framework of protected and unprotected speech we have here in the United States does pretty well. It replicates pretty precisely your model for operant conditioning; crackpots and nutjobs end up with a limited audience and similarly limited influence, because everyone can say more or less whatever they want and by and large the fringe is ignored. I'm not sure how this sort of culture shift could be instituted on Misplaced Pages, though - the ingrained habit of reacting to and suppressing hostility and "combat" would need to become the new focus of change, and I can't see that becoming a priority for the people who are most interested in improving the editing environment.

Perhaps our problem on Misplaced Pages is that we filter too well - what remains becomes glaringly intrusive, because the relatively successful effort at removing the most venomous and disruptive people leaves us uninured and vulnerable to milder irritants that remain. Hard to figure, for me anyway, what sort of strategy addresses the problems we have without making things worse. Avruch 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe setting monobook to make the background pink, just like pink walls in prisons.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

• I tend to agree with Avruch's last point. Viewed from outside the bubble, I think the level of civility on Misplaced Pages is actually exceptional for an online venue. You can't expect face-to-face levels of civility from pseudonymous online interaction - it's just not human nature. Within those constraints, and compared to various other wide-open online venues, I'm actually amazed that people are, by and large, mostly civil with each other here. That's not to say we can't do better, of course.
• In the end, we can't force people to be civil. Approaches that rely on brute force - blocking, parole, probation, ArbCom cases - will not work. We need to think a little bit deeper than that. For now, I think the best approach is to model the behavior we want to see. Light your corner. Ignore drama-for-drama's-sake. Et cetera. MastCell  04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course remembering to tell your friends regularly that they're awesome and much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet more from Karmaisking

Attacks on both article and user talk pages, and a continuous flow of socks. Can I request semi-protection for my talk page and (in anticipation) my Wiki article, as well as talk pages for all his usual targets. Is there some level of escalation (eg outing, approaches to ISPs) for such persistent vandals? Sorry to bother you with this, and feel free to pass JQ (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I got a few of the accounts, and semiprotected your talk page. I'll watch the article, but don't see anything at this point requiring intervention. Feel free to email me or leave a note if I can be of further assistance. MastCell  05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Unfortunately, a number of accounts are live. Most active at present is PyramidsOrFood. I don't know if there's an easy way of finding unblocked accounts in the suspected socks category, but that would obviously be the way to go.JQ (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaccines, autism, and other specious claims

Well, it looks like the tide is turning towards good science and away from Jenny McCarthy with this ruling. Of course, the nutjobs still rely upon...well, I'm not sure what she relies upon, but it sounds like "if you don't have the science, then attack someone". I guess Orfitt is the back pocket of big pharm, much like you and I.  :) OrangeMarlin 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I found it interesting that some of the web headlines read "Parents' claims denied...". Nowhere did I read one saying "Science affirmed...". As Offit himself said, news stories need a victim, a villain, and perhaps a hero. $0.02. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the ebbing and waning of many dumbass (scientific term meaning any anti-science supported by a hot ex-Playboy model) claims against medicine over the years (and if you ask MastCell, you know that I've been watching this stuff since most of you were in diapers). People need to blame things on someone or something. If it's autism being caused by vaccines that prevent massive and debilitating childhood diseases or Nostradamus predicting the 9/11 attacks, none of it is based on logic, rational analysis or real science. Autism happens for reasons that aren't really well understood. Vaccines prevent disease, and that's very very well understood. I'll take real science over pseudoscience any day of the week. My daughters had all of the vaccines, and all three are healthy, brilliant, gorgeous girls. But that's not science, it's my experience. But I know that they aren't going to get chicken pox, measles, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, smallpox (OK, we eradicated that with vaccines), cervical cancer, etc. I think the vaccine companies are owed our gratitude. Maybe those same companies enjoy marketing that little blue pill for profits, but I'm all right with the trade-off.OrangeMarlin 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

About three weeks ago, I told my wife how remarkable it was that in our country, not only can people take medical advice from a Playboy centerfold, a substantial number actually do. I cannot vouch for "centerfold" :-) but it sounds better than "model". :-) :-)

@"Blue pill" trade off, I also find it remarkable that the tone of much news coverage of that industry is strangely similar to that of the tobacco industry a decade or so ago. The tobacco industry. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, she was Playmate of the Year in 1993. Why do I know this? Misspent youth probably. Anyways, there are others who share her anti-science fecal material. I once told a girlfriend that although I appreciate a beautiful sexy woman, but if she's intelligent or even brilliant, I can't control myself. Ms. Playmate of the Year 1993 does not qualify. OrangeMarlin 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Grumble

