User talk:MastCell/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MastCell. 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 20

←

Archive 24

→

Happy MastCell/Archive 26's Day!

User:MastCell/Archive 26 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MastCell/Archive 26's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MastCell/Archive 26!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that's quite kind of you. MastCell ^Talk 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, I'll wear the official MastCell Day lederhosen with pride. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely see my shadow in the light of this star. Happy MC/G-hog day. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

See here. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Passive smoking

{{sprotected2}} for a week. Hopefully that stems everything. Sorry for being so slow to act, but I'm not a big fan of using admin tools to solve edit disputes unless I really, really have to (which was the case here). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You da man. MastCell ^Talk 05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, you charismatic stallion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

more Nrse socks

recently you banned some nrse socks verified by checkuser. A new, obvious one has appeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ewalsh19842477 (it is a similar name to another banned sock, and it's reinserting the same material). when i went to the nrse checkuser page to add the name, i saw that the page was archived, and cannot be modified. so i figured i'd tell you and maybe you would know what to do. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the account. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

now he has a new look-alike account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ewalsh198477

Operant conditioning

So many things about the English Wikipedia are new and innovative that the community of editors have had to come up with a number of novel approaches to solving problems that are, for the most part, unique to this project. Innovating from scratch has become a sort of native process to Wikipedia and for Wikipedians, but the knack for invention is only helpful as long as we don't stray into reinvention.

One thing we should all be able to agree on is that civility, and molding and preserving conditions for a civil discourse, is not really a Wikipedia problem; its a human problem. Like many human problems, its one that has been addressed in different ways at different times with varying degrees of success. I don't think anyone has really nailed it, but I'm not at all a scholar of that sort of thing. On the other hand, I think the framework of protected and unprotected speech we have here in the United States does pretty well. It replicates pretty precisely your model for operant conditioning; crackpots and nutjobs end up with a limited audience and similarly limited influence, because everyone can say more or less whatever they want and by and large the fringe is ignored. I'm not sure how this sort of culture shift could be instituted on Wikipedia, though - the ingrained habit of reacting to and suppressing hostility and "combat" would need to become the new focus of change, and I can't see that becoming a priority for the people who are most interested in improving the editing environment.

Perhaps our problem on Wikipedia is that we filter too well - what remains becomes glaringly intrusive, because the relatively successful effort at removing the most venomous and disruptive people leaves us uninured and vulnerable to milder irritants that remain. Hard to figure, for me anyway, what sort of strategy addresses the problems we have without making things worse. Avruch^T 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe setting monobook to make the background pink, just like pink walls in prisons.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

I tend to agree with Avruch's last point. Viewed from outside the bubble, I think the level of civility on Wikipedia is actually exceptional for an online venue. You can't expect face-to-face levels of civility from pseudonymous online interaction - it's just not human nature. Within those constraints, and compared to various other wide-open online venues, I'm actually amazed that people are, by and large, mostly civil with each other here. That's not to say we can't do better, of course.
In the end, we can't force people to be civil. Approaches that rely on brute force - blocking, parole, probation, ArbCom cases - will not work. We need to think a little bit deeper than that. For now, I think the best approach is to model the behavior we want to see. Light your corner. Ignore drama-for-drama's-sake. Et cetera. MastCell ^Talk 04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course remembering to tell your friends regularly that they're awesome and much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet more from Karmaisking

Attacks on both article and user talk pages, and a continuous flow of socks. Can I request semi-protection for my talk page and (in anticipation) my Wiki article, as well as talk pages for all his usual targets. Is there some level of escalation (eg outing, approaches to ISPs) for such persistent vandals? Sorry to bother you with this, and feel free to pass JQ (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I got a few of the accounts, and semiprotected your talk page. I'll watch the article, but don't see anything at this point requiring intervention. Feel free to email me or leave a note if I can be of further assistance. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Unfortunately, a number of accounts are live. Most active at present is PyramidsOrFood. I don't know if there's an easy way of finding unblocked accounts in the suspected socks category, but that would obviously be the way to go.JQ (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaccines, autism, and other specious claims

Well, it looks like the tide is turning towards good science and away from Jenny McCarthy with this ruling. Of course, the nutjobs still rely upon...well, I'm not sure what she relies upon, but it sounds like "if you don't have the science, then attack someone". I guess Orfitt is the back pocket of big pharm, much like you and I. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I found it interesting that some of the web headlines read "Parents' claims denied...". Nowhere did I read one saying "Science affirmed...". As Offit himself said, news stories need a victim, a villain, and perhaps a hero. $0.02. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the ebbing and waning of many dumbass (scientific term meaning any anti-science supported by a hot ex-Playboy model) claims against medicine over the years (and if you ask MastCell, you know that I've been watching this stuff since most of you were in diapers). People need to blame things on someone or something. If it's autism being caused by vaccines that prevent massive and debilitating childhood diseases or Nostradamus predicting the 9/11 attacks, none of it is based on logic, rational analysis or real science. Autism happens for reasons that aren't really well understood. Vaccines prevent disease, and that's very very well understood. I'll take real science over pseudoscience any day of the week. My daughters had all of the vaccines, and all three are healthy, brilliant, gorgeous girls. But that's not science, it's my experience. But I know that they aren't going to get chicken pox, measles, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, smallpox (OK, we eradicated that with vaccines), cervical cancer, etc. I think the vaccine companies are owed our gratitude. Maybe those same companies enjoy marketing that little blue pill for profits, but I'm all right with the trade-off.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

About three weeks ago, I told my wife how remarkable it was that in our country, not only can people take medical advice from a Playboy centerfold, a substantial number actually do. I cannot vouch for "centerfold" :-) but it sounds better than "model". :-) :-)

@"Blue pill" trade off, I also find it remarkable that the tone of much news coverage of that industry is strangely similar to that of the tobacco industry a decade or so ago. The tobacco industry. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, she was Playmate of the Year in 1993. Why do I know this? Misspent youth probably. Anyways, there are others who share her anti-science fecal material. I once told a girlfriend that although I appreciate a beautiful sexy woman, but if she's intelligent or even brilliant, I can't control myself. Ms. Playmate of the Year 1993 does not qualify. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Grumble

Well, one less admin to counter Elonka and company. Of course, I've got a registered letter from the US Navy sitting on my desk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the grumble. The first 5% of the time that one devotes to Wikipedia yields about 50% of the benefit, so maybe you could scale back your time by a factor of 20 instead? Half a loaf, and all that. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I third the grumble. Please consider returning after a nice, long, wikistress-free sabbatical. You've been a voice of reason on so many topics. You will be missed. Skinwalker (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sad, but understandable. You'll be missed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed, but of course your decision is understandable. I hope you take and enjoy time for yourself and your family, that you remember the many friends who value and appreciate you here on Wiki, and please write if I can ever be of any help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo all the comments and concerns above. Enjoy your break, but please drop in every so often. Verbal chat 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Also, feel free to visit at my blog, where you might find something of interest.JQ (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll sixth or seventh these sentiments. While I understand and won't argue with your decision, I do hope to eventually see you around here again sometime. Yilloslime (t) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on. Have a good rest time away from wikipedia, forget wikipedia and enjoy your time. One day you might discover that you miss editing again some medical article :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you were less active on WT:MED. In situations like this I found it beneficial to my wiki-stress to ignore annoying editors for a while, and unfortunately/implicitly the content areas they operate in. I identify some topic I find interesting, but it's not popular to the point that fanatics will show up on it and edit that. Might work for you too. Take care, Xasodfuih (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will light some incense and meditate for you to find harmony in your departure from Wikipedia related concerns. All this is illusion. Find your inner Omega egg and you will find peace. OMMMMmmmmmmmmmm... Remember, the mind is all powerful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, everyone. Very nice of you all. I'll probably be back sooner or later, and I doubt I can go totally cold turkey, but I need a break. The alternative is go out in a blaze of glory, which I'm not quite ready to do yet. In the past, I've refocused on relaxing and uncontroversial areas when I've gotten fed up, but I'm just not feeling it at the moment. Happens. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed... :( Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I need to find out why you're going (I mean I know what you're saying, but what was the last straw?) I'll be doing Tong Ren for you, I may even go on a course, it'd be well worth a few thousand quid. Mind you it is comic genius, so maybe merely the amusement value of watching it will have a healing effect.[1] Sticky Parkin 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods, Parkin, I could only watch that up until "therapy session" (the words, not even the event). What are you trying to do, punish him more? Or is this a not-so-subtle way of reminding him that the nutcases are still out there?

