User talk:MastCell/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

A cheeseburger for you!

You never fail to make the best responses. Hopefully this'll keep the energy up to keep them coming. Yobol (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think I'm supposed to eat burgers. They're totally wrong for my blood type. :P MastCell Talk 17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You Fundamentally Misunderstand the Issue

Here's a couple tips for you:

(1) Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

(2) In time, right makes might; and with respect to thimerosal, you're on the wrong side of history.

sincerely and respectfully,

Seipjere (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your posts generally come across as neither sincere nor respectful, adding those adverbs only compounds the insincerity.
As to interpreting history's verdict, we already have a head-start. The thimerosal hypothesis already had its moment in the sun: a few researchers got rich and famous promoting it (of course, their research turned out to be scientifically flawed and deeply unethical, but who's counting?). There were pieces in Rolling Stone and Salon (filled with factual errors which did nothing to detract from their truthiness). The media were happy to "teach the controversy". Scientists who tried to sort out the truth of the matter got death threats. Oh, and a lot of parents were frightened into not vaccinating their children, with sad but predictable results - the incidence of autism has continued to rise regardless, but now we've got pertussis and measles epidemics to contend with as well.
I think history is rendering its judgement in real time. People have started to see through it, and we're left dealing with the hangover from this deeply irresponsible campaign. Seriously, I don't think history is going to be particularly kind to people like Andrew Wakefield and Mark Geier.
In any case, I'll leave it there. I'm breaking a number of my own rules, and unlike some of my colleagues, I've never found it productive to try to reason people out of an irrational belief. MastCell Talk 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Dr Wakefield's case to say definitively one way or the other (and frankly, I don't much care) but, as for Dr Geier, with all due respect, (to tell you the unvarnished truth) I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about...
I'm quite certain that he, and, for that matter, his son, David, are precisely the kind of good men who, having stuck their necks way out on moral grounds, good historians (and wikipedians) are likely to exalt. Seipjere (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose someday we may exalt a physician who, in the words of the Maryland state medical board, displayed "an almost total disregard of basic medical and ethical standards" and "exploited [his] patients under the guise of providing competent medical treatment" ([1]). But it's an impressive feat of cognitive dissonance to imagine a massive conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment while ignoring the concrete, well-documented ethical lapses of the researchers whose findings agree with your preconceived beliefs. Really, you should learn a bit more about Wakefield's case; it's instructive, and I think will enter medical history as a cautionary tale. MastCell Talk 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree on Wakefield as a cautionary tale, but, to get back to the point, I'm curious: how much do you know about the nuerotoxicity of mercury? Seipjere (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for. I'm certainly not an expert on the specific field of heavy-metal metabolism or toxicity. MastCell Talk 05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought the point was MastCell being on the wrong side of history?--Tznkai (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You said it Tznkai... (I'm trying not to rub it in.)
(But, since you mentioned it...) It has very little to do with conspiracy, but a great deal to do with "cognitive dissonance". i.e. It's just how the scientific method works.
To steal a phrase from Otto Warburg and Max Planck (re. paradigm shifts and the scientific method): "Science progresses not because scientists change their minds, but rather because scientists attached to erroneous views die, and are replaced."
All the best, Seipjere (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You know when you're having a discussion, but the other person seems to be going to great lengths to avoid actually engaging with what you're saying? I'm sure you're trying to make some sort of point, between asking about my personal knowledge of mercury toxicity and spouting a constant stream of sententious quotations. But from my perspective, it feels like you're going to great lengths to avoid thinking critically or confronting some inconvenient truths. MastCell Talk 04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
As usual I think I know what you're driving at...
So to cut to the chase: Burbacher 2005 showed that thimerosal contributes about 5 times as much inorganic-mercury to the brain as the same amount of ingested methylmercury, AND based on the 0.1μg/kg of body weight/day EPA limit for food methylmercury (the gold standard) and the published mercury loads in US vaccine schedules (from Ball 2001 & the IOM's 2004 report), most babies who got their shots between '91 and 2001 were significantly over exposed. (Peak blood levels are reached within a few hours, and the average baby got 62.5μg or 75μg of mercury on each of the 3 or 4 days of the old schedule; 187.5 by 6 months.)
So based on the Burbacher numbers and the published US mercury loads (the best data there is) it's reasonable to assume that the baseline amount of I-brain-Hg (from thimerosal) in many infant brains (1990 to 2000) was around 5 times the max allowable EPA fish mercury equivalent. (i.e. 5 times the amount of I-Hg that eating the EPA's fish mercury max every day for the first few hundred days of life would yield.)
ALSO, the epidemiological data (the only real line of argument for you pro-thimerosalers) is thoroughly undermined by atmospheric mercury levels -- from coal, waste incineration etc -- and the probability of corresponding blanket increases in soils, oceans and, particularly, food-chains (due to bio-accumulation). To quote the EPA: "Blood mercury analyses in the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2000 NHANES) for 16-to-49 year old women showed that approximately 8% of women in the survey had blood mercury concentrations greater than 5.8 ug/L (which is a blood mercury level equivalent to the current RfD)." To my mind this provides a justifiable explanation of why "rates haven't dropped". And, to my mind, the massive improvements in awareness and diagnosis, i.e. a massive expansion of people on the moderate end of the Asperger's spectrum, who would most likely not have been considered autistic in the '90s -- can readily explain the relative stasis / "increase" since.
(Don't shoot the messenger.) Ciao, Seipjere (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR lol TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on Elizabeth Warren

You reverted my edit on the article on Elizabeth Warren by incorrectly stating wikipedia policy. You referenced WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG as reasons why blogs do not consitute credible sources. While that is correct in many cases, The National Review does NOT meet that critera. WP:BLP's only reference to blogs is under a section titled "avoiding self-published sources" where it says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." National Review fits these criteria perfectly. WP:REDFLAG says "[blogs associated with formal news organizations] may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process." I understand that the self-published blogs by themselves do not consitute a news story, however National Review's coverage of the blogs DOES constitute a news story (regardless of the fact that this coverage was, in and of itself, in a blog). I have refrained from restoring the information to give you time to respond in case I incorrectly understand wikipedia's policy. If my understanding is correct, feel free to restore the content if you feel better suited to provide a more neutral treatment of the topic.