Well, one less admin to counter Elonka and company. Of course, I've got a registered letter from the US Navy sitting on my desk. OrangeMarlin 03:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the grumble. The first 5% of the time that one devotes to Misplaced Pages yields about 50% of the benefit, so maybe you could scale back your time by a factor of 20 instead? Half a loaf, and all that. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I third the grumble. Please consider returning after a nice, long, wikistress-free sabbatical. You've been a voice of reason on so many topics. You will be missed. Skinwalker (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sad, but understandable. You'll be missed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed, but of course your decision is understandable. I hope you take and enjoy time for yourself and your family, that you remember the many friends who value and appreciate you here on Wiki, and please write if I can ever be of any help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo all the comments and concerns above. Enjoy your break, but please drop in every so often. Verbal chat 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Also, feel free to visit at my blog, where you might find something of interest.JQ (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll sixth or seventh these sentiments. While I understand and won't argue with your decision, I do hope to eventually see you around here again sometime. Yilloslime (t) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on. Have a good rest time away from wikipedia, forget[REDACTED] and enjoy your time. One day you might discover that you miss editing again some medical article :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you were less active on WT:MED. In situations like this I found it beneficial to my wiki-stress to ignore annoying editors for a while, and unfortunately/implicitly the content areas they operate in. I identify some topic I find interesting, but it's not popular to the point that fanatics will show up on it and edit that. Might work for you too. Take care, Xasodfuih (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I will light some incense and meditate for you to find harmony in your departure from Misplaced Pages related concerns. All this is illusion. Find your inner Omega egg and you will find peace. OMMMMmmmmmmmmmm... Remember, the mind is all powerful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words, everyone. Very nice of you all. I'll probably be back sooner or later, and I doubt I can go totally cold turkey, but I need a break. The alternative is go out in a blaze of glory, which I'm not quite ready to do yet. In the past, I've refocused on relaxing and uncontroversial areas when I've gotten fed up, but I'm just not feeling it at the moment. Happens. MastCell  04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed... :( Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I need to find out why you're going (I mean I know what you're saying, but what was the last straw?) I'll be doing Tong Ren for you, I may even go on a course, it'd be well worth a few thousand quid. Mind you it is comic genius, so maybe merely the amusement value of watching it will have a healing effect. Sticky Parkin 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods, Parkin, I could only watch that up until "therapy session" (the words, not even the event). What are you trying to do, punish him more? Or is this a not-so-subtle way of reminding him that the nutcases are still out there?

MastCell, you know how I feel. I will be good and lie and tell you that I accept and respect your decision. I don't, of course. But you have my email, if you ever want to bitch or ask for anything. (hugs) KillerChihuahua 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Was always a pleasure to work with you, MastCell. Very sorry to see you go and much impressed by all you've achieved here. By the way, have you tried Googling the first sentence of your biblical quotation? You rank fourth already (and I'm ashamed to say I smiled at the accompanying lavatorial humour). Enjoy your break. Trezatium (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A Rose for MastCell? Pay no attention to the wildly inappropriate (to the story) cover art. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great story; one of my all-time favorites! The Zelazny, that is, not MastCell leaving, which is a sad tale indeed. But do what's right for you and if you ever feel like returning -- even for an occasional eradication of harmful nonsense -- please do. All the best! Antandrus (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... the only science fiction I'm familiar with is the collected work of Kilgore Trout, but that story might be worth a look. MastCell  04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, well worth reading. I highly recommend. KillerChihuahua 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding: I had no idea we had an article on it, but what's wrong with the art? It isn't good art, but there is a redhead dancing, which at least shows some passing familiarity to the story. KillerChihuahua 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, wildly inappropriate is rather an exaggeration (and being the original F&SF cover, it is the correct illustration), but the bright 1960s colors do not convey to me the proper sense of elegant decay.

