User talk:MastCell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives July 2006 — January 2007 Feb 2007 — March 2007 March 2007 — present

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

Hey there. I just noticed your edits pop up on the recent changes page, and I have to say, this is some very good stuff.

Not only is it good, useful information, it's well-written.

We need more contributors like you. Keep at it! DS 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABC article

Thanks. It sure wasn't/isn't easy. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a scholar and a gentle(person). While indeed sometimes I can get annoyed at things getting inaccurate, after I calm myself it is obvious things were inaccurate to begin with. And only by continuing to bounce opinions and ideas off each other can we arrive at a truly superior article. Quite frankly you are the best person to work with on this article; as we disagree on the conclusion of the ABC issue, but we both see there is enough ambiguity in the evidence for us both to be somewhat wrong. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi MastCell

Wow, you've certainly made a productive start here this month! You're additions have been great! I've had fun putting up endoscopy images, but the hard part is getting consent from patients for their release. You should join us at WP:CLINMED, the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject, and at WP:GI, WikiProject Gastroenterology where we have fun bouncing article ideas off each other. If you haven't met User:Jfdwolff, he's a fabulous editor and administrator to work with, and laid the foundations for a tonne of the medical articles here. Take care -- Samir धर्म 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi once more, and welcome to WP:CLINMED! Keep the histamine flowing and hope to see you around! PS: If you're interested, we're working on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): have a look!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K Harris discussion

Thank you for stepping in to the discussion and helping to hopefully diffuse the situation between ThuranX and myself. I don't know what exactly set him off, but by reading his user talk page, I'm starting to understand I'm not the only editor that he does not work well with (even resulting in some warnings against him for incivility to others). I'd like to leave it to you and other editors to work towards a consensus on the Trivia section issue. I will still voice my opinions but will not be responding to ThuranX and I've made as much clear on his user talk page. Thanks again, and have a good day. ju66l3r 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ischemic colitis

Great job! It looks fabulous. I had a couple of things I wanted to add, one of which is a picture that I have but need to get patient consent for its release -- Samir धर्म 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanoma edit

I liked your edit of my contribution to the Moh's section under melanoma. Much more fluid now. Cheers. RobDroliver 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article: AML

Kudos on the AML article accolades--well-deserved after your hard work on it. Keep up the quality contributions.

Chavoguero 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

MastCell, thanks for taking the time to make this comment. It means so much more coming from you and I really appreciate your 2 cents;) And yes, your right, we use little CT anymore with MRI available, but most of us don't even order them until they have failed to respond, that is if we don't just send them to the surgeon. Most xrays are to rule out contraindications to spinal manipulation which means two or three views. It's nice to know that someone understands that is a necessary risk to prevent iatrogenic injury. --Dematt 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MastCell -- a fellow Dr Strangelove fan I presume! In any case, if the profanity on the pseudoscience talk page offended you, I apologise, but you're really need to read the archives from three or four days ago to see how we got to that point. Also, Krishna commented to your post here. You may wish to reply (or not). But, if you stick with it for a few days (if you have the time) you might see the dynamic of the page and might even feel tempted to use profanity as well. Also, I echo Dematt's thanks. •Jim62sch• 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] orthomed

My reply yesterday was hot under the coller because I only read the OM article's dif on an old screen and read it as *commenting out* the entire second paragraph that you had formed instead of just the one sentence that you commented out. So my apologies in another hot zone where small communications errors could cause wider misunderstandings.--TheNautilus 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Junkscience"