Addition: hope you see this before you comment. National Review's article contains additional context as compared to the original blog post. It has NOT been regurgitated "uncritically" as the two updates at the bottom of the article clearly indicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs)

First of all, the National Review is not a "news organization". It has no news-gathering staff or function. It is a partisan opinion magazine/site. Secondly, I see no evidence that you're "using [the Review piece] with caution"; you're using it as the basis for a substantial stand-alone section of a biography, which is sort of the opposite of "caution".
You're citing a blogger, supported by another blogger at the National Review. That is an insufficient basis to accuse a living person of a crime, per WP:BLP. If there is actual independent, reliable news coverage of this event, then properly phrased coverage would be appropriate. I think your time would be best spent looking for better sources rather than trying to force the material in with the existing, inappropriate sourcing. If this accusation doesn't make it beyond individual bloggers and the website of a partisan periodical, then you may have to accept that it is inappropriate to feature it in the biography of a living person. MastCell Talk 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner has now covered the story and as such I will be restoring the edit with the new citation. Perpetualization (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
What is it about "independent, reliable sources" that you're not getting? MastCell Talk 06:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In what way does the Examiner not qualify as a reliable source? It's an independent newspaper. Also, fox has now covered the story as well. By what possible standard do they not qualify as legitimate sources? Perpetualization (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner is pretty dicey, as a free paper with a distinctly partisan outlook. Moreover, the Examiner piece simply repeats the blogger's allegations without examining their credibility (see WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject", emphasis mine).
More broadly, this is a great case study in why WP:BLP exists. The blogger's criminal allegation, which you were intent on cramming into Warren's biography, turns out to be incorrect (per the general counsel of the Massachussetts Board of Bar Overseers ([2]). So we narrowly avoided falsely accusing a living person of a crime, because we insisted on waiting for high-quality sources. That's how BLP is supposed to work, and I hope next time something like this comes up you'll be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. MastCell Talk 18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of letting biases play a role. The board of bar overseers is not the highest authority here, nor does its statement necessarily clear her. The only thing we narrowly avoided was acknowledging that one person had accused another person of a crime. The accusation is in and of itself worthy of inclusion, regardless of the merits behind it. If it turns out that there are no merits behind it, that can be stated as well. The fact that she has been accused is fact, regardless of the veracity of the allegations. The comparison I made on the talk page: we include reid's accusation that romney paid no taxes (even though the claim appears false) because it is fact that he made the accusation. Similarly... Perpetualization (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The Board of Bar Overseers isn't the "highest authority" on who can practice law in a state? Er, OK.
There's a difference between an accusation made by Some Random Blogger and an accusation made by the Senate Majority Leader, in terms of notability. I mean, that's common sense, right? And the point of WP:BLP is that, given the prominence of this website, we don't simply regurgitate every criminal accusation that a blogger makes about a living person, because doing so would have the effect of amplifying them. MastCell Talk 18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind my intrusion, I'd like to add a comment. I agree that the original edit had BLP issues; we were just repeating a rumor. At this point, fair and balanced reliable sources such as Fox News have picked up the story, which makes it notable, to the point where omitting it might seem like whitewashing. We still shouldn't simply repeat these accusations, lending them undue credence. However, I think there might be a place for a carefully-worded mention that includes the various refutations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had one wish, it would be that we stop using the word "whitewash" every time a marginally sourced non-troversy fails to warrant immediate and prominent inclusion in a politician's biography. When you put together 24-hour news cycles and multi-million dollar "message machines", you're going to get something like this pretty much every day of an election cycle. Hell, even in the Massachussetts Senate race, the law license stuff has already taken a backseat to Tomahawk-gate. It makes us look like clowns - and not at all like a serious encyclopedia - when we get caught up in this. But that's less of a BLP issue and more a general complaint about the way partisan editing totally dominates our political biographies during election cycles. MastCell Talk 19:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If I had one wish, I'd wish for unlimited wishes, but that's just me. I sympathize with your take on the scandal-of-the-day and we do have to be careful not to become part of the aparatus. My concern is that, across many articles about politicians and political groups (and definitely not just liberal ones), there is a pattern of suppression of "negative" information. Articles tend to get written by supporters, which tends to bias them in favor. This is why I primarily edit conservative articles rather than liberal; so that my natural bias can act as a counterbalance. Anyhow, my point is that this law license nonsense is something readers are going to come here to learn more about anyhow, so we might as well cover it accurately. If we don't, they'll just Google up some Fox News piece, instead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Technically, the State Supreme Court is generally the highest authority on who can practice law in a State, and the charges are brought by the State's AG office. As a practical matter, the Overseers take care of that sort of thing. They are certainly more authoritative than any blogger, journalist, or even legislative official.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I try to learn as little as possible about the legal system. :) MastCell Talk 22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, moving on point for a second, repeating erroneous negative accusations that appear in the news cycle can do serious harm. By repeating something, Wikipedia at the very least, suggests that it is worth repeating, which lends something credibility. There are, at any moment, many, many negative things, said, occasionally by notable persons and notable outlets. That in and of itself does not make them in fact news worthy, or encylopedic. One of Wikipedia's great assets is the speed with which we can update. Likewise, it can be a great downfall, because the consensus process depends on outside sources producing good, high quality information. That process takes time, and the BLP policy serves to push the breaks on the edit cycle long enough to allow the news cycle to work through, and good (verifiable, accountable) information to emerge.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. The thing that irritates me is the short-sightedness. By rushing ahead with crappy sources, we gain nothing (since we're not a news site and we have no deadline), but we risk violating the basic ethical principles set out in WP:BLP by amplifying false criminal accusations against a living person. If this is a real story, it will be all over the legitimate news within 24-48 hours. Losing a couple of days isn't a concern, since it's more important to get it right than to get something in the article right now. But getting people to understand that is nearly impossible, especially during election season when partisan editing becomes the norm. MastCell Talk 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
By repeating something, Wikipedia at the very least, suggests that it is worth repeating, which lends something credibility. Yes, my thoughts exactly. Onward we go boyz, to fight racism, sexism, egotism, and every other kind of ism including just plain old fucking stupidism. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical Question