And MC - I do high pressure / low temperature physics, so if you ever need a little Ice IX, just ask. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Kilgore Trout, I noticed that Philip Jose Farmer just passed away... MastCell  06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading part of the Riverworld series when I was in College (you know, back when we actually had to use slide rules for physics equations--yes, slide rules) and grad/professional school (I had advanced to a 4 function calculator from TI). OrangeMarlin 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, MastCell. It can do a world of good. Come back if and when the batteries are recharged. SirFozzie (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Like SF said. The project will still be here in a week or a month. Take it easy and enjoy your well-earned break. --John (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Death threats by 66.99.218.13

I posted to WP:ANI#Death threats by 66.99.218.13. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll remember to stay away from the public library next time I'm in Glendale Heights, just to be on the safe side. MastCell  23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Roger Birkman

Came across this on new page patrol. Not sure what to make of it. Mast was my go to guy for this kind of thing, so if someone else has an interest in this type of article please let me know. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the obvious Google check, and there seems to be enough to support notability, but it's all puff pieces for his methods (by others as well as him). Google scholar shows a couple of lightly-cited articles and his books. Obviously the article reads rather like an ad, but I doubt that there will be reliable sources for anything more balanced.JQ (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA?

Good to see you back. I'd like to take some of the burden of blocking socks (most obviously KiK) and protecting their target articles, instead of bothering you with requests of this kind. I assume this involves an RfA process, about which I don't know much. Do you have any advice? JQ (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you would be a great admin and would be happy to advise or support you if you'd like to go through that process. On the other hand, as an admin you wouldn't be using the tools in areas where you're an active editor, so I'm not sure it would really help with blocking KiK socks - so it might not be worth the trouble if that's the main focus. Send me an email, and we'll chat. MastCell  05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

During the trials and tribulations at Talk:Sarah Palin you advised that I...Model the behavior you would like to see. Very good advice. The best I've had yet!--Buster7 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you found it helpful - I'm still not convinced it actually works, but it sounds good, don't it? :) MastCell  05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it tends to increase the total number of people practicing that behaviour by at least 1. I consider that in itself a success. If everybody did it .... Seriously, though, I think it really does work: slowly or non-obviously maybe, or maybe just keeps things as they are rather than giving the other person excuses or motivation to behave even worse.☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing behaviour at Babesia article

Hi. I note that you have made some substantive contributions to the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?

Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Thanks for reminding me of why I don't participate in Misplaced Pages. Keep up the good work! Adreamsoul (talk)

Hmm. You don't participate here because you're not allowed to spam Google videos promoting AIDS denialism? Our loss, I suppose. MastCell  20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't participate here because shills like you block information from appearing that you don't agree with. Enjoy your life spending all of your day reverting changes on wikipedia. Adreamsoul (talk)

I wonder if it would be considered "spam" if it supported your chosen hypothesis Adreamsoul (talk)

Is it just me, or is there a rash of this in the past week? I wonder which chat board it was this time... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Full moon. You know, the authors of HIV Denial in the Internet Era really should have included a short section on Misplaced Pages... MastCell  00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you quit. I miss your vandalizing my user talk page. OrangeMarlin 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't quit, but I have cut back to a bare minimum. I can't really summon the energy to care about improving the site substantially at present. However, there is still a part of me which doesn't want Misplaced Pages to turn into an active promoter of dangerous ignorance - hence the edits to AIDS denialism. I will make an effort to stop by your talk page more often during my occasional forays here. :) MastCell  04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."--Michael Corleone. OrangeMarlin 05:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad you're still editing AIDS denialism when you can. As they say, if MastCell didn't exist, someone would have to invent MastCell. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Voltaire. You know, he once wrote that he had only one prayer, and a short one at that: "O Lord, make my enemies quite ridiculous!" He felt that God was exceedingly generous in granting this request. As do I, in this particular venue. MastCell  04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term shill always makes me laugh! Shot info (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so that I remain sane, does Misplaced Pages attract a certain type of nutter, or are we seeing a representative sampling of how people think about these type of topics? I'm going to have my own type of denialism in believing that most people don't believe in this crap, and Misplaced Pages just attracts people with an agenda. Please don't try to convince me otherwise. OrangeMarlin 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Always keep in mind that half of the population is of below-average intelligence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

...I had always wondered why a substantial fraction of people prefer to get medical advice from a playboy bunny than from their doctor... Baccyak4H (Yak!)

Most alternative medicine types know nothing about medicine, science, or how to quickly calculate tips. OrangeMarlin 07:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your reason for removing the link to Christine Maggiore's memorial website from her[REDACTED] entry? I can't understand your decision. The only reason I can think of is bias. Sadunkal (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Busy work ?