MastCell, you know how I feel. I will be good and lie and tell you that I accept and respect your decision. I don't, of course. But you have my email, if you ever want to bitch or ask for anything. (hugs) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Was always a pleasure to work with you, MastCell. Very sorry to see you go and much impressed by all you've achieved here. By the way, have you tried Googling the first sentence of your biblical quotation? You rank fourth already (and I'm ashamed to say I smiled at the accompanying lavatorial humour). Enjoy your break. Trezatium (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A Rose for MastCell? Pay no attention to the wildly inappropriate (to the story) cover art. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great story; one of my all-time favorites! The Zelazny, that is, not MastCell leaving, which is a sad tale indeed. But do what's right for you and if you ever feel like returning -- even for an occasional eradication of harmful nonsense -- please do. All the best! Antandrus (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... the only science fiction I'm familiar with is the collected work of Kilgore Trout, but that story might be worth a look. MastCell ^Talk 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, well worth reading. I highly recommend. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding: I had no idea we had an article on it, but what's wrong with the art? It isn't good art, but there is a redhead dancing, which at least shows some passing familiarity to the story. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, wildly inappropriate is rather an exaggeration (and being the original F&SF cover, it is the correct illustration), but the bright 1960s colors do not convey to me the proper sense of elegant decay.

And MC - I do high pressure / low temperature physics, so if you ever need a little Ice IX, just ask. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Kilgore Trout, I noticed that Philip Jose Farmer just passed away... MastCell ^Talk 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading part of the Riverworld series when I was in College (you know, back when we actually had to use slide rules for physics equations--yes, slide rules) and grad/professional school (I had advanced to a 4 function calculator from TI). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, MastCell. It can do a world of good. Come back if and when the batteries are recharged. SirFozzie (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Like SF said. The project will still be here in a week or a month. Take it easy and enjoy your well-earned break. --John (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Death threats by 66.99.218.13

I posted to WP:ANI#Death threats by 66.99.218.13. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll remember to stay away from the public library next time I'm in Glendale Heights, just to be on the safe side. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Roger Birkman

Came across this on new page patrol. Not sure what to make of it. Mast was my go to guy for this kind of thing, so if someone else has an interest in this type of article please let me know. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the obvious Google check, and there seems to be enough to support notability, but it's all puff pieces for his methods (by others as well as him). Google scholar shows a couple of lightly-cited articles and his books. Obviously the article reads rather like an ad, but I doubt that there will be reliable sources for anything more balanced.JQ (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA?

Good to see you back. I'd like to take some of the burden of blocking socks (most obviously KiK) and protecting their target articles, instead of bothering you with requests of this kind. I assume this involves an RfA process, about which I don't know much. Do you have any advice? JQ (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you would be a great admin and would be happy to advise or support you if you'd like to go through that process. On the other hand, as an admin you wouldn't be using the tools in areas where you're an active editor, so I'm not sure it would really help with blocking KiK socks - so it might not be worth the trouble if that's the main focus. Send me an email, and we'll chat. MastCell ^Talk 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

During the trials and tribulations at Talk:Sarah Palin you advised that I...Model the behavior you would like to see. Very good advice. The best I've had yet!--Buster7 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you found it helpful - I'm still not convinced it actually works, but it sounds good, don't it? :) MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it tends to increase the total number of people practicing that behaviour by at least 1. I consider that in itself a success. If everybody did it .... Seriously, though, I think it really does work: slowly or non-obviously maybe, or maybe just keeps things as they are rather than giving the other person excuses or motivation to behave even worse.☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing behaviour at Babesia article

Hi. I note that you have made some substantive contributions to the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?

Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Thanks for reminding me of why I don't participate in Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Adreamsoul (talk)

Hmm. You don't participate here because you're not allowed to spam Google videos promoting AIDS denialism? Our loss, I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't participate here because shills like you block information from appearing that you don't agree with. Enjoy your life spending all of your day reverting changes on wikipedia. Adreamsoul (talk)

I wonder if it would be considered "spam" if it supported your chosen hypothesis Adreamsoul (talk)

Is it just me, or is there a rash of this in the past week? I wonder which chat board it was this time... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Full moon. You know, the authors of HIV Denial in the Internet Era really should have included a short section on Wikipedia... MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you quit. I miss your vandalizing my user talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't quit, but I have cut back to a bare minimum. I can't really summon the energy to care about improving the site substantially at present. However, there is still a part of me which doesn't want Wikipedia to turn into an active promoter of dangerous ignorance - hence the edits to AIDS denialism. I will make an effort to stop by your talk page more often during my occasional forays here. :) MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."--Michael Corleone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad you're still editing AIDS denialism when you can. As they say, if MastCell didn't exist, someone would have to invent MastCell. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Voltaire. You know, he once wrote that he had only one prayer, and a short one at that: "O Lord, make my enemies quite ridiculous!" He felt that God was exceedingly generous in granting this request. As do I, in this particular venue. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term shill always makes me laugh! Shot info (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so that I remain sane, does Wikipedia attract a certain type of nutter, or are we seeing a representative sampling of how people think about these type of topics? I'm going to have my own type of denialism in believing that most people don't believe in this crap, and Wikipedia just attracts people with an agenda. Please don't try to convince me otherwise. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Always keep in mind that half of the population is of below-average intelligence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

...I had always wondered why a substantial fraction of people prefer to get medical advice from a playboy bunny than from their doctor... Baccyak4H (Yak!)

Most alternative medicine types know nothing about medicine, science, or how to quickly calculate tips. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your reason for removing the link to Christine Maggiore's memorial website from her wikipedia entry? I can't understand your decision. The only reason I can think of is bias. Sadunkal (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Busy work ?