Are white blood cells actually white? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a trick question, right? They're too small to see. :P Actually, if you centrifuge a tube of blood, you'll see a thick layer of red cells at the bottom and yellow plasma on top. In between, there's a small white layer, which is where the white blood cells reside and why they're called "white". Similarly, pus (which is made up largely of dead white blood cells) is white(-ish). So maybe they are white - if you clump a lot of them together, they certainly look that way. When you view them under a microscope, they look more or less clear/transparent, unless of course they've been stained. MastCell Talk 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Not trick, quite serious. I wondered if they were labelled "white" merely because of their goodness and their healingness....wondered if it was one of those "good things are white, bad things are black" kind of lables. I envision any attempt to combat racism as white cells attacking a camcer or a bacteria that is threatening the body. Thanks for the info. I knew your answer would be undertandable and on topic. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, white blood cells are a lot more morally ambiguous than is generally appreciated. Most of the clinical manifestations of sepsis, for instance, result from a runaway inflammatory reaction propelled by white blood cells. With modern antimicrobial therapy, it's a common occurrence to successfully eradicate a bloodstream infection but nonetheless watch a patient deteriorate because of an overzealous white-blood-cell and immune response. Far from goodness and healingness, they're sometimes lethally ungrateful.
That's why I've always shaken my head at those supplements promising to "pump up" your immune system. In fact, the immune system devotes substantial resources to suppressing immune reactions - through regulatory T cells, anti-inflammatory cytokines like IL-10, and T-cell costimulatory molecules such as the CTLA-4 pathway. It's probably no exaggeration to say that half of your immune system is devoted to suppressing white blood cells and immune reactions. But for some reason, no one's struck it rich yet with a dietary supplement that promises to hold back your white blood cells... such is our bias. :) MastCell Talk 20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention autoimmune diseases.
"Holding back" the immune system is poor marketing. The marketing-approved phrase is "balancing the immune system". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Normally I just lurk, but this really is a nice thread, involving a favorite topic and a couple of my favorite editors. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

RfAr/Race and intelligence clarification

I'd been meaning to respond to your comments on the arbitration noticeboard talkpage, but I see the discussion's been archived, so I'll post briefly here instead.

At least as I saw it, the thrust of the motion that was adopted wasn't aimed primarily or solely at TrevelyanL85A2, who as you note wound up being blocked indefinitely anyway. But if you check the (admittedly overlong) discussion that led to the motion, there were at least two other editors who stated that they too thought it was just fine for them to be having discussions on their talkpages with socks of the users who were previously indefblocked for gross misconduct and harassment. When I and other arbitrators stated in no uncertain terms that they should desist from this practice, these editors told me in no uncertain terms that they would ignore me. It was in this context that I thought the motion was useful, to make clear that this shouldn't happen.

Hopefully this clarifies a bit. What was adopted probably won't win "motion of the year," but I don't think it opens up the floodgates of wikilawyering as you suggest, either. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I wanted to thank you for responding. I know it's not especially pleasant to deal with the hordes of angry and often irrational people who show up to complain after each ArbCom decision (and in this case, I'm one of those angry and perhaps irrational folks). You and a few of your colleagues shoulder the burden of dealing with complaints - a burden most of the Committee members seem to avoid. So I really appreciate your response.
I think we agree that the bottom line is that there's really no legitimate reason to restore talkpage posts from abusive banned editors. You said as much in your comments on the request, early on, for which I thank you. My problem is that I don't think we needed a months-long case to reach that conclusion. It's a simple matter of established practice and policy - all that's needed is to reaffirm what's in policy, and voice support for those who upheld it.
I know that a few editors said that they would ignore you, but I don't see how their obstinacy turned this into a drawn-out proceeding. You told them that what they were doing was unhelpful and not OK. If they ignore you, we (admins) will handle it - that's what we're here for. If you as Committee members provide guidance that a behavior is inappropriate, then I (and, I think, many other admins) will act on that - especially in a black-and-white case where everyone with a clue already recognized the behavior as inappropriate. All you guys need to do is support admins when they're acting appropriately, and ideally protect them from frivolous or vexatious litigation. I think a motion would have been helpful, to nail things down, if it were promptly enacted, but the balance tipped from "helpful" to "unhelpful" when the request entered its second month or so. At that point, it was basically providing a free platform for the sort of bickering that all of these remedies are intended to prevent.
In any case, I understand the realities of working on the Committee, at least as much as an empathetic outsider can. I know it can be like herding cats, and I can't even imagine the demands on your time - you guys give a lot more time and effort to this project that I ever could or would. I don't mean to bash you, although I know it probably came across that way because I was sort of miffed when I posted. I do see a long-term problem with wikilawyering in this arena - one which the involvement of full-time defense counsel like TDA exacerbates - but I also have a tendency to be overly cynical, so you're probably right that in the long run the motion won't be counterproductive. It's more that the time and effort could have been much better spent if this were nipped in the bud, but that's not your fault - after all, the participants themselves could have dropped it at any point.
In any case, as I said, I really do appreciate your responsiveness and your thoughts on the matter. Cheers. MastCell Talk 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Mast, would you please not refer to me in such a manner? I previously stated on Risker's talk page that I do not appreciate you calling me Trev's "full-time defense counsel" or anything similar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
In deference to your complaint, I'll avoid that terminology in the future. That said, I think your role in the dispute was unhelpfully litigious and borderline disruptive - an opinion which I feel is reasonable to state on my talkpage, at the very least. I'll endeavor to use different and hopefully less charged language if I repeat my concern. That's the best I can offer. MastCell Talk 01:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vaccine denialism and a court case