In case you're interested in semi-mindless cleanup needs ? User talk:Maralia#Osteochondritis dissecans: it passed FAC, but doesn't meet my standards for medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch out, the main editor on that article is very sensitive to criticism of his work and has followers who attack critics on his behalf. Don't wanna see you get burned out just as you came back. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay

Welcome back, good sir. Welcome back. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no one is supposed to know that I'm back. And it's only in a very limited capacity. But thank you. :) MastCell  01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For once this link is entirely appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Son of a... :P MastCell  01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I really appreciate your message. I also very much appreciate your overall approach to discussing content disputes, as far as I've seen. As I see it, having different opinions about how to apply policy, guidelines etc. in a specific situation is fine. Discussion of such differences of opinion can be productive, enjoyable and a learning experience. (I tend by nature to lean towards inclusionism, but admit that deletion is also an essential part of building a good encyclopedia.) What I like about your approach is the extent to which you demonstrate respect for the other parties during such discussions. During my early months on Misplaced Pages I learned some important things from you about Misplaced Pages policy and how Misplaced Pages works in practice, and I hope to continue to have opportunities to work with and learn from you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like my ability to set a useful example has degraded substantially over the past few months. Some of the frustrations inherent in this model are getting to me. That was the main rationale behind my (semi-successful) decision to withdraw - I don't want to go down the usual tail-end of the admin career arc, where I get crankier and crankier... anyhow, thanks for your note, and best wishes. MastCell  17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to try to help you with those frustrations, as I tried here. I think that proposal might have gone somewhere if I had introduced it differently: I made the mistake of posting it when I hadn't edited the page for nearly a year, and without introducing myself or stating that I had edited the page previously or why I had returned, etc. It might have been better to do some other edits and discussion at the page first and then post a proposal. Anyway, it seems possible to me that although that proposal didn't take off, it may have helped lead to the solution that was eventually found, i.e. banning Heelop. Jehochman has also said (sorry I may not be able to find the diff) that he's willing to show people how to handle disruptive editors (or something along those lines). If you're interested, a first step would be to describe what the sources of frustration are. I hope you're enjoying your semi-break and I hope it's helping. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Jehochman. He's a good egg. In the end, though, dealing with disruptive or agenda-driven editors requires patience. There's just no substitute for patience, as a necessary starting point. Right now I don't really have the patience. Maybe I will, again, at some point in the future. MastCell  05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly respect that choice. At the same time: I think processes and practices can be changed so that less patience is required. An important first step in my opinion is gathering thorough, precise information about what makes it difficult for good editors such as yourself to continue participating. This is important not only for your sake but in order to lay the groundwork for positive changes that will benefit others similar to yourself. Also, perhaps I could help in some specific situations. I could try to cover the patience part while you play a more distant role. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Mortician103. Bringing up the sockpuppetry is sort of like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. I agree the Disruption and POV-pushing were much more significant. Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

your question on talk:Orgone

with respect to this]:

A) of course science has a point of view, it's just a point of view that limits itself to empirical evidence and reasoned deductions. or maybe 'worldview' is a better term than 'point of view', which has some negative implications. science has a very particular worldview steeped in enlightenment-era epistemological and ontological assumptions. what the arbcom ruling means (as far as I can make sense of it) is that the findings of scientific research cannot in and of themselves be considered a point of view: Research says A happens, then A happens; the research may or may not be flawed, but either way it is not an opinion. however (as we both know) the conclusions drawn from research are filtered through the worldview of the scientist. for example (from Orgone) Einstein didn't say that 'orgonomic heat' (or whatever Reich called it) didn't exist: of course it existed - that was an observable fact. What Einstein did said was that Reich's interpretation of that heat was not sufficiently skeptical, that Reich wasn't sticking to established methodological procedures, and that (with some detachment) any number of simpler explanations for the effect could be found. In short, Reich was not operating within the boundaries of the scientific worldview, and Einstein was. the advantage of the scientific worldview, of course is that it's robust: things that get stated from the scientific perspective are verifiable and replicable. the disadvantage is that it's limited: some things (like moral or ethical statements) are totally alien to it.