In case you're interested in semi-mindless cleanup needs ? User talk:Maralia#Osteochondritis dissecans: it passed FAC, but doesn't meet my standards for medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch out, the main editor on that article is very sensitive to criticism of his work and has followers who attack critics on his behalf. Don't wanna see you get burned out just as you came back. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay

Welcome back, good sir. Welcome back. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no one is supposed to know that I'm back. And it's only in a very limited capacity. But thank you. :) MastCell ^Talk 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For once this link is entirely appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Son of a... :P MastCell ^Talk 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I really appreciate your message. I also very much appreciate your overall approach to discussing content disputes, as far as I've seen. As I see it, having different opinions about how to apply policy, guidelines etc. in a specific situation is fine. Discussion of such differences of opinion can be productive, enjoyable and a learning experience. (I tend by nature to lean towards inclusionism, but admit that deletion is also an essential part of building a good encyclopedia.) What I like about your approach is the extent to which you demonstrate respect for the other parties during such discussions. During my early months on Wikipedia I learned some important things from you about Wikipedia policy and how Wikipedia works in practice, and I hope to continue to have opportunities to work with and learn from you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like my ability to set a useful example has degraded substantially over the past few months. Some of the frustrations inherent in this model are getting to me. That was the main rationale behind my (semi-successful) decision to withdraw - I don't want to go down the usual tail-end of the admin career arc, where I get crankier and crankier... anyhow, thanks for your note, and best wishes. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to try to help you with those frustrations, as I tried here. I think that proposal might have gone somewhere if I had introduced it differently: I made the mistake of posting it when I hadn't edited the page for nearly a year, and without introducing myself or stating that I had edited the page previously or why I had returned, etc. It might have been better to do some other edits and discussion at the page first and then post a proposal. Anyway, it seems possible to me that although that proposal didn't take off, it may have helped lead to the solution that was eventually found, i.e. banning Heelop. Jehochman has also said (sorry I may not be able to find the diff) that he's willing to show people how to handle disruptive editors (or something along those lines). If you're interested, a first step would be to describe what the sources of frustration are. I hope you're enjoying your semi-break and I hope it's helping. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Jehochman. He's a good egg. In the end, though, dealing with disruptive or agenda-driven editors requires patience. There's just no substitute for patience, as a necessary starting point. Right now I don't really have the patience. Maybe I will, again, at some point in the future. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly respect that choice. At the same time: I think processes and practices can be changed so that less patience is required. An important first step in my opinion is gathering thorough, precise information about what makes it difficult for good editors such as yourself to continue participating. This is important not only for your sake but in order to lay the groundwork for positive changes that will benefit others similar to yourself. Also, perhaps I could help in some specific situations. I could try to cover the patience part while you play a more distant role. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Mortician103. Bringing up the sockpuppetry is sort of like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. I agree the Disruption and POV-pushing were much more significant. Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

your question on talk:Orgone

with respect to [2] this]:

A) of course science has a point of view, it's just a point of view that limits itself to empirical evidence and reasoned deductions. or maybe 'worldview' is a better term than 'point of view', which has some negative implications. science has a very particular worldview steeped in enlightenment-era epistemological and ontological assumptions. what the arbcom ruling means (as far as I can make sense of it) is that the findings of scientific research cannot in and of themselves be considered a point of view: Research says A happens, then A happens; the research may or may not be flawed, but either way it is not an opinion. however (as we both know) the conclusions drawn from research are filtered through the worldview of the scientist. for example (from Orgone) Einstein didn't say that 'orgonomic heat' (or whatever Reich called it) didn't exist: of course it existed - that was an observable fact. What Einstein did said was that Reich's interpretation of that heat was not sufficiently skeptical, that Reich wasn't sticking to established methodological procedures, and that (with some detachment) any number of simpler explanations for the effect could be found. In short, Reich was not operating within the boundaries of the scientific worldview, and Einstein was. the advantage of the scientific worldview, of course is that it's robust: things that get stated from the scientific perspective are verifiable and replicable. the disadvantage is that it's limited: some things (like moral or ethical statements) are totally alien to it.

B) you're confusing 'minority view' with 'incorrect view' - science is not a democracy. in many cases (and particularly with intellectual pursuits) the better view is only understood by a minority. More to the point, with respect to a topic like Orgone science has very little to say (except, maybe, 'wha-hunh?'). If I were going to give some lecture about Orgone, for instance, I'd find that the vast majority of the writing on this topic is going to be by Reich and his followers (and by people talking about them). I'd want to talk about modern scientific perspectives as well, just to maintain my own self-respect (because I wouldn't want anyone thinking I believed that stuff), but only to the extent needed to demonstrate that I'm not deluded and that orgone isn't a functional concept. it's not a lecture about modern science, it's a lecture about Orgone. same thing with a WP article, except that we have to argue about it. sure, the scientific perspective is better (if you'll pardon the understatement); sure, we need to make it clear that Orgone doesn't work. but other than that, science has nothing to say about orgone, and so it simply cannot be the majority view with respect to orgone. I mean, your logic goes to all sorts of absurd places if we pursue it: does science represent the majority view on Catholic doctrine, or does the Pope? Galileo was right and the Pope was wrong about the way the universe actually works, but with respect to Catholic doctrine the Pope was the majority (by virtue of being the only) point of view. see what I'm getting at? --Ludwigs2 00:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ludwigs, you ever heard of the Galileo gambit? Perhaps you should rethink your own personal logic prior to criticising others? Shot info (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: With regard to your final point, I'm sure you see the weakness of the reductio ad absurdum you're creating. Of course science has nothing meaningful to say about Catholic doctrine - it's a matter of faith. The appropriate authorities to reference would be the Church itself, noted independent religious scholars, and the occasional tenured professor of theology and canon law. On the other hand, when Wilhelm Reich makes a bunch of claims about observerable physical reality, then current scientific understanding represents the mainstream context for those claims. I really have no problem with going on at length about Reich's claims and their sociocultural context, so long as the material is independently and appropriately sourced; I suspect we'd agree on 99% of content decisions in the article.

I don't really have the patience for metaphysical or philosophical discussions on Wikipedia. I guess I could argue that science doesn't have a point of view, but that many points of view prioritize science (rationalism, positivism, materialism, etc). But that would just remind me of why I changed course and dropped out of a career in the humanities to acquire a useful, applied skill set. :P MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Shot: no, I haven't, aside from looking at the page right now. I hope you don't think that's what I've done.

@ MC: well, if you don't want to discuss it that's cool; I just wanted to get the discussion off the orgone talk page. and you're right, I've never had a problem editing with you, because you and I tend to get to more or less the same place by different routes. it's all good...

I will say, however, that you're missing the point above: again, it's that context thing that everyone loves to ignore. You're perfectly happy to allow Catholic doctrine to be explained from the context of the Catholic church, but for some reason you believe Orgone needs to be explained from a physics context completely alien to Orgone (remember, Reich was a psychologist/medical doctor by training, who deluded himself into a universal cosmology). it's a bit bizarre. not much of a problem with you, of course, because (as I said) we tend to end up in the same place anyway. but it's a bad standard for some other editors who take the idea too literally, and set off trying to 'prove' things that no one in the scientific world really gives a fig about. IMO (and without all the silly wikilawyer stuff about majorities and minorities, mainstreams and fringes, and etc.) something like Orgone needs to be described from its own perspective (because nothing else can really describe it adequately), and critiqued from a scientific perspective (because nothing else can critique it adequately). that's just common sense.