Don't know if you're a reddit fan, but here you go. Not sure if the underlying court case might fit into one of the various vaccine articles, but I noticed you've been fixing one or two of them. Obviously, the court ruling isn't really MEDRS, but as much as Jacobson v. Massachusetts is part of the controversy, maybe this ruling is too. Of course, it's only a Federal district court, so who knows. Atheists love it though. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, of all of the objections to vaccination, the only one that I have real sympathy for is the personal-liberty concern. It is an imposition of the collective on the individual to insist that we vaccinate our children. Obviously, we as a society have largely accepted that trade-off, but I can at least empathize with people who feel forced by the government to vaccinate their children against their parental preference.
It's one thing to abuse the trappings of science, as I think a number of anti-vaccine campaigners have done and still do. But it's another to object to the state's right to mandate a medical treatment. I don't agree with the latter concern in the case of vaccination, but I can understand it - whereas I can't understand people who simply seem unwilling to acknowledge objective reality, as with the anti-vaccine commenter a few threads up.
That said, I agree with you that the religious-freedom exemption doesn't apply. Religious freedom has always been circumscribed where it has the potential to harm others. I can't drink and drive, or refuse to pay taxes, and claim a religious exemption. Refusing vaccination is a dangerous act - both for one's own child and for other people's children. MastCell Talk 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
You must be more of a libertarian/Ron Paul type. I'm much more extreme in the pro-vax world. The only acceptable exemptions are ACIP's approved contraindications for vaccines. I think there are just a few like certain immunocompromised situations. Line up the kids and milk the their vaccine induced tears. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's any conceivable stretch of the imagination by which I could be described as a libertarian or a "Ron Paul type". If you ever see me up on stage in a publicly funded sports arena declaring my rejection of government, you'll know that tertiary syphilis has set in. Believe me, I work with immunocompromised people, and I've seen patients die because of low vaccine uptake in the community around them. I feel strongly about it. I just don't think it helps to be dogmatic; it only plays into people's natural resistance to being told they have to do something they don't want to do. MastCell Talk 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
SR, I'm curious about what you think about vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases. They're pretty different from a blood-borne disease like Hepaitis B or an airborne one like smallbox. Texas had the HPV vaccine on the mandatory vaccination list for a while, but in my mind, there is a pretty clear distinction between the smallpox vaccine and the HPV vaccine. NW (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I can see the difference for smallpox (it's a much more acute danger), but what is the practical difference between blood-borne diseases and STDs? Both are transmitted rarer than smallpox or the flu, but herd immunity still protects the risk groups. I somehow don't see you in the "if my daughter screws around, it's only fair that she dies of cervical cancer" crowd... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hope that my kids choose to get vaccinated for HPV, but I do see a fairly clear distinction even between Hep B and HPV. You can get Hep B accidentally a number of ways: accidental needlestick for one, improper screening of transfused blood for another. Granted, the odds of both are fairly low and unlikely to happen to kids in school. And it is the case that a large percentage of school-aged kids are going to engage in sexual practices that make them at risk for HPV. But a large enough number are going to wait or practice sex safely, and I don't entirely see a reason to force them to undergo an expensive and bothersome three-shot vaccination series. NW (Talk) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, but I disagree with the interpretation. Teenagers don't wait (as a rule - there may be individual exceptions). And "safe sex" is safer, but not absolutely safe - typical condom users have a 15% chance of pregnancy over one year, and even under optimal conditions, there is a two percent chance of pregnancy. Infection risk should be at least similar, and given that pregnancy depends on ovulation, likely higher. Note also that the vaccine is only recommended to people not yet infected, and that it provides long-term protection. The earlier it is given, the more likely it will prevent an infection. Apparently 80% of women in the US have contracted an infection with at least one HPV strain by age 50, so it is by no means rare. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The issue being that very few parents are going to think their daughters are in the category of school-aged kids who are going to engage in sexual practices, so few would get the vaccine in that situation, even if they are in a higher risk category. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The HPV vaccine issue is pretty interesting. I would hope that everyone would realize the real value of the vaccine in helping preventing cancer for an entire lifetime. Even if daddy's little girl waits until marriage to a similar partner, there's no guarantee she won't remarry at some point, etc. That being said, the whole Perry, Texas thing probably did more harm than good since a lot of people now think it's some evil scheme by big pharma. On a somewhat related note; MC, I would be curious to hear what you think about flu shots. I'll get my first one this year since I'll be around someone with a weakened immune system, but am I a terrible person for not getting them in general? a13ean (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the HPV vaccine, I think that any disease-prevention strategy which relies on teenagers, as a group, being abstinent or practicing safe sex is entirely unrealistic. Separately, even "safe" sex poses a risk with regard to HPV. There's fairly strong recent evidence suggesting that oral sex, performed on an HPV-positive partner, is strongly linked to the risk of head and neck cancer. With the decline in tobacco use, HPV infection is probably the dominant risk factor for oropharyngeal cancers, which are increasingly common in younger non-smokers. So there's a benefit even to people who practice what is commonly understood to be "safer" sex.
About the flu shot, I would strongly encourage it. I won't judge you for not getting them before, but everyone really should. I've had the flu a few times, and it's been utterly miserable. I haven't gotten it once since I started getting vaccinated every year in 2001, despite a significant degree of occupational exposure. Besides, you never know when you're going to take the bus or ride the elevator next to someone who's getting chemotherapy, or who had a bone marrow transplant, or who is carrying an infant. Even if you're not personally at risk for serious complications, there's a benefit to not being a vector. Finally (for the Republicans in the crowd), there's a clear economic and productivity benefit to widespread flu vaccination. The amount of missed workdays and lost productivity in people who catch the flu (or who have to care for someone who caught it) is substantial, in the millions if not billions of dollars annually.
In your defense, the ACIP didn't start recommending universal flu vaccination until 2010, so you've only shirked your societal obligations for a year or two. :) MastCell Talk 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't always take medical advice from strangers on the internet, but when I do it's because they have a good point =) It also helps that they had a flu shot clinic in the building where I work this week. a13ean (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not really about personal liberty, rather they want the ability to enforce their idiosyncratic opinions on their children, also with a right to neglect their children. Not to jump into an excessive example, but; isn't that argument essentially similar to demanding freedom of movement to send your children into a quarantine zone? On the religious freedom aspect, this [3] made for interesting, if rather sad reading: a list of case studies of parents who deliberately neglected their children for religious reasons, causing them to die from preventable diseases. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's the counterargument. And I agree with it; I think that personal liberty needs to take a backseat when it comes to protecting the welfare of the vulnerable, like children. I agree that the death toll from religiously motivated medical neglect is appalling... but it's also an astounding testament to the implacable power of irrationality. I mean, people will literally allow their own children to die preventable deaths - I can't even begin to imagine the thought processes at work.
Refusing to have your child vaccinated is one thing. Refusing curative medical care for illnesses like appendicitis or Hodgkin lymphoma - which are universally fatal if untreated - is another. I don't think anyone has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation for why the human psyche contains this self-destructive germ of resistance to reason, although maybe Michael Shermer came closest in Why People Believe Weird Things. MastCell Talk 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated: speaking of weird things about humanity, do you happen to know if the prevalence of people needing corrective vision has actually gone up in recent decades and if so, what hypotheses people have about why that is? NW (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it has gone up or not, but would not be surprised if it had increased slightly; I'm not a biologist, but I had understood it to be that bad eyesight was previously an evolutionary disadvantage (not a massive one since we live in societies so this would offset it), but now with correct vision etc it's even less so; so defective eyesight no longer has a strong effect as a selection pressure. If there is a mutation that changes the genes for vision so as to be degrading vision, for offspring now, then there is no strong advantage or disadvantage in evolutionary terms. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I totally understand that. But I hear it's something that has gone the way of peanut allergies—a huge spike in the last 50 or so years. Could just be making that up, but I don't know. But 50 years is a bit short, even for human medical history and for death rates to have changed all that much. NW (Talk) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I found some research papers looking at vision [4], and [5] (following the citation tree might lead to a clearer picture), it seems for vision there is a mixture of causes:

"While genetic factors undoubtedly play a major role,8,10–12 these cannot account for the recent steep increase in myopia prevalence. ... While nearwork has long been accepted as being in some way involved in myopization,1–4 it appears that periods of outdoor activity may offer protection against myopic change.21–23 More recently, following early work by Hoogerheide et al.,24 it has been suggested that refraction and imagery in the peripheral retina might be of importance.25–30"

I'll stop commenting for a bit to give the biologists a time to reply :> IRWolfie- talk) 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the answer. The skeptic in me wonders if over time we've simply done more vision testing, and provided better vision coverage - meaning that the increase in myopia is simply related to detection bias. The proposed timeframe - only a generation or two - does seem far too short for an actual evolutionary change in gene frequency or a response to selective pressure. (Although glasses, which used to carry a social stigma, are definitely in right now and might confer at least a minor reproductive advantage).
Maybe myopia is more prevalent because Big Vision succeeded in strangling and suppressing naturally effective vision cures like the See Clearly Method? (I've spent so much time in the realm of paranoid Wikipedia quackery that these hypotheses occur to me naturally now). Then, of course, the massive behavioral changes over the past several decades could certainly play a role - the amount of time we spend in front of computer monitors and TV screens, not to mention staring at tiny smartphone text, has increased dramatically. I guess it could be any or all of the above. MastCell Talk 21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This would make sense for the nut allergies; less detection for cases combined with less nuts being consumed as part of diet 50 years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt dashes

Hi MastCell. In the Mitt Romney article you just changed some, but not all, of the spaced endashes to unspaced emdashes. The article is currently in the middle of FAC, so this is a slightly frustrating change. I was under the impression that MOS:DASH permits either form to be used, as long as it is used consistently throughout. This article was accordingly using spaced endashes throughout. Is there a reason why you feel it should switch over? I either have to finish what you started or back it out, please give guidance. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They appeared to be hyphens rather than ndashes to me, which is why I started changing them, although that may just be a result of my viewing setup. Obviously, it wasn't my intention to create more work for you. I'll take care of making them consistent - would you rather unspaced emdashes, or spaced ndashes? MastCell Talk 00:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Spaced endashes. I can do the restorations, I just didn't want to go against you. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The day I become dogmatic about dashes is the day I should block myself and disappear. :) I already switched them all back to spaced ndashes for you. Good luck with the FAC. MastCell Talk 00:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Another question

I just thought of one more question I'd like to ask, but I will only ask it if it's ok with you. I had intended to move on but I thought of something while I was folding laundry. I don't want you to feel like I baited you into a trap though so if your reply was conditioned on my moving on then I'll not post it.--v/r - TP 00:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fine - I'm happy to talk. If I felt like you were baiting me into a trap, I wouldn't have responded in the first place. MastCell Talk 00:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left the question.--v/r - TP 01:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your caution... but for the record, having seen your question, I think it's totally fair and reasonable and not even close to being a rhetorical trap. So no worries. :) MastCell Talk 01:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping to beat you to the page so I could just edit my previous comment, but having seen you answer I felt it was only fair to make sure first.--v/r - TP 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bob Corker - question about ad

Hi Mastcell, I've responded to your question on the Bob Corker Talk page about the 2006 RNC ad. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as an additional reminder, Mark has left a response for you on the talk page. SilverserenC 03:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Compounding pharmacies

I think that the article Compounding should be changed to "Compounding pharmacy". What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Add: Here the CDC calls it a Compounding pharmacy: [6] Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. Compounding is the act of creating the drug formula for a specific use, such as changing the flavor, or making a special chemotherapy drug. A compounding pharmacy is the pharmacy that actually performs the service. I don't think we should conflate them. For example, an oncologist may "compound" the chemo agent for a specific agent, and may not be pharmacist. A compounding pharmacy, of course, may do the same thing (though rarely does, except in a hospital environment). I think in this case, especially given what the New England Compounding Pharmacy has done, we need to separate into two separate articles, even if the verbiage may have 50% overlap. I don't think that's too much of a difficulty. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Would you please be an Arbitrator for a term or two? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that MastCell would make an excellent arbitrator, it appears most arbitrators spend less and less time as an editor; I would hate to lose MastCell's contributions to the project. Yobol (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Losing the contributions would be undesirable. Do any arbiters have the time for many edits? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You scared him away... :( Yobol (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a fairly long break; does anyone if MastCell is on a wikibreak? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think he is hiding from the ArbCom recruiters. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You are named in an Arbcom request