B) you're confusing 'minority view' with 'incorrect view' - science is not a democracy. in many cases (and particularly with intellectual pursuits) the better view is only understood by a minority. More to the point, with respect to a topic like Orgone science has very little to say (except, maybe, 'wha-hunh?'). If I were going to give some lecture about Orgone, for instance, I'd find that the vast majority of the writing on this topic is going to be by Reich and his followers (and by people talking about them). I'd want to talk about modern scientific perspectives as well, just to maintain my own self-respect (because I wouldn't want anyone thinking I believed that stuff), but only to the extent needed to demonstrate that I'm not deluded and that orgone isn't a functional concept. it's not a lecture about modern science, it's a lecture about Orgone. same thing with a WP article, except that we have to argue about it. sure, the scientific perspective is better (if you'll pardon the understatement); sure, we need to make it clear that Orgone doesn't work. but other than that, science has nothing to say about orgone, and so it simply cannot be the majority view with respect to orgone. I mean, your logic goes to all sorts of absurd places if we pursue it: does science represent the majority view on Catholic doctrine, or does the Pope? Galileo was right and the Pope was wrong about the way the universe actually works, but with respect to Catholic doctrine the Pope was the majority (by virtue of being the only) point of view. see what I'm getting at? --Ludwigs2 00:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ludwigs, you ever heard of the Galileo gambit? Perhaps you should rethink your own personal logic prior to criticising others? Shot info (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: With regard to your final point, I'm sure you see the weakness of the reductio ad absurdum you're creating. Of course science has nothing meaningful to say about Catholic doctrine - it's a matter of faith. The appropriate authorities to reference would be the Church itself, noted independent religious scholars, and the occasional tenured professor of theology and canon law. On the other hand, when Wilhelm Reich makes a bunch of claims about observerable physical reality, then current scientific understanding represents the mainstream context for those claims. I really have no problem with going on at length about Reich's claims and their sociocultural context, so long as the material is independently and appropriately sourced; I suspect we'd agree on 99% of content decisions in the article.

I don't really have the patience for metaphysical or philosophical discussions on Misplaced Pages. I guess I could argue that science doesn't have a point of view, but that many points of view prioritize science (rationalism, positivism, materialism, etc). But that would just remind me of why I changed course and dropped out of a career in the humanities to acquire a useful, applied skill set. :P MastCell  04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Shot: no, I haven't, aside from looking at the page right now. I hope you don't think that's what I've done.

@ MC: well, if you don't want to discuss it that's cool; I just wanted to get the discussion off the orgone talk page. and you're right, I've never had a problem editing with you, because you and I tend to get to more or less the same place by different routes. it's all good...

I will say, however, that you're missing the point above: again, it's that context thing that everyone loves to ignore. You're perfectly happy to allow Catholic doctrine to be explained from the context of the Catholic church, but for some reason you believe Orgone needs to be explained from a physics context completely alien to Orgone (remember, Reich was a psychologist/medical doctor by training, who deluded himself into a universal cosmology). it's a bit bizarre. not much of a problem with you, of course, because (as I said) we tend to end up in the same place anyway. but it's a bad standard for some other editors who take the idea too literally, and set off trying to 'prove' things that no one in the scientific world really gives a fig about. IMO (and without all the silly wikilawyer stuff about majorities and minorities, mainstreams and fringes, and etc.) something like Orgone needs to be described from its own perspective (because nothing else can really describe it adequately), and critiqued from a scientific perspective (because nothing else can critique it adequately). that's just common sense.

but whatever... it's really kind of a lost cause trying to make this point on wikipedia, when I have editors (like our friend shot info here) who only bother to listen as far as necessary to find a target. The reason I've kept at it this long is that I have a great affection for scientific reasoning and hate to see it get abused in the peculiar way that die hard anti-fringe editors abuse it (as well as die hard fringe editors, but I run across them less frequently). well, plus, it's an interesting exercise trying to communicate complex ideas in this environment; I can't imagine worse conditions for it. Believe me, I'm not wrong about any of this, but there's only so far you can get when the other people in the conversation are working off their own inner dialogs. --Ludwigs2 06:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"like our friend shot info here" - LOL - you're a funny guy sometimes :-). You were the one using the Gambit - and caught out. If you wish Orgone to be discussed as a religion and/or belief-system then say so rather than wiki-lawyering your way around it. Shot info (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Curiously enough, despite his self assurance and strong views, Ludwigs2 stayed remarkably quiet during the "Fringe science" ArbCom where Orgone was often mentioned (for example in my evidence). Almost everything Ludwigs2 is bringing up was discussed in great detail there and negated by the final guidelines. There at least, because the discussion was in public, we were spared personal attacks. Despite the fact that ArbCom has pronounced that the scientific method is not a point of view, he persists in pushing the opposite opinion. Aren't these exactly the tactics of the pushers of pseudoscience that ArbCom also pronounced upon - the slow wearing down of a perceived opposition by constant repetition of the same fallacious argument? Of course, if Ludwigs2 persists, that ArbCom case could be invoked and he could find himself the subject of a topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@ shot: as I said, you didn't read what I actually wrote, but just looked for the closest snarky thing you could say. read what I wrote, and tell me how you think your galileo gambit thing applies (setting aside the incidental fact that both use galileo). or you can just keep spouting out one-liners; I really don't care either way.

