Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 17 September 2010

I'm Off The Case. I'm stepping back from most administrative matters for the foreseeable future. I will try to stay on top of a handful of issues where I don't expect anyone else to step up, but I can't guarantee more than that.

You'll be missed. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–March 2008 March 2008–May 2008 June 2008 June 2008–July 2008 July 2008–September 2008 September 2008–October 2008 October 2008–November 2008 November 2008–December 2008 December 2008–February 2009 February 2009–May 2009 May 2009–June 2009 June 2009–August 2009 August 2009–December 2009 December 2009–March 2010 March 2010–June 2010 June 2010–present (Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, 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:

• Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

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 Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to worm your way out of this

Are you really a real doctor? Note for the humor-impaired: this is not a serious question. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello central?. . . dave souza, talk 20:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The definitive word on my qualifications can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, under my username. MastCell  03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looked at it. Putting two and two together in the accepted Misplaced Pages fashion, I have deduced that your real name is Robert Sean Leonard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Looking at my picture from my Misplaced Pages biography, I can't help noticing that I've let myself go a bit since Dead Poets' Society. But then, you should see Robin. MastCell  03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of, do you think House has jumped the shark? We used to watch it religiously but this year we found we weren't bothering to keep up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it jumped the shark in the first season, but it's saved by the fact that it generally doesn't take itself too seriously, and because the character and acting are great. I have to admit I haven't seen much of this season. Community won me over, and this season of 30 Rock has been pretty great. So I've been watching those - I feel like I don't have time for an hour-long drama anymore. Life is too busy. And basically, every day of my life is exactly like an episode of House - they really nailed the realism... (just kidding). MastCell  18:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, Speaking of one’s wikipedia-relevant life experience…have you ever done any basic research, of the kind geared toward ascertaining a physical fact about nature? I’m asking because my training is in that kind of science, and I’m finding there’s a bit of a culture gap between the top priorities of that kind of science and the kind of science that is most immediately useful in the daily practice of medicine.

I dearly hope this question isn’t offensive. I have great respect for medicine and don’t mean to suggest there’s anything “wrong” with that kind of science; merely that there are, necessarily, proximal social considerations in medicine that are more distal in the science of isolated cells and molecules. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to decline to go into detail about my personal history, because I value what's left of my pseudonymity here. I do agree with your observation; I think that clinical research is a very different endeavor from basic science. The two areas attract different kinds of people and have different approaches and criteria for measuring success. If I were to greviously oversimplify, I'd say that in basic science questions are pursued primarily because they're interesting, while practical applications are often a secondary consideration. In clinical research, practicality is a prime consideration; often the most interesting and important questions can't be feasibly answered because it would be insurmountably impractical to do so. The best-designed clinical trial on Earth is no use to anyone if it fails to accrue patients and can't achieve any statistical power.

More to the point, the kind of questions faced in the daily practice of medicine are difficult precisely because they often haven't been the subject of rigorous clinical research. It would be impossible to practice truly "evidence-based" medicine, because it would be impossible to acquire a suitable evidence base to face every conceivable (or even every common) clinical scenario. For conditions that are uncommon or clinically heterogeneous, it is impossible to conduct a suitably powered randomized controlled trial, or sometimes even a decent prospective observational cohort. If you focus too narrowly on specific clinical conditions and scenarios, then you'll never accrue enough patients to conduct a meaningful study - and even if you did, the results wouldn't necessarily be generalizable if your population was narrowly defined. On the other hand, if you cast a broader net, then your patient population becomes heterogeneous, limiting your ability to draw specific conclusions.

That's why I get annoyed when people compare medicine to aviation (usually in terms of the markedly superior safety record of commercial aviation). Sure, practicing medicine would be like flying a plane - if every time you took off you had no idea exactly where you were going, and you'd never flown that exact model of plane before, and an M.B.A. at air traffic control might decide to override your judgment about the best flight plan, and if the passengers were actually at the controls and were free to decide to ignore your recommendations about flying the plane because of something Dr. Oz said on Oprah, and if your navigational maps were accurate only to a p-value of 0.05 at best...

In terms of social considerations, I do feel for scientists who lose control of their work when it's in the public domain, and have it re- (mis-)interpreted by various political forces. In general, I don't think scientists are very well-equipped for the political arena, and to the extent that ignorance routinely triumphs over enlightenment, I think that disconnect is partially to blame (of course, the pathetically poor state of scientific literacy and education in the US is also part of the problem, as is the media's approach to scientific controversies).

Anyhow, I'm digressing again. Did you have a specific issue in mind, or was that a general question? MastCell  16:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. Your second paragraph describes beautifully the issue I'm exploring. I offer you kudos for your writing skill.

It will take me a little while to craft an explanation of how this relates to our conversation about the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Frankly, I'm concerned about unintentionally offending. Obviously, it‘s both a complex, and a touchy, subject. I feel that extracting a “best guess” at the biological facts from the perhaps overly voluminous literature is quite challenging enough, without bringing emotional issues into the mix.

By the way, I love your aposematic moniker - thanks for the warning. I’ll create what I hope will be an adequately non-inflammatory explanation of my concerns and send it along here when it’s ready.Again, many thanks, and my compliments, for your elegantly phrased, substantive reply to my question. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about offending me. I (try to) have a pretty thick skin, at least as far as online discussion is concerned (arguably less so in real life, depending on whom you ask). I actually value a thought-provoking discussion over an excessive concern for politeness, although that preference doesn't translate well onto Misplaced Pages. By the way, I don't mean to minimize the human aspect of the issue. I think anyone who knows people debilitated by symptoms that cannot be readily explained has a sense for both the suffering and the vulnerability that result. Anyhow, thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, and take your time. MastCell  17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I’m back, after having a houseguest for several days and then enjoying the incredible holiday weekend weather. Warblers have almost all passed through, but the locally breeding birds have lots of ugly-cute babies. It's endlessly amusing to watch their family life.

