User talk:MastCell/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

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) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt like I was reading the book version of Minority Report

Might want to keep an eye on the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology for the next month or two. NW (Talk) 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why am I reminded of the opening scene of Ghostbusters? This might actually be a useful illustration when I give talks on introductory biostats, approaches to the medical literature, and Bayesian reasoning. Let's say the prior probability that psi phenomena exist is - what? - 5%, based on existing knowledge. And then you have a paper, or a series of papers, which find statistically significant evidence of psi phenomena with a p value of <0.05. What is the post-test likelihood that psi phenomena exist? What is the likelihood that the papers' findings are true, as opposed to false, positives?

Of course, the acknowledged authority on this sort of thing is John Ioannidis - his paper on "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" gets my vote for most thought-provoking publication in the field, and clearly applies to the paper you mention. The studies hit almost all of Ioannidis' red flags - small sample size (for individual studies), small effect size, "flexible" design (for example, they spiced up the erotic images when they found men weren't responding to them as expected), etc. It's a good illustration of the dangers of science-by-p-value. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, I'll read more when I have a few spare moments (at this rate, sometime in January 2012...) However, I'll try to dig up a link passed on to me by a former colleague about the problems with peer review, and how difficult it is to get published when the reviewers don't like one's results, regardless of the quality of the study. Risker (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has toiled on both sides of peer review, I agree that the system is rather arbitrary, but I'm not sure that the difficulties lie where conventional wisdom would have one believe. A good reviewer will be skeptical of findings that contradict existing understanding, and the more remarkable the claim, the higher the bar of evidence one would like to see in support. To the person submitting the paper, that may feel like a resistance of the "scientific orthodoxy" to new ideas. But in fact, I would argue that it's a basic facet of responsible peer review, and a manifestation of the ideas set forth in Ionannidis' work.

The real bias in the peer-reviewed literature is the bias in favor of "positive" results, and in favor of novelty. Scientists generally aren't very interested in incremental refinements of existing knowledge, even though that's 99% of actual scientific work. They're interested in breakthroughs, paradigm-shifting ideas, and fundamentally new approaches. Those biases are reflected from the top down, from journal editors, to promotions committees, to funding agencies, to the scientific community in general.

"Negative" results are the kiss of death - they're hard to publish (and often are not published at all), and anyone hoping for academic promotion on the basis of "negative" publications is likely to be disappointed. I have a colleague who has led several large, randomized trials investigating important clinical questions, all of which have reached "negative" results (that is, they failed to confirm that a novel or previously promising treatment was effective). I can tell you that even among a highly educated and thoughtful peer group, these trial outcomes are viewed on some level as a "failure" on his part. Certainly the work has had a fraction of the reception, visibility, and contribution to his career that "positive" results would have had.

I suspect (though I cannot prove) that it is actually several orders of magnitude easier to publish results claiming the existence of "psi" than it would be to publish a study finding no such effects. That is, the publication bias is actually in favor of far-fetched ideas, even if the supporting methodology is weak. Who would bother reading or discussing an article confirming that "precognition" is no more accurate than a coin flip? Who would advertise in a journal that printed articles no one wanted to read or discuss? I'm always a bit bemused when people claim that the peer-reviewed literature excludes or censors novel ideas - if anything, I've found it to be overly credulous of such ideas, and correspondingly uninterested in literature which simply confirms or marginally extends existing knowledge. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assign my class extra-credit of calculating the Bayesian likelihood for the results quoted in paper NW refers to. I wonder if the authors of this study were aware of Lindley's paradox. In fact, the Wikipedia article that I cite gives away the correct answer. Amazing. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A similar example of the paradox was used here, in what I thought was an excellent article on the design and interpretation of clinical trials. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@ NW, did you mean The Minority Report? As the duck test indicates, all the precogs were right, at different times. Not a novel, but a short story idea, and not such a happy ending. Rather offtopic, so goes back to sleep. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even know there was short story. Is it worth reading? NW (Talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, assuming you like or appreciate Dick. Has fine qualities of ambiguity and shifting realities that don't get used much in the film versions. As happened with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, much of which was lost in the movie which admittedly was good in its own terms. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• You'll probably be interested in this analysis of Bem's work. Fences&Windows 19:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that - it's always nice to know that other people have been similarly disheartened at the quality of this literature. Statistical innumeracy is understandable in the general population, and one gets used to it on Wikipedia, but there's no excuse for researchers, peer reviewers, and journal editors. At least, there shouldn't be. MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Genius Comment of the Day

Dr. Glick, the editor of the A.D.A. Journal, said that as long as authors can back up what they say with science, then he has no problem. “If they cannot back that up, then that’s a different story,” Dr. Glick said. He added that Dr. Mah’s article was peer reviewed.