Thanks for that sterling work on Steven Milloy. (My specialty is Myron Ebell.) In order to do his job, he has to obscure his conflicts of interest, so by their nature it won't be absolutely transparent. However, it shouldn't take many false and uncorrected claims to cast enough doubt on someone's reliability as a source of information for the media never to speak to them again. Unfortunately, they don't seem to work that way.Goatchurch 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Do you have to give sources for a category? No one seems to treat them that way, but my impression was that categories were there to say there is a connection. If there is a connection with science, as there is in the case, say, of John Edward, why shouldn't I put it there? And if, as is seemingly the case, no one has to give sources for a category, why should the ones I think are good be reverted, while the ones other people think are good stay? More to the point: How do I put a citation request on a category??? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do answer that question about sourcing categories. Because normally you can get rid of an unjustified thing by putting in a citation request, or put what you want in if you can source it. I don't know how to do this with categories. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way to do it is to raise the issue on the article talk page and explain why you think the category is justified or unjustified. I'm not familiar with John Edward, so I'm speaking from ignorance, but generally psychic mediums (media?) are not considered to be within the realm of "science" as it's classically defined. But again, the best way to approach it is to raise the issue with the involved editors on the article talk page. If that doesn't work to your satisfaction, you may wish to pursue some of the steps in dispute resolution (e.g. request outside input via a request for comment). MastCell ^Talk 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, there really is no WP:RS check here? It is just a pure vote? That is really bad, because Cats are used as weapons, as ways to put down or uphold pages. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the reply (= Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a vote... if you firmly believe you're correct on the basis of policy but are being "outvoted", then it's best to follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Specifically, a third opinion or request for comment can bring in outside, uninvolved editors to give their opinions. Unfortunately, if you still find that the consensus is against you, then you'll probably have to live with it as disputes are ultimately resolved (ideally) by WP:CONSENSUS. In general, the use of categories to make a point is frowned upon - they're intended to make Wikipedia easier to navigate, not to make a statement about the subject. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind mediation- it tends to go well for me (: I don't argue things that a neutral would say are POV. In other words, for instance on the parapsychology page, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the AAAS; so it is, to a neutral, a scientific field (the only half-way decent source to the contrary is a Russian Academy of Science statement from 1998). Even parapsychology's best/worst critics say so it's science. But they just deleted it as a science, and put it in as a pseudoscience saying "this is manifestly not science", and called me silly- well, on one of the summaries.

Well, anyway, you don't want to hear all this! Thanks for explaining things (= I guess I really should take more advantage of the official channels. You're good at being an admin. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... thanks, I'm flattered, but in fact I'm not an admin. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should be. I thought you were because you responded to the template. Well, templates must show up on some page, and people must monitor them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garlic

I'm staying away from the article until an admin responds to my request to look into Alan2012's behavior. Meanwhile, from my perspective he's extremely close if not already past the need for another NPOV warning. I admire your patience with him. --Ronz 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The AN/I got archived without response [1], right before it looks like a bunch of admins jumped in and started addressing the backlog. I've restoring it - seems like the right thing to do. [2] --Ronz 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. It seems he's not been editing much recently, so it may be a moot point. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't edit often. --Ronz 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No response on ANI again! Any suggestions? This guy's behavior is just getting worse and worse. --Ronz 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FDA

Is it a futile game we play? Does it eventually get easier?--Dr.michael.benjamin 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just feeling the same way. In general, when a single-purpose editor with an axe to grind settles in, it can be a frustrating haul. Generally, such people either get tired, or the other option is to bring in outside members of the Wikipedia community (via a mechanism such as a request for comment) to chime in. I think that the editor in question is pushing a point-of-view in a way that won't be palatable to most of the community. The best approach is probably to continue insisting on following Wikipedia's policies (on reliable sources, neutrality (particularly the avoidance of undue weight), etc). The problem is that you and I, who have interests here other than the FDA, will end up spending most or all of our time dealing with said single-purpose editor - I've encountered similar problems on AIDS reappraisal and many alternative medicine topics - to the detriment of adding useful content to the encyclopedia. Another approach is actually to walk away from the article for awhile, rather than contesting every edit, let him do what he wants, and then come back in a week or two to survey the damage and start fixing it. That can be useful for one's sanity. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable approach, as usual. Thanks.--Dr.michael.benjamin 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not really

I'm not really back, but I have been really impressed with your edits and postings. I think you show an open mind and sense of fair play. I did want to thank you for your email and wanted to let you know that the last thing I did before I cleaned off my page was read your user page. I absolutely love it. You are obviously a quality individual and I would have enjoyed working closer with you. Where were you when we needed you;) -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very kind. I can understand if this was the impetus for you leaving - it was just an unpleasant situation all around. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words, and your presence is definitely missed. The whole Quackwatch thing is a little too exhausting, and it's actually not something I care that deeply about, so I've been trying to cut back my input there and spend my Wikipedia time elsewhere. I hope that after you have a well-deserved break and some time away from this contentious alternate universe, our paths cross again. MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Club

