User talk:MastCell/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

ArbCom management of medical articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Chiropractic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ping you that there is a discussion going on about you and another administrator, that one I have never heard of or seen around. You might want to take a peek and comment if you feel that is necessary. This is just an FYI for you. Personally I believe more people need to be aware of this conversation. While I'm at it, SandyGeorgia, I've been following your comments there and would like to thank you for bringing up the things you have been. I agree with your comments there but I am still waiting for someone to actually respond in earnest to your comments and questions. The explanation I got to some questions are at FT2's talk page. [1] I don't frequest this board and so I am trying to understand how it all works esp. if an administrator is chosen by the arbs or if there is a different method. From my reading of the response at FT2 it seems that they do not assign and that administrators work out who is in charge of watching sanctioned articles. Now if this is the case, wouldn't there be a consensus for other administrators to work this article, not Elonka? The reason I am asking is because I don't think she will be well received at any sanctioned artlicle at this time with what has happened in the recent past. Thanks and have a good weekend, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is often hard to figure out what FT2 is saying or intending to say, while his sarcastic biting tone is less hard to follow. All I know is the whole thing could cost us dearly (in terms of articles and editors), and I shudder at the notion that ArbCom could unleash something similar on an article I care about (Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's, Lyme disease, etc.) Answers to my direct concerns about what they put in place and whether it is being effectively managed haven't been forthcoming, but that is typical ArbCom of late. If they do this on other articles, everyone who didn't speak up when this happened will have no excuse to come whining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment. I think that article probation itself is reasonable for chiropractic - there's certainly been enough bad behavior there to warrant it. Properly administered, probation should make things easier for editors like Tim and Eubulides. The ancillary issue is whether Elonka should be one of the admins enforcing the probation; I would rather see other admins involved. For a variety of reasons, I am not confident in Elonka's administrative judgement as it applies to these sorts of issues.

Regarding Martinphi's mention of my name, I appreciate your notifying me, but it's no big deal. He's welcome to his opinion, and he expressed it with reasonable civility. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, have either of you been watching what is going on at the chiropratic talk page article say in the last 2 days? If not, I think your opinions would be useful [2] this would be a good start to look at. If you use the 'history' to see the edit summaries I think you will really get the gist of things. I fear that there is going to be major fall out and soon. Just thought I'd bring this to your attentions since I know the two of you are quite busy. I've stayed away but I am finding it hard to, since I believe in civil comments and I don't think I could remain that way at this time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy moly. Well, I sounded the alarm (although that's worse than I expected), so anything else I could add would just be, "I told you so". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disheartened by what I see there, but I'd like to give the group of admins monitoring the article a little bit of space and time to work and see what they can accomplish. I'm not going to intervene susbtantially, for a few reasons which I won't bore you with here. The article itself actually looks quite good, except for the trainwreck of a section on "evidence basis". But I guess that's what all the fighting is about. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth

Is Kossack suppose to be banned from all 2008 election-related articles? See [3]. Thanks, Grsz ^talk 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's violated his topic ban (not to mention 3RR in the process). I see he's already been blocked for 4 days. I think this is lenient; he's well past justifying an indefinite block, but I won't overturn it at this point. If he violates his topic ban again, which applies to all election-related articles as I made clear way back when, then please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the length of the block. I did a routine escalation from the length of the previous block, but you probably know more of the background. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it; I'm actually happy to have outside eyes on the matter since previous experience with this editor colors my judgement, perhaps. In any case, I think it would be somewhat punitive to extend the block at this point; so long as he respects the topic ban going forward, we're fine. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that on someone's list? Ant's, maybe? that if a name has "truth" in it, they will shortly be edit warring? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The following semiotic units, in any permutation within a username, should trigger a pre-emptive block for tendentiousness: "truth", "warrior", "banned", "crusader", "freedom", "justice"... also, I've noticed that the use of "NPOV" as a verb is a highly sensitive and specific marker for tendentiousness; every time I see an edit summary saying "NPOV'd a few things", I know what I'll see when I click on the diff. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Codified previously as Ray's Razor here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes!

Why I was here in the first place - your editing skilz have been requested. I am certain you aren't just hoping someone else will write the paragraph, and in fact have been cheerfully and expertly copyediting a masterpiece which will meet with universal acceptance and be immediately placed in the article by unanimous acclaim. Or something like that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I was doing: hoping someone else would write the paragraph. I am trying with marginal success to limit my involvement on anything related to Sarah Palin or the upcoming election on Wikipedia, for the sake of my own sanity. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting Wikipedia's needs ahead of your own sanity. Your sacrifice has not been in vain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lon Horiuchi

Please clarify your reason for deletion of external links at Lon Horiuchi. Both links contain scans of pages from Soldier of Fortune magazine not currently included in Wikipedia. All other information on both pages is consistent with information already contained in the Wikipedia article. --Pascal666 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:BLP#External_links for an answer to your question. These links are not particularly encyclopedic, and more importantly, they fall well short of the high bar for including links in biographies of living people. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please

MastCell, hi, overall I have a lot of respect for you. I realize we disagreed about that indef block a few months ago, but I had a good opinion of you before that, and I continued to have a good opinion after, I just saw it as "one place where we disagreed." But are you still holding a grudge? I keep seeing you pop up into AN/ANI threads where I'm involved, with little sideswipes at me. How would you feel if I kept popping up in situations where you were trying to be an admin, and saying, "Yes, there's a problem here, but MastCell shouldn't be the one dealing with it"? I wasn't sure if you were aware you were doing this, but from my side, it appears to be becoming a pattern of (mild) sniping, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. I do value my working relationship with you, so, what can we do to improve it? --El on ka 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to choose my words carefully at AN/I to make a point which I felt was important without giving offense. I've observed that requests to de-escalate are best received when they come from editors/admins perceived as neutral or even "friendly". I've tried to put this into practice; recently, I observed a situation where I was strongly tempted to make such a request, but I knew that no matter how politely I phrased it, the mere fact that I was the one making the request would undermine the goal of de-escalation. Other editors and admins (perceived more favorably by the editor in question) stepped in, and the situation was de-escalated without my involvement. I'm not saying you are an "involved" admin in the strict definition of the word, but I am saying that if the goal is de-escalation, another messenger would be more effective. That's not meant as a swipe at you, but as a pragmatic approach to dispute resolution.

I'm sorry you perceive that I'm holding a grudge or sniping at you; that is not my intention. I understand that it's nearly impossible to administrate a complex dispute effectively with someone second-guessing your every move. A few threads above on my talk page, in discussion about the situation at Talk:Chiropractic, I advocated giving you and the other admins there more breathing room to try and fix things.

In a more general sense, I do have some concerns which I've expressed in various venues, perhaps not as directly as I ought. I think that your approach is sometimes overly content-agnostic, and creates a situation where a legalistic "equality" of viewpoints and accounts takes precedence over the project's goal of creating a serious, respected reference work. That's simply my opinion; the situation with Jagz was a significant, but not the only, contributor to it. On some level, this is just a philosophical difference between our approaches to Wikipedia, not a matter where one of us is "right" and the other "wrong". I do think that this philosophical difference is at the root of the fact that we've found ourselves on different sides of several discussions. My concern about this issue is the basis for my comment at an earlier AN/I that I would prefer other admins to be (co-)involved in the chiropractic situation.

I will put all my cards on the table, though: I was deeply disappointed by your actions surrounding the recall issue. I understand the reasons for your decision not to submit to reconfirmation, but I don't agree with them. I don't know if it would be productive to rehash the details at this point; that horse has been beaten to within an inch of its life, and it may be better for all of us to move on.

