User talk:MastCell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

My offer to Ilena

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think at this point it might be best to move on to the next step and file an RfC. I appreciate what Peter Dodge is trying to accomplish, and maybe there was some progress at one point, but I can't see how comparing an editor with whom you're having a content dispute to a Nazi death-camp guard is anything but a depressing leap backward on Ilena's part. Just my 2 cents. MastCell 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Courtesy notice

Thanks for the heads-up. Nothing wrong with mentioning my experience with Cindery on ANI in the context that you did. I'm sorry to see that the situation is still ongoing and that the hatchet is still very much above ground. Keep up the good work, but don't be afraid to take a step back if it begins to burn you out. -Severa (!!!) 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the AN/I discussion in full and I'm amazed at how you managed to keep your cool and stand your ground. Concession isn't the same as compromise. On the other hand, if someone seems to simply hunger for disharmony, I'd argue that letting them go hungry could be your best defense. :-) -Severa (!!!) 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note on my Talk page. I'm not making any predictions for the foreseeable future. Ironic given the above advice, isn't it? The short of it is that it never really quiets down on the articles I frequent. Contributing to Wikipedia has been rewarding, but I'm burnt out, and I don't feel like coming back just to face another round (I've already faced enough). -Severa (!!!) 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do... give me a couple of days. MastCell 17:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see we are both being dragged into this mess and another brewing in the wings. Just thought I'd mention i support your editing here 100%. i will be happy to discuss your previous editing in contentious situations with respect to levine, NATTO and myself (others there too i forget offhand) when editing the kaufmann section on the Barrett page. I thought that was a model example for a dispute at the time. It is clear that when mature editors disagree it can still be a productive experience. David D. (Talk) 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to reprise my take on the Ilena/Fyslee situation at the RfArb, although I feel pretty peripheral there. I haven't been too active on Barrett/Quackwatch, because I can only handle a certain amount of conflict at one time and I think there's a good balance of reasonable editors there already. I notice, now that I've agreed to leave Talk:Barrington Hall, you're the next target. It's almost like there's a pattern, or something. MastCell 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think your editing on Barrett is a reflection on you with regard to the case in the wings. It is clear you are not the same editor as the picture I currently see being painted on WP:ANI. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm at a loss for the best way to handle that. I kind of wish it hadn't been allowed to go on as long as it did, but then by responding at all I probably contributed to the problem. It's hard to listen to that kind of stuff at such length without defending onself. Kind of a Catch-22 (as I mentioned to User:Milo H Minderbinder). MastCell 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The...thread on WP:ANI

You're welcome, and thank you. A friendly (though clichéd) word of advice: do tread carefully around...eh...the complainant, shall we say, lest this entire circus be drudged up again and make admins wield the block bludgeon again. Otherwise, happy editing! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Although we spar pretty heavily sometimes, I reviewed the too long AN/I & "C section" discussions & was going comment favorably but the admins beat me to it, with a hopefully satisfactory resolution. I think you have improved & mellowed here a lot since October (OM). I am sure we will continue to often disagree initially, hopefully always amicably.--TheNautilus 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... never thought I'd say this, but recent events actually made me nostalgic for our disagreements at OM and elsewhere :) I appreciate the voice of support. I think that the more community scrutiny is applied to that particular editor, the more obvious some patterns will become (case in point), but it's still hard to listen to that kind of thing without responding. I doubt we'll see eye-to-eye too often on medical topics, but as always I respect your very well-informed opinions - and the fact that we can disagree without getting personal. Take care. MastCell 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See the talkpage yourself

Your last revert on Quackwatch was really obtuse considering that it is clear on the talkpage that not allowing readers to consider the source is detrimental to writing a good encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I can guarantee that I agree with 99.9% if not 100% of your views on science, skepticism, and pseudoscience, but I don't think your approach is necessarily the most constructive. I responded further on the article talk page. MastCell 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

HIV test

Hey,

I just put 3 different sources for the information I gave. I'm a french medical lab technician so I am aware of the biologic reported delay in particular situations and I just wanted to complete correctly the part dealing with the window period... and not create a big mess about a such bad disease nevertheless I admit that English sources are better.