Just found this while googling, [[3]] Shot info 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... so that's why my ears were burning. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Hey, MastCell. I added your Featured Article Candidate to the Collaboration Dashboard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I hope that this helps to draw more people to the review! -Severa (!!!) 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I gave the table thing a shot - take a look and see what you think. Thanks for taking the time to look at the article and make suggestions for its improvement. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's good to get break away from the all-consuming abortion circuit and I learned some new things from the article. The table contributes well to the informativeness of the article. I'm glad that my suggestions were helpful. :-) -Severa (!!!) 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the success with the FA nomination! -Severa (!!!) 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User_talk:3R1C#FDA

Hello. I realize it's a slightly—accusatory—thing to state, but after reviewing the discussion and that user's contribution, it seemed like it needed to be stated and it needed to be addressed. Additionally, has anyone contemplated opening a request for comment? It seems like he is preventing any kind of consensus from being developed. For continuities sake, lets keep any discussion on this on one or the other talk page. Yours or mine?

Additionally, sorry for tacking on three edits to your talk =P // 3R1C 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, my talk page is already so messy it doesn't matter. Maybe an RfC is the way to go - I think the other editors of the article (none of whom are staunch FDA partisans) are starting to feel like we're beating our heads against a brick wall. I guess mediation or an RfC would work. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to request my help for any arbitration or mediation this may lead to. // 3R1C 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Generic update: the criticism stuff just got forked into Criticism of the FDA. // 3R1C 06:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just ran into the topic by accident (the WP:COI bot picked up the single-editor history of Criticism of the FDA). Whatever the rightness or wrongness of forking the article, it has the appearance of being steamrollered through on a very small consensus, by an editor whose non-neutrality is blatant ("I think that those oppose it are simply pro-government people who just don't want all the criticism out there to be revealed"). I think wider input would be useful, so I've posted it to WP:RFC [4] Tearlach 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a COI bot? That's interesting. Yes, the impetus for the move was the ungodly size of the criticism section. My point was that rather than forking, the criticism section should have been edited and cut down to a reasonable size, which could have been accomplished by applying some notability criteria. I mean, if the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, which draws much more criticism than the FDA, doesn't need its own criticism fork, come on. I didn't fight the move though, because in my experience if you're the only one opposing a consensus it's time to pack it in. But as you've seen, we're dealing with a very motivated single-purpose editor with a strong and non-mainstream point of view which he is determined to insert, expand, and advocate on Wikipedia. I don't have the time or energy to contest every inappropriate POV edit. Hopefully the RfC will involve more editors. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a COI bot?

It's actually a bot for classifying new articles, but part of the output is potential COI articles: see User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult. Tearlach 10:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... that looks like a handy tool. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cholangiocarcinoma

Just noticed the article's promotion to FA. Congratulations! Fvasconcellos 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I hadn't noticed it went through till you mentioned it. Awesome. MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, MastCell. I'll e-mail you an MRCP and CT scan tonight, approved for release under GFDL 74.12.77.59 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism by Navychaps and UCMCPadre

Dear Newyorkbrad and MastCell, request your follow up to discipline or block two vandals NavyChaps and USMC Padre who repeatedly violated the Bio of Living Persons rules by disparaging and posting private information about Gordon James Klingenschmitt, leading to deletion of his entire article. The Checkuser report (which you requested) suggests they also routinely violated Sockpuppet rules. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/USMC_Padre Suggest using your "admin powers" to block these two users, and also Commanderstephanus and MiddleLinebacker who routinely used foul language. I'm not informed of proper procedures after Checkuser confirms the identity of abusers. ChaplainReferee 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I have no admin powers. Newyorkbrad may be able to take care of it for you. It looks like neither account has been particularly active since that article was deleted. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/User_talk%7EMastCell_6795.html"