— "Radiation Worries for Children in Dentists' Chairs". New York Times. November 22, 2010.

NW (Talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Science is, by its nature, speculative. There are an infinite number of hypotheses which can be "backed up with science", so that's not a very meaningful statement. I really wish that otherwise-adequately-respectable journals would not publish "special issues" underwritten by industry. I just don't see how seriously one can take anything that appears in such issues.

Actually, from where I sit, the most horrifying part of the article was on the previous page:

A California lawyer, Arthur W. Curley, suggested that dentists might even face legal liability for not using 3-D imaging. “Negligence may be the failure to incorporate new technologies that meet well-defined legal standards,” Mr. Curley said in a Web presentation.

Think about that - failure to incorporate new techniques that meet specific legal standards. Not medical standards, but legal ones. Because the US legal standard for malpractice involves (in part) failing to deliver care that meets the "standards of the community" where the physician practices. So if a new technique is adopted by a majority of practitioners in a community, then it doesn't matter - legally speaking - whether there's any real evidence behind it. You could still be theoretically "negligent" if you fail to get on the bandwagon.

In actuality, I'm not aware of any cases where a reluctance to adopt a controversial novel therapy has spurred a malpractice claim, but that's not the point. As you can probably infer from the lawyer's comment, the threat of lawsuits is hundreds of times more powerful than an actual lawsuit.

Most physicians are a) well aware of the capricious and arbitrary nature of malpractice litigation, b) deathly afraid of being subject to such litigation, and c) legally unsophisticated. So simply by raising the specter that one might be sued for failing to adopt a fancy, unproven technology, one can expect substantial defensive changes in physician practice - even if the implied legal threat is so far-fetched as to be hypothetical. And I think that's the point, ultimately - not to sue a few dentists for failing to use cone-beam CT (those suits would never go anywhere), but to scare a much larger number of dentists into adopting the technology by implicitly threatening them with litigation. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been quotes

Wondering if you could elaborate on your opinion in this context [1]. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's flattering to be the subject of so much discussion. :) I don't really want to touch transcendental meditation with a ten-foot pole - it has that horrible combination of being both intensely controversial and intensely uninteresting to me. Since I'm not going to work on the article, there's probably no reason to spend a lot of time parsing my comments from elsewhere - although, like I said, it's flattering. That said, I think Woonpton summed up my point very well. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gettin' there

Getting closed to finished: anything I've missed? User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems pretty complete. I actually went ahead and voted, with my gut instincts - mostly so that if I forget the deadline, I won't be disenfranchised. I'm planning to go back and re-vote once I've had more time to think about it. I will probably post my thoughts about the candidates here, on my talk page, rather than creating a guide - anyone who really cares what I think will see them. I would say that right now I'm in about 80% agreement with you, although I think we differ substantially on a couple of candidates. Thanks again for putting in the time to develop a guide - I know I'm not the only person who's found it helpful, and will use it to help make my decisions. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm dramatically wrong anywhere, please feel free to spill the beans :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong - I just have a different perspective on a few candidates. I'm thinking about how (and whether) I want to write up my perspective, though - I really do sympathize with how hard it is to run and be put on the spot. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent attack on me.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Kelly. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Name calling is unacceptable behavior. Please apologize for calling me obnoxious. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I said you were being obnoxious. While contrition is in the air, would you be willing to apologize to Kelly for erroneously accusing him of vandalism, censorship, forum-shopping, et cetera? MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse Kelly of vandalism; I stated that further reversion of sourced content would be regarded as such. I decline to apologize for the accusations of censorship and forum-shopping, as I hold that they were made civilly, and that they are accurate and defensible, given the revisions I provided. I further decline to apologize for accusing Kelly of "et cetera", as I don't understand your request. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. At least you've given me a good indication of how seriously you should be taken. MastCell ^Talk 02:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Very. I'm serious like cancer. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for chiming in. Sorry to get you involved in a disagreement. But it's good to see you again. Kelly ^hi! 05:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AE Appeal