Thanks for your kind understanding of my issue around offending on a touchy subject. I think it takes a pretty thick skin to edit Misplaced Pages, and in fact to do anything that puts one out in public (including cyberpublic) on potentially contentious issues. I'm not blessed with that; I'm just wistfully hoping for WP:NAM, and hoping that if I treat peoople with respect, they'll treat me with respect. This strategy, of course, is famously useless in dealing with bullies of various sorts; I think it's best for delicate souls to ignore or avoid them whenever possible. They've got their reasons, and they've got their natural enemies who have the chops to deal with them.

The more general issue about offending is that it tends to drive a discussion away from facts and logic, and toward irrelevant emotional defenses. Nothing wrong with emotion, we all have it and need it. It's just that it muddies the waters of an investigation of the facts. So I'm hoping to avoid stirring up that unhelpful murk.

Having said that, I, as Murphy's law would dictate, now need to ask an indelicate question. May I ask if you're naturally inclined to notice breaks in logic? I think this is a separate skill from general intelligence, somewhat like a sensitivity to spelling and usage - some highly intelligent people are not naturally good spellers, and their skin doesn't crawl when someone mixes up there, their, and they're, or affect and effect. I happen to be a good speller, but I recognize that, useful and aesthetic as it is, it could fairly be regarded as a sort of idiot-savant skill, like being good at fast mental math. I'm asking, not because I personally doubt your personal skill at logic, but because I think, not to put too fine a point on it, that there are some whoppers (or, to put a fine point on it, some commonly stated assumptions of unsubtly dubious merit) there are some consequential discrepancies in the mainstream medical literature, that somehow don't get detected by either the experts or the rank and file. And when they're pointed out, the whole profession's eyes seem to glaze over (or the hapless messenger is indignantly censured for unseemly behavior). This must mean, unless you see an alternative explanation which I'd be grateful to consider, that in the culture of medicine there is no social pressure to recognize such gaps, and could even mean that there is social pressure against recognizing them.

So I guess I've raised two (potentially thorny, sorry about that) issues - are you sensitive, in general, to breaks in the chain of a logical argument? If not, then I won't bother discussing them, but will focus on other ways of understanding reality, of which there are many. And, if you are, and have consequently noticed some of the more obvious ones in the medical literature, what do you think culturally accounts for their going unremarked? I'll end here, as it seems that considering too many issues at once is counterproductive to a straightforward discussion, and if emotional issues arise, we'll be able to know what triggered them and how to backtrack to the place where rationality was last in effect.I hope, if I say something unnecessarily tactless, you will dispassionately explain where I've gone astray and help me improve my skills in respectful debate.

I congratulate you again on your writing skill. And I appreciate your mention of the suffering caused by debility that cannot be readily explained by current medical concepts. Perhaps we would both agree, in principle, that such suffering and debility should be related as carefully as possible to any physical evidence that sheds light on the case, in order to have the best chance of alleviating it. And finally, thanks for your appreciation of the inherent limits of clinical research, when compared to more easily manipulated fields of enquiry (or is it inquiry? ;-). I think that's a rare insight, and extremely valuable.

I hope you're getting good spring weather wherever you are. You'd be astounded at how many people I saw last weekend lounging directly on the grass in shorts and flip-flops, in this LD-endemic area. Good for the local tourist economy, bad for the public health. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC),

Apology/Revision

Oops, I blew it. I just resumed listening to Jon Stewart's America on CD, and my chuckles died away as I realized I had let his sarcasm infect my tone in my very recent post to you, above. I gather it's not proper WP policy to edit it out, and I don't know how to use the strikeout method yet, so please, help me out and make the following changes in it, mentally if it can't be done physically:

Replace the portion between "whoppers" and "dubious merit" with "discrepancies". Ignore the entire following sentence.

Replace my references to "you" with references to a purely abstract, hypothetical member of WP:MED, with regard to following a train of logic. Maybe be could call him/her THD for The Hypothetical Doctor.

I'm very sorry, this caught me by surprise. It's amazing how contagious an impartial tone can be, especially if it includes the pleasure of humor. Anyway I just learned a valuable lesson, and I'll be careful never to read or listen to Jon Stewart or his ilk before talking to anyone who disagrees with me! Best wishes, a much subdued Postpostmod (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Don't worry so much about offending me; I didn't see anything in your initial post that was anything less than civil, although I appreciate your attention to tone.

Of course I think I'm capable of recognizing breaks in logic, but then people are notoriously bad at assessing their own capacity for introspection and critical thought. One has to be wary of the Dunning–Kruger effect - my lack of ability to think critically may actually impair my ability to recognize that lack. Sorry for being, er, post-modern about it. :P

In terms of specific logical gaps underlying common medical assumptions, that's a complex question. I think there is a tendency toward groupthink, or at least accepting something because X authority said so, inherent in any complicated and highly specialized field of knowledge. In some ways it's a useful heuristic - for example, I don't consider myself qualified to analyze the relative impact of various antiplatelet agents after myocardial infarction, so it's quite useful for me to accept the American College of Cardiology's take on the subject. The danger, of course, is that if their (undoubtedly human and fallible) expert panel missed something major, then I've also missed it by accepting their synthesis. Critical thinking is essential, but it's also impossible to apply universally - there just isn't enough time, especially for a working physician or researcher, to independently assess every assumption underlying standard medical practice.

On the other hand, I'm also deeply dubious of assertions that all of the expert bodies in a field have made some major, basic error of logic. At the extreme, it's like the AIDS denialists, who claim that every scientist who's done successful work with HIV has been duped into thinking it causes AIDS. At some point, it's just entirely implausible that such a basic error could have been carried forward so far. To a lesser extent, the climate-change "skeptics" are in the same boat, as if there were some magical set of assumptions that the National Academies of every large nation on Earth have overlooked. That's not to say it's impossible, and we shouldn't set up sacred cows that are beyond reasonable questioning or debate. The trick is to know when you've passed the "reasonable" threshold.