@ Mathsci: I stayed 'remarkably quiet' during that because I took a long wikibreak (I had other stuff to do, and I was tired of being hunted by a couple of (expletives deleted) who had developed an idée fixe that I was an evil fringe POV-pusher who needed to be destroyed; there's only so much harassment I'm willing to put up with). I didn't start editing seriously again until mid february, and didn't learn about the arbcom case until after it was closed. your comment constitutes a bad inference. and yes, I'm entitled to think that (a) ArbCom made a wrong decision (if they did, which isn't what I was suggesting), and (b) that editors are interpreting that that decision incorrectly (which in my mind is clearly true).

and please let me point out: what I've written on this page (well, 90% of it) is a philosophical argument about the relationship between various domains of knowledge. What you and shot info have written (95%) is commentary about me and what I'm doing and what I'm thinking. my philosophical argument might be 'fallacious' or might be 'reasonable': you've never bothered to address it, so you lose all rights to criticize me for talking about it. if you don't like my ideas, fine: tell me why you don't like my ideas, and we'll figure out whether I'm right or wrong. but either way, get the hell off my back, because your paranoid insinuations are irritating. --Ludwigs2 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

lol, shot already defeated the last half of your argument in his first comment with his reference to the galileo gambit: Wilhelm Reich is not Galileo, orgone was not a major scientific breakthrought that could revolutionate the world,[REDACTED] is not the middle ages catolic church, and[REDACTED] is not trying to censor stuff in order to preserve a system of beliefs.

The first part of your argument is that Reich simply used a different viewpoint than Einstein. That's nice, but the scientific part of orgone should still be reported as modern science sees it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of unfortunate that the current debate on these topics has ossified. I don't think Ludwigs2 is suggesting that orgone is a censored Great Truth, or an unjustly maligned phenomenon. I think he's just raising a philosophical question about the demarcation between "scientific" and "non-scientific" topics on Misplaced Pages. Personally, I think orgone falls under the former rubric, since it appropriated some of the language and methodology of science (particularly to sell its products). Ludwigs2 sees orgone as fundmaentally non-scientific and thus appropriately explained in a different context.

Here's the problem (speaking from experience). Once one's watchlist grows beyond a certain point, particularly if it includes scientific or proto-scientific topics, one quickly becomes amazed and horrified at the number of people who are committed to abusing Misplaced Pages to promote their particular pet obscure fringe belief. The human brain is designed to recognize patterns and draw abstract, generalized conclusions from concrete data points, so one quickly adapts the cognitive set that Misplaced Pages is a magnet for "fringe POV-pushers". Which, incidentally, it is. The problem, as with any heuristic, is that by employing this useful cognitive shortcut you lose the finer distinctions.

I'll put my record up against anyone's in terms of "protecting" Misplaced Pages from harmful, abusive fringe-agenda-driven editing. That said, I do wish there was more oxygen here. There's virtually no middle ground left; people have to migrate and cling to one or the other extreme. I don't think that useful collaboration can flourish when people are immediately assigned to the "debunker" or "fringe pusher" camps. We (and by "we", I mean people who actually care about this place as a freely accessible source of knowledge) need to do a better job of differentiating people who are here primarily to promote a claim from those who share the project's goals but simply have different opinions on how to reach them. The former should be more quickly shown the door; the latter should be identified and supported. The most effective bulwark against fringe POV-pushing isn't a set of "mainstream" editors ready to drop the hammer; it's a group of reasonable people with "alternative" views who are willing to wear their Wikipedian hats while they're on the site. We're chasing away the people who should be our natural allies (User:Dematt comes immediately to mind).

The current state of affairs is no one's fault; like I said, it has to do with the system here, where the burden of fighting off the hordes of loonies who want their pet belief featured on a top-10 website falls on the backs of individual, poorly supported editors. It creates an unhealthy and jaundiced worldview. The only cure I know of is to take a break, and let someone else take the wheel from time to time. Anyhow... MastCell  18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell, that was very well said. I'm going to back off from this discussion now (confronting the same minor misconception from different editors in three consecutive makes me think continued effort is pointless). MastCell, if you have any advice for how I can get out of everyone's bad-books and get treated as a relatively reasonable editor, send me an email. I tend to think there's too much bad blood at this point, but I'm willing to give something new a go if you have any ideas. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent> On a more optimistic note, if NPOV policy is followed so that any reader, no matter how innocent or uninformed, is clearly shown the mainstream view at the outset and not misled by opening with an uncritical fringe view, then all should be well. Hopefully Ludwigs will appreciate the need to take care to achieve that. Fortunately, comrade Boris has produced a tactful opening which appears reasonable. Now, anyone interested in an orgasmotron or an Orgone accumulator, slightly used? Remember, Wilhelm Reich died in prison, a free man..... dave souza, talk 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Refresh my memory - Orgone is more or less like a cross between ectoplasm, the force, and ethereal matter, right? and has nothing to do with Magic Pee? I ask because I accidentally ended up trying to discuss policy with people who believed in Magic Pee, and I got there from MastCell's talk page. I am not desirous of repeating the occurrence. thanks - KillerChihuahua 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, guys, that was funny! KillerChihuahua 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)p