See here. Thanks. Courcelles 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Historicist

Hi Mastcell , this account, edited after the Historicist account was blocked by you here and is quacking loudly,related comments here it is enough to block as a clear sock-puppet or shall I make a report? Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest re-opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist and posting it there. I think it's likely that Spaceclerk is a sock of Historicist, or Nocal100, or one of the other agenda-driven sockpuppeteers active in the area, and I think the likelihood of seeing constructive contributions from them is fairly low. That said, I'm not really able or willing at the moment to commit the time and energy necessary to deal with the inevitable shitstorm that ensues every time an Israel-Palestine editor is blocked. So while on some level it's an abdication of responsibility, I have to refer you to SPI. MastCell ^Talk 03:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, fair enough, will do , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on ArbCom candidates

For anyone who cares, I've started jotting down some thoughts on ArbCom candidates at User:MastCell/ACE2010. I'm not sure I actually want it linked from the guides template - I figure anyone who cares what I think will probably find it here easily enough. Feedback welcome, preferably at User talk:MastCell/ACE2010. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice start! When you're done, should I add you to User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010/Guides? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure... your meta-guide looks almost ready for the punchcard reader. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• ... and it's done. I found it useful to set things down on paper - I even changed my mind on one or two people while writing up my guide. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I found it helpful, thanks. I don't really know a lot of the people you support well (nor do I want to research them) - and generally I'd abstain in those cases - but given the chance of everyone doing that and some bad choices sprouting up, I went ahead and took your word for it on a couple. Sandy's table is also pretty cool. II | (t - c) 04:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I've created {{ACE2010alt}} as an alternative to the officially blessed {{ACE2010}}. The Scrutinizers (or whatever they're called) objected to some of the guides, including one that I thought was really good. The alternative template accepts all comers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished by how *few* user guides there are, and the general lack of interest. Is there a ferment about this that I'm missing, or are people genuinely apathetic? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Apathy, or in some cases burn out from hopelessness. One can only edit in this battleground climate for so long before one loses one's spirit, especially when it has spilled over into real life with cyberstalking and threats. It sucks. There should be a way for good edits to stick. Going over the same ground for years on end can't be right. -- Brangifer (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BR is correct in part but that's not the main reason. It's the same as last year. The move to secret ballots has led to greatly reduced discussion and evaluation of candidates. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There are more guides than in the past (but many of them worthless), but I agree that the move to secret ballots has greatly reduced discussion and evaluation, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. A lot of the changes surrounding arb elections in the last year don't seem helpful to me. Too much bureaucracy, too little open discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope this was OK

Hi. I added your ACE2010 to the template. I hope this was OK. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually having read the above I've undone my addition. Sorry. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I have a deep objection to having my guide listed on the template. It's just that I feel silly, since there are already so many guides that the template looks a bit ridiculous. Also, I feel a bit freer to say what I really think without the concern that my guide has some sort of semi-official endorsement. Anyhow, I'm fine either way, but I probably won't go out of my way to add it. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be added. I may not agree with every assessment (I actually do agree on quite a few) but you've put a lot of thought into them and voters will benefit from another perspective. So please consider it or at least don't revert it back... ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine either way - I wouldn't have reverted Mathsci, but he self-reverted. Maybe I'll add it later today, or someone else can. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: I went ahead and added it). 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I found your musings on the election very interesting, although that is perhaps a result of the fact that I agreed with the lion's share of what you had typed. Do you mind if I quote one of your comments from that page (which remains archived in the prior revisions)? Master&Expert (Talk) 03:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. Thanks for asking. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment

:-P [2] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

QG ban discussion

I used your comment as an example in a community-ban discussion going on about QuackGuru. I assume you'll want to weigh in... Ocaasi (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your essay