I will make an effort to double-check myself before contributing to a discussion in which you're involved, to avoid furthering a situation in which we are perceived (and perceive each other) as antagonists. I respect you and I think you do good work in many ways. While I don't agree with your approach in several complex areas, that difference of opinion can be handled with mutual respect and civility. I appreciate you sharing your concern directly with me; I will make a more conscious effort to avoid jumping in where my presence might be inflammatory. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply, I do appreciate it. Though we do have philosophical differences in some areas of Wiki-management, there are many other areas where we agree, and one of those is that "clearing the air" can be a useful exercise, when the participants are emotionally mature enough to be able to deal with it. So thanks.

For what it's worth, I do listen carefully to everything you say, whether on a talkpage or in an RfC. I agree we have key differences of approach. To paint with a broad brush, I think that my philosophy is more of, "when there is disruption, warn and block equally", and yours is more of a "When there is disruption, give allowances to the good editors, and block the fringe theorists as quickly as possible." Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. A strength of yours, is that when editors are correctly identified, it can empower the "good" editors, and minimize the disruption from the "bad" ones. A weakness of yours, is that some good editors may be incorrectly judged as "bad", and expelled from the project too quickly, while some "good" editors may continue acting out with a perception of impunity, which may antagonize away other editors simply by causing an unpleasant environment. However, my approach definitely has its weaknesses too: "bad" editors may be kept around a bit longer, as I give them chances to improve, and when one of them not only doesn't improve, but blows up in a spectacular way, it brings out all the "I told you so" voices. A strength of my approach though, is that sometimes weak editors do become stronger editors with a bit of patience and tutelage. I'd like to think that I have far more successes than failures. I think another strength of my approach, is that sometimes enforcing a fair "treat everyone equally" environment is exactly the structure that certain longrunning disputes really need, in order to get everyone to calm down. But I do understand that to someone who is not familiar with my particular style, when they see me issuing gentle cautions to editors A, B, C, and D, they may be thinking, "Well of course, A & B were good editors and deserved gentle cautions, while C & D are trolls, why is she bothering to be gentle with them??" So from my point of view, I'm treating all equally, but from another point of view, I could see that I'd be perceived as showing appalling judgment half the time! Whereas another outside observer, seeing your approach, where you ignore A&B, but just warn C&D, might be genuinely bewildered as to why you're warning one group of editors, and ignoring what appears to be identical bad behavior from others. So they might feel that you were enabling a team, which could lead to more of the "cabal" perceptions. Neither method is perfect, and we all have to find our own styles. Where we run into trouble though, is if I start publicly stating, "I don't trust MastCell's administrative judgment," or you say, "I don't trust Elonka's judgment." When it's admins criticizing admins in a public forum, I can't see that as good for the project, especially when it's "chatter behind someone's back." So please, if you have a problem with something I'm doing, just c'mon over and tell me. The door to my talkpage is open, and I'm accessible via a wide variety of other means.

I do want to disagree with you on one other item, which is where you said that you'll try to avoid jumping into discussions where I'm involved. And I'm going to say no, I want you to jump in! :) I greatly value your opinion, so if you see an issue where you feel you could help by offering a comment, by all means do so. However, just as with articles, where we say, "comment on the content, and not the contributor", I think I'd prefer if you focused on commenting on the dispute, and not me in particular. For example, with the current ANI thread, I would have no trouble with you saying, "Perhaps the situation might be helped if other admins with whom the disruptive editor is not familiar, expressed concerns." Does that make sense?

Lastly, aside from the issue of whether or not you trust me, could you perhaps make a suggestion that's more behavior-based? Is there something specific that I do, which you dislike? And what would you like me to do differently? I'm not saying I'll do it, but again, I find that specific behavior-based constructive suggestions are usually more effective than comments based on a more vague notion of someone's judgment, or what they might or might not be thinking or feeling. Anyway, thanks again, and I look forward to continuing our discussion and working things out, in an atmosphere of mutual respect... --El on ka 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if either of you think my commenting here is inappropriate. However, I see many clear differences in approach. Elonka feels that admins should be treated differently than other editors (see above). She feels that editors involved in a dispute should all be treated equally, regardless of their history in the dispute. She has great difficulty assuming good faith when someone disagrees with her (see above). And finally, Elonka backs her "philisophical differences" with bans and blocks. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I do not think that admins should be treated differently: I think they have a responsibility to act differently, meaning that it is essential that they set an excellent standard of behavior. When a typical editor acts in an uncivil manner, that's one thing. When an admin acts in an uncivil manner, it can do a lot more damage. As for how I treat people who disagree with me, it often matters how they disagree. I am not assuming bad faith on the part of MastCell, as should be easily seen by this very thread. --El on ka 04:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Elonka treats admins differently from other editors, and requires that editors treat admins differently from other editors on threat of blocks or bans.

I feel Elonka has demonstrated a failure to follow AGF in the discussion above in her approach to MastCell. "But are you still holding a grudge?" is clearly not assuming good faith.

At least we appear to agree that Elonka does not look at the history of an editor in determining how to properly evaluate their behavior in a dispute, and that she backs her personal interpretations of policies and guidelines with bans and blocks, rather than discussion, dispute resolution, and deferral to accepted consensus. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, do you share Ronz's opinion? --El on ka 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, is it a policy of yours to accuse any admin that you happen to cross paths with of stalking you (in various shades and degrees thereof)? I'm curious as it seems that you have been jumping on them over the last few weeks and pretty much ignoring their responses. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I respectfully ask that people stop commenting here for the moment? I'd like to respond, but I don't have the necessary time or energy at the moment. For the record, I'm not offended by Elonka's questions or comments above, and I appreciate her willingness to address her concerns to me directly and forthrightly. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

It's freaking out us civilians. Is this a new first-of-the-month tradition? Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin - 'Politicle Positions' section

Hi MastCell- Nice work on the Palin 'reception' section. I would appreciate your opinion on my comments on the 'Political Positions' section: [[4]] Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I will take a look, though I made a pledge to limit my involvement on any pages relating to Sarah Palin or the upcoming election for my own mental health. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni

Giovanni33 = User:66.57.44.247. WP:DUCK. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK; maybe it's not him; but the user could undoubtably use a block for incivility, blatant vandalism, etc. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt it's G33, but someone else already blocked the IP. They've got a long history of unconstructive editing and the IP appears somewhat static, so if the issue recurs a longer block would be reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

AS

Asperger syndrome is getting hit with a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced and IP vandalism edits; as soon as I have time (heavy sigh), I'm going to go look through the usual suspects (off-Wiki message boards) for canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 72 hours to give everyone a brief respite and bring things over to the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Urine therapy

Can you tell me why you removed the link to MateriaEtherica Urine page [5]Ref: [6] john (talk)

I cited our guideline on external links in my edit summary. The site in question contains unverifiable research, it is heavily promotional, and most importantly it is not encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it is magic pee. Which cures. Something. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with people who think pee is magic. I'm just not psyched about people who try to pretend it's supported by scientific evidence. Then again, when penicillin was first produced, there was so much demand and so little supply that patients' urine was actually collected after treatment and the excreted penicillin was recovered and re-used. Somehow, I don't think that's what materiaetherica.com has in mind by "urine therapy", though.