Without knowing which specific apparent breaks in logical thought you're referring to, it's hard for me to comment intelligently on your second question. I'm guessing that it has to do with the Lyme ELISA, but it would probably be easier to discuss if I had a more concrete sense of what you're referring to. Sorry for the non-answer... MastCell  18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Thanks for your patience with my spilkes. I like your Sontag quote. I didn’t figure that out until I was in my mid-forties. ;-)

Lots of great early summer action in the wetlands. My area is blessed with numerous parks with wide paths along water. Some of the newbie bird (and newbie bird-parent) antics are hilarious. We saw a kingbird trying to feed a mulberry to the babies. S/he tried each of the three in turn, and each tried but failed to engulf it. Good idea that didn't work out. The moms and dads are overworked trying to feed everybody, but it doesn’t last long, and I’m sure it’s well-compensated by the sense of purpose and dignity they enjoy. At least that’s how I felt at the height of my scientific career. I don’t have kids - not enough faith in the benevolence of the universe, I guess.

Now, about the logical problems with using the ELISA for LD diagnosis. Here is one notable inconsistency in the officially stated policy, which raise questions about the reliability of the IDSA guidelines. I’m using your quotes on the subject, since I can be sure that you are both aware of, and willing to acknowledge, the presence of these statements in legitimate medical discourse. Of course, there is abundant verifiable evidence to back up these statements, which we could both cite if necessary.

“ELISA is an inadequate diagnostic tool when used in isolation. That's why no one in their right minds recommends using it in isolation; for instance, as you note, the CDC recommends that diagnoses be made clinically and laboratory testing used in an ancillary role.” MastCell]

“I think Lyme disease is almost certainly grossly underdiagnosed and underreported. A more useful screening test would be hugely important.” MastCell ]

I agree with you, and more importantly, I think the preponderance of data agrees with both of us. But, the IDSA guidelines say:

"Clinical findings are sufficient for the diagnosis of erythema migrans, but clinical findings alone are not sufficient for diagnosis of extracutaneous manifestations of Lyme disease or for diagnosis of HGA or babesiosis. Diagnostic testing performed in laboratories with excellent quality-control procedures is required for confirmation of extracutaneous Lyme disease, HGA, and babesiosis.’ "]

See the problem? in the guidelines, and how it contributes to the gross underdiagnosis (and consequent undertreatment, delayed treatment, etc.) of LD? And see how it's therefore not a good idea, from a humanitarian standpoint, to defend the guidelines beyond what is reasonably required by WP:MEDRS?

Hope you're enjoying the summer, best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to let you know I'm still interested. Hope all's well, Postpostmod (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I had gotten a bit preoccupied and missed your response until just recently. But continuing our discussion is now officially on my to-do list. :) MastCell  21:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just checking in. We've been having quite the heat wave, but it just thunderstormed and Yay! it's down to 70 (deg F). Hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, checking in again, so thread doesn't get accidentally archived. (If it does, I guess we can dig it out again if need be.) I see I'm still on your to-do list. Looking forward to hearing from you. New heat wave coming here, after a few days' relief, which gave the house a chance to cool down. Hope all's well, Postpostmod (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been spending most of my on-Misplaced Pages time elsewhere, as you can probably see... I don't like to get caught up, but those kinds of processes are usually time-sensitive. If you ignore them and then wish you'd said what you had to say, you can't go back. Anyhow, I just haven't had the time/mental energy to continue our conversation in the past week or two, although I do intend to. I don't have an automated archive system (I do it by hand), so this thread won't go anywhere. Thanks for your patience. MastCell  16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just caught your reply - it didn't show up on my watchlist for some reason - oh well. Thanks for communicating, looking forward to it. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, more great summer weather here. We're in the middle of shorebird migration, and herons seem to be on the move. Two evenings ago saw a black-crowned night heron, a great egret, and two green-backed herons, in addition to the usual few great blue herons, just at our one local pond. I've been reading books about historical epidemics, and the threat of new ones (bird flu); pretty interesting. It had never occurred to me that all epidemics are political hot buttons, but now of course it seems obvious, as they can have huge economic effects. Nobody wants to be the first to admit their country (village, town, state, etc.) is infected, because people will then avoid the region, and the stigma and economic damage can be long lasting. Apparently epidemiology routinely has to deal with public relations, governmental actions, news control, etc., in addition to the purely biological issues.

Back to our subject, I just edited a couple of sentences of my comments - one that I had mentioned before that I thought was impolite, and one at the end of my post of 17 June, which you haven't answered yet. I thought maybe the second question, that I have withdrawn, was too difficult, and that was keeping you from responding. If that's not it, could you let me know what the problem might be, and maybe I can think of a way around it, so we can continue our discussion of Lyme disease testing? Thanks very much, hope all's well with you, Postpostmod (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still interested. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for the delay, and let me see if I can help pick this up where we (I) left off. I think that the CDC guidelines are based on Bayesian probability - in other words, the utility of a diagnostic test varies depending on what the pre-test probability is. Erythema migrans is a relatively unusual skin lesion outside of tickborne disease, so if someone shows up in a Lyme-endemic area with EM, then the pre-test likelihood that they've been exposed to Lyme disease is very high - so high that additional diagnostic testing doesn't really add much. So it makes sense that in the case of EM in an endemic area, the clinical finding is sufficient for diagnosis.

On the other hand, the extracutaneous manifestations are a different kettle of fish. Even for widely agreed-upon manifestations like joint pain, fever, myalgias, etc, the differential diagnosis is much broader than just Lyme. For those manifestations, therefore, it makes sense to utilize a diagnostic test in addition to clinical findings, because the pre-test probability isn't as high and there are other competing entities in the differential diagnosis. This applies even more strongly to the disputed manifestations of "chronic" Lyme disease, which are protean and overlap with a wide range of other diseases and syndromes - in those cases, you need some sort of diagnostic testing, or you're really firing blindly.