Sincerily Paris75000 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go back and look - I think it's an important point to include, but English sources would really be best, only because then it will be easily verifiable. There have been issues in the past with people adding unsourced or questionably sourced material to that article, so that's why I was quick on the trigger to remove it. Sorry, I appreciate you are trying to improve the article. MastCell 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

EFT

Although one might contend EFT still means electronic funds transfer, I am not so sure that a tactical nuke is the best answer either. I have done one total rewrite before, I am not volunteering here, but am interested in another, better solution. Please review my "vote" there also.--I'clast 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two options: a total rewrite (including a drastic size reduction and excision of the dozens of promotional links), or deletion until a point where more independent and reliable sources become available. I don't like the title of "WP:FRINGE", as it's overly pejorative, but I do think that guideline applies here, and that EFT at present fails it. Hence the nomination - but if the community consensus is keep, then I agree it needs a total rewrite. I don't go looking for articles to delete, and this is only the 2nd or 3rd one I've nominated, but I do think it fails the notability guidelines. MastCell 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde

Thanks for sharing the information. I though it was strange.

--Kevin Murray 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another doctor?

Hi, and another welcome. I saw you made some very good contributions to oncology related articles lately. Are you a doctor or a medical student? You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine where a lot of the medicine related action happens. --WS 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added you to Category:Physician Wikipedians, I hope are all right with that. --WS 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back

Thanks for the note. Let me know if your could use any specific help. -Severa (!!!) 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

And the same to you! Thanks for the tip. Also, I saw on An/I this "One of my comments, in a moment of weakness, was an uncivil response to this sort of thing." Welcome to the human race. At least you were articulate. Also, have you ever wondered if wikipedia is addictive? oy vey mariaJance 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given some documentation [1] why I am dissatisfied with IR's 2nd AN/I filed and its disruptive impact on everybody else.--I'clast 13:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's anything in the diffs that are actually of concern to anyone, please let me know. I'm happy to explain what I did, why I did it, what if anything I'd do different now, etc. Mostly, I just see them as I'clast being unhappy with me when I don't agree with him or others. --Ronz 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Splattered Consensus

I never thought an AfD would fly, having assumed GW skeptics would come streaming out of the woodwork to defend it. Kudos. (PS. I see you're a Dr Strangelove fan as well... ) Raymond Arritt 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't nominate out of spite... it's just that a) it really wasn't notable enough, b) it was the source of an ungodly amount of argument, given its non-notability, and c) even for the best of books it's really hard to write a good article without turning it into a book report. I feel kind of bad, because I think a lot of work and emotion was put into the article, but in the end it really wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia - and it was just serving as a nexus for pro-/anti-global warming debate that was unproductive. Yes, I am a fan of Dr. Strangelove — although it seems almost quaint in light of recent events to think that, at one point, the concern was that military would foment a war despite the restraint of the civilian authorities... MastCell 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

QW

Word? What am I missing? --Dematt 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a slang expression popular in my youth, meaning that I agree with your comments 100%. I should have expressed that more clearly. MastCell 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! It's now going to be one of my favorites:) I like it! I'm going to use it on my kids and see what look they give me;) --Dematt 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit dated. You could try, "Yo, respeck!" to express agreement... MastCell 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish you could have seen the look I just got! --Dematt 17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

At times you may have difficulty identifying why I suddenly "telegraph impatience" with some other editors. This is an introduction to sometinmes why. Such issues are not always immediately or fully addressable. More pieces here, I have been avoiding personal disclosures for as long as possible.--I'clast 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Thanks for reinstating those state refs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health&diff=next&oldid=108201776

I was constantly having edit conflicts with you, and when I figured there was a pause I added all my changes and I thought I preserved all of yours but I missed those. -- Fyslee's (First law) 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem... sorry for stepping on your toes there. MastCell 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict - specifically WP:Vandal

In the HIV test talk page you stated that I incorrectly cited something as vandalism - along with doing a few other things. I'd just like to point out that it was actually correct- and you have to actually read what I said to understand it. I said if he continued to revert (and in doing so violating WP:MOS) without making comments on the talk page - that's vandalism. And it is (MastCell - yes I can write your name accusingly in parenthesis too). And I quote (from the part on sneaky vandalism), "hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." I mean there are 2 possibilities, A) you misread what I put or B) you actually think that that's a content dispute - which obviously given the quote - is not. If you don't understand any part of the policy, you might want to ask questions at the Villiage pump - if you can't find it, please look on the talk page, where you (apparently incorrectly) gave me the link because you thought I was mistaken. And for future reference as you can probably tell by now - it really sucks to read a patronizing letter like this one/the one you put on the talk page - so I suggest not doing it ... because if you end up being wrong it looks really bad.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended - it wasn't my intent to be patronizing or difficult. But there really is a tendency, when involved in a nascent edit war, to accuse the other editor of "vandalism". It happens all the time. But you and Nunh-huh clearly had a content dispute about what should be in the lead paragraph. Neither of you is trying to "hinder improvement of the article" - you just have very different ideas about how to improve it. This falls under WP:VANDAL#What vandalism is not, specifically under "Stubborness". Your name in parentheses was not intended to be "accusatory" - Nunh-huh snuck a comment in before mine (hence the edit conflict), so I put your name in to make clear to whom my comments were addressed. Again, I'm sorry you were offended - that wasn't my intention, and I apologize, but I did read your post, and the edits in question were not vandalism. My other comments, about needing to be careful not to break refs when removing sourced content and about NPOV/undue weight stand, although I wish that I had phrased them in such a way as not to come off patronizing. MastCell 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But the edits in question weren't what I called vandalism - I said, "frankly purposely disregarding the Manual of Style by reverting edits could be considered vandalism" (I believe in the paragraph that that quote was in I was telling him that if he really thinks that sentence should be on there he should come to the talk page rather than revert on the drop of a hat so to speak) - which is right per the policy I pointed out. But hey - I mean as long as the current version of the article is fine with you then I guess that's all there is too discuss.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. MastCell 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead horse