Incidentally, I think the lead of urine therapy is a classic of Wikipedia nuttiness. It states: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence of medical benefit from drinking urine"... as if drinking urine is an intuitively appealing idea but the eggheads at the NIH haven't gotten around to providing conclusive proof of its obvious benefits yet. Then our article goes on to say that despite the lack of evidence for urine therapy, "the main chemical component of urine, urea, has many well known commercial and medical uses." Yeah—it's a great fertilizer and explosive component, and it's used to scrub powerplant emissions, and it's occasionally used topically to hydrate the skin. Our article makes it sound like a short and obvious jump from those uses to pee-drinking. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any better now? I don't know much about the subject, but it didn't take a refined eye to catch what I removed. Avruch^T 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I think that's an improvement. I haven't been working on it, really, other than to prune the external links occasionally. I think one could write an interesting article on the history of urine therapy, but I don't have those sources at my fingertips and I've been occupied elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I often make a joke about "drinking camel urine" will cure cancer as a ridiculous anecdote about bad science. I didn't know drinking pee was a real CAM therapy. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You lead a sheltered life. There is not only magic pee, there is magic water, magic poo, although that's a little out of date... all kinds of magic stuffs which Cure. Actually, poo was used more recently than that link, for asthmatics, but I cannot find it here in WP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I swear, I clean up one article, and another 12 rear their ugly heads around here. I know there's a lot of editors who deal with medical articles, but how many of those attack these bad articles. I get a feeling there's about 5 of us, and 4 of those are like me--a bit cranky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

KC: poo is not magic. It is evidence-based medicine for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. See PMID 12594638, but not over lunch. I really hope you have access to the full text of this article, because it is remarkable. Note that the patients were "uniformly receptive" to the idea of "stool transplants", and none objected on aesthetic grounds, according to the authors. They reported a 94% "cure" rate and "only" 2 deaths. Incidentally, I presented this article to my colleagues at a journal club. The response was memorable. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be impressed with your knowledge, were I not so revolted. I was going to say something mildly witty, sadly asking "poo NOT magic?" but then I followed the link. I may vomit. Vomit, btw, is not magic, and I give advance warning I will not follow any link which purports to show that it is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

People volunteered for this study? I'm not sure I'd volunteer for the nasogastric tube, let alone poo being forced into my stomach. Of course, I suspect you can't taste or smell it. Still, I'm sufficiently appalled that I'm following KC's lead and not following any links you leave anywhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only did people volunteer for the study, but they sought it out, to the point of travelling to Duluth, Minnesota for the procedure. The 19 patients were referred to the study's lead author specifically for a stool transplant. But then, as a wise man once wrote, "Every society gets the Duluth that it deserves." MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Gore Vidal reference. How very urbane of you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Gore Vidal, he is responsible for my favorite television moment ever, in which he provoked William F. Buckley to the point that Buckley called him a "queer" and threatened to "sock him in the face". It's all on the YouTube; I insist you view it (and I promise it does not link to Rick Astley). MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New magic! Magic white powder - no, its not as much fun as you think, and its been reverted as OR from a SPA troll, but it fits the qualifications for magic cures. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but apparently it only works on "the white tumors". Any sort of coloration, and the method is no good. They're very upfront about its limitations. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the SPA really believes in this stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I automatically deduct 15 points of presumed IQ for use of "u" to mean "you." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Text messaging has destroyed the writing skills of a generation of kids. My parents made me go to a Catholic School when we lived in a certain oppressive state...the brothers were not so nice when I misspelled a word. And given the fact that I was personally responsible for the death of Jesus, it was even worse. LOL. Oh I digress. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the original poster of this thread under arbcon? [7]? --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They are two different people who share many POV. -- Fyslee / talk 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you, my sincere apologies to this editor. It was Whateto/john and the POV talked about and made a bad conclusion. Again, please except my apology for my error. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say my colleagues at a journal club does that mean you work for a medical journal? john (talk)

Moi? I'm a paid servant of Paul Offit. I thought the word was out. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, but you avoided my question. john (talk)

Why, yes... yes I did. Have a nice day. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've personally decided to prostitute myself to anyone who's willing to pay. Big Pharm, Big Oil, the Democratic Party, and the Florida Marlins are all paying me $2.00/hour to edit here. I hope you're doing as well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW

You do realize he's one of the good guys around here. He fights cruft in areas that usually doesn't cross our paths, petroleum, oil and chemistry. It's kind of odd that the block was made only six minutes after I made a request to him to take a scientific look at Psychic, which has degenerated into a science vs. pseudoscience battle. I thought a fresh eye could help the discussion get unstuck, but he got blocked. Just kind of curious about the chain of events. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He looks like a very solid editor. That's one reason I advocated an unblock. My experience is that the fastest way to get a good editor like NJGW back to making good edits is to handle things in a no-fault manner. Don't coerce an apology from him, and don't rake Elonka over the coals - just unblock him, with an agreement to take a short break from the specific article in question, and get back to work. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating is all I can say. Maybe Boris can ask him to help translate the collected works of Lenin into Klingon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lenin would probably have liked the Klingons and their willingness to dispense with what Trotsky famously called "this Quaker-papist nonsense about the sanctity of human life." MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to go read my Star Trek canon, but I believe that Gene Roddenberry intended the Klingons to represent the Soviets. And how do you know so much about communism? You know too much about it. KGB? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No further comment. I'm allergic to polonium-210. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

interesting argument[8] at Wikipedia:AN#Block_review_needed – apparently I'm an involved editor so can't say boo, but Elonka seems to be showing a close interest in some aspects.[9] All very odd. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Smoking cessation

Hi MastCell... any chance of a semi-protect on this article... it's been subject to WP:EL violations pretty constantly from months ago now, and often the same links, suggesting a concerted effort from one or two people using various IP's, and the occasional new user. No matter the rationale given for removeal, they get re-inserted. Crimsone (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be enough recent activity to justify a short semiprotection. In the long term, it'll probably just be a matter of vigilance; the topic is, unfortunately, a spam magnet. If it kicks up again to the point where it's getting hit multiple times per day, let me know and I'll extend the semiprotection. Thanks for your work on keeping it as spam-free as possible. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly stalking

Diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I crazy?

As an uninvolved admin whose opinion I greatly respect, I wonder if you can tell me, honestly, if I'm the wrong here. There's lots ugly background in this thread, this thread, and this thread, too, and if you care to dig through that, I'd be curious to know whether you think I'm way off base. But I suspect you don't, and I don't blame you for it. The first link though, that one stands on its own pretty well, and I'd really appreciate your opinion. The stress to reward ratio for that article is a well into the not-worth-it regime for me, but before I unwatchlist it, I'd love an outside opinion. Yilloslime (t) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not in the wrong. You have a couple of options: one is to get outside input from sane editors, via an RfC or a request at the Aviation WikiProject. The other is to unwatch the page for your own sanity. Given the tenor of discussion and the low stakes involved, I'd probably advocate the latter.

People who are dedicated to defending unsourced content via personal attacks can quickly make this place a chore rather than a pleasure. Look: this speaks for itself. At a brief glance, I'm seeing that this editor has been blocked 15 times for edit-warring. Fifteen times. It looks like TimVickers chimed in, so perhaps things will improve; I'm happy to keep an eye on it, but consider whether it's worth your time to deal with this sort of annoyance. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! You've made me feel a lot better. I hear what you are saying about whether it's worth the annoyance. I've been teetering on clicking "unwatch", but it's a bit like a car accident, or a Sarah Palin speach—I just can't look away. Yilloslime (t) 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You betcha! Elitist. :) MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an elitist user box? If not I might have to make one. Yilloslime (t) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be overly "divisive" or "uncivil" to add this to my userpage? Yilloslime (t) 05:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Only time will tell. :) I found this distressed conservative's take on the subject interesting. I mean, really: if Mitt Romney is calling you an elitist and posing as a champion of the common man, words have lost their meaning.

