User talk:MastCell/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Contents

Robert C. Beck Article

Dear MastCell, I have tried to convert my references from Google Searches to specific links to specific web pages as indicated to me would improve the article. I have also outlined my activities in the article's talk page. I have also requested some help from science experts, and hope that they will have a beneficial influence on the article. Maybe within the short time allotted (5 days), the article can be saved from deletion?

Who would you recommend that might lend me some assistance in making the article acceptable? Oldspammer 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest, which has worked well in situations like this in the past. The WP:AfD discussion should probably close as scheduled. If the consensus is to delete the article, then I can move it for you into your user space (that is, the entire article and its history would be moved to a subpage of User:Oldspammer). You can work on it, save edits, add sources, ask for outside input, and other editors can also edit it, without any time frame or deadline (user space pages are not subject to deletion unless they're grossly inappropriate).
Once you've got the article in a state that you're happy with, and that you believe meets the notability guidelines in WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF (and it may be worth having a couple of experienced Wikipedians look it over in this regard), you can take it to deletion review and present the revised article for discussion. I won't participate in such a discussion, so that you could get a fresh set of outside opinions. If the consensus at deletion review is that it looks good, then the article can be re-created in its new form.
So basically, if the article is deleted as a result of the current process, we can set it up for you to work on in the privacy of your user space (so you won't lose the work you've put in). Once you feel it's ready for a second look, you can take it to deletion review to consider re-creating it. The most important questions will be whether it satisfies those notability requirements, and to make sure that the sources used meet the reliable-source guideline.
What do you think? MastCell Talk 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
OK Oldspammer 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your user talk page was vandalized by an anon, and is now reverted. WooyiTalk to me? 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. MastCell Talk 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting pages

"This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article."

Sorry - we are just trying to provide info on our products for people to read. We were careful not to make it an advert. We just followed the format, level of information and style of wording from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerio_MailServer

Which is not speedily deleted and presumably is therefore ok? Is it not possible to get a page like that to explain our software without it being deleted. Are Kerio donors/sponsors or something? What are we missing about how Wiki operates here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hexamail (talk • contribs).

The relevant guidelines are at WP:SPAM (a regrettable title) and WP:CORP. Basically, for a corporation and/or its products to be notable, it needs to be covered in independent, reliable secondary sources. Simply using corporate materials to create an article is not encyclopedic, but promotional. The article can be re-created if you can cite such independent, reliable sources dealing with the company and its products. The specifics of what is required can be found at the notability guideline page for corporations. MastCell Talk 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck

I have closed the dicussion as speedy userfy because consensus was apparent already to delete and it's unlikely that the article will be improved and meet WP standards by the end of the discussion anyway. Sr13 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has been a day or so to get the article in shape. Someone helped me and that was great. Article? If it is in my user-space, how do I locate it?--or has this possibility been summarily dismissed?
I left a note with one fellow who commented negatively about the article because he thought that certain things were "impossible." I tried to demonstrate why the information was not rubbish after all. Oldspammer 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I commented on your talk page, but you can find the article here: User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck. MastCell Talk 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Oldspammer 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC

As you were previously involved I thought you may wish to take part Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mark_Kim.--Crossmr 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop page protection

Thank you for protecting the page Battle of Konotop. I am currently mediating that page for the MedCab. I have two questions:

  1. Can I contact you to extend the protection would mediation still be in progress and the protection expires?
  2. While I know it the current protected page is not an endorsement of the wrong current version, could you put an npov tag back on top? Since there is mediation about the page being NPOV, I think all parties can agree that it is indeed disputed that the article has a neutral point of view.

Just let me know here, or on my talk page. Thanks. Martijn Hoekstra 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, just let me know if you think protection needs to be extended, or if it can actually be lifted early due to some kind of compromise being reached. I usually don't like to full-protect for more than a week at a time, but sometimes it takes longer. As to the NPOV tag, I'm willing to add it, but if there are substanital objections then I'll remove, as technically the protection policy suggests that I should not edit or revert the page so long as there are no BLP violations. MastCell Talk 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Leave it out then. As it seems, mediation is getting underway fairly well, so the problem should be over soon anyway. Martijn Hoekstra 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

An Appeal

Hello MastCell. I'm staying anonymous for this one because, well... because.