Yep. Thanks for the laugh. --Ronz 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I aim to please. The remarkable thing is that, even though I really think it's the proverbial dead horse, I couldn't let that "peer-reviewed analysis" claim sneak by... perhaps it's time for a vacation. MastCell 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the phrase "beating a zombie horse"?  ;^) --Ronz 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or "beating an undead horse"? We're getting there. MastCell 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt resist using ex-horse this time around. --Ronz 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wow: If you're defending yourself against..." LOL. It's almost like Ilena's account has been taken over by someone with no interest whatsoever in defending her. Almost every edit she makes could be used as evidence against her. And then her friend Levine comes to the rescue with more of the same. This is really getting sad. --Ronz 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoxsey therapy

You're right: WP:LEAD says notable criticism should be mentioned in the lead. --Coppertwig 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

+ reply

Don't get too worked up or angry -I'm not trying to offend or provoke you, but I wanted to let you know I did reply to your post: This is the most current diff of that reply. I am pointing it out, as I said, not to offend you, but just in case you missed a needle in a haystack. (While I've made many edits today -about 13 -on the notice board, many of them were minor edits, and some of them quite small -and certainly a small word-count in comparison to the total word-count of posts by other editors.) No offense meant, but if you're going to complain that my posts are too long (and your complaint/implication is an obvious lie, as shown by these numbers) -when in fact my comments comprise only a small portion of the total, then I shall reserve (and exercise) the right to refute this incorrect claim. In any case, have a nice day.--GordonWatts 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have been more clear - it wasn't the length per se that I objected to, although that was a part of it. It's that the talk page guidelines specifically caution against using the article talk space as a forum for discussing the subject. Everyone is guilty of this at some point, to some extent, but my reading of the talk pages and your posts (and I did read them) suggests that you've had particular difficulty limiting your use of the talk page to discuss article improvements. My sense is that you've used the talk page as an additional forum to argue and discuss an issue about which you obviously have strong feelings, and it's reached a point that it's disruptive. It's not the word count alone, which is why I think the numbers game is beside the point. Again, that's just my opinion - I've been wrong before, maybe I'm wrong now, and in any case I'm just one person without any special weight or power. Sorry for not being clearer in my earlier comments. MastCell 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; At this point, I have received some sort of note on my user talk page -some of it appearing to violate some CIO guidelines, but I have yet to review the discussion to properly respond. Regarding the forum, that is the whole idea of a talk page: To limit the subject matter is censorship- -plain and simple.--GordonWatts 00:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea of the article talk page is not to provide a forum for free-range discussion of a topic; it's to coordinate improvement of the article. If you consider the Wikipedia talk page guidelines to be "censorship", then I don't know what else to say. MastCell 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

Even though your comments seem well-intended, regretebly I conclude the sanctions you supported are not supported by policy: I am, even if annoying or irritating, not in violation of policy, MastCell, so it is logical that I oppose your action (your vote) here.

--GordonWatts 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've made a statement there. MastCell 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was slow to reply; Thank you for your feedback, even though you are not explicitly endorsing my views 100%.--GordonWatts 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clayton College

I added a paragraph to this article and would appreciate it if you would take a look and give an opionion or change it if it's not appropriate. I got bold and gave it a try like you said but it's only my second edit to an article. --Crohnie 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Moral equivalence

I'm hoping Sri Vindaloo moved on to curried lamb.  :)
Generally I don't like to use referrences to the Nazi's (Godwin's Law and all that stuff), but sometimes, it just fits. If someone declares himself to be the sole arbiter of what is true and what is false, what is right and wrong, good and evil, etc., all of this based solely on opinion (data zat does nor fit vill be changed), he really does have the moral equivalence of those Nazi twits. •Jim62sch• 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)