Here. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

discussion which may or may not be of interest to you

related to an old block. Discussion is here[7]. William Jockusch (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

During the process

of backing out - in fact, not even starting into - a talk page discussion with an editor whose response to not getting his (I'm sure it was a guy) way was to accuse every one in a area of POV posturing and whatever, and while engaging in my was of Counting to 10, clicking on random editors and links just to get away for a breather, I ended up at your user page and "discovered" (sort of like Columbus "discovered" America, it was always there, but.....) your The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia. There it was, just what I had been living, all spelled out, with numbers and bullets & everything. Please consider this a "Thank-you." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

wiki-rath

Hi, not sure if you're aware, but you're featured prominently on this site: wiki-rath.org Regards, ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever else Rath is, he's completely ignorant of how Wikipedia works. From the first page "Under the cloak of ‘democracy’, ‘free speech’ and ‘open society’, Wikipedia has been developed" - he's never read WP:NOT has he? We're NOT a democracy, we aren't here for free speech, and we're not here for society, open or otherwise. What an idiot. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
That site is genuinely funny, though I doubt it was intended to be. Apparently the judgment at Nuremberg went against all of us who prefer evidence-based reasoning, not to mention reliable and peer-reviewed sources. Antandrus (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Peer reviewed sources are Nazi shills, Ant, didn't you know that? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As a close follower of David Gorski on Facebook and his his writings on various pro-science blogs, you will note that he's a devout and passionate Detroit Tigers fan. So much so, that he posted Tigers' updates on Twitter and Facebook, apparently while in the middle of surgery or something. :) I did a search for MastCell and baseball on here. It appears that MastCell supports the Phillies (I think). So, unless MastCell is really really careful about talking baseball, he's not David Gorski. Yeah, I look up crap like this. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think they're both closet Padres fans. (He really tweeted while in for surgery? Gah.) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I was kidding. :) Well, at least I think I was kidding. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

I like your costume. The Steve Martin "arrow thru the head" might be a good addition. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Help design a medical journal evaluation tool

Hi MastCell, your input here would be especially valuable to me. Cheers... Zad68 13:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A possible Solution to the issue of Abortion/Pro-Life/Pro-Choice

I see you have edited the Abortion article. I have a serious RL question.

  • Let us assume there are over 400000 abortions due to unintended and unwanted pregnancies per year.
  • Let us also assume there are an equal number of women who are unable to become pregnant or maintain a pregnancy for whatever reason. (Husband/mate sterility, miscarraige, egg production, reproductive system anomalies, etc)
  • Question: Has there ever been or is there now any study or medical research to safely remove the fetus/embryo from the first group where it is unwanted and in danger and transfer it to the second group where it will be nurtured into adulthood?
I'm no Doctor and I'm sure there are millions of reasons that can be given as to why it would be impossible. But heart transplants were once impossible. Cloning was impossible. Ive asked many radio-talk show medical guests: all said it was impossible and were quick to scorn the concept. My question was never given serious consideration. I know its a "wild and crazy idea" and maybe this is the wrong venue to ask it. But I'll risk ridicule to plant a seed of an idea in the brain of someone that can give it some serious thought. The Issus of Abortion polarizes our nation. To me transferring the unborn/unaborted child seems like a medically difficult but obviously human solution. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I suspect it would fail for the same reason that you can't transfer an ectopic pregnancy to a safe location within the uterus. Even a few seconds' disruption to the embryo's blood supply is damaging and likely to be lethal. Transplanting the baby would likely be easier than transplanting the placenta, though. The placenta is very intricately embedded in the uterine lining. It would require hours and hours of microsurgery to move it, and see the above about "even a few seconds' disruption to the embryo's blood supply...".
So the talk-show hosts were right: it won't work (with current or reasonably foreseeable technology, at least). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned

You have been mentioned in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_didn't_build_that (i.e read "mentioned" as more accused of edit warring and tag teaming). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, MastCell!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

The DMZR Zone

First, some irony. The very best and most thorough secondary source I know of on possible vegan sources of vitamin B12, save of course for the usual cheap bacterial vitamin products, is this article: http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant. It’s not in a peer-reviewed journal, and it’s not RS, but it has cites to 34 good primary references. Thus, when new user: David Martin Zeegen Roth showed up earlier this month as a new user and started adding vegan primary studies to B12 articles, I welcomed him, and gave him this reference for help as to its refernences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Martin_Zeegen_Roth. It did absolutely no good.

David Martin-Zeegen Roth is somebody’s real name, as google has a 2002 assault arrest report for some 25 y.o. U. Maryland student with that exact slightly odd name—and if you use your exact name on WP you can’t really complain about “outing”: Page 4 police reports. Maybe this guy’s username is just in honor of said punchy student. Can you use somebody ELSE’S distinctive name on WP as your username?

Whatever his real name is, “DMZR” is a single-issue editor. He now edits from Austin, Tx, as his uncovered IP shows, which is the home of several chlorella makers and health food producers like Premier Research Labs http://www.healthbeyondhype.com/premier-research-labs/chlorella-vcaps-p-116.html. His purpose is evidently not to improve WP but to insert non-bacterial source B12 information (particularly on chlorella) into B12 articles (B12 and B12 deficiency. Also he was edited the chlorella article, and he is enthusiastic about the B12 supposedly in chlorella. That is all he does.

He will not use the talk pages, either the article’s or his own. He reverts attempts to remove his stuff. His typical edit summary is “removed unsourced chatter.” He’s clearly not new to WP but started right in, editing like a former user. He hasn’t bothered with a userpage. Again, this is not because he’s a non-English native editing from Japan. He could communicate. He doesn’t ‘’choose’’ to.