Jeez, that sarcasm essay is sooo great. You should definitely become an expert. Lol no seriously, it is really funny! Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - glad you liked it. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm in the process of thanking everyone who supported (or otherwise commented on) me in a voter guide during the election, but I need to particularly express my appreciation for the very kind things you said about me. The arbitrator position, while it has its rewards, is at times a demanding and stressful one, and it means a great deal to see that the work is appreciated. I only hope that I can continue to live up to your evaluation of me during the next two years. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's appreciated by more people than you may even realize, NYB -- chances are only one in a hundred actually says so. Of all volunteer gigs I know, this one -- be it editor, administrator, arbitrator -- has the least positive reinforcement. Wish it wasn't so, but that's a peculiarity of the Wikipedia universe. Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's nice of you to say, but arbitrating also has its rewarding moments, and people such as yourself often do appreciate our work. I can think of many more thankless tasks around here, and ones for which we are far more in need than people realize. But my thanks once again, for that paragraph and for everything else you do around here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I'm glad to see you continue to enjoy the confidence of the community. It restores my faith in the community's judgment, at least a little bit. We've got a surfeit of people who are good at lecturing others, but very few who lead by example. Thanks for doing the latter. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Strider12

MastCell, on 21 April 2008 Strider12 was banned for one year. On 17 August 2010 you edited his user page and deleted all the content there except for a "banned for one year" notice, with the comment, "userspace isn't a soapbox for banned users."

My guess is that this was a good-faith mistake, made because you didn't notice that his ban had already expired (on 21 April 2009). Is my guess correct? If so, may I respectfully request that you restore his user page and delete the "banned for one year" notice.

Thank you. NCdave (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally clear on the status of Strider12 (talk · contribs). As you know, the ArbCom decision mandated that if she were to resume editing, she would require a mentor. I haven't seen an indication that she's resumed editing. But I guess that's neither here nor there. I think it would be reasonable to remove the "banned" template from her userpage, since the ban has formally expired. I suppose we could ask for clarification from ArbCom about the conditions under which she could resume editing, but it seems academic unless she's actually interested in editing here again - I haven't seen any evidence of that.

As for the userpage material, I think it would be an inappropriate use of userspace even for an active editor, per WP:UP#NOT. All the more so, an inactive editor is not entitled to use Wikipedia's webspace as a soapbox for their views. After all, userspace isn't free webhosting - it's provided for the purpose of advancing the community and the encyclopedia, and I don't see how indefinitely maintaining a screed from an inactive editor serves that purpose.

That said, if you feel strongly, we could submit it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to get additional opinions. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that that "banned" template should be removed. Since the user is no longer banned, the template conveys incorrect information. The question is, who should remove it and restore the user page? Since the user page was replaced by the (now obsolete) template by an admin, should an admin be the one to restore it, or should Strider12 do that, or should any interested bystander (like me) do it?

W/r/t the content, all of it was directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia articles, so I don't know what your concern is there.

I don't know why Strider12 hasn't been back, but the "banned" template might well be the reason. Has anyone notified her that her ban expired?

I suspect that she doesn't even know that she's welcome to return. Or perhaps she has no desire to return, because she was treated so shabbily here. I'm going to go ahead and try to send her an email, through the Wikipedia system; perhaps she can be persuaded to return.

What should she do about getting a mentor? I once had one, but that was years ago, and I no longer recall anything about the process. NCdave (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPSing here: Wow, we're not making that information easy to find. See WP:MENTOR, WP:MENTCOM, and WP:WikiProject User Rehab, but I don't believe that there is actually a currently functioning group. You might have to find a mentor through personal connections.

Also—"you can only return if you have a mentor" isn't my definition of someone really being welcome. Perhaps Strider12 believes that her presence would be "tolerated" rather than "welcome". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I disagree with you about the value of her userpage. I'm not seeing how it's related to improving Wikipedia - it seems more aimed at using this site as a platform for a personal agenda, and continuing specific disputes which led to Strider12's ban. If you feel strongly that I'm off-base, then the best next step is probably to submit the userpage to WP:MfD. Of course, you're welcome to email her and I would be fine with removing the "banned" template (although not with restoring the previous content of her userpage, which I think contravened WP:UP). As for finding a mentor, WhatamIdoing covered everything I'm aware of (and then some). Basically, if Strider12 wants to return to editing, it might be best to contact ArbCom directly, to see what they had in mind (remembering that the makeup of the Committee today is quite different than it was at the time of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12). MastCell ^Talk 06:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing, for those useful links. They were very enlightening. As for the mentoring system... if arbcom wanted her to have a mentor 2.5 years ago, but there's really no longer a formal system to provide one now, that would seem to be a problem, wouldn't it? I doubt that an editor who hasn't been active for 2.5 years will have many personal connections here, either. I'd be willing to try to help her as an informal voluntary mentor, since I think her expertise would be a very valuable addition to the Wikipedia community. But I'm unsure that I'm the best person to do so, since I've never done it before, and I'm not very active on Wikipedia these days. But perhaps I'd be better than nothing. What do you think? NCdave (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I think we need to just agree to disagree about the value of Strider12's userpage.