The problem is that ELISAs are not the most specific tests in the world. You get false positives, which is why they're frequently used as screening tests but usually require some sort of independent confirmation (e.g. in HIV testing). If you take a test with a high false-positive rate, and you apply it to a population with a relatively low pre-test probability of disease (e.g. people with wide-ranging medically unexplained symptoms), you will end up with basically no predictive or diagnostic power whatsoever.

I'm not sure if I'm really addressing your question - I apologize, but because of the delay on my end, I lost the thread of our conversation a bit. Anyhow, if I'm off on a tangent, please feel free to refocus me on the aspects of testing that you wanted to discuss. MastCell  21:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your friendly reply. I'm in the middle of a round of family visits, should be able to reply next week. Hope all's well, Postpostmod (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back. Whew. I'm glad I have such a nice family, but it takes a lot out of me to do the social stuff for long uninterrupted periods of time.

I wrote a long, logically structured reply, but then realized it is probably not suitable for a medium like the web that relies more on skipping and skimming than on uninterrupted critical reading. It seems it's best to focus on one simple question at a time.

So I wonder if I could just ask you to try to recall where you picked up the impressions I quoted from you above, which I'll repeat here so you won't have to scroll up:

“ELISA is an inadequate diagnostic tool when used in isolation. That's why no one in their right minds recommends using it in isolation; for instance, as you note, the CDC recommends that diagnoses be made clinically and laboratory testing used in an ancillary role.” MastCell]

“I think Lyme disease is almost certainly grossly underdiagnosed and underreported. A more useful screening test would be hugely important.” MastCell ]

To summarize, please tell me where you got these impressions.

Thanks! I appreciate it! hope all's well with you and yours, Postpostmod (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I made another blunder in tone. I had bolded the quotes from you in my post of 20 August 2010 (just above this one), but it looked like I was yelling. I don't think a strikeout would fix that, so I hope it's okay if I just remove the bold from the text and put in a note that I did so.

Again, sorry to have been impolite. I think I had just been needled by someone else, and inadvertently adopted their tone. (An explanation, not a justification.) Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still interested. Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm still interested. Hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is everything ok?

I saw this and wondered if you need some support. Sorry for the intrusion. --John (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - that's kind of you. Just one of those times when this place gets discouraging. I sometimes feel that relentless persistence carries much more weight in resolving disputes than minor issues like basic understanding of this site's policies, or the desire to create a serious, scholarly reference work. If you have 2 editors who don't understanding basic Misplaced Pages policy and 2 who do, then meeting halfway is not a "compromise". It's a failure. I'm talking purely abstractly, of course, and any similarities to any actual ongoing disputes are entirely coincidental. Anyhow, thanks for the kind note. :) MastCell  17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnrock of general admiration

		You ROCK!!!!
		Contrary to the caption, I think you might actually be as awesome as this. Now go wail on a guitar! WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Evidence

Just wanted to leave a note. I thought the evidence you posted on the ARBCOM evidence page was spot on. I full agree with it. --Snowman frosty (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I second that. I wish wikipedia had more sane admins like you (or Boris) SPLETTE :] 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP warning

It is not acceptable that you have allowed distortions and misrepresntations of the sources to remain in the Philip E. Johnson article, as well as stood by while the dispute tag was removed. Your conduct is particularly unbecoming of an administrator. Whatever our personal views, we must abide by editing policies and refrain from defaming biographical subjects and misrespresenting their views. Please fix this mess you've helped foster. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about - your post is a long on aggressive bluster and short on specifics. I don't think I've edited Philip E. Johnson for years, if ever, so could you clarify which "BLP violation" you're "warning" me about? If I've defamed him somewhere, please point it out and I'll happily correct myself. From where I sit, you seem to be edit-warring across multiple articles and frantically opening noticeboard threads and leaving "warnings" on the talk pages of everyone who disagrees with you (which, it seems, is pretty much everyone you're interacting with at present). I mean this in the nicest way possible: you'll probably find it easier going if you chill out a bit. MastCell  20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hate you

I fell for this. Yes, I'm a gullible fool. Head → Desk. NW (Talk) 22:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad. Rickrolling is so tired and dated that you probably let your defenses down. MastCell  22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, that *is* evil. If I had not been watching your talk page, I would have been all over that too. Horologium (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My word, what kind of fool would fall for that? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have only one question: how long did it take you to find that diff in my talk-page archives? Never mind - it was worth it. :P MastCell  22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You really were clairvoyant.

Hi, MastCell, I just saw your comment on the Race and intelligence ArbCom case proposed decision talk page. Wow! Yes, anyone who has been on Misplaced Pages longer than I have been (still only just more than three months of editing, after years of reading) could have seen that problem coming, but you asked an especially focused question that needs to be asked more often. It's great to see your contributions. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, the "uncivil side" in this case seems more than a little bit short-tempered. These guys seem to be perpetually high-strung drama-mongers (e.g. Slrubenstein currently calling for a topic ban of Noloop over at ANI because Noloop argues for a little neutrality in the Jesus myth theory , Mathsci brought at least a couple similar ANI threads with no diffs presented). Sad. After getting involved in discussing MMfA, Blablaaa RfCU, and now this Jesus Myth stuff I'm beginning to feel your cynicism in that it's sometimes impossible to get through to people. II | (t - c) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When someone strongly disagrees with you, it takes an extraordinary amount of effort (on both sides) to reach an understanding and to move forward constructively. That's in real life - the difficulties are magnified exponentially online, using throwaway pseudonyms. People are capable of making this effort - they do it every day. But it is a real effort. The problem with Misplaced Pages is that you're expected to make that effort every time you disagree with someone, and disagreements are frequent here. MastCell  03:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature Conspiracy Theory paper

Goertzel T (2010). "Conspiracy theories in science". EMBO Rep. 11 (7): 493–9. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.84. PMC 2897118. PMID 20539311. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). MastCell originally posted this on his user page at 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read. It points out nothing that most educated people don't intuitively understand, I would hope, but it was nice to see it laid out like that. One sentence in the article that I thought was rather interesting was from the section on the MMR vaccine and autism: "While the authorities responded by citing findings from large epidemiological studies, much of the press coverage highlighted anecdotal accounts and human-interest stories." I ran into that problem just the other week, with a family friend who has has ran into issues with traditional hospitals in the past and now turns to homeopathy for basically everything. Even if I had a journal with me then (I didn't, because we were driving), I doubt hu would have bothered to read it all. I wonder what can be done in those cases.