Okay, all this would not be so bad, the man does not understand his material. B12 is treacherous territory, since all kinds of corrinoid analogues exist, and they are RIA or ELISA immune-active and even active in bacterial B12 assays, without being active in human B12 dependant enzymes. So they can assay out as having B12, bring blood “B12” levels up, but not do a thing for MMA or homocysteine levels.

The evidence for no non-bacterial source is widely accepted. But DMZR now asserts (through his edits in B12 deficiency) that the center of “scientific consensus” on B12 is Japan, and that they recommend chlorella for getting B12 into pregnant women. His source is a 30 patient study of giving chlorella to pregnant Japanese women, but not to raise their B12 levels. Yes the authors of this study recommend it anyway. Yes, it’s pretty poor. The data on chlorella are mixed, same as any other eukaryotic source.

Roth has added an old study by Herbert (of which he must be heartily ashamed, just he is of the vitamin C vs. B12 study) to “suggest” that commercial B12 added to foods rapidly breaks down and is not to be trusted. Nothing is further from the truth. B12 is added to fortified foods in such massive quantities today, not to mention the really cheap B12 pills made from perfectly vegan-acceptable bacterial-sourced B12, that there really is no commercial problem. There is something extremely perverse about pushing very expensive B12 supposedly in dried chlorella or purple laver seaweed. Even for vegans, this is a totally solved problem, and cheaply, too.

So all this is not helping the B12 articles, which are suffering badly. The biomedical concensus, as I well know, is “get your B12 from cheap pills at a nickel each and stop worrying”, as all the cheap pills contain lots of cheap cyanocobalamin made commercially by the ton.

Anyway, this explains why DMZR and I are about to get into an edit war. Comments? Should I be talking to Wolff or Doc James instead? SBHarris 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just a small note that MastCell hasn't been around since the start of October. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

whew

... so now, get thee back in here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Yobol (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy to see you wandering the halls again! Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I felt optimistic enough to end my self-imposed exile in light of certain changes in the composition of the Arbitration Committee. But I don't know whether I really want to go back to editing and adminning. The longer you spend away from Wikipedia, the more ridiculous its culture seems. The bitterly fought years-long arguments about capitalizing (T|t) Beatles, the forced pretense that angry lunatics are valuable contributors, the demand to reason endlessly with irrational people, the tenacity-based approach to content disputes which guarantees that pathological obsessives wear down and drive off sane people... I don't exactly miss that stuff.
One of the enjoyable things about Wikipedia has been the people I've "met" and worked with. And there are still a lot of great people here, including you guys. But over time, I've come to feel that the place is dominated by immature zealots, and by people defined by their petty hatreds and grudges. I've started to feel like the majority of people I encounter here are the sort that I would consciously go out of my way to avoid interacting with if I met them in real life.
On top of that, in light of recent events (including, but not limited to, the school shooting in Connecticut), it's hard to attach much significance to what goes on here. And it's even harder to muster anything besides contempt for people who act as if banning an editor from this website is the greatest imaginable injustice in the world. Seriously, if Wikipedians took 1/10th of the effort they put into litigating various wiki-disputes and put it into remedying an actual, real-world injustice, the world would be a significantly better place. And the fact that most Wikipedians lack the perspective to appreciate that is one of the reasons I'm not sure I want to spend any more time here.
But enough cynicism. I appreciate the kinds words, and it's always nice to see you guys. MastCell Talk 01:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That pretty much sums up the good and bad. I haven't had the energy to take an active role since my run-in with the authorities (followed by a particularly officious admin) a while back, though I do the odd bit of cleanup when I'm visiting articles. However, I've always appreciated your contributions, and we and others did a good job cleaning up a bunch of articles that were infested with nonsense, to the point where they now seem to have stabilized on something good. JQ (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I know what you mean MastCell. I didn't edit at all, didn't even log in for a space of about 5 months. It certainly does give a real sense of perspective to all the fights. But it was sad to look you up and see you had stopped editing. It was good to see you were still around, if only a little. This place feels full of cobwebs sometimes. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Why I still edit Wikipedia regularly... Yobol (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
John, it's always good to hear from you, and I'm glad you're still around, at least occasionally. I read Zombie Economics and enjoyed it greatly. I looked over your "run-in" with the Wikipedia authorities, and it's painful to read even at this remove. Your experience encapsulated the problem, on Wikipedia, of being judged by people who are both dogmatically self-certain and remarkably poorly informed. I enjoyed working with you a great deal, and I hope you're doing well personally and professionally.
Guettarda, I agree that this place has felt remarkably and increasingly empty over the past several years. I don't know about overall editor retention, but we've clearly failed at retaining the critical swath of editors who are mature, thoughtful, and interesting. Not only does that make Wikipedia more boring, but it also cripples the ability to resolve content disputes, since our mechanisms are based on the assumption that a reservoir of sane, policy-minded, rational editors will swoop in to respond to content RfCs. That reservoir no longer exists, meaning that any content dispute against an entrenched editor is hopeless, regardless of the insanity of their actual position. I do still fondly remember perusing the leaked ArbCom emails and coming across a description of you and me as two of the "more competent" editors in the climate-change dispute - although, admittedly, one should probably aspire to a slightly higher bar than that. :)
Yobol, there is no point one can make that hasn't already been made more cogently in xkcd. :) MastCell Talk 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Belated thanks and best wishes for 2013. Wikipedia is still a great achievement, and still improving on balance, though much more slowly now. I'm glad to have been part of it, and to have worked with people like you and GuettardaJQ (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
That's heartening - through much of that case I felt like they saw me as one of the less competent. I missed out on the whole email leak, unfortunately. Or maybe fortunately. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone for whom you may or may not "muster anything besides contempt" (I'll assume there was an implied "present company excepted, of course!"), I'm very happy to see you back, if only at a minimal level. Even if you stay on your talk page, it makes this a better place. If you venture out into article space again, then even better. But at whatever level you choose, you've cheered me up a bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear! Good to see you, MastCell. -- Scray (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I also am glad that you returned, even though I myself am barely here. Cardamon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

O bad WP policy, where is thy sting?