It doesn't really matter, though. WP:UP doesn't require that the information which a user places on her userpage actually be useful in the opinion of anyone other than the user herself, only that the material be "related to Wikipedia" with "fairly wide latitude." Strider12's userpage material didn't in the least resemble WP:SOAP. It was all directly related to Wikipedia, and was clearly intended to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia articles, so it is permissible under WP:UP. Strider12 believed that the articles in question needed improvement, and said so on her userpage, and I think she was entirely correct. You apparently disagree, but both of our opinions are irrelevant. Her userpage material was all about the Wikipedia improvements which she believed were needed, and that is sufficient to justify her placement of the material there per WP:UP.

Now, that said, it is all quite dated, now, so perhaps it should be archived. But I think that should be Strider12's call, not yours or mine.

MastCell, when you deleted Strider12's userpage content, your comment was, "userspace isn't a soapbox for banned users." That certainly sounds like you thought she was a banned user. I assume that you didn't realize that Strider12 actually was not a banned user anymore when you referred to her as a "banned user." Am I correct? Assuming that is so, I respectfully request that you please revert your edit.

Thank you. NCdave (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not at all clear to me that Strider12 is free to resume editing unless she secures a mentor. If she wants to return, then it would probably be reasonable to ask ArbCom for clarification. If she hasn't expressed an interest in returning, then the discussion seems moot. If the "banned" tag were removed from Strider12's page, I'd be fine with that (I didn't place it, and I'm not motivated to personally remove it).

I disagree strongly about the content of her userpage. Much of it clearly violates WP:UP#POLEMIC - it vilifies groups of editors (those who "purged" articles of material that Strider12 thought relevant), and it also violates the section on maintaining "negative information related to others without very good reason". Moreover, the material is not aimed at general improvement of Wikipedia. It's aimed at advocating one side of a political dispute, and since Strider12 was banned for her improper use of this site to advocate that agenda and has not returned to editing, I don't see any reasonable way in which the project benefits from hosting her personal opinions indefinitely.

Because I fundamentally disagree with you about the value of the userpage material to the project, I'm not going to restore it. If you, or anyone else, restore it or feel adamantly that it should be restored, then WP:MfD would be the appropriate next stop. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your lofty descriptions of my work. JFW | T@lk 15:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I meant it. You do great work, especially considering some of the nonsense you've had to put up with as a function of your participation here. Without your contributions, our medical articles would be an order of magnitude poorer. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam appeal at AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam

Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Not sure I have much to add; our essay on soup-spitting pretty much covers it. MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, since you are one of the involved editors who was contacted by Vassyana, you should be commenting in the "involved editors" section, not in the discussion among uninvolved admins. Could you please move your comment to the appropriate section? If not, I can move it myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

MastCell was not contacted as an involved editor. My contact list included uninvolved admins who had commented previously. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

AE

Your input on my latest hair brained idea is welcome as always.--Tznkai (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio DYK

Hi MastCell... I noticed your comment here to Tznkai about Israel-Palestine related DYKs. You said that "Every time I see an I-P-related DYK hook, it seems transparently conceived to proclaim the greatness (or villainy) of one side or the other - and those are the ones that actually make it through vetting. The original proposed hook here is a classic example - it presents an assertion by Alan Dershowitz, whose position on the I-P conflict is sufficiently partisan that we shouldn't be quoting it without attribution in an article, much less a DYK." As you may be aware, I am the editor who approved the civilian casualty ratio hook (not the one with the Dershowitz quote, though) and article. I am feeling quite manipulated by what happened once the article made it to the main page. The question I would like to ask you is: do you think I made a mistake in approving the hook that was used, or the article as it was at the time I approved it? I respect your opinion, so I am asking because I am genuinely interested in your perspective. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think you made a mistake. The hook you approved was fine. The initial hook proposals were crap, but there was some improvement with discussion to the point that the hook you approved looked OK to me. It's really the battleground process underlying DYK that was bugging me. I'm concerned that editors (particularly in the Israel-Palestine arena, perhaps elsewhere) routinely use it as a platform to bring greater visibility to their partisan talking points. In this case, I think you and the other DYK reviewers caught and addressed the problem, but in general I'm not sure that the level of review at DYK is sufficient to deal with concerted POV-pushing. Even if it is, there's no reason the process should be subverted. Does that make sense? I don't see that you did anything wrong with regard to the hook. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it's not just I-P articles...I was kind of appalled recently to discover that a hook from Death panels had been on the front page a couple of weeks ago, and there were some serious issues with the article at that time (WP:NOR and WP:NPOV). However, someone with only a passing familiarity with the subject wouldn't necessarily have seen the problems. Also, with DYKs being from new articles, they usually don't have many editor's eyes on them yet. I'm tempted to say we should be wary of political articles for DYK, despite the fact that I once got a successful DYK nom after co-authoring Ashley Alexandra Dupre. :) Cheers - Kelly ^hi! 05:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