A few other thoughts: "Sometimes these ‘findings’, such as the claim that the decline in crime in the USA in the 1990s was due to the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, become part of the conventional wisdom before other scientists have a chance to debunk them" I remember reading about that in Freakonomics. What I didn't know is that it had been debunked. Do you happen to know of a paper that discusses the link between abortion and crime, besides The Great American Crime Decline (which I probably would not have access to)?

"Scientific expertise is usually quite specialized, and scientists who advocate for political causes only tangentially related to their area of specialization have no special claim on the truth." If only people understood that...

Well, thanks for listening to me ramble. Best, NW (Talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think the paper presented anything novel, but it did an excellent job of cogently summarizing rather complex ideas. For instance: "Being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory." The problem is the human mind is biased to favor gripping anecdotes over depersonalized, aggregate data. It's a recurring theme - for instance, remember when medical errors were a big topic in the news? No one really cared to read lengthy statistical tallies of various procedural risks and aggregate malpractice data. They wanted to hear the horror stories about the absolute worst screwups.

Journalists understand this - it's basically a golden rule of journalism that if you want to introduce a big, overarching concept, you start with a human-interest angle, an anecdote. Scientists, on the other hand, pride themselves on being objective and data-driven. "Anecdotal" is a dirty word in the medical literature, but it's the basis of essentially all medical news coverage. That's the root of the issue - the difference between how journalists and scientists approach their respective trades.

I generally think that you can't address an irrational belief with rational argument. It's the wrong tool for the job. (My experience on Misplaced Pages has actually helped cement this view). Sure, it would help if the critical-thinking skills and scientific literacy of the American population were less abysmal, but even very smart people can get stuck defending irrational beliefs. I think on some level people recognize when a belief is irrational, which makes them all the more defensive when one tries to poke away at them rationally.

Regarding homeopathy, I generally don't really challenge people who use alternative medical approaches. I want to make sure they understand the reasons why those approaches aren't considered effective, and that they understand the regulatory issues and prevalence of scams (at least in the US, thanks to DSHEA). As long as they understand those things, it's up to them to decide how to spend their money and how to address their own health. If your friend is substituting homeopathy for proven and necessary treatments, that would be a different story. And I do have a problem when people's irrational belief systems endanger other, blameless individuals (c.f. Eliza Jane Scovill, or the recent and deadly pertussis outbreak in California, which is the predictable fruit of the strong foothold that the anti-vaccination movement has established there).

I remember reading the chapter in Freakonomics about abortion and crime. I haven't followed up on it, so I don't know how or to what extent it has been "debunked". It's a good reminder to look into it, out of curiosity. In general, I thought Freakonomics was extremely thought-provoking and the authors seemed to relish the opportunity to take on conventional wisdom, but they also got a bit carried away and overstated the explanatory power of their tools while downplaying obvious confounders. (I find those to be common weaknesses among economists, but I digress...) Anyhow, sorry for the digression, but thanks for the thought-provoking post. If you find anything addressing the abortion-crime matter, let me know. MastCell  19:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading that about 85% of the population thinks anecdotally and only about 15% think analytically. The conjecture was that this trend is deeply rooted -- thousands of years ago someone noticed "Grog eat red berries, Grog get sick and die, me not eat red berries." As usual xkcd makes a relevant point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00040.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00040.x instead. and Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.407, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.407 instead. are rather interesting. I don't believe that Donohue and Levitt has changed their opinions on the issue, and it seems like the debate about the connection between abortion and crime is still open.

Thanks for your reply; it was very enlightening. Best, NW (Talk) 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you know, we even have two Misplaced Pages articles on it: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime and legalized abortion and crime effect. NW (Talk) 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That paper is epic awesome, I've integrated with Peter Duesberg. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that John Lott is part of the debate. I think he sued the authors of Freakonomics for defamation at one point. Lott has kind of a blood feud with Levitt, I think, as one might surmise from Freedomnomics, his awesomely titled response to Levitt's work. MastCell  21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jolly hockey sticks! Many thanks for a useful source, of course you do realise that this will expose you all as part of The Faction?? . . dave souza, talk 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell  23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One of his better mid-period albums, especially "Russian Roulette" and the title track. "Écoutez, s'il vout plait..." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From BLP violations to misinformation

Ugh, I read it and now I want the last 15 seconds of my life back. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I read this talk page posting, probably this one too as clearly straying into POV-pushing/soapboxing for AIDS denailism. Do you think it's worth bringing it to AN or ANI? And should the advocacy for creationism be brought up as well? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rarely is it worth bringing anything to WP:AN/I. He started an article on Warren Winkelstein, one of epidemiolgy's living legends, which made it sound like his only notable accomplishment was playing foil to Peter Duesberg. That suggests a skewed perspective, to put it mildly. On the other hand, it provided the impetus to actually work on writing a decent, if brief, biography of Winkelstein - see the result, and feel free to contribute. :) MastCell  00:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit, including his work shooting down the Duesberg hypothesis, plus an infobox and a note re: his status as an epidemiologist. The Duesberg bit is worth including, I'll try to find more later on to expand on his non-Duesberg related activities. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• That's just wrong on so many levels....LOL. GregJackP Boomer! 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Damage to the encyclopedia