I noticed your evenhanded comments on WP:AN/I and on User:JDG's Talk page concerning the Deletionist Ahoy dust up, so I thought you might be a good person to appeal to. As you can see on User_Talk:Angr, the admin who actually blocked JDG is saying he wouldn't mind if another admin sees fit to knock down the expiry time. Would you be willing to?... I'm trying to avoid a major conflagration here. If you would like me to give a more detailed account of my reasoning, please let me know (by replying here) -- (a hopeful peacemaker) -- 38.117.157.92 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to unblocking him, provided that he's not planning to participate in any more drama. I don't think he should stay blocked to make a point, and I was considering unblocking him up front, but this comment persuaded me that it would not be the right thing to do. If JDG is not going to pursue "retribution" (other than through appropriate channels such as an admin-conduct WP:RfC, if he feels that's warranted), and has reconsidered his initial approach to making his point about deletionism, then I'm willing to unblock him (though I'd want to make sure that the blocking admin would at least acquiesce to this). MastCell Talk 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would. I have said both at AN/I and on my talk page that if another admin chooses to shorten or lift the block, I won't object. —Angr 19:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, MastCell. I don't share all of JDG's views (by a long shot), but I think he has a point when he says admins are increasingly too quick on the block trigger. And I strongly disagree with Angr's idea that longstanding quality contributors should be blocked all the more because they should know the limits. Old-time contributors are no less human (that is, no less subject to momentary passions and lapses of judgment), and their hard work for the project (in this case, work that has even been recognized outside of Wikipedia for excellence) should certainly give pause to the admin who's thinking about using the ban-power entrusted to him/her, particularly when the offense was basically a humorous prank. Whatever happened to attempting informal mediation before a ban is resorted to? So, thanks for setting things right. 38.117.157.92 20:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Turgoose

Hello. Please take a look at Thomas Turgoose and let me know if it's good enough to stay. Thanks. --EarthPerson 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a decent start, and at least not a candidate for speedy deletion. MastCell Talk 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) I was the one that put on the hangon. --EarthPerson 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for figuring out Edtropolis (& PeaceNT) I thought it looked fishy, but since I almost always !voted against him, I didnt think I was the one to start.DGG 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, I screwed up and was totally off-base with that (see below). Sincere apologies again to PeaceNT. MastCell Talk 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I am very relieved to hear there nothing wrong with that new admin.DGG 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope, just something wrong with a (slightly older) admin - me. MastCell Talk 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PeaceNT and Edtropolis

You are obviously not aware of Wikipedia:Request an account, specifically Wikipedia:Request an account/June 2007 --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right, I was not aware of that page. I appreciate you pointing it out to me as patiently as you have, given that I jumped the gun inexcusably and came to wrong conclusion. Thanks again for educating me here, and I've left my deepest apologies to PeaceNT for all of this, which is the result of me not doing my homework. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to work on getting my foot out of my mouth. MastCell Talk 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, there's no need to apologize, I knew WP:ACC was never famous ;) Have beautiful weekend, Peacent 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticing

I noticed that you fully protected User talk:Edtropolis. Slight problem: No one can leave him a message now. You may want to change to semi? --tennisman 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! My bad, I didn't see that it was him. --tennisman 16:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he's indef-blocked, unblock was declined, and he's taken to abusing his talk page. MastCell Talk 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Thanks

Thank you for your support - I'll be sure to pester you if there is something I don't understand. There is a history merge on CSD right now but I decided to leave it for someone who knew what the heck they were doing. See you around. Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry Sun

Hi.

I'm one of the main participants of the edit war which was going on in the Godzillasaurus article which you locked. Since then, I've been trying to discuss with user Angry Sun why my points are valid by following Wiki guidelines (showing proof in the form of images and video clips) and I presented third party opinions from a forum based on the subject matter. He, on the other hand has just pouted and whined like a child, patronising me and being sarcastic. It seems this user's ego won't permit the presentation of facts which contradict his unfounded original research theories. I don't think theres anything I can say that will change his mind. Could something possibly be done? Please check out the article's Discussion page, if you have time. Thank you for reading.87.102.18.77 13:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you online

And I need a block, there is already an ANI report but the user has stepped up his editing, I do like the "you have new messages" but not from a vandal. [1] is the case of the vandal and his friend [2], just a short block may stop him. Darrenhusted 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me, it's sorted. Darrenhusted 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we discuss anything. . .

Re: Your participation at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. Why do we discuss anything when it's just taken out later with not even a courtesy comment on the talk page by the removing editor. See Reliable Sources History or this edit here. R. Baley 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Medical Information Web Page

Some TV infomercial came on. While watching about "The World's Greatest Treasury of Health Secrets" by Bottom-Line Health Publishing Inc., I tried to look up some of the Dr.s names who appeared in the commercial. One web page in support of the book(s) had headlines from the book. One that I read was that gut enzymes or microbes could lower a person's cholesterol.