On a related note, I've found myself pondering the odd code phrases the Republicans have chosen to employ this time around. It could be a coincidence that Palin's quote in praise of small towns was lifted (unacknowledged) from a notorious racist and anti-Semite. It could be that when Mitt Romney rails against "eastern elites", he's just unaware that the phrase is a time-honored anti-Semitic trope. Maybe when Palin quoted Reagan's "a time when Americans were free", she honestly thought he was talking about the cold war, rather than recording a radio ad against that demonic tool of world communism known as Medicare. I guess coincidences happen. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: You Me At Six Unprotection

Cheers mate! Page created with the data from my userpage workspace. Thanks for the help =] Cabe 6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't this really have gone through DRV to be restored? I put it though AFD just a few months ago, and it was being so chronically recreated we had to salt it. I agree that it squeaks past WP:MUSIC now, so I'm not going to raise a fuss ... just want to know.—Kww(talk) 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered whether to send it to WP:DRV, which would be the letter-of-the-law thing to do. In the end, since it looked like a good-faith attempt to build a solid article, and since the article appeared to pass WP:MUSIC, I figured I'd dispense with an unecessary step of bureaucracy in the interest of adding now-encyclopedic content. But it was just a judgement call; some admins would probably send it to DRV. In any case, if you (or anyone) question whether it actually meets WP:MUSIC, I'll be happy to send it over there or go through a more formal opinion-gathering process. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth - violation of topic ban

I just wanted to give you a heads-up that Kossack4Truth has begun violating his Barack Obama-related topic ban. I've reverted the two edits he made to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, but you might want to monitor the situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no violation. ACORN is a community organization that registers voters. Topic ban applies to presidential campaign and articles related to Barack Obama. This article is only peripherally related to either of those two topic areas. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Detail at User Talk:Kossack4Truth. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your Comment

Hi! You recently left a note requesting I not "restore" my comments. My post was a clarification:

Ronz it is a request for information because we do not understand your objection. It makes no comment in re to AGF. We can't address your tag if we don't understand what is being tagged.

I'm sorry if you feel my comment may require banning from the community. I thought it was an acceptable clarification of an editors possible misunderstanding of my position..76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you've added a series of comments to User Talk:Ronz, all of which have been removed by Ronz. That seems like a clear indication that he wants to disengage. Like I mentioned on your talk page, it's best to respect that wish and seek outside input to move things forward. And yes, if you keep restoring comments after he's removed them, that would be grounds for a temporary block from editing Wikipedia, but I first wanted to notify you and ask you to consider other approaches. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz removed one comment. I posted my clarification that I quoted above. He then removed that. You then placed your warning of Administrative Action on my talk page. I don't believe my single post reaching out to him justified the threat of sanction. but that's just my opinion, it is not I that am the judge or enforcer. 76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Giannini vandal

Odd case (link), some of the references checked out, others seemed to have been invented. I did a global search for "AJ Giannini" and deleted or replaced many of the references. I doubt if I got all of them. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the legwork. I admit to finding a few hoaxes in there and pulling the trigger, but I'm glad you went through to address the underlying issue. I'll go through the contribs tomorrow as well with PubMed and see if I can catch any others. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ones I could verify I replaced with the cite journal template, which should narrow your field a bit. Unfortunately some of the citations only used partial titles, which will make this a lot more difficult, eg this ref originally just had the title of "Tangential symbols" Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've talked to this person for a while on their talkpage (User talk:66.251.199.141) and think they were not intending to add hoax information, they were just careless in citing titles and over-extending their sources. I think I'd recommend AGF and lifting the block. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Can you please provide some guidance at the McCain article. It pertains to the comment that I attempted to submit earlier today at the Sarah Palin article. I guess I knew that it didnt belong there (Palin) but I wanted to make my point to the editors there before moving it. I placed it at McCain and it lasted all of 5 minutes before it was removed. It was the "whip his ass" thing. I'm still trying to make heads or tails out of all the WP:BLP and the rest. While it may appear as an attempt to cause trouble, it was most definitely not. It was from my heart...from my religion. I am chaallenged to fight prejudice where I find it. If it happens to be in the mis-voicings of a candidate for President, so be it. Thanks for your time. --Buster7 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WFKU article deletion

Mastcell I am not so sure my post about my station was total blatant advertising, or if it was i would like to know how to phrase it properly so that i am indexed by wikipedia.

I am arguing with your deletion on the grounds that

advertising for a free product is not advertising its a donation

2nd it has nothing to do with this, it is appeal to the better side of your nature,

it has to do with the listing under electroclash, a type of music. Many of the people in bands on my old record company eindie (not listed or mentioned in wikipedia) tell me that i created electroclash, some of them were bought out from under me by larry Tee the person who wikipedia claims is responsible for creating electroclash

I am not the sort of ham that gives a crap about all that I don't care weather the Larry Tee came up with the word, or weather it was me, i think it was probably dandrogynous (a DJ on my station)

but i do want to be recognized as a radio station

please do me the favor and undelete my article

if you think it an advertisement, at least its not false

I do what i say and say what i mean.

If not at least advise me on who should create the article and what they should write so that it is neutral or at least has a more of a neutral feel too it perhaps send me a link to someone else's post of a radio station?

thank you

Jacob Bouchard jacob.bouchard_at_gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfku (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There were two issues: one was that the article was promotional. "Advertising" may not be the best word, since as you note it generally refers to for-profit activities. This is an encyclopedia, so promotional material of any kind, no matter what for, is inappropriate. Secondly, the article appeared to be lifted from a copyrighted website, which violates our licensing terms. Content here needs to be freely available and modifiable, so we cannot cut and paste large chunks of copyrighted text.

I'd like to ask you to take a look at some of Wikipedia's policies. I'd recommend starting with the ones on promotional material and conflict of interest. It's also worth looking at the policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, and appropriate sourcing.

To put them in a nutshell, the article should rely on mtaerial from independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Newspaper coverage is generally a good place to start, as are any awards of substance. If an organization or product lacks any mention in these sorts of independent, reliable sources, then it is likely not sufficiently notable to warrant an article here on Wikipedia. I hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill

Hi Mastcell. I noticed that twice now you've taken out some references and comments in the Gwen Ifill article. I don't mind you editing that section, but when you take out the controversy over the 2004 debate and just leave one analyst's view that it was a good job, that seems kind of bogus. Also, I understand there can be differences of opinion about how to present information, but you keep trying to rewrite the article as if only right wing extremists and one or two analysts criticized Ifill over the 2008 conflict of interest issue. But that's simply not the case, and that's why there were two citations there. It would be EASY to find more. I would hope you could put this information back in and try to edit down another way if you think there's too much, rather than minimizing the controversy. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

The sources all indicate that most of the criticism came from partisan outlets, though some came from more independent sources. That was the gist of my edit. It seems bogus to suggest that there was a huge, generalized, spontaneous outcry about Ifill when the sources make clear that it was largely confined to the right-wing blogosphere. As to 2004, the Washington Post says that the "consensus was that she acquitted herself well." Describing that consensus seems more relevant than picking out and highlighting a two-line exchange, in terms of accurately and responsibly summarizing the source.

I'd suggest gathering independent, reliable sources on the article talk page. I'm happy to go where the sources lead - if they indicate widespread non-partisan criticism of Ifill, then I'll go there. The sources I'm seeing paint a quite different picture, yet they seem to be shoehorned to fit an editorial point. MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as sticking to the facts, nothing in the article says there was a "huge" outcry, so let's not set up straw men. Certainly there was notable criticism from multiple sources on the issues mentioned in the article. I have no problem, as I've noted again and again, with these sections being consolidated, but I am opposed to partisan editors doing a whitewash. And by the way the issues and objections to Ifill's conduct don't have to be non-partisan to be included, and in fact many non-partisan analysts did object including the one cited in the article, as well as Juan Williams and at least one news anchor. You suggest I gather sources, and yet you keep taking the refs I've included in the article out. Kinda makes me go hmmmmm... Personally, I thought PBS was a pretty good source.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry; do you think that referring to me as a "partisan editor doing a whitewash" is likely to move things forward? We are on the same page about some things; for instance, I agree that an outcry does not need to be non-partisan to be notable. I simply object to portraying largely partisan criticism as if it were non-partisan. There were non-partisan critics, for example the person from the Poynter Institute, and they are mentioned in the article.