It's unfortunate that you encourage editors like this one to disregard our most basic editing policies and to distory BLP and article content based on their strident personal opinions and beliefs. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. From where I'm sitting, I think you consistently disregard our most basic editing policies and destroy article content based on your strident personal opinions. I also don't find interacting with you particularly enjoyable or rewarding. So if you have something substantial or content-related to say, then please say it with as little bluster and rhetoric as you can manage, and I will listen. If you just want to lecture me, then please understand that I'm unlikely to listen to moralizing and sanctimony from you, because you haven't demonstrated by your actions that you have any understanding of this site's goals and policies, nor that you are capable of handling disagreement or even rational discussion. MastCell  23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that HIV causes AIDS. Can you explain how I've disregarded our most basic editing policies based on that view? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained my viewpoint numerous times, on various article talk pages. I'm not inclined to do it again, per Einstein's definition of insanity. On a related matter, you might want to consider avoiding edits like this and particularly this; they suggest that you have no real interest in or understanding of WP:BLP beyond its potential as a weapon. MastCell  23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, no-one cares what any editor's personal opinion is. The important issue is the verification of reliable sources so as to be proportionate to their representation. "NPOV" and "BLP" do not mean "no criticisms" and all subjects are not equal in their representation. Disagreements about climate change regarding degree or speed are valid, but claims it is not happening is denialism and should get only enough room to indicate that it's wrong so we can show why. Disagreements about steady-state evolution versus punctuated equilibrium are valid, but claims it didn't happen or that it was the result of god, gods or super-smart aliens are not and should clearly be indicated. Debates about the degree to which lifestyle, nutrition and genetics impact HIV infection leading to AIDS are valid but claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that these factors are causative are not. We do not give equal weight to all viewpoints. We give due weight to the most reliable viewpoints as indicated in the prominence, number, prestige, source and scientific merit of the viewpoint. I've said it many times, and I will keep repeating it - Peter Duesberg is wrong. He is not expressing a valid scientific disagreement. He is engaging in AIDS denialism, which is a pejorative term and should be so. There are not two sides to tell - there is an accurate, data-based, scientific consensus, and there is Peter Duesberg ignoring evidence, cherry-picking quotations and misrepresenting data to support his own nonscientific opinion. Not all topics are equal - some are settled, some are nonsense, some are still being discussed. Showing up and starting wars based on the editor rather than summarizing scholarly consensus, sources and merit is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all the grief you caused me today. Jehochman 01:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been away from Misplaced Pages for the weekend, so had not really noticed the goings-on until today. I'm sorry to have caused you grief. I said basically everything I have to say about the subject in my evidence submission; I think it was a highly regrettable episode in which both you and Lar set a poor example. On the other hand it seemed to be an isolated episode - neither you nor Lar have done anything remotely similar since, and I don't think we should be judged by our worst moments. I don't think you or Lar should be formally admonished - if I thought that, I'd have proposed formal admonishments in the Workshop. You know I think you're a good admin overall. Hell, I've voted for you every time you've run for ArbCom, including this past December, and I'd vote for you again. That said, I think there is an important point about the desperate need for good examples in the climate-change arena, and this was one of the most glaring examples of the opposite - hence its citation in my evidence. MastCell  20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. Too bad people won't get a balanced presentation like what you've said here. Instead, they will see the one sided presentation in the proposed decision. (Not your fault; a problem the processing of this case.) What ever happened to the principle that an occasionally mistake is allowed? One questionable diff out of how many CC edits and right away I get sanctioned. Too bad the committee is so obsessed with finding fault with admins, which discourages admin participation. I wish they had even half as much zeal for discouraging the participation of tendentious editors. Jehochman 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What, were you expecting arbcom to base their decision on a careful review of the facts? Silly boy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In their defense, there is a massive amount of noise, and I think they are trying (but maybe failing) to do a good job. Jehochman 11:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cited your remark, here: . Jehochman 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a peek

Hi, I just noticed this. I don't even remember what brought me to take a look but as the history shows the editor Bob K31416 changes the direction of WP:Weight to NPOV but without any discussion that I can see for this action. If you are too busy to check this out I'll see if I can find another administrator to take a peek. It just looks like a wrong edit to me but I'm not sure which is why I am coming to you as an administrator to help me. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - I only see Bob K31416 adding a "see also" link to the NPOV noticeboard. I didn't see any substantive changes to WP:WEIGHT, but I might have missed them. Is there a specific diff that you were concerned about? MastCell  17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry please ignore. I didn't do something right when I got concerned about this. I saw something yesterday that isn't there. I don't know what I missed doing to get the idea that I thought had happened but you are correct and I made a mistake. Sorry again for wasting your time with this. I'll be more careful, --CrohnieGal 09:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Hope things are going well. :) MastCell  16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

General whining

Keeping up with overreliance on primary sources in medical articles is just a chore; there aren't enough of us to go around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to prioritize. If the primary sources are basically doing no harm, then it's a low priority to address them. We should focus on instances where the primary literature is being mined to construct misleading or inaccurate claims - that's the abuse that WP:MEDRS was intended to correct. I'm actually OK with judicious use of primary sources. If you can give me the names of the 3 biggest offenders (medical-article-wise) in terms of misuse or overreliance on primary sources, I'll try to help out... MastCell  16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is making me nuts-- I don't know that the sources are used inappropriately, but the extreme list of citations makes the article impossible to edit and vandal watch. Other than that, since I don't even play a Dr. on TV, it's hard for me to know when an article is inaccurate because of overuse of primary sources-- and that is what bugs me, in terms of our readers. Of course, EMDR and PTSD also make me nuts, as do most of the psych articles that contain original research. My global concern is that too many medical editors-- who should know better-- write articles from primary sources. Guess I'm just in a pissy mood today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I recently was offered the opportunity to write a review article on a topic of my choosing for a reasonably respectable, peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed reputable medical journal. I have exactly zero training in psychiatry, but I could take one for the team and write a review using all of those primary sources. Then you can just cite the review, once it's published, and voila. (Obviously, I'm not really going to write about schizophrenia, but I'd be lying if it hadn't crossed my mind while selecting a topic that a decent review of medical various controversies could do wonders for our coverage on Misplaced Pages). MastCell  17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Do it for EMDR-- an area ripe for quackery. Expanding my rant :) I've long thought that inaccurate medical articles can be dangerous to our readers, and an overreliance on primary sources makes it difficult to impossible to determine the accuracy of our text. I once suggested on Jimbo's talk that we should have a policy akin to WP:BLP for medical articles-- I don't know if that would be best accomplished by elevating the status of WP:MEDRS, or if there's another way to achieve the goal of minimizing potential dangerous or misleading medical info to our readers. Of course, since I do so little for this website, and am just another cog in the wheel, I got no response from Jimbo to that suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I've debated how hard to beat this particular drum. Tim and Steven Fruitsmaak have done some very nice groundwork demonstrating the importance of Misplaced Pages as a source of medical information. For all of the (justifiable) angst about BLPs, our medical articles actually have (in my opinion) far more potential to cause real-life harm. But it's just not as juicy of an issue. I've considered writing up a couple of real-life cases in which people were demonstrably ill-served by relying on medical information gleaned from Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure whether that's the right way to go.