but whatever... it's really kind of a lost cause trying to make this point on wikipedia, when I have editors (like our friend shot info here) who only bother to listen as far as necessary to find a target. The reason I've kept at it this long is that I have a great affection for scientific reasoning and hate to see it get abused in the peculiar way that die hard anti-fringe editors abuse it (as well as die hard fringe editors, but I run across them less frequently). well, plus, it's an interesting exercise trying to communicate complex ideas in this environment; I can't imagine worse conditions for it. Believe me, I'm not wrong about any of this, but there's only so far you can get when the other people in the conversation are working off their own inner dialogs. --Ludwigs2 06:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"like our friend shot info here" - LOL - you're a funny guy sometimes :-). You were the one using the Gambit - and caught out. If you wish Orgone to be discussed as a religion and/or belief-system then say so rather than wiki-lawyering your way around it. Shot info (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Curiously enough, despite his self assurance and strong views, Ludwigs2 stayed remarkably quiet during the "Fringe science" ArbCom where Orgone was often mentioned (for example in my evidence). Almost everything Ludwigs2 is bringing up was discussed in great detail there and negated by the final guidelines. There at least, because the discussion was in public, we were spared personal attacks. Despite the fact that ArbCom has pronounced that the scientific method is not a point of view, he persists in pushing the opposite opinion. Aren't these exactly the tactics of the pushers of pseudoscience that ArbCom also pronounced upon - the slow wearing down of a perceived opposition by constant repetition of the same fallacious argument? Of course, if Ludwigs2 persists, that ArbCom case could be invoked and he could find himself the subject of a topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@ shot: as I said, you didn't read what I actually wrote, but just looked for the closest snarky thing you could say. read what I wrote, and tell me how you think your galileo gambit thing applies (setting aside the incidental fact that both use galileo). or you can just keep spouting out one-liners; I really don't care either way.

@ Mathsci: I stayed 'remarkably quiet' during that because I took a long wikibreak (I had other stuff to do, and I was tired of being hunted by a couple of (expletives deleted) who had developed an idée fixe that I was an evil fringe POV-pusher who needed to be destroyed; there's only so much harassment I'm willing to put up with). I didn't start editing seriously again until mid february, and didn't learn about the arbcom case until after it was closed. your comment constitutes a bad inference. and yes, I'm entitled to think that (a) ArbCom made a wrong decision (if they did, which isn't what I was suggesting), and (b) that editors are interpreting that that decision incorrectly (which in my mind is clearly true).

and please let me point out: what I've written on this page (well, 90% of it) is a philosophical argument about the relationship between various domains of knowledge. What you and shot info have written (95%) is commentary about me and what I'm doing and what I'm thinking. my philosophical argument might be 'fallacious' or might be 'reasonable': you've never bothered to address it, so you lose all rights to criticize me for talking about it. if you don't like my ideas, fine: tell me why you don't like my ideas, and we'll figure out whether I'm right or wrong. but either way, get the hell off my back, because your paranoid insinuations are irritating. --Ludwigs2 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

lol, shot already defeated the last half of your argument in his first comment with his reference to the galileo gambit: Wilhelm Reich is not Galileo, orgone was not a major scientific breakthrought that could revolutionate the world, wikipedia is not the middle ages catolic church, and wikipedia is not trying to censor stuff in order to preserve a system of beliefs.

The first part of your argument is that Reich simply used a different viewpoint than Einstein. That's nice, but the scientific part of orgone should still be reported as modern science sees it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of unfortunate that the current debate on these topics has ossified. I don't think Ludwigs2 is suggesting that orgone is a censored Great Truth, or an unjustly maligned phenomenon. I think he's just raising a philosophical question about the demarcation between "scientific" and "non-scientific" topics on Wikipedia. Personally, I think orgone falls under the former rubric, since it appropriated some of the language and methodology of science (particularly to sell its products). Ludwigs2 sees orgone as fundmaentally non-scientific and thus appropriately explained in a different context.

Here's the problem (speaking from experience). Once one's watchlist grows beyond a certain point, particularly if it includes scientific or proto-scientific topics, one quickly becomes amazed and horrified at the number of people who are committed to abusing Wikipedia to promote their particular pet obscure fringe belief. The human brain is designed to recognize patterns and draw abstract, generalized conclusions from concrete data points, so one quickly adapts the cognitive set that Wikipedia is a magnet for "fringe POV-pushers". Which, incidentally, it is. The problem, as with any heuristic, is that by employing this useful cognitive shortcut you lose the finer distinctions.

I'll put my record up against anyone's in terms of "protecting" Wikipedia from harmful, abusive fringe-agenda-driven editing. That said, I do wish there was more oxygen here. There's virtually no middle ground left; people have to migrate and cling to one or the other extreme. I don't think that useful collaboration can flourish when people are immediately assigned to the "debunker" or "fringe pusher" camps. We (and by "we", I mean people who actually care about this place as a freely accessible source of knowledge) need to do a better job of differentiating people who are here primarily to promote a claim from those who share the project's goals but simply have different opinions on how to reach them. The former should be more quickly shown the door; the latter should be identified and supported. The most effective bulwark against fringe POV-pushing isn't a set of "mainstream" editors ready to drop the hammer; it's a group of reasonable people with "alternative" views who are willing to wear their Wikipedian hats while they're on the site. We're chasing away the people who should be our natural allies (User:Dematt comes immediately to mind).

The current state of affairs is no one's fault; like I said, it has to do with the system here, where the burden of fighting off the hordes of loonies who want their pet belief featured on a top-10 website falls on the backs of individual, poorly supported editors. It creates an unhealthy and jaundiced worldview. The only cure I know of is to take a break, and let someone else take the wheel from time to time. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell, that was very well said. I'm going to back off from this discussion now (confronting the same minor misconception from different editors in three consecutive makes me think continued effort is pointless). MastCell, if you have any advice for how I can get out of everyone's bad-books and get treated as a relatively reasonable editor, send me an email. I tend to think there's too much bad blood at this point, but I'm willing to give something new a go if you have any ideas. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent> On a more optimistic note, if NPOV policy is followed so that any reader, no matter how innocent or uninformed, is clearly shown the mainstream view at the outset and not misled by opening with an uncritical fringe view, then all should be well. Hopefully Ludwigs will appreciate the need to take care to achieve that. Fortunately, comrade Boris has produced a tactful opening which appears reasonable.[3] Now, anyone interested in an orgasmotron or an Orgone accumulator, slightly used? Remember, Wilhelm Reich died in prison, a free man..... dave souza, talk 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Refresh my memory - Orgone is more or less like a cross between ectoplasm, the force, and ethereal matter, right? and has nothing to do with Magic Pee? I ask because I accidentally ended up trying to discuss policy with people who believed in Magic Pee, and I got there from MastCell's talk page. I am not desirous of repeating the occurrence. thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, guys, that was funny! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)p

My talk page is a useful jumping-off point for exploring various alternative concepts and emerging hypotheses. Magic Pee being one of them. I would agree that a belief in Magic Pee is probably strongly prognostic of the futility of convincing someone of the value of Wikipedia's policies, or maybe it's just something in the pee. In the end, I find it useful to remember that there are basically only two kinds of people in the world: those who will drink their own urine in the belief that it's healthful, and those who won't. Nothing written on Wikipedia is likely to move anyone from one category to the other - not for lack of trying. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the topic raised by Ludwig, our article Wilhelm Reich says "Reich conducted his own defense, (...) arguing that a court was no place to decide matters of science", so even Reich considered that Orgone is a scientific topic and not a non-scientific one? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, but Reich wasn't a scientist. The Magic Pee people think that's scientific too, you know. So did the Hollow earthers, of whom I believe there are still a few extant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Earth isn't hollow why does it float? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric - just a comment: if Reich had been born 50 years later he'd be one of those new-age gurus (and orgone would be something like 'the unconscious manifestation of the universal life-affirming principle'). if he'd been born 50 years earlier he'd have been an analytic spiritualist (and orgone would have been 'the Godhead revealed', maybe). it's just an accident of history that he was born into a time when people were looking for scientific panaceas rather than spiritual or metaphysical panaceas. the odd thing (from my perspective) is that if either of those eventualities had happened, no one here would be overly concerned about orgone as a topic - it would get a nice balanced treatment as an odd little philosophical/religious/whatever viewpoint. but as it is, it becomes the bone of a whole lot of contention, and a target for offended editors on both sides. I do understand why, but I still see it as an unfortunate bias.