I believe the PBS piece was being misused in a fairly significant fashion. If you're referring to the PBS ombudsman piece, he specifically defended Ifill against "personal attacks" by noting that she was doing her job as a journalist - yet your preferred text quotes only the handful of angry letters received rather than the ombudsman's actual response. That's not the way to use a source.

You mentioned that you object to "partisan editors doing a whitewash". Here's what I object to: attempts to turn biographical articles into thinly disguised coatracks for political campaign talking points. This is a biography of Gwen Ifill. If you want to go on about the "controversy" surrounding these debates, then the debate articles might be more appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well on the one hand you want to cut out this information, and on the other hand you seem to be asking for more sources. Seems a bit self-contradictory to me. And yes, there is a lot of partisan editing going on all over Wikipedia, or haven't you noticed. The notability of a quote in that story from someone saying Ifill did a "good job" is laughable, however you want to spin it. The controversy over Ifill questioning whether Palin could be a VP with five kids, her conflict of interest, and the perception of bias in her coverage of the conventions is all notable with lots of good sources. I suggest the same compromise I have always suggested, which is to consolidate this material without taking one side of it out and creating a biased puff piece. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I've noticed quite a few editors whose only contributions to the encyclopedia involve the addition or promotion of partisan talking points on the political topic du jour. Interesting you should bring that up.

Gwen Ifill has had a long and distinguished career as a journalist, including a generally acclaimed role as moderator of two Vice-Presidential debates. The fact that the conservative blogosphere, and some independent analysts, were temporarily abuzz about her book is notable, but it is hardly the central aspect of her biography.

As to sources, I don't see why it's "laughable" to quote the Washington Post conclusion that the debate was well-moderated, but yet it's just fine to amplify a specific incident noted in that article to push an editorial viewpoint about Ifill's "bias". In any case, this discussion is best continued at Talk:Gwen Ifill and perhaps it's time to solicit outside input. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've offered a compromise position in which we consolidate the material in question, I find it strange that you seem to suggest I am a partisan editor and that I want to "amplify a specific incident noted in that article to push an editorial viewpoint about Ifill's 'bias'". I have simply repeated again and again that the incidents are notable and deserve inclusion in the article. Seems fair enough to me, but if you want to fight a straw man and refuse to compromise that's certainly you prerogative. See you on the article in question.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Ferbish (talk · contribs)

Bears watching. One of their first edits was to add spam links to a commercially available immunoassay. Seems to also be pushing some stuff at Talk:Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Anyways, just a heads up, since you'll be bored for a few days until the World Series starts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

May just need some pointers about promotional material here. Will keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look, but dermatology is outside both my training and my main interests, so I can't promise too much. Let me know what I can do. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Rath

Is there still a POV problem here, or should the template now be removed. There has been no editing or comment for a while now. Best, Verbal chat 15:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine with me to remove the template. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Brain

... is at FAC, and it has one of those huge protection templates ... I don't know the correct terminology for this, but can you switch it to the less intrusive version ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got it. For future reference, you just add |small=yes to the semiprotection template. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can a non-admin do that, too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it's only semi-protected. If the page is fully protected, then only admins can make any edit there. Of course, the easiest solution is just to become an admin yourself, and then you won't even notice when you're illegaly editing a protected page... MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When can we nom you, Sandy? :) ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Myko San - Health from Mushrooms

Hi Mastcell. I'm new here (so please - no biting :) ) and I have some questions regarding your recent editing operations on 'Dr Myko San...' article. I noticed that you've removed some sections of the aforementioned article, but some of the reasoning behind it alludes me, even after a thorough read of sections related to the stated grounds for removal. In order to improve the article I'd like you to verify and further develop your reasons for editing of sections I find questionable and give the advice you think might help. Let me remind you. On October 17, you removed the 'See also' section of the page. As seen on History page of the article: 17:48, 17 October 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (8,241 bytes) (trim "see also" linkfarm). Please check the version on that date. The reason I included those 'key words' was that additional related information is available in these articles and removing them reduces the informational value of the article in question. In my opinion, the value of these carefully chosen 'inter-wiki links' (especially those on medicinal mushrooms, some notable species, beta-glucans and krestin) is substantial for anyone researching this field – either casually and in a more detailed approach - and are justifiable for that very reason. Please research and review your editing criteria in this case and share your thoughts on that issue. Lets proceed now to another issue, where I'm not really sure either. 17:48, 17 October 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (8,604 bytes) (→External links: per WP:EL) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following case: when the web page contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation. Actually both of these conditions are met in each of the two Croatian-language links, which should definitely be included (but marked correctly with a language icon, as was not the case). The IMMC4 link was misprinted since the first version, but should be excluded as it is not specific enough to the subject of this article, as should be the link to the research papers, as that website requires registration. In that regard the removal of these links improves the quality of the article and is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, but please review the need and justification for the removal of the other external links. One last (but major) gripe... I do not understand this at all: 17:47, 17 October 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) (9,077 bytes) (per WP:NOT#INFO and commonsense- this is ridiculous). What is this directed at? The tone of this sounds disruptive to me but I may have misunderstood, so please clarify. Is that related to the flag that the article is written like an advertisement or something else completely? Please bring to my attention the parts that should be rewritten in your opinion, if any, to adhere to the Wikipedia standards better, as I cannot readily recognize them from the article. Thanks for all your help in making this article as good as possible. Please excuse the formatting, hopefully you'll have little trouble reading this.Yamabushi1981 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

May I take your absence of reply to mean that you agree with everything I said and restore the previous state of the article? Yamabushi1981 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't. Let me look at it again. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

lol

you shouldn't have undone that edit on Martin's page - damned funny... --Ludwigs2 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at way too much nonsense on Wikipedia of late, as a result of a recent resolution to go back to editing articles and working on content. Consequently, I'm in a somewhat snappish mood. I thought my comment was likely to cause offense or be read as belittling - hence the removal - but I'm glad you appreciated it... :) MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy Medicine

Hello. Could you look at Talk:Energy medicine#Versus Quantum Healing and comment. You deleted a section. I've commented on the deleted section with the intention of restoring it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented at the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Good points. I gave a longer reply on the talk page. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey MastCell. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jagz

I'm sorry that even have this page on my watchlist, but I do watch every racist, neo-nazi editor that crosses my path on this project. First, his talk page should be protected. He is attacking good faith editors. Second, Elonka is intimating that he could be unblocked. That is not acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that his talk page should be protected. He can carry on his correspondence with Elonka off-wiki, and can also pursue an unblock off-wiki should he wish to. I consider his use of his talk page entirely inappropriate for a banned editor, or even an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. I am considering whether to go ahead with this, and had been prior to your note, though I appreciate the reminder. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) MastCell, sorry, but I disagree with the page protection. Yes, Jagz was commenting about Mathsci,[10] but Mathsci was also commenting about Jagz![11] It doesn't make sense to me to muzzle one editor, and let another one continue to make the same types of comments. It is essential that administrators not be perceived as favoring one "side" in a dispute, and I am very concerned that you may not be exercising your tools from a position of neutrality here. Please, will you consider unprotecting the page, and allowing other admins to deal with this situation? --El on ka 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't view this as "muzzling" one side of a two-way dispute. That's a false equivalence. Jagz is indefinitely blocked and, arguably, banned. It is not "muzzling" to implement or enforce a ban. Mathsci has his own issues and, should he warrant administrative sanction, there are a number of people including at least two current/former ArbCom members watching him closely. At the moment, however, he is not blocked or banned. He has the right to post comments here, and Jagz has forfeited that right.