BLP has always been partly a real ethical concern and partly a bludgeon and fig leaf for some of the worst elements of this project. I'm not sure I want to extend the culture of BLP vigilantism to medical articles. On the other hand, if "enforcing BLP" justifies pretty much any otherwise reprehensible behavior, then I feel pretty strongly that all the more leeway should be extended to people who defend the integrity and accuracy of this site's medical information. MastCell  18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I hadn't realized you had also engaged that hobby horse :) IMO, almost all of our psych articles are in worse shape than most of our strictly medicine articles (if that is the correct distinction), as that area tends to attract POV-pushing and original research. What we really need is a good ole journal expose to review of some of our shoddy psych articles, and how they can do harm. Maybe Tim could enlist some folks to work that up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, I hate to be pedantic, but why would you be surprised that schizophrenia makes you nuts? ;-) ATren (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

bwaahaha, check your PC-ometer!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Case in point: , , , . MastCell  20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• That one is too obvious-- it's the less obvious ones, citing peer-reviewed primary sources-- that trouble me more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. I was lurking. I'm pretty opposed to OR in med articles, too; and totally agree with SandyGeorgia's opinion of the state of the psych articles. I have a plan. The idea is to shove WP:OR and WP:MEDRS down their throats before new editors make their first edit. I know it won't cure everything but I think it might help, and I would really respect and appreciate any criticisms you guys might have to offer. Anthony (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I 'spose MC and I aren't as unique as we think, and I see Jimbo did answer that time. How will your plan work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Something like this:

at the top of the article, just above the lead. Anthony (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Daily prize

What do you want, a cup of coffee for making me laugh? I shall go beat up on Ceoil for neglecting to send songs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking for a catchy tune, this is my current favorite. MastCell  22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, come on ... if you're just looking at the babes, this one is better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea you rocked the slow jams. That one is a bit too cookie-cutter for my taste. I have to say I prefer Cee Lo's version on purely musical grounds. MastCell  22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil is training me-- he just looks at the babes :) Moni gets my best collections of videos, but you won't be privy to those LOL !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One can only imagine. MastCell  22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Control your imagination-- we need you working on the swarms of anti-vaccinationists! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they seem less numerous now than 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe Eubulides drove them off with his impermeable armor of reason and rationality. Also, the media is far less irresponsible in its coverage of vaccines now than it was a few years ago, when Andrew Wakefield was still presented as a martyr to scientific orthodoxy of Galilean proportions. Of course, there's still the occasional pertussis outbreak driven by antivaccine scaremongering, but they seem largely confined to backwards, provincial outposts like Southern California these days. MastCell  22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought all those types congregated in Northern California? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's American Taliban country. :P MastCell  22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please strike through your comment?

I don't appreciate your insinuation that I am out for a "pound of flesh" when it's clear that I simply want to end the disruption. I'm afraid that this comment has inflamed the situation and my response has resulted in a campaign of harassment against me by Jehochman. Can you please strike through your comment and I'll strike through mine? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. However I think AQFK is wrong in thinking it is directed at him, I read it as directed at me. MastCell, your comment is highly inappropriate. It's not exactly behavior that should be modeled, is it? It also happens to be wrong. My desire to see ChrisO's transgressions noted and entered into the record is purely to make sure we have less problems like those he caused going forward. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the insistence on formal reprimands for someone who's left the project is a bit vindictive. If it's about ending disruption caused by ChrisO, then his departure has solved that concern. He's clearly fallen short in some ways, but he's also given a lot to the project over the years. We don't need to give him a medal, but there's also no need to kick him on his way out the door. Good volunteer organizations don't do things like that.

Actually, I can accept that reasonable people differ about whether ChrisO's "transgessions" need to be "entered into the record" as a badge of shame, despite his departure. What's harder to understand is the sanctimonious badgering of ArbCom over the issue (e.g. ). That makes it harder to believe that this is about pragmatic benefit to the project - from that perspective, the issue is moot with Chris' departure. It starts to look more like personality politics - an underlying theme in this whole mess - where it's more about settling scores with an individual than about what makes sense for the project. Hence the pound of flesh trope.