@ Boris: the earth floats because of all that Orgone in the mantle. remember, the denser Orgone gets, the more buoyant it becomes.

don't you just love a theory that can explain everything? --Ludwigs2 23:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but can Orgone explain Magic Pee? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

well, no. but it can explain Magic Mushrooms. or maybe that's the other way around... --Ludwigs2 00:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Footballer's ankle

Hmmm... I see Mast is on break? I was wondering if he or someone else with medical expertise could take a look at this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really a very successful break, but I'm trying. Can't say I'm an orthopedic expert; footballer's ankle is a real condition, though our article is pretty rudimentary at the moment. Consider the following as a start on sourcing:

PMID 12136812: From a smallish Chinese journal, but at least substantiates the name "footballer's ankle"
PMID 16798513: review article from 2006 on anterior ankle impingement (== footballer's ankle)
PMID 1798321: Old article, but deals specifically with ankle injuries common to soccer players.

Hope that's useful - good luck. MastCell ^Talk 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Worst AfD ever?

Is there an award for something like Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Robert_Young? --Ronz (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is a "Cellular Nutritionist" anyways? I mentally picture a guy in a white lab robe crouching over petri dishes with a drop counter, feeding nutrients to hungry cells. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please desist from making factually inaccurate changes to the article on orthomolecular medicine. OM does involve inter alia remediating rare genetic disorders with unpatented compounds, which you claim is not the case!--Alterrabe (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hello. I'll assume you've forgotten what vandalism is. Beyond that, I'd welcome a discussion of the sources and claims at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. That article has been a long-term sinkhole of poorly-sourced editorial advocacy; if my edits went overboard in correcting its flaws, then I'm sure we'll be able to come to a reasonable, source-based compromise on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloody priceless: "yes, just another stop on my lengthy career of vandalizing medical articles; thanks again for the constructive feedback, and keep up the fine work" Jim62sch^dissera! 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm clearly entering the sarcastic, burnt-out, terminal phase of my career as a Wikipedia editor and admin. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting there too. As WWII Russian soldiers might note, drinking antifreeze can be a thrill, but it does catch up with you. Of course, WP might be battery acid. YMMV. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as Antony Beevor (or someone) wrote, the average life expectancy of a new Red Army recruit crossing the Volga to the Battle of Stalingrad was less than 24 hours. So that probably factored into the decision to drink antifreeze. I guess what I'm saying is that it's a matter of deciding what you think will catch up to you first. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia to keep my processor churning out enough heat to keep my fingers warm and to get me all sparked up in the morning - it is the Hongcheng Magic Liquid of teh internets! - Eldereft (cont.) 00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NS

Hey MC, I don't agree with Alterrabe (either on vandalism or remediating rare genetic disorders, at least not proven ones). One of these days I'll detail some of the problems in that article and we can discuss. And sorry if I came off harsh on over at WT:MEDRS. II | (t - c) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem; no hard feelings. In fact, I can't even remember what the MEDRS discussion was about. Senility; I'm getting too old for this shit. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the following things are not "unreferenced"

a) the official blog of a political party as a reference to a party's political statements.

b) National public policy blogs that link to nationally broadcast news programs as references for the content of the interview.

Wikipedia does have a problem with manufacturing of information. These types of sources do not represent such a problem for the information available herein.

For example, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal WAS criticised by the CT Republican Party for supporting Mayor Perez's re-election and he WAS criticised in a Glenn Beck interview over the AIG bonuses.

While a reader may find these criticisms undeserved, it is not a POV issue to identify the criticism did occur. Otherwise, NPOV will degenerate into a "puff piece" standard for living people, or perhaps just living U.S. Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's step back. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Does Encyclopedia Brittanica make a note of it everytime Glenn Beck criticizes someone? This wasn't even notable enough to make it onto the Yahoo! News blurbs that recycle every 15 minutes, yet you think it deserves significant mention in an encyclopedic bibliography? Wikipedia is not news, and I'd encourage you to resist the temptation to add the latest Glenn Beck talking points (or anyone's, really) to Wikipedia biographies. It's recentism. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The smell of astroturf in the afternoon...

Don't have time dig into now, but this looks fishy: Fat Head (Documentary). For a "movie" released in 2009, there are surprising few (i.e. zero) google news hits[4], so I'm thinking the article is probably candidate for some kinda deletion process. But the bigger question is which bunch of industry hacks is (probably) behind this thing. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A safe link for you

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TYvldOuZ6_k I promise. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Thank you for taking care of that. I would hate to think that my inability to remember that I opened the SSP page for a reason might have deleterious effects on the 'pedia for more than a few hours.

Also, ave et salve. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:McDonald's Incorporated

Hi MastCell,

Can you shed any light on this edit you made? Do you suspect the user of sockpuppetry? I was thinking about blocking the user for impersonating McDonalds but I'm really confused now! I've opened a thread at ANI to figure things out. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most new users don't immediately set about attaching odd tags to banned editors' userpages. That's sort of an odd motivation for joining the project. It's the alternate account of someone who's been here before. Doesn't really matter whose. Since it was being silly but not actively harmful, I figured I'd just leave a word on their usertalk page rather than blocking them. Looks like someone else blocked them, so there probably isn't much more to say. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Peda typh

What should be included in this type of article? I'm tempted to trim and clean up aggresively, but I'm not sure what is standard for medication articles. I have it watched if someone wants to do the appropriate work and then I will try to follow along... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be merged and redirected to Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccine. The company material should be removed and the peer-reviewed third-party sources should be used. Examples of this approach include rotavirus vaccine and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. I can put it on my list, but I'm not editing much anymore (or trying not to). :) MastCell ^Talk 03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User Phillind

Hi, Back in August, you were telling this guy to stop creating hoaxes. I have found him claiming that Winston Churchill collaborated with a certain children's writer named Ferzakerly Kernott on one of his autobiographies.

So this guy is just full o' shit, is he?

Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)

Looks like Phillind (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since August 2008 (there are deleted contribs that led to the hoax warning). Given his history, I'd be pretty suspicious of anything he added. Probably worth just going ahead and removing it, and it can always be reinserted if someone comes up with a source. Most likely, it's a hoax. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI topic ban

Hi - you may want to consider extending your topic ban of CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to further include all politics related matters, procedures, and interaction with editors he has antagonized before. CENSEI just filed another bogus / retaliatory 3RR report [5] against Scjessey, an editor he has antagonized for some time over Obama-related issues, in the midst of Scjessey's involvement at AN/I with trouble from another disruptive editor at Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These sneak attacks are not good and represent a continuation of whatever it was CENSEI was doing before. Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please Wikidemon, give me a break. CENSEI (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no break for the tendentious. MastCell is an experienced administrator and can make up his/her own mind on this. Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You misspelled "tenditious." HTH. HAND. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been handled at WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PAMom

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template. I've added the template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'll do that next time. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI

I'm quoting his words back at him. If you think that's unfair, feel free to revert. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to remove other peoples' comments from other peoples' talk pages, so I'll leave it. I understand what you're doing, and obviously I agree with the general consensus that CENSEI wasn't suited to edit here. It's not really a matter of fairness - more a matter of taking the high road, being the bigger person, letting him leave with some semblance of dignity if he chooses to, etc. I'll leave it up to you as to what to do. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't fully understand, but I'll try and explain it: Other than his ignorant comments about me (I actually am over 6 foot), what really offended me was his abandonment of Axmann8, who had defended CENSEI when CENSEI was throwing that "chocolate messiah" stuff around; but when Axmann8 idiotically started using that phrase himself, he ended up getting indef'd, and CENSEI was suddenly shy about getting into a controversy. From that, there were only two possible conclusions I could reach: (1) CENSEI and Axmann8 are actually the same guy, which I doubt; or (2) CENSEI is incredibly self-centered and hypocritical, which I would easily believe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

who is the sockmaster of this guy?

For User talk:Costelloandson, it seems that he is back as 24.244.144.126 (talk · contribs). Could you check that and leave a message on the IP talk page with the name of the sockmaster? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Handled. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most probably this character, a hardened and relentless puppetteer who's wiki life revolves around promotion of his therapy DDP. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

at it again as soon as the block expired.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth a bit of semiprotection. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we have this article?

Mastcell, can you take a look at EIF4G3? It is a sub-stub with a long "further reading" list. Does it merit inclusion? Who would know enough to improve it to stub length? GRBerry 02:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was created and maintained largely by bots/semiautomated tools. It's under the umbrella of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, so I'd check with them - they're actually one of the best WikiProjects we've got, so they'll probably be responsive. If you want a go-to person, I'd leave a note for TimVickers (talk · contribs) - he's a class act and the go-to person for the MCB WikiProject.

I know that one school of thought holds that all genes are "notable". The idea is that Wikipedia will be (among other things) a sort of mirror or expansion of GeneWiki. Not sure how I feel about content-less stubs that are just reference lists - it seems that we're just duplicating PubMed or other biomedical search engines on some level - but I assume that the MCB WikiProject has given some thought to the matter. I hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit. The decision we made was that all genes that had been studied and had references associated with them were notable, we ignored genes that are entirely hypothetical or were only mentioned in the middle of the kind of list you get from microarray experiments. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. The improved article is much more likely to be useful to a reader. (I'd hit it via "Random article".) GRBerry 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

template

Some issue here with the protection template on Dyadic developmental psychotherapy. Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the protection expired, but the template was still there. A bot used to catch those, but I guess there's also a user-patrolled category. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Deer

Dear MastCell,

It seems you removed some of my edits about Brian Deer and possible conflicts of interests in the MMR controversy. The reason invoked was that I am the only one claiming such conflicts of interests. This is not true. Anyway, I just pointed out some facts. 1. Brian Deer works for the Sunday Times (you can check that easily) 2. Rupert Murdoch is the owner of the Sunday Times (you can also check that) 3. James Murdoch is Rupert Murdoch' son 4. From May 2009, James Murdoch will be part of the Board of GSK (as written on their website) If all this cannot be written, then it is clear to me that Wikipedia is biased. You are ready to leave comments on an investigation by Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield but not ready to tell your readers that they should be careful in reading this investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.244.10 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're curious why you're not allowed to connect those dots to malign someone on Wikipedia, you may want to look at our policy on original research, particularly its section on original synthesis. Please also take a look at our policy on biographical articles on living people; the sourcing requirements are fairly strict, for obvious reasons, and the sort of six-degrees-of-defamation that you're trying to construct isn't going to fly. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That is such a classic example of planned OR and SYNTHESIS that it should be used as an example on those policy pages of exactly what NOT to do. It really is worth copying. Conspiracy theories are such a waste of time, and definitely not RS anywhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brother, can you spare a Barnstar?

[BARNSTAR MOVED] Thank you for your comments at Talk:Zidovudine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; you're very kind. Isn't it sad how low the bar is? A basic belief that smoking carries health risks, or that the Earth is round, or that HIV causes AIDS immediately puts one in the "sensible" category of Wikipedians. :) I'm almost afraid to tell you to take a look at Talk:Duesberg hypothesis. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you moved the barnstar. There is no obvious link from your userpage where you store your barnstars, but I found it by reviewing your contributions. Now I see that I awarded you a similar barnstar over a year ago. ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you continue debating at "Duesberg hypothesis". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least we're both consistent. :) I got rid of my barnstars when I got fed up and took a break a couple of months ago, but since I'm editing again I figured I should collect them and link them somewhere. Right after your note, I added a link from my userpage to the collection. Anyhow, thanks again, and keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice to my shame that I have NEVER given you a barnstar. My apologies. [BARNSTAR MOVED] Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm raking them in... I should do this more often. Thank you very much. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Collect

Given your experience at the Palin article, you may wish to comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This made me smile

[6] :) I think he might be the second or third, but... thanks for that. Your suggestions in that post are good ones, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AAS

There is still a lot of that kind of thing in this article, it was written by an enthusiast. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm vacillating. On the one hand, I'm appalled by the article's promotional tone and glib misuse of the medical literature, and concerned that someone reading it might actually take its view of anabolic steroids as accurate, with unfortunate results. It's probably the single most dangerous and harmful article on Wikipedia right now. On the other hand, I don't really have the stomach for the extensive grind that it will take to deal with entrenched factors and improve the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just see it as a "controlled chronic episode". Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'll talk... MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuckle

... on your "fascism" comment. That's very true; it's actually quite funny. It seems to have become a generic term of abuse, typically invoked when the aroused party has run out of (or never had any) rational arguments. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't really take credit - it was Orwell's observation. You can't throw a stone without hitting an Orwell analogy on Wikipedia - someone mentioning doublespeak, or thoughtcrime, or memory holes. It's worse than Nazi analogies; even less actual thought goes into them. It is ironic to imagine Orwell reading Wikipedian discourse - the terms he invented to describe fascism have suffered the same fate (mindless, meaningless, thoughtless overuse) as he that which he observed in the term "fascist". Or maybe I'm overthinking it. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was just thinking about how the use of the term consensus on Wikipedia represents a form of doublespeak. II | (t - c) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean you - you're thoughtful and have read the book, I'm sure. It just seems that 1984 references have become a bit tired around here. Or maybe I really have come to love Big Brother :P MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't noticed many 1984 references, but I know you didn't mean me because I think the above was my first one. ;) By the way, everyone at my high school (which was quite average) had to read the book, so that doesn't say much. I don't know whether I think any 1984 references aside from the one about consensus make much sense. The thought on consensus was provoked by someone saying that a 60% majority against autopromotion was a "clear consensus". I sometimes see people invoking the word consensus even when they are significantly in the minority. The word consensus is an easily and often-abused term, though. I've been reading Galbraith's The Great Crash, 1929, and on page 70 he has a quote from Princeton professor Joseph Stagg Lawrence in 1929: "The consensus of ... the millions ... is that stocks are are not at present overvalued ... where is that group of men with the all-embracing wisdom which will entitle them to veto the judgment of this intelligent multitude"? Of course, Stagg Lawrence was probably closer to the consensus of economists at the time than many other statements which you see on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, "consensus" on Wikipedia actually means "consensus among people who know what they're talking about." That may look substantially different from "consensus of everyone who registered an opinion." That sort of distinction is essential if one is trying to build a serious, respectable reference work with an open-editing model. Of course, a judgment about whether someone is capable of ass-elbow differentiation always carries a subjective component. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...I'll just go back to writing doubleplusgood articles, or maybe just plusgood ones...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