When Googling >gut cholesterol< and other similar words, I came across a disturbing web document about these Mycoplasma things.

Gary Tunsky, PhD, ND, a so called alternative medicine guru, wrote Genetically Engineered Stealth Microbes claims that protein-infections (prions) are a form of Mycoplasma supposedly based on research of Professor Don Scott and Dr. Garth Nicholson.

Gary Tunsky mentions the organisms along side AIDS, Alzheimer's, CJD, and so on.

Mention of prions and Mycoplasma vaccine in an animal infection outbreak, Italy 1997.

Is this all hog-wash--Or should I be worried?

If not hog-wash, then what is recommended to address such infections?

Theoretically, "the Beck Protocol" may be of help? Oldspammer 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mycoplasma and prions are very different - mycoplasma are bacteria (single-celled living organisms), while prions are simply proteins (not associated with a cell) which can accumulate and cause disease. It sounds like the veterinary outbreak was caused by a vaccine against mycoplasma, not by mycoplasma itself. I don't have access to veterinary journals and can't read the full text, but I'd be curious to know how the vaccine was formulated. Anyhow, I wouldn't worry too much about mycoplasma (though they can cause sporadic cases of pneumonia).
Prions are more concerning, as a cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. Assuming they're present in the cattle supply, they can find their way into food products and cause CJD in humans (witness the human cases in France and Britain likely related to consumption of prion-contaminated beef). They're not inactivated by cooking (the way viruses and bacteria are), so the only real defenses are to decrease your intake of cattle products, and/or call on the USDA to do a better job of monitoring the food supply. MastCell Talk 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Edit Waring on the Part of MastCell

[ Lengthy, hostile rant removed; it remains in the page history and was copied verbatim by the author to Talk:Phenothiazine, if anyone is interested. ]

I was accused of disruption and trying to hide "my behavior" for removing your sockpuppetry blocking messages. You left hostile message on my talk page before I left this message here. You threatened me with an indefinate block for adding something to an article that are factual claiming it wasn't factual. And then you finally had to admit that what I contributed was true with a fair amount of alibis. Since "redacting" is permisable I will also redact my talk page. Dr CareBear 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... OK. I asked you to read the verifiability policy, and provide sources for the content you want to include (that is, sources that actually support your edits). You've been asked to do so many times, initially politely and subsequently less so when it became clear you had no intention of altering your modus operandi. Then you were blocked, partly for edit-warring and totally disregarding the need for sourcing, and partly for using a handful of sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for your behavior and to circumvent the three-revert rule. I've tried to do some of your sourcing for you on the relevant talk pages, but if you continue to fail to understand how things work here, and how your behavior is disruptive, then it won't matter. Now please, don't post anything further here unless it's constructive and has something to do with improving an article. MastCell Talk 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUSPSOCK

Just to let you know, there is a bot running for automated archival so you don't have to archive them manually :) E talk 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - though it will cut into my edit count substantially. MastCell Talk 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New Billy Ego sockpuppets?

Besides Cowrock, Crazed poet seems like a candidate. Both are using "arguments" very familiar from the days of RJII and anarcho-capitalism. Libertatia 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call... confirmed by checkuser. MastCell Talk 23:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on sources

There is a strong drive to put non-peer reviewed sources on a par with peer-reviewed sources (i.e., a quote from yesterday's newspaper counts the same as an article the New England Journal of Medicine). You may want to make your views known here. Raymond Arritt 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

junkscience.com and Cato

Over at Steven Milloy and also at Junk Science there is reference to the Cato Institute having hosted the JunkScience.com website. This doesn't appear to be sourced in either article, and--while I certainly haven't scoured every corner of the internet--I can't seem to find any evidence for this (though I would be shocked if I found out it wasn't true). It'd be great to get a reference for this, as I'm sure it'll eventually be targeted by NCdave or TheBlog or some anonymous user....

Also I see that you took this out: The non-partisan [[Center for Responsive Politics]] also lists Milloy as a registered lobbyist from 1998 through 2000, with clients including the [[American Petroleum Institute]], [[Dow Chemical]], the International Food Additives Council, and [[FMC Corporation]].<ref name="crp"/> since Milloy is no longer in their database. Do we know why he's no longer in there? Is it that it was an error that he was ever in there in the first place (as his apologists would probably argue) or is it simply that he's no longer a lobbyist? We probably don't know. My point is: Is there anything to gain by saying The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics had listed Milloy as a registered lobbyist from 1998 through 2000... Just wondering. Yilloslime 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Cato thing, though I think if we look through the secondary sources in the article we can find something. If not, we can always take it out as it's not central (and it's established that he used to be at Cato). As to the CRP, I don't know why he's no longer there. I was double-checking the link recently (I think I was the one who inserted it initially, so I can verify that he was in there) and now it doesn't return his name. I still find him in the Senate/governmental database, though. I'm not sure why he was taken out; possibly it's at his request, but without a source that would be speculation. I think it would be a little tricky to say he "was" a registered lobbyist, because how do we source that? MastCell Talk 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block?