I've considered the protection and I continue to think that it's appropriate, for the reasons I described on your talk page. I am willing to let "other admins" deal with the situation - but "other admins" (not I) have blocked Jagz, blocked his abusive sock, and turned down 3 unblock requests and an ArbCom appeal. If by "other admins" you're referring to yourself, then I'm happy for you to work with Jagz - but the talkpage protection doesn't prevent that.

As I said, if you'd like, I will submit this action to WP:AN/I for feedback. If there is a consensus that I've erred, then I will unprotect the page. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference. Mattsci is a good-faith, respected editor. Jagz is a racist, Neo-Nazi with an agenda. Elonka's support of Jagz is troubling. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I appreciate your viewpoint, but let's try to keep the temperature here as low as possible. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jagz can still pursue his appeal, and communicate using email. I support the protection of the page as further edits could only inflame the situation. Jagz was also commenting to make Elonka aware of a comment on her own talk page, and was failing to AGF in his comment. His edits under his previous sock were disruptive. The comments are, to my mind, not of the same type, as MathSci was participating in a continuing discussion of relevance to him, whereas Jagz was just trying to stir the pot and is a blocked user. It seems to me that many people are "involved" and possibly not neutral here. Of course, I'm not an admin, and wasn't aware of Jagz until his FatCigar persona. Verbal chat 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, please, can this just be a conversation between me and MastCell for now? MastCell, would you support that? --El on ka 17:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. My concern here, MastCell, is that we have two admins who are primarily dealing with Jagz, you and myself. Per Wikipedia's policy on consensus and multiple other admin policies, you and I (and any other admins who wish to participate right now) should be able to discuss this rationally, and come to an agreement on how to deal with this user. For example, see WP:UNBLOCK: "Editors with administrator access will strongly avoid wheel warring, that is, overriding each other's decisions, in almost all cases, since this is in itself a serious breach of administrator policy. For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached." I was in a conversation with Jagz on his talkpage, and then you came along and protected the page so that I can no longer converse on his talkpage. I disagree with this action. Turn it around and think about how you would feel, if you were discussing things with a blocked user on their talkpage, then that user made a comment which you didn't think was that bad, and suddenly another admin protected the talkpage to truncate the conversation? Would you see that as a collegial way to act? Don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with you that Jagz's behavior is not entirely helpful right now. But I am not seeing the urgency here that requires protection of his talkpage in mid-conversation. --El on ka 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I view it as a straw that broke the camel's back. He's been continually abusing whatever privileges he's had, including the ability to edit his talk page. He's been cut quite a bit of slack, abused it, and at some point enough is enough. I apologize for interrupting your discussion, but I'd encourage you to continue it via email - the talk page is not the only venue for such discussion.

I feel there is actually much more consensus here than you do, perhaps. I don't see this as a disagreement between the two of us. At least 4 or 5 other admins have reviewed Jagz' behavior and his unblock requests, not to mention his ArbCom appeal which I believe has been reviewed. In other words, I see quite a few experienced admins who have concluded that the project is better off without Jagz' participation, and I see one experienced admin (yourself) who feels otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong - only asking you to recognize that I'm not totally out on a limb or judging things unilaterally here.

I apologize for interrupting your conversation with Jagz. I recognized when I protected that page that you might feel I had acted precipitously or rudely. I value collegiality and I didn't take the action lightly. In the end, while I value a collegial relationship with you (as with any active editor or admin), there is a bigger picture. I also value the right of other, unsanctioned users to edit without baiting and sniping from banned users. Jagz' behavior has been "not entirely helpful" for a long time now, and at some point we have to acknowledge that we have limited volunteer time and goodwill and recognize diminishing returns. It's unfortunate that Jagz got mixed messages about the acceptability of his actions, but he's been over the line - and continually testing it - for long enough now that it can't be surprising to think that enough is enough. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say that you believe his ArbCom appeal has been reviewed, what are you basing this on? Also, I'm having a lot of trouble following your logic here in terms of which users that you are censuring. You protected Jagz's page, but said nothing to Mathsci about his comment, nor did you caution Orangemarlin about his comment, which was a pretty blatant violation of NPA.[12] Instead, you told him that you "appreciated his viewpoint"?? That's one of the problems that I have with this situation, is that I feel that Jagz is being ejected from the project for mild behavior, while others with severe behavior don't even get a slap on the wrist. --El on ka 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification, is it your view that Jagz's behavior is "mild" compared to that of Mathsci and Orangemarlin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I could go into a lot of detail with diffs, but in a nutshell: Yes. --El on ka 18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

← As I said, I didn't view Mathsci's comment as particularly outrageous and I think you're creating a false equivalence between an active editor and a banned one. An indefinitely blocked or banned editor does not have the same latitude to comment here as an active, unrestricted editor.

I thought Orangemarlin's comment was inappropriate and unhelpful. I asked him, here, to tone things down. I expressed myself more fully in an email I sent him simultaneously, as I think sometimes de-escalation is handled more effectively off-wiki. That was my judgement on how to best handle the situation.

From the perspective of creating a serious, respectable reference work - which I take to be Wikipedia's ultimate goal - I consider Jagz' behavior quite damaging. Incivility and personal attacks are bad, absolutely - but tendentious abuse of this site to advocate an agenda, in a way which harms the ultimate goal I mentioned, is also bad, though not always as easy to encapsulate. Viewed from that perspective, Jagz' behavior was certainly not "mild". MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not view Mathsci's statement as particularly outrageous, either. I felt the same way about Jagz's statement. Both comments were a bit unhelpful, but neither, in my view, deserved an immediate block or page protection. Also, to be clear, Jagz is not banned. He is blocked. There is a major difference, see WP:BAN. As for email, I tend not to like email communications, because my email queue is already overloaded, and I tend to miss things in immediate back and forth communications, so I prefer either on-wiki communications, or IMs. Anyway, going forward, if Jagz were to apologize for his past actions, and explain his sockpuppetry, would you support an unblock? --El on ka 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAN is a bit vague, but probably not worth arguing over. As far as unblocking Jagz, he's dug himself a huge hole as far as I'm concerned. I can't categorically say I'd never support an unblock, but it's hard to envision a scenario where I would at this point. It would likely take more than an apology - I seriously doubt he feels he's done anything wrong, so an apology would be at best insincere capitulation to an outside demand. Likewise, he had a chance to explain his sockpuppetry and instead lied about it and pretended he had no idea what people were talking about, so "explaining" it now that he's been caught wouldn't be a huge step forward in my view.

One of the biggest reassurances when unblocking a problem editor is that they can easily be reblocked if the problematic behavior resumes. In this case, I'm not reassured. He is skilled at remaining superficially civil, which often distracts focus from serious underlying behavior. If he resumed being disruptive, history tells me that he couldn't be reblocked without extensive time, effort, and angst. That, combined with the utter lack of anything resembling remorse or a desire to contribute constructively, make it very unlikely that I could get behind an unblock. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't answer one of my earlier questions, about his ArbCom appeal? Do you have anything to base that opinion on? --El on ka 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that an ArbCom appeal that has not been acted on in more than a month or so has been effectively rejected. I have no special knowledge of their deliberations on the matter, though if it's relevant I could email the ArbCom mailing list. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no, my understanding is that the ArbCom can take months to consider a request, so I wouldn't take silence as an indication of rejection. :) Anyway, I am now in email communication with Jagz, as you suggested. If he is willing to apologize and explain, then his talkpage would need to be unprotected so that he could post this apology. Would you be amenable to me unprotecting the talkpage in that kind of a situation? I assure you that I would not do it lightly. --El on ka 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest emailing ArbCom to see if they've considered his request. I say that because previous experience is that they sometimes (often?) "decline" a meritless request by simply ignoring it. If you'd prefer, I will email the mailing list or one of the members to inquire.