<ri, as in la vache qui > What a splendidly swift response. Unfortunately the external link you provided gives me the rather Orwellian message 403 Forbidden You don't have permission to access /library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc on this server. Apache/1.3.31 Server at www.orwell.ru Port 80, so will just have to catch up on other reading. By the way, did you know that the Royal Bank of Scotland's headquarters in Dundas House has splendidly fascist railings ? . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seen on NewYorkBrad's talk page

Your comment: "It's a bit troubling when people reserve their harshest criticism for those who share their general worldview but are insufficiently zealous in enforcing it. That's one dividing line between responsible advocacy and fanaticism." Thanks for that: concise and useful. Is it original with you? Either way, I'm sure I'll be quoting it in the future, so thank you. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's original with me, I think - but then I have been known to suffer from cryptomnesia... glad you liked it. :) MastCell ^Talk 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep - not a bad saying at all. My great great grandfather, a politician and wit, said that nationalism is collective egotism. Dunno if he was the first but I never saw it elsewhere. Liked it.

PS: I was in the organic supermarket today and saw some beet sugar for folks who are allergic to cane sugar - I think my body would have some massive anaphylaxis with a sugar allergy....

[7] - gosh, should I be worried XD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes

Since you were the first person that I saw on the Administrators' noticeboard to talk about fresh eyes, I'm picking you at random. ☺ Please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne and tell us whether the evidence adds up the same way for you. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a truly exhaustive report. I came to the same conclusion as you - but then, I tend toward the suspicious side when it comes to sockpuppetry. It looks like the case has already wrapped up - I went ahead and tied up one loose end. I think you reached the right conclusion. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a hand

I hate to do this to you, I know you are rather busy/stressed, but I could use a hand with the sniping on talk:Abortion and a san check of what I've been doing. If you can't/won't/don't have time to do it, could you refer this to someone who does?--05:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have only one rule on Wikipedia: avoid abortion-related articles at all costs. I broke my own rule once - because of an aggressively counterfactual and ideological article at abortion and mental health - and it led to a 6-month saga culminating in the only ArbCom case I have ever filed. That said, I will take a look, but I can't promise much. The go-to people on those topics, in terms of sanity, used to include User:Andrew c and User:Severa. Severa is long gone; not sure if Andrew c still participates. You could try User:GTBacchus as well - I think he has tried to resolve abortion-related issues on-wiki before. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I miss Severa, and GTbacchus and Andrew c when they're around do their best. Thanks anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do actually have one other rule on Wikipedia: try at all costs to avoid getting into a back-and-forth with User:Ferrylodge. Admittedly I did break this one recently at Talk:Clarence Thomas, but every time I violate it I regret it. And it looks like this would involve breaking both rules. :) I will take a look, but my past experience with Ferrylodge on abortion-related topics is probably somewhat prejudicial. I have a fairly strongly formed opinion about his editing on those topics, and so am not approaching each new incident with a completely open (or naive) perspective. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Attachment pages

Unfortunately as soon as these pages became unprotected the same sock edits have appeared courtesy of this IP and this new user Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reprotected. MastCell ^Talk 05:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

quell surprise....aargh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

11 out of 10 for persistence, eh? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

it's still blacklisted at meta

From here, the lenr-canr.org website is still blacklisted at meta[8], in case you weren't aware. Your statement sort of makes it look as if lenr-canr was no longer blacklisted. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; I will profess ignorance about the workings of the spam blacklist. I suppose then it was only New Energy Times which was deblacklisted, then. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. lenr-canr was blacklisted first at the local blacklist, and then it got delisted when it was added at the meta blacklist, since the local blacklist mechanisms use both its local blacklist and the meta blacklist. Having the same link in the two blacklists is redundant and it's just extra work for the blacklist filter. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Crappification

Add a no-bot tag, abandon ship and remove inbound links. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to work on something that huge numbers of people are actually reading, your expertise would be most welcome at influenza, influenza pandemic, 2009 swine flu outbreak, swine flu and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1‎. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look; thanks for the suggestions. MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin article doesn't look so bad. Guessing from your username, might you be a person who could help with cytokine storm? Another suddenly-prominent article that is in pretty bad shape. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Broda Otto Barnes

I just want to weigh in that I am impressed with your level headedness on this AfD. It's an excellent case study of the good and bad of the process. Anyway, I could give you a barnstar (still might), but thought you might just appreciate a modest "well done" and "keep up the good work" message. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I've been feeling like it's not my proudest moment on Wikipedia; I think I've probably given in to frustration more that I should have. I appreciate your note; it's good to know I'm not totally out in left field. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not. At the same time I can agree with DGG. But on the third hand I gave up reading the AfD about two thirds of the way through, and thus (as well as perhaps for other reasons) do not feel qualified to "!vote". (Would that more others had similar qualms.) Oh well, old man Barnes did also manage to publish in peer-reviewed journals (PRJ). Of course, such journals can publish stuff that it utterly wrong or even plain bad, but all in all we can have some trust in PRJ, or at least we can in those on (conventional, atomistic) medicine, if not those on "neurolinguistic programming" and so forth. ¶ Or so I thought until just today. And how naive I was (slashdotted). Isn't "free enterprise" wonderful?! -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that even the most august peer-reviewed journal cannot be expected to be eternally relevant. Material published in Science in the 1930s is not necessarily any more "correct" today than material published in the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine in the 1930s. In 1942, it was reasonable to use body temperature as a way of measuring thyroid function. Today, it's ludicrous to do so, because of the existence of far more accurate, specific, useful, and sophisticated measures. But that obvious and crucial point is lost in translation once the "process" starts proceeding.

The Barnes article illustrates what I consider a problematic phenomenon: his publications in reputable, peer-reviewed journals are listed to provide him with an air of notability and respectability, but the actual text of our article simply cites brodabarnes.com 50 times to hype the aspects of his work which are completely at odds with modern medical knowledge. Our article inappropriately commutes the respectability of his (outdated) peer-reviewed publications to his more outlandish claims. But perhaps AfD was the wrong venue in which to address that problem.