At this point I'm comfortable clarifying my comment, as I have above, rather than striking it. I see you're shopping it around, though (, ), so I'm sure I'll hear if anything further comes of that. MastCell  04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: Perhaps you have more experience than me, but based on my experience just because someone retires doesn't necessarily mean that they stay retired. The one editor who I am familiar with who retired is Hipocrite (he retired about a year ago) and he obviously returned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course ChrisO will return once the flames die down...which makes it all the more evident why certain people conveniently feel its "not necessary" to document his infractions. It allows him to more easily continue his antics in the future. Fell Gleaming 13:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm misremembering this, but I don't believe Hipocryte exercised his right to vanish; he just got mad and stomped off for a while, and then later he came back. Hundreds of people do this all the time; it's pathognomonic for Misplaced Pages obsession. But people rarely return after exercising their right to vanish. In my almost three years of watching Misplaced Pages, the only person I've seen do this was Adam Cuerdon/Shoemaker's Holiday, and his return cost him a lot of the political capital that he had when he left. I don't know what his current status is with the project, but he has no credibility with me, zero. I don't see any foundation for the vehement expressions of disbelief that ChrisO will stay away; on the contrary I see no particular reason for him to come back. Misplaced Pages is not his life; AFAIK he has a successful career which participation in Misplaced Pages could only be hindering rather than helping, and as far as I could ever tell, he was only here to try to improve the content of the encyclopedia. He got a little burned out there at the end, but that in no way negates the tremendous contribution he made to the project. I find the feeding frenzy atmosphere here just appalling. Woonpton (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton: I'm not sure if there's a difference between exercising the right to vanish and slapping a retired tag on their talk page. The incident to which I'm referring is when a group of editors (yes, cabals really do exist!) surpressed the news of a journalist being kidnapped in Afghanistan . In any case, what's appalling are these totally bogus accusations of a feeding frenzy. As I stated before ArbCom, the key issue here is how do we restore the CC editing atmosphere to one based on cooperation and mutual respect. ChrisO is not part of the solution, he's part of the problem. The sactions are necessary should ChrisO ever return and I would say the same thing regarding any other editor who announces their retirement in the middle of this ArbCom case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference between slapping a retired tag on a user page and exercising WP:Right to Vanish. Vanishing involves the dissociation of an account with an individual, and has to be done by a bureacrat; there is a good faith expectation that the person exercising this right intends to permanently sever their ties with the project. In the unlikely event that a person does come back after RTV, the pages related to the old account are restored and linked to the new account. This is quite different from keeping your account but using the "retired" tag for a time, and then logging on again; there is no bureaucratic procedure involved.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the incident that prompted Hipocryte's "retirement;" I was watching at the time, but again, I don't believe he exercised a right to vanish when he "retired" and in fact it's clear that he didn't, since he left as Hipocryte and came back as Hipocryte. If he had exercised the right to vanish, he couldn't have come back under the same username. The two things are quite different.

Yes, I find the feeding frenzy atmosphere appalling and will not be intimidated into withdrawing that opinion. I have no opinion about ChrisO's behavior on climate change; I have not followed either the topic area or the case pages, and I am not speaking here as a supporter of ChrisO in this area. I was simply expressing my reaction to what appears to be a pile-on on a good content contributor (I know only of his content contributions in the areas of eastern European history) after he has already exited the project. I think it's unseemly, uncollegial, and unnecessary. Woonpton (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton: I was not aware of the distinction between retiring and vanishing - which is why you should assume good faith instead of accusing editors of a "feeding frenzy". Further, I have no idea who is trying to "intimidate" you. I'm speaking to you in a calm and civil tone and haven't threatened you in any way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue over whether you were trying to intimidate me into withdrawing my comment, which after all was nothing but a simple personal expression of distaste for the post-departure bashing of ChrisO, when you wrote "what's appalling are these totally bogus accusations of a feeding frenzy," and will even go so far as to say that perhaps I might have chosen a better word than intimidation. But I will say in passing that it's never been my observation that intimidation and incivility go hand in hand, in fact the creepiest intimidations are generally uttered in friendly, calm, civil tones, which is precisely what makes them especially creepy and especially intimidating. Not that I'm characterizing your position or behavior or statements in any way; I'm simply disputing in general your assertion that calm civil tones preclude the presence or intention of intimidation. Woonpton (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of comment striking, can you take a look at this, and the reply immediately after it, and consider whether you should strike part of your comment. The source you referenced is out of date and in no way supports the argument that you are trying to make. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I think people have not understood (or decided not to engage) the point I was making. Perhaps that's my fault for communicating it poorly. It's also an occupational hazard of participating in an arena where thoughtful, rational dialogue has been devalued, which is why I try to limit my contributions to the case pages.

For the record, Cla68 said that RealClimate's "agenda" was "not the mainstream view of AGW science" and that RealClimate was "much more extreme than most climate scientists". I don't think that's true; RealClimate's viewpoint is not extreme. But who cares what I think? So I cited that Nature editorial, which states:

Press coverage of climate change is known to overly emphasize the views of the small minority of scientists who dispute the notion of man-made climate change. Mainstream climate scientists need to combat this, and RealClimate is, in principle, an excellent way of doing so. ()

See? The Nature editorial explicitly describes RealClimate as representing the mainstream view of climatologists. Their views are only "extreme" with reference to the false balance projected by some of our shoddier popular-press outlets. I'm not interested in arguing about whether RealClimate is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" (although that's of course where others immediately took the discussion). My point was that people who think RealClimate is promoting an "extreme agenda" have a skewed perspective on the actual state of knowledge in the field, perhaps (as Nature points out) due to the abysmally poor quality of popular-press coverage of the topic.

Do you still want me to strike anything? MastCell  16:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do get your point, and I am not calling you a big meanie, but at that time Nature had only the hope that RealClimate would present such views, hence the "in principle" part. The weren't into precognition, it remained a hope, based on what RC had said up to that point, which doesn't seem to have been very long. Nature is applauding the idea, but they weren't qualified at that time to judge whether or not it actually worked out that way. So I really don't think that their sincere wishes have any bearing on the reality of whether RC managed to deliver. If you had a more recent piece saying substantially the same thing then it would make more sense. Weakopedia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. As long as you see what I was trying to say, I'm fine with you agreeing, partly agreeing, or completely disagreeing. Let's leave it there, since (as I said) I'm tired of talking about it. MastCell  21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch of Pungo Pre-FAC

See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo FAC filed

See Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your help and encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I just wanted to let you know that I've saved a comment of yours on my "Thoughts" page here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't noticed your subpage before, but reading it now, it's very well-written, insightful, and thought-provoking. If mildly depressing. :) MastCell  21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming again

Please see NOR noticeboard thread. I believe FellGleaming is in violation of this warning. Please review the noticeboard thread and the talk page thread if you have the time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)