An optimistic thought: Suppose everything you say about the badness of the process at Wikipedia is true. Indeed, like what Bismarck said about laws and sausages, most of us take it for granted that it IS true, and pass on. So what? What matters is the WP work-product.

You see, WP is like a museum where the best pieces may not be up on the walls, or what's up are not the originals, but sometimes copies with mustaches drawn on them. Sometimes the best pieces are not even at Wikipedia any more, but have long ago been hived off onto mirror sites where they are no more subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous nutcases and people with a POV and too much time on their hands. The best WP articles are immortal and they aren't necessarily what you see in front of you on WP at this exact moment. Really. Yet they exist somewhere where the vandals cannot get to them any more. They aren't perfect, but the best in any category is saved someplace, and will inevitably be recognized, no doubt on some other knowledge retrieval system (no, not Wikia). Something, some site, that doesn't exist yet, as we're only a decade or a bit more into a new age, wherein the entire knowledge base of mankind is in the process of being digested and hyperlinked and evolved.

So don't whinge too much about what happens to once-good articles, here on WP. Whatever it is, is not permanent. WP is an incubator, but it's not necessarily the main nursery of the world of hyperlinked and digested knowledge, and it's certainly not the finishing school. All this is but the beginning, as Sanger once forsaw but had no way to ensure himself, before he had to rest. Still, the work continues.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; the articles shall not all sleep, but shall all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the new knowledge base shall be activated, and the single best previous versions shall be raised incorruptible, and all best versions by recognized editors of olde shall be restored as the new beginning. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal crappy version must put on immortality of a better previous version. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, shitty versions are swallowed up in better past versions. O Arbcomm, where is thy sting? O POV warrior, where is thy victory?

Merry Christmas. SBHarris 05:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No...not the science!

Glad to see you kicking around. Thought you might enjoy this Not that truthers can ever be convinced of the actual truth. But you gotta try. What would you be if you didn't try? :) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

[8] Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy!

May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go.
-- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


JournalScholar

Since you blocked him: this is 68.83.112.211 self-dentifying as JS; and this is JS socking William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As it's a fairly obvious case of block evasion, I've blocked the IP for 31 hours and will lengthen the block if the evasion continues. MastCell Talk 04:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thanks for all you do to keep medical articles in shape! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

cs

Kindly reply on medical usage of silver talk page. Please be on topic, assume good faith and be respective and neutral.Ryanspir (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've responded there. I will continue to do my best to assume good faith, be respectful, and edit neutrally. In return, I'd appreciate a commitment from you to help provide our readers with accurate medical information, which I think you'll agree is an equally important goal. MastCell Talk 21:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

good

sounds good to me. Lets clear some issues. In your first message you said 'hasn't been shown to do anything' meaning anything at all, internal or external. However currently there is cs which have been cleared by fda for external use. Now, if you will continue to read reference 5 its written that epa established safe dosage. Epa is a reliable source and that dosage is based on their research. I do not propose to imply that under 30ppm is safe. But we should find a way to convey the message that there wasn't any published case of turning blue at this concentration, and that most, if not all cases of turning blue were following long term, at least several months of duration, and mostly if not all cases were due to a combination of high concentrations of silver used and prolonged use. We could also show some mathematic following a normal adult of eighty or so kg of weight because it will be hard for people correlate ppm and the epa info. Ryanspir (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

I saw at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming that you asked to be informed of concerns about possibly disruptive SPAs at Neuro-linguistic programming and its talk page. User:LTMem (contributions) seems to qualify; I just received this friendly piece of advice on my talk page. He's also active at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Huon (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


bit disappointed

i thought we had a deal to interact in a good faith. However you are not replying to my message on your talk page which is a bit disappointing.Ryanspir (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also chosen to not respond to messages on my talk page. It has nothing to do with good faith or bad faith. It just reflects a judgement of where one's time is best invested. If you edit with a WP:CLUE, you'll get more replies, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
MastCell hasn't edited any page since you wrote your message on 5 January. Does your definition of "interacting in good faith" require that people not be allowed to take breaks from editing? But that would only leave people who have unlimited time to argue with others, and leave no room for professionals... oh, wait, I see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

to keep

can you kindly remove my message? I was pointed out, i'm agree and thus retracted. Thank you.Ryanspir (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

One minute too slow.

You win, again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey M. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Gary Moore (album)

Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability. The tag's still there and you may want to read over WP:Notability (schools) and WP:NOTABILITY and add the reasons for your concern to the Talk pg. Alternatively, you could take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD, or make it a redirect, or remove the tag if you are no longer concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure why you've referred me to WP:Notability (schools), as Gary Moore (album) is a music album, not a school. But in any case... it looks like I tagged the article almost 4 years ago. I still don't think it's notable, but I also don't really care much. MastCell Talk 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hi MastCell! I was referred here by a fellow Wikipedian who said you might be of assistance. I was wondering if you could comment here [9] regarding issues pertaining to WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV. DVMt (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Unificator Barnstar

The Original Barnstar

Thank you for preventing perennial edit wars by simply editing to coalesce divergent views. You've earned the gratitude of the WP Community! I'm always so very impressed with your clarity of thought and clear expression of tolerance toward the wayward and pernicious inclinations of ludicrous hullabaloo-ers. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is the admins such as MastCell (and NW) that really do give me comfort when I fret about how nutty this place can be. MastCell is mature, fair, and wise. He knows that:


In fact, remembering that when you fight with a pig you both get dirty - but the pig likes it, I just walked away today from an article that I have been working on for over two years (Deepwater Horizon oil spill) because it would take all of my time and give me no time for anything else...and force me to lower my standards of what I believe makes a good editor or become the sort that I detest... And it did give me some comfort to have seen MC to have done the same thing a while back. BTW, you're a good editor too Buster and it's not at all surprising to me that you can see how lucky we are to have the likes of MC around (it takes one to know one). :-) Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Right you are, good Sir! It takes one to know one.. |:~) ```Buster Seven Talk 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell/Archive_40&oldid=1186022649"