It seems User:Golopoi23 is vandalizing pages in the same way that User:Miltonn was, when you indefinitely blocked him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Blocked. I'm sure we've not seen the last of this guy, though. MastCell Talk 22:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I would assume not, if he's evaded a block at least twice that we know of. Thanks for taking care the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. He created another one (see here). His name's Gilllopoku. Just wanted to let you know. Yours sincerely, Eddie 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Good pickup; I've blocked it. MastCell Talk 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Happy to help :-) Yours sincerely, Eddie 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Italian Army Ranks

There is trouble at the article Italian Army Ranks. user:Horemsa has uploaded three times a fictional Rank insignia image: Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png, Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png and Image:50px-IT-Army-OF10.GIF and now continually inserts this joke image into the article Italian Army Ranks, but not under his username- he is using changing IP addresses to do so. He ignored 3 attempts to discuss his edits first, second and Template talk:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy#Maresciallo d'Italia ?!?|third]]. In the last [48 hours no less than 6 IP addresses] reinserted this wrong image into the Italian Army Ranks article and these IP addresses only did this edit and no other edits. To break this pattern I would suggest protecting the page, so that only users registered for some time can edit the article in question. Thanks in advance --noclador 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been taken care of. Since I'm only online at unpredictable times, you can always go to WP:RFPP to request page protections (perhaps this is what you already did). Good luck. MastCell Talk 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
user:Horemsa has uploaded Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png, Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png and Image:50px-IT-Army-OF10.GIF. These are fictional rank insignia that are not and have never been in use by the Italian Army. Now he is trying to push these self-created ranks into the article Italian Army Ranks and the template Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy. Furthermore I suspect user:Horemsa to be one of the many socketpups of User:Yomar, or User:Yormar, or User:Iormar which have already been blocked indef. The reason for this: all 4 users uploaded fake rank insignia and are now trying to push them into the articles: Italian Army Ranks and Ranks of the People's Liberation Army. This problem is really annoying as the user is not just using a multitude of socketpups but also a wide range of IP addresses: first example, second example and a third example Can something be done??? Like block the articles? Thanks, --noclador 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
user:Horemsa has been identified as socketpup of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. --noclador 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Hello there MastCell. As stated before, there is a bot running for automated archival on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets so you don't have to archive them manually. If you are continually going to archive them yourself, there would be no reason for the bot to run. Could you please do this? And also, you don't have to substitute the {{SSPa}} template anymore. It has no reason to be substituted and therefore you should just be adding {{sspa}} to the top of the request and div code to the bottom. Thank you for your time. E talk 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I was trying to clear the board to focus attention on the few cases that are still open, but I'm happy to wait for the bot in the future. I'll stopping subst'ing as well - it may be worth changing the "Instructions to administrators" subpage, if it hasn't been changed already, since it specifcally instructs us to subst the template. MastCell Talk 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll pop by that page and fix it up. And in regard to the bot, it is on a cronjob on the Wikimedia Toolserver and checks every 15 minutes around the clock (:00, :15, :30, :45) so there is no need to worry. Thanks for your co-operation. E talk 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputing violation of 3RR

I did not actually undo revisions more than three times. After the third time, I reworded another proposed change to attempt further neutrality. It was an entirely different point.JusticeIvory 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're involved in an edit war, and I'm warning you of the three-revert rule so that you don't violate it. Also, 3 reverts is not an entitlement; the point is that any amount of edit-warring is bad. Changes that undo another editor's work in whole or in part violate the rule. I'm not going to block you for violating it at this point, but please read the policy; if you violate it, you'll likely be blocked temporarily from editing. MastCell Talk 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And it will be MastCell or someone he solicits to do it that will do it. I have had the same problem with MastCell acussing me of such things. I come to the articles with a different angle to bring neutrality to articles that were written mainly by people who support certain drugs. When I provide information that is negative to their POV push I am accussed of POV pushing. MastCell was actually the one edit waring with me and he solicited another user named David Ruben and used him for Meatpuppetry in his campain to win an edit war he was having with me. Dr CareBear 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Dr CareBear, your contribution history, block log, and checkuser report speak for themselves (and note that doesn't include all of the socks you've been using). Now kindly desist from posting on my talk page about unrelated matters. MastCell Talk 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quackguru

Yes, it's bad [3] --Ronz 22:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mast Cell. You misinterpreted me

Please see the Phenothiazine Discussion for my message. I was asking you for help not accussing you of not knowing how to use PubMed. Please see my reply in Phenothiazine.