I don't see a lot of good coming from having his page unprotected. Yes, there is always a non-zero chance that he'll see the light, but we have finite resources, finite goodwill, and finite volunteer time and at some point we have to decide to move on. I feel very strongly that Jagz has already had ample chance to apologize, to explain, or to change his approach.

I'm not convinced that an "apology" is a step forward. His actions make it exceedingly clear that he accepts no fault, and to some extent he's been enabled in this regard. My take on this situation is that the vast majority of folks who've looked at it are ready to be done with Jagz. I'm happy to test the waters with whatever venue you feel appropriate to gauge outside opinion, but I think that pushing for yet more slack for this particular editor is out of step with the community. If I'm wrong about that, then I'd be fine with unprotecting his page. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now I think a lot of people have a kneejerk negative reaction to the name "Jagz", such that they immediately assume bad faith regardless of what he does. He could say, "Please don't make provocative statements", and he'd be accused of trolling. Whereas, while he was evading his block as Fat Cigar (talk · contribs), when people didn't know it was him, they actually got along with him fine. For example, did you see Wobble's comment to FC's talkpage,[13] about what a pleasure it was to interact with him? I feel strongly that the way through this, is for Jagz to apologize about what he did, and to promise to let things go. Then he could create a new account that no one would recognize, and get back to working on the encyclopedia. If others left him alone, I think he'd leave them alone, and we could all move on. --El on ka 21:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka misrepresented what had gone on between me, Charles Matthews, FT2 and Paul August to Jagz. I have no idea why she did so. In fact I had asked to be reblocked and then to leave wikipedia. All three were against this. Elonka, please find something else to do. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if Jagz actually wanted to create a new account and edit constructively, on his other interests besides racial genetics, I doubt anyone would notice or care. I don't go around Wikipedia looking for socks, but I notice obvious attempts to evade a block and pursue old grudges (and Fat Cigar was obvious). MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this then? If he agrees, we unprotect his talkpage, he posts a public apology, we unblock, and then he abandons the Jagz account and starts something new. The new account would continue to respect the Jagz topic ban on the race articles for the next 3-6 months, and this would be monitored by a few admins (perhaps myself, ArbCom, and anyone else they appointed). As long as he steered clear of the topic area, and steered clear of the editors with whom he was in a dispute before, he should be allowed to go forth and edit. The editors with whom he was in dispute would also be directed to stop talking about him on-wiki. So no sniping, no public sock-hunting, no baiting. And everyone just moves on. Would you be amenable to that? --El on ka 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in unblocking the Jagz account only to retire it. If he steers clear of the dispute and the small set of associated editors, then I don't see how we'd even know if he edited under another account. There hasn't been any public sock-hunting - Fat Cigar (talk · contribs) was pretty blatant. I would certainly encourage no-sniping, including on the part of editors who dislike Jagz. Can we find someone to supervise and/or mentor Jagz? That might go a long way, in conjunction with the subject and editor restrictions above. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of unblocking the account, would be so he could continue to edit on a new account without worry that a single false step would immediately have him blocked for "block evasion". Or are you saying that we should indeed encourage him to create another account now, even though the Jagz account is blocked? If there was a consensus that that was the best way through this, I could go along with that, and would be happy to mentor his new account, whichever name he chose. --El on ka 21:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesistant to encourage anyone to evade their block, although sometimes this may be the most functional solution - because if the issue of block evasion comes up, it's because the new account is behaving so similarly to Jagz that someone made the connection. That concern is addressed in similar terms in Wikipedia:Sock#Clean_start_under_a_new_name. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, setting aside the issue for the moment of whether Jagz is or isn't banned... Why then did we block Fat Cigar (talk · contribs)? How was that account being disruptive? --El on ka 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? He was evading a block to edit similar articles, and continuing to pursue old disputes - your RfC and the tag-teaming thing, for example. Textbook abusive socking. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you describing those as old disputes? Neither of those pages was even in existence around the time of the race disputes, nor did they even have anything to do with that topic area. The RfC was about the Israel/Palestine area, and the Tag team essay was an outgrowth of WP:WORKGROUP, in the ethnic/nationalist topic areas, neither of which (to my knowledge) had anything to do with where Jagz had been editing. Or put it another way. If it had not been Jagz behind the Fat Cigar account, and it had just genuinely been a new user, was there anything disruptive there? --El on ka 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption can't be divorced from account history that cleanly. Evading a block is disruptive, because it undermines the mechanisms we use to keep this site functioning. Creating a sock to disguise one's relevant history and comment as an "uninvolved editor" at an RfC is disruptive. Fat Cigar's participation was entirely explicable in terms of Jagz' focus: racial genetics and self-justifying "tag-teaming" stuff. I don't have psychic powers nor access to checkuser - how else would it be obvious to me that Fat Cigar == Jagz if they had not exhibited the same behavior? MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. There were indeed similarities in style between Jagz and Fat Cigar. As I recall, I spotted him as a probable sock right away, though I wasn't sure who the master account was. There were multiple socks (or at least secondary accounts) posting at my RfC and related pages. But I feel like we're running into a Catch-22 here right now. On the one hand you seem to be saying that we should leave the Jagz account blocked, and he should just start a new account. On the other, he did start a new account, Fat Cigar, but you said that that account needed to be blocked for evading a block. So, how do we set up a structure by which Jagz can edit under a new account, without getting blocked for block evasion? That's why I'm saying that first we need to get the Jagz account unblocked, so that he can put a {{retired}} tag on it, and then go on and edit somewhere else. --El on ka 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. If he starts a new account and it behaves similarly enough that it can easily be linked to Jagz, then there's a problem. If Fat Cigar had edited our article on the price of tea in China, no one would fuss or even connect him to Jagz. If he wants to be able to create a new account and run about editing the same old articles and commenting on the same old wikipolitical issues, then yes, I think that's a problem. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban on his editing, to keep him from editing any race-related articles for the next 3-6 months. He would also need to avoid the talkpages of users with whom he was in a dispute, such as Slrubenstein, Mathsci, Alun/Wobble, and Ramdrake. As I recall on his last block there was a problem where Ramdrake et al. were even complaining if Jagz so much as suggested a source to a friendly editor, so we might want to clarify the topic ban even further: No race-related edits, no participation of any kind on race-related articles, no comments on race-related article talkpages, no participation in AfDs or noticeboard threads on race-related topics, no comments of anything race-related anywhere on Wikipedia, period. Further, if he wanted to comment about anything that someone has done on a race-related page, he shouldn't even bring it up an admin's talkpage, he should send his concerns in private email. But if he wants to participate on non-race-specific policy or guideline pages, I wouldn't see that as disruptive. Or are you proposing that he be banned from everything in Wikipedia space as well? --El on ka 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ri) See WP:DENSE. Jim62sch^dissera! 02:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is not a victim here. He broke almost every single rule in the book, and caused huge amounts of wasted time and unnecessary conflict across an entire topic area. All for what? Zero productive result at all. So why we're even contemplating unblocking him, no idea. Particularly since the problem wasn't just WP:TIGERS - though that was the main issue - a personality incapable of letting go of a losing cause didn't help. Moreschi (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sitting Bull RFPP