My talk page is a useful jumping-off point for exploring various alternative concepts and emerging hypotheses. Magic Pee being one of them. I would agree that a belief in Magic Pee is probably strongly prognostic of the futility of convincing someone of the value of Misplaced Pages's policies, or maybe it's just something in the pee. In the end, I find it useful to remember that there are basically only two kinds of people in the world: those who will drink their own urine in the belief that it's healthful, and those who won't. Nothing written on Misplaced Pages is likely to move anyone from one category to the other - not for lack of trying. :) MastCell  21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the topic raised by Ludwig, our article Wilhelm Reich says "Reich conducted his own defense, (...) arguing that a court was no place to decide matters of science", so even Reich considered that Orgone is a scientific topic and not a non-scientific one? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, but Reich wasn't a scientist. The Magic Pee people think that's scientific too, you know. So did the Hollow earthers, of whom I believe there are still a few extant. KillerChihuahua 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Earth isn't hollow why does it float? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric - just a comment: if Reich had been born 50 years later he'd be one of those new-age gurus (and orgone would be something like 'the unconscious manifestation of the universal life-affirming principle'). if he'd been born 50 years earlier he'd have been an analytic spiritualist (and orgone would have been 'the Godhead revealed', maybe). it's just an accident of history that he was born into a time when people were looking for scientific panaceas rather than spiritual or metaphysical panaceas. the odd thing (from my perspective) is that if either of those eventualities had happened, no one here would be overly concerned about orgone as a topic - it would get a nice balanced treatment as an odd little philosophical/religious/whatever viewpoint. but as it is, it becomes the bone of a whole lot of contention, and a target for offended editors on both sides. I do understand why, but I still see it as an unfortunate bias.

@ Boris: the earth floats because of all that Orgone in the mantle. remember, the denser Orgone gets, the more buoyant it becomes. don't you just love a theory that can explain everything? --Ludwigs2 23:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but can Orgone explain Magic Pee? KillerChihuahua 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

well, no. but it can explain Magic Mushrooms. or maybe that's the other way around... --Ludwigs2 00:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! KillerChihuahua 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Footballer's ankle

Hmmm... I see Mast is on break? I was wondering if he or someone else with medical expertise could take a look at this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really a very successful break, but I'm trying. Can't say I'm an orthopedic expert; footballer's ankle is a real condition, though our article is pretty rudimentary at the moment. Consider the following as a start on sourcing:

• PMID 12136812: From a smallish Chinese journal, but at least substantiates the name "footballer's ankle"
• PMID 16798513: review article from 2006 on anterior ankle impingement (== footballer's ankle)
• PMID 1798321: Old article, but deals specifically with ankle injuries common to soccer players.

Hope that's useful - good luck. MastCell  05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Worst AfD ever?

Is there an award for something like Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Robert_Young? --Ronz (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is a "Cellular Nutritionist" anyways? I mentally picture a guy in a white lab robe crouching over petri dishes with a drop counter, feeding nutrients to hungry cells. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please desist from making factually inaccurate changes to the article on orthomolecular medicine. OM does involve inter alia remediating rare genetic disorders with unpatented compounds, which you claim is not the case!--Alterrabe (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hello. I'll assume you've forgotten what vandalism is. Beyond that, I'd welcome a discussion of the sources and claims at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. That article has been a long-term sinkhole of poorly-sourced editorial advocacy; if my edits went overboard in correcting its flaws, then I'm sure we'll be able to come to a reasonable, source-based compromise on the article talk page. MastCell  19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloody priceless: "yes, just another stop on my lengthy career of vandalizing medical articles; thanks again for the constructive feedback, and keep up the fine work" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm clearly entering the sarcastic, burnt-out, terminal phase of my career as a Misplaced Pages editor and admin. MastCell  19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting there too. As WWII Russian soldiers might note, drinking antifreeze can be a thrill, but it does catch up with you. Of course, WP might be battery acid. YMMV. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as Antony Beevor (or someone) wrote, the average life expectancy of a new Red Army recruit crossing the Volga to the Battle of Stalingrad was less than 24 hours. So that probably factored into the decision to drink antifreeze. I guess what I'm saying is that it's a matter of deciding what you think will catch up to you first. MastCell  21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I use Misplaced Pages to keep my processor churning out enough heat to keep my fingers warm and to get me all sparked up in the morning - it is the Hongcheng Magic Liquid of teh internets! - Eldereft (cont.) 00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NS