I have occasionally been approached to be on the editorial board, or even "editor-in-chief", of startup medical journals. I suspect many others in my position have as well. I can see the appeal - it's a line on the resume with (often) little actual work attached. But it doesn't shock me that Merck had a "house journal"; the peer-reviewed literature is full of traps like that. Interestingly, Wikipedia has made me more aware of them. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have modified a comment of mine there. You were right to object to it. My apologies. DGG (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I appreciate your response, and I'm sorry for giving you a hard time about it. You're a good egg. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he? My life would be so much poorer without disputes with DGG. I particularly enjoy those rare occasions when he votes "merge" (or even "delete"?) and I vote "keep". If he's ever around my part of the world, I'd be delighted to meet and buy him a beer (or whatever) or three. Anyway, noting that he voted to keep this article, I felt honor bound to vote delete. ¶ Really, this article gives me a queasy feeling. I do believe that a lot of honest work has gone into it, that it's genuinely informative, and that DGG and others bring up good arguments for it. If I may wildly fantasize for a moment and, in a damnably un-Wiki elitist way postulate a special WP for access by intelligent, highly literate adults only, I'd certainly say that this article should belong there. But as it is, it seems somehow deceptive in its likely effect. And as you say, its sourcing is very brittle. So, to an AfD that's already long, I've just added a long and tedious delete vote. (Sprinkle "!" in front of "vote" to taste, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't participate much at AfD but what really jumped out at me is that the two "sides" were almost talking past each other. Those voting to keep repeatedly responded to delete arguments by stating that the quality of the science wasn't the issue, even when those voting to delete weren't making that argument but were instead speaking to the quality of sourcing. Knowing the personalities involved I don't believe this was willful misrepresentation but failure to communicate. Whether that failure was on the part of the reader not reading critically and responding to what he or she expected to see, or the writer not writing sufficiently clearly, I can't say. But it's something we all should work on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure would be a shame if something happened to that intellectual reputation I've built up here... MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When writing my "delete" "!vote", I wondered if I might be exaggerating a little. If so, I've been overtaken: it now seems that its contributors have decided to amplify those weaknesses that you, I and others pointed out. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from here, and the article should be probably be trimmed. However, it does attribute the beliefs to Barnes, and his theories do not seem to be completely at odds with the medical literature. I don't think the article is that big of a deal. The subclinical hypothyroidism controversy is a real scientific controversy. In 2005 pro and con articles on revising the upward reference TSH number down argued about it (lowering TSH reference would increase the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism), with the pro article noting that a 2002 guideline proposed revising the upper range down from 5.5 to 3; a 2009 Mayo Clinic article says revising it down to 3 would increase diagnosis of hypothyroidism 4-fold. A 2007 HUNT article found a linear relationship with cholesterol; a 2008 article by the same group found a relationship with CHD morality. Findings like these aren't consistent; a massive 2007 review shows the situation to be fairly complicated, but it's not a wacky theory. By the way, all articles I've linked to have free full-text available. II | (t - c) 08:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources at Broda Otto Barnes are being used in a strange way, giving an impression of an unbalanced article. Conventionally in WP, we think that a person is notable when others write about them, even when those who write are non-technical. In an article about a medical scientist, we also want to know what the mainstream thinks about the medical theories of the article subject. A regular medical doctor with some conventional publications (dating from many years ago) who also holds views now generally considered to be fringe might need a bit of work to be sure the article comes out balanced. This work could probably be done but finding consensus for the needed changes could be messy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I agree on all counts.

II, the issue of subclinical hypothyroidism is a genuine medical controversy, as you mention. There are advocates of both lowering the TSH threshold (that is, relaxing diagnostic criteria) and making TSH criteria more stringent, for example by using age-adjusted norms for TSH. One could write a well-sourced, neutral, encyclopedic article covering this controversy, drawing on numerous reputable sources from the peer-reviewed medical literature much as you've done in your post, perhaps including PMID 14722150 (hopefully, something of this sort already exists in our hypothyroidism article, but I'm afraid to look). The Barnes article isn't going that route. In any case, Barnes' claims fall demonstrably outside even the fringes of the debate in mainstream medical circles. No change in diagnostic criteria would bring the prevalence of hypothyroidism anywhere near 40%. Even people who advocate treating subclinical hypothyroidism limit their arguments to improved lipid profile and possibly improved fatigue/nonspecific symptoms - the range of maladies ascribed by Barnes to subclinical hypothyroidism is, to use your word, wacky. There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of which supports Barnes' claim that "natural" thyroid hormone is superior to synthetic levothyroxine. Most importantly, Barnes did not employ the scientific method; he relates his own observations and hypotheses, supported by testimonials, anecdotes, and so forth. It's hard to be part of a scientific debate if you're not interested in rigorously testing your hypotheses; I'm sure I don't need to belabor the true-believer effect when subjective improvement is recorded in an uncontrolled setting where the observer believes strongly in the effectiveness of the treatment.

But of course these are mostly arguments about the subject itself; I find it interesting to discuss here, but I'm not going to pursue them on the article talk page. My main difficulties with the article content have to do with a) the obnoxious behavior of a couple of editors at the page, and b) the use and misuse of low-quality sources to create an article that is unreadable at best and misleading at worst. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I said the theory wasn't wacky because several of the maladies are symptoms of hypothyroidism, ie depression, joint pain, "apparent laziness in children" (lethargy). There might be some associations to cancer (eg hepatocellular carcinoma reported in 2009). By the way, the 2007 article you cited on the Barnes' talk page about age-adjusting the TSH acknowledges the problems with their hypothesis, and also said lowering the standard to 2.5 could diagnose as much as 35% of older people as hypothyroid. I haven't done enough research to say how much science Barnes did, but his article previously said that he spent much of his time looking at autopsy reports. Have you read his more recent research papers (PMID 4594123, PMID 472084, PMID 1206190). His hypotheses seem only a little more wacky than the hypotheses/conclusions surrounding antidepressants and stimulants for psychological problems ("wonder pills"), Vioxx, and the use of various drugs off-label. II | (t - c) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the symptoms of hypothyroidism are vague and non-specific. They overlap extensively with the symptoms of myriad other conditions, as well as the more general category of medically unexplained symptoms. Someone with excess fatigue, weight gain, lethargy, hypothermia, etc should definitely be evaluated for hypothyroidism, if it seems clinically appropriate. But virtually every human being suffers from fatigue, weight gain, menstrual irregularity, joint pain, etc at some point in their lives. It's part of the human condition. Occasionally it's due to hypothyroidism. Often it's not.

It's nonsense to claim that anyone with some combination of these common symptoms has hypothyroidism based on a slightly low basal temperature in the presence of normal thryoid-function testing. As to science, where is it? The basic algorithm for evaluating any diagnostic test is to choose a population of interest and a "gold standard" for diagnosing the disease in question. The population then undergoes both the experimental test and the "gold standard" test. That's how the operating characteristics of tests are explored systematically. Has anything like this ever been done with Barnes' test? Has anyone ever looked at the false-positive rate? How many people with fatigue or joint pains and a basal temp below 98.0F turned out not to have hypothyroidism?

You're sophisticated; I'm sure you know that anyone can mine PubMed to support any idea, no matter how out-there. Anything is theoretically possible; I'm talking about things that have some empiric evidence behind them. If M.D. Anderson reports an association between hypothyroidism and HCC in a case-control analysis, then I think that's an interesting finding that warrants further study. If a guy writes a book claiming that cancer (along with virtually every other human disease) is caused by hypothyroidism, then I'm a bit skeptical in the absence of supporting data.

Has there been any actual scientific evidence generated to support Barnes' claims? It appears to me (and I'm not an expert on Broda Barnes) that most of his work on hypothyroidism is in the form of testimonials common to late-night television ("Jane was feeling down and had gained 10 pounds. Her doctors told her she was depressed, but I put her on my special thyroid blend and 4 weeks later she was a new person!"), as well as anecdotal evidence and clinical impressions that uniformly support his preferred hypothesis. You're more sophisticated that the average talk-page denizen, so I'm sure I don't need to belabor the problem there. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)