I protected the page for a month, went back to note, and saw that you had listed it as semi-protected for 2 weeks. It's not in the log; did we E/C, with me getting in the page protect and you getting in the notation? Horologium (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you already updated. :) Horologium (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I hit the protect button and Wikipedia failed to respond (access has been spotty today, or maybe it's just on my end). By the time I got back to it, I saw you'd already protected the page. I adjusted the RFPP note to reflect your protection. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ericsson R380 Undeletion

I apologise if I'm getting this editing stuff on this talk page wrong ... I've not had a situation where a page I was trying to visit had been deleted before and so trying to follow the twisty maze of links about how to get it reviewed for possible undeletion has left me a little dizzy :-) The Ericsson R380 is, I believe, the first phone handset from Symbian, one of the first touch-screen phones (pre-dating the iPhone by seven years), and as such is sometimes quoted as a significant handset/milestone in articles about the latest cellphone designs and the importance of touch-based mobiles. While the impact in the US was low, as it was a GSM phone, it's impact in the UK and other parts of the world (including other English-speaking countries) was greater (not massive, but I think it meets the notability test). I would have contested the PROD had I noticed it at the time, but I don't keep an eye on these things. I didn't miss it in Wikipedia because there are numerous links available via Google for information on the phone, but that cannot be a basis for deletion of articles on WP (can it?) otherwise a large number of pages would just have "JGI" as their only content! cheers The Magician (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I've restored the article and left a note on your usertalk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help on Two Articles

You seemed like a reasonable person, not inherently skeptical but with a disciplined mind. (Haven't looked for that source on quantum healing, yet.) Would you be willing to review recent activity on two separate but related topics? In my opinion, there is blatantly biased dumping of turds going on that I am wasting my time cleaning up. I am probably not 100% correct, either, but I know a turd when I see one. Check out Talk:Energy (esotericism)#Double Standard and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden 2 if you have time. I'd be curious what your thoughts are. Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look, since you buttered me up :) It may be a couple of days, though - hope that's OK. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Graveyard Alive

Hi, could you undelete Graveyard Alive? I think it meets notability criteria for independant film. It won Best Cinematography 2004 at the Slamdance Film Festival, and has reviews in Film Threat, the Globe and Mail (561 words), Variety (small), Canoe.ca. - BalthCat (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the top box now. It was an Expired PROD. - BalthCat (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem; restored; longer note on your talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From other comments above I assumed a bit of a wait at least. Thanks! - BalthCat (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

Why have you blocked my ip address? 86.42.208.242 I'm not a sockpuppet and I don't know this has happened but the edits made with my ip address were not made by me!! How did this happen? Is this guy like controlling my computer or something??????? gr8lyknow —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Many IP's are dynamic and change over time. It may be that your IP was previously used by someone else in a manner that led to a block. The advantage of registering an account, as you've done, is that you won't be blamed for anyone else's actions. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research

FYI: Spinal manipulation research resources. You are welcome to contribute with comments, suggestions, and additions at the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to explain why certain editors, who have openly declared their intention to abuse Wikipedia as a promotional megaphone for their pet ideas on cold fusion, retain the ability to edit there. When people openly boast of using Wikipedia to increase the visibility and credibility of their fringe claims, something is fundamentally wrong. So I sympathize. However, I'm a bit limited in what I can take on at present; I've been trying to clean up some of our medical articles, and I'm not sure I have the mental energy to familiarize myself with the sources, issues, and players in this particular episode. You might get some useful input at WP:FTN. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversy

I've tried repeatedly to get those vandalizing the article to talk. They won't. Some of the reverts were to my own edits because I somehow messed something up and couldn't fix it. But don't take my word for it, you can see for yourself.

If you had a bot issue the warning then ignore this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxmastermind (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you incorrectly accusing others of vandalism, attacking other editors, ascribing every disagreement to bad faith on the part of others, and edit-warring. None of those are particularly productive behaviors. I didn't count your reverts, yet, because I was hoping a request to slow down and chill out would be most useful. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to amend my earlier response. The parties are now using the talk page, rather than the edit summary to discuss their objections. And I apologize for all those bad things you say I did. Somebody used the edit summary to accuse me of vandalism, and I bit back. My bad. FX (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was wrong on their part. This appears to be a content dispute all around, which is not vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And I totally forgot about the three revert rule. FX (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the article is about a controversy, one might expect some controversy when trying to improve the article. To say the least. FX (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sara is Protected

From what? I really don't know. Had you made the protection call, I would not have a problem since you have been a contributor to this volitale article and have some insight into its daily meanderings.. Any true vandalism was minor and no more serious than any other high-interest article receives. Was there some conversation amongst administrators? Were you asked your opinion by the admin that threw the blanket over the whole deal? BTW...I have had dealings/conversations with L'Aquatique and find her decisions and actions rash and ill-founded. I hope there will be discussions after the 4th of November regarding the Sara Palin article and the actions of editors and administrators since mid August-2008. Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard anything one way or the other, and had no part in the decision. Since I've edited the page, it would be improper for me to protect or unprotect it, though I could of course voice an opinion on the matter. I purposely unwatched the page and pledged not to view or edit it a few weeks ago, for my own sanity, so I've not been particularly aware on its recent vagaries. The article can still be edited with the {{editprotected}} tag, but the process will of course be more laborious. I'm not sure I think this is a good idea, but I suppose with the election so near it may be an appealing solution. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Buster7. — Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

grammar... in lead sentence... making eyes hurt.

Thanks for that. It bothered me too, but my attempt at fixing it was reverted, so I let recumbent canines snooze, or something like that. -- Zsero (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect my change may be reverted soon as well, but I had to try. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith

I was editting under SBlue but frankly found too much of WP is not nice. I believe that sock puppets are only such with intent. Let me know if this is not so. I find your TPG link in bad faith. So I see that WP is for you too not a happy experience. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It has its ups and downs.

I'm not sure how a link to the talk page guidelines can be "in bad faith", particularly when it appeared to me that you were violating them. I don't have a problem with you using an IP rather than your retired account. It is a bit tiresome to deal with these situations, though. You were obviously not a new user, but still, if I don't point you to the relevant guidelines and policies I'll be accused of "biting" a "newbie", while if I do point you to them, I'm apparently acting in "bad faith" or being condescending. Welcome back, in any case. MastCell ^Talk 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please showme were I was violating them. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be "a bit tiresome" but the admins at WP:ANI let something through that turned WP into way less than positive and I still dont like the idea of being a registered editor. Until WP takes care of its people I don't want to be too involved. Anyway if I was violating TPG please let me know how - if you now think I wasn't then no worries. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I felt like you were arguing your personal beliefs and opinions about the OPV AIDS hypothesis, rather than dealing with specific reliable sources and content issues. Maybe I was being oversensitive. Anyhow, not a big deal. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can suggest where Wikipedians discuss ways to better look after Wikipedians? Just in my brief visit to OPV AIDS people seem more on edge than I remember them (a general impression based not just on one section of our interaction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.119.27 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Socks at wp:fringe

Since you blocked HomeJames (talk · contribs) for socking, I thought you might take a look at Deadasamackerel (talk · contribs). Are these the same person do you think... any idea who is doing this? NJGW (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea, but I've asked them to use their main account, as this sort of socking is inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 06:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

School's out

Election day is a school holiday for some states, and childish vandalism always increases on school holidays. School's out on the East Coast, and autism is already getting hit. I suspect both autism and Asperger syndrome will get hit all day tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Autism looked pretty busy in terms of vandalism, so I've semiprotected it for 48 hours. Asperger syndrome hasn't been hit too hard (yet), but if it picks up just let me know and (assuming I'm online) I'll take a look. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)