• Hey MC, I don't agree with Alterrabe (either on vandalism or remediating rare genetic disorders, at least not proven ones). One of these days I'll detail some of the problems in that article and we can discuss. And sorry if I came off harsh on over at WT:MEDRS. II | (t - c) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem; no hard feelings. In fact, I can't even remember what the MEDRS discussion was about. Senility; I'm getting too old for this shit. :) MastCell  21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the following things are not "unreferenced"

a) the official blog of a political party as a reference to a party's political statements.

b) National public policy blogs that link to nationally broadcast news programs as references for the content of the interview.

Misplaced Pages does have a problem with manufacturing of information. These types of sources do not represent such a problem for the information available herein.

For example, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal WAS criticised by the CT Republican Party for supporting Mayor Perez's re-election and he WAS criticised in a Glenn Beck interview over the AIG bonuses.

While a reader may find these criticisms undeserved, it is not a POV issue to identify the criticism did occur. Otherwise, NPOV will degenerate into a "puff piece" standard for living people, or perhaps just living U.S. Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's step back. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Does Encyclopedia Brittanica make a note of it everytime Glenn Beck criticizes someone? This wasn't even notable enough to make it onto the Yahoo! News blurbs that recycle every 15 minutes, yet you think it deserves significant mention in an encyclopedic bibliography? Misplaced Pages is not news, and I'd encourage you to resist the temptation to add the latest Glenn Beck talking points (or anyone's, really) to Misplaced Pages biographies. It's recentism. MastCell  21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The smell of astroturf in the afternoon...

Don't have time dig into now, but this looks fishy: Fat Head (Documentary). For a "movie" released in 2009, there are surprising few (i.e. zero) google news hits, so I'm thinking the article is probably candidate for some kinda deletion process. But the bigger question is which bunch of industry hacks is (probably) behind this thing. Yilloslime _C 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A safe link for you

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TYvldOuZ6_k I promise. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Thank you for taking care of that. I would hate to think that my inability to remember that I opened the SSP page for a reason might have deleterious effects on the 'pedia for more than a few hours.

Also, ave et salve. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:McDonald's Incorporated

Hi MastCell,

Can you shed any light on this edit you made? Do you suspect the user of sockpuppetry? I was thinking about blocking the user for impersonating McDonalds but I'm really confused now! I've opened a thread at ANI to figure things out. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most new users don't immediately set about attaching odd tags to banned editors' userpages. That's sort of an odd motivation for joining the project. It's the alternate account of someone who's been here before. Doesn't really matter whose. Since it was being silly but not actively harmful, I figured I'd just leave a word on their usertalk page rather than blocking them. Looks like someone else blocked them, so there probably isn't much more to say. MastCell  00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Peda typh

What should be included in this type of article? I'm tempted to trim and clean up aggresively, but I'm not sure what is standard for medication articles. I have it watched if someone wants to do the appropriate work and then I will try to follow along... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be merged and redirected to Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccine. The company material should be removed and the peer-reviewed third-party sources should be used. Examples of this approach include rotavirus vaccine and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. I can put it on my list, but I'm not editing much anymore (or trying not to). :) MastCell  03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User Phillind

Hi, Back in August, you were telling this guy to stop creating hoaxes. I have found him claiming that Winston Churchill collaborated with a certain children's writer named Ferzakerly Kernott on one of his autobiographies.

So this guy is just full o' shit, is he?

Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)

CENSEI topic ban

Hi - you may want to consider extending your topic ban of CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to further include all politics related matters, procedures, and interaction with editors he has antagonized before. CENSEI just filed another bogus / retaliatory 3RR report against Scjessey, an editor he has antagonized for some time over Obama-related issues, in the midst of Scjessey's involvement at AN/I with trouble from another disruptive editor at Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These sneak attacks are not good and represent a continuation of whatever it was CENSEI was doing before. Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)