You're right, I misunderstood you. I apologize for jumping the gun. MastCell Talk 06:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Contemplated unblock

I'm not sure what the protocol on butting into admin conversations is, so I'll start here. A look at RJII's contributions page shows characteristics we associate with this whole group of accounts. I did interact with RJII, sometimes in successful collaboration, though more often not. I have no opinion on the Billy Ego case per se, having never worked on pages with that particular persona. I know that RJII, anarcho-capitalism, and the dozens of sock-puppets that I have dealt with have been disruptive editors—and I am relatively certain that it has been the same person, or more likely persons, behind them all. Libertatia 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

That list of links is helpful. Thanks for the tips and the support. It's all a bit overwhelming at first, but nothing I can't get used to. -Andrew c [talk] 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Take your time... no need to jump in everywhere at once. I think I made that mistake. MastCell Talk 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pending issue that has not been resolved this past week

Mastcell, please check out [[4]], as editor Apostrophe needs some additional encouragement to act with civility and not exhibit WP:BITE nor WP:NPA on his fellow editors, either in edit summaries nor on talk pages. This conduct has persisted for over a year, and he has been banned one time previous for this conduct without demonstrative changes in his behaviour. Thank you. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Cat

I'm not entirely convinced that Freddy Cat (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of David Cat as you concluded at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Cat. It could be...but his edits mimic Ockenbock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has been attacking me for months on end now. It could be Ockenbock posing as David Cat, but, who knows. Metros 06:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Any of those are possible, I suppose. Do you think it was wrong to block David Cat? MastCell Talk 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pakhungama

plz wht is the problem with this site.i didnt mean to advertise it.i just want people to know about its content.thats all.hope u understand.

Please take a look at the notability criteria for web content - basically, a Wikipedia article is intended to be encyclopedic and should show that the topic has been covered by independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Baby (Dragon Ball)

Did you have a look at the history of the Baby (Dragon Ball? Well, when you do, you'll see that me and Poetic Decay have constantly reveted some random fancruft put in by an IP user. Then maybe you'll reconsider your decision on not to protect the page MightyKombat 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did look at the article history and saw one vandalism revert a day or so over the last week. That's generally not enough to warrant semi-protection, at least not in my book. However, I'm willing to semi-protect it for a week to see how it works out - sometimes that's enough to discourage IP vandalism as people tend to move on. Again, though, in general that level of vandalism is best dealt with by reverting rather than locking the article. MastCell Talk 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well either way thank you and have a nice day.MightyKombat 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, the moment the page was unrpotected teh fancruft started again! MightyKombat 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, its prtected again. Is the protection permanent or does it just last longer? Either way thanks.MightyKombat 17:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a month this time, in response to your note. If it becomes a problem again after that, we can extend it further. Eventually, it will end up indefinitely semi-protected if problems persist, but we tend to work our way up there rather than doing it permanently off the bat. If you have questions about when it expires, you can check the page logs (go to history, and there should be a link at the top saying "logs"). MastCell Talk 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance on the Bates method page.

I have been trying to get rid of all the linkspam on the Bates method page for months now, only to be frustrated in my efforts by a certain other user. In the absence of any reliable sources supporting the efficacy of the Bates method, this user has resorted to citing customer testimonials and pages promoting the method, selling books about it, etc. Thanks for your intervention. I hope this puts an end to this episode. Famousdog 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's a shame to waste a lot of energy edit-warring over external links, when they are the least valuable part of the article from an encyclopedic standpoint (after all, if there's useful info there, it should be incorporated into the article, and the link cited as a source). I find that editors who focus their energy on inserting or retaining specific external links more often than not have a conflict of interest. Anyhow, many if not most of the links violated WP:EL, and perhaps if that issue gets put to bed, more effort could be focused on the article text instead of the links. MastCell Talk 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it will. On a related note, I'm not sure I understand your removal of the "see also" links on The Art of Seeing page. They aren't external links, and they are relevant to the topic of Huxley's book. Why do you describe them as "gratuitous"? Famousdog 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The link to the Bates method was already in the article, thus redundant in See Also. I did not see a clear connection from the article to the See Clearly Method. But I'm a newcomer, so if you feel strongly about the See Also's, feel free to restore them - it's not a big deal to me. MastCell Talk 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)