But that was, like, 20 scandals ago. :) Spitzer's already quasi-respectable again. As someone who occasionally takes part in end-of-life counseling and care, I can barely look at the term "death panels" without going cross-eyed with rage, much less write an encyclopedic DYK hook about it. But that's why I stay away. Anyhow, I sort of agree about political articles at DYK. The venue strips away all context and nuance in favor of a one-sentence attention-grabber. That format lends itself very poorly to complex, multifaceted political subjects, because it makes it exceedingly easy to cherry-pick one's favored spin and see it featured on the main page. MastCell ^Talk 06:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blanket ban on I/P DYK

Hi, is this something that you intend to move forward with? I think it is a necessary first step. un☯mi 08:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, and maybe it will percolate to the people who work at DYK. I haven't spent much (or any) time there, so while I feel qualified to offer suggestions on other editors' talk pages, I don't feel qualified to spearhead a blanket ban on specific topics. If it's something that the people at DYK think would be useful, then I hope they'll follow up on it.

At this point in my wiki-career, I don't really have the energy necessary to push these sorts of changes myself - I've cut way back on the amount of time I spend here, and re-prioritized how I spend it. Moreover, my relatively brief exposures to the editing environment, and to specific editors, in the Israel-Palestine arena have convinced me that the less time I spend there, the happier I will be. Sorry - I recognize it's a cop-out, but more power to you or anyone else who thinks this is a reasonable idea to follow up on. I can promise some level of abstract support, but not much commitment beyond that. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I can find fault with your judgement, as unfortunate as that leaves the rest of us :)

I have also toyed with the idea of drumming up support for requiring I/P related DYK nominations to be centrally listed at WP:IPCOLL which might, possibly, be a less drastic and more collaborative outcome. Let me ask you, where should such a proposal be listed for it to take effect if adopted there? un☯mi 16:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have to convince the admins who regularly promote DYK hooks, and probably the DYK community (or at least a portion of it). Wikipedia talk:Did you know might be a good starting point. I'm not familiar with WP:IPCOLL, but if you think their input would have a moderating influence, then maybe it's worth a shot. That would probably have a better chance of success than a blanket ban. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic help?

A new editor, User:Puhlaa with a strong science background and a doctor of Chiropractic has been trying to work on Chiropractic. He's encountering resistance, and trying to compromise but with little success. I asked Brangifer, but he wouldn't touch it. RexxS is likewise avoiding Chiropractic drama. Jfdwolff seems like he's got legitimately better things to do. I'm wondering if there's another editor you think might be able to help sort through these debates in a less disputatious fashion? Yourself, perhaps? Ocaasi (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Solstice!

Hi there, hope all is well with you and yours. I'm up to my neck in Christmas cheer, etc., will start a new thread when I get back from visiting PA and CT. Should be fun, three-year-old twins and a 14-month baby to play with, plus assorted relatives who are congenial and none who aren't. How lucky can one get?
Best wishes for a happy New Year, Postpostmod (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds nice. Have a happy holidays. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Attack on you

I just removed a gross BLP and NPA violation directed at you and another editor. Something needs to be done about 159.105.80.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Thanks; I can't say enjoy his attentions, but that's far from the worst thing he's written on Wikipedia. I've toyed with the idea of contacting the Vermont Public Library and the state Department of Information and Innovation, since I doubt that they countenance the use of their Internet resources to promote Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, etc. On the other hand, this is clearly a persistent and somewhat fixated individual with ideas that range from bizarre to odious, so I'm inclined to ignore him as much as possible. Happy Holidays. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)