User talk:Antelan

Archives: Archive 1, July 2007, August 2007, September 2007, October 2007, November 2007, December 2007, January 2008, February 2008, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008

Chiropractic

Over beers, chips, cigars, scotch whiskey, and numerous hands of Texas hold 'em, I asked several surgeons what they think of chiro. You should have heard the laughs. Basically, their opinion was that chiropractors do nothing specific; it's just that in some percentage of the cases, patients get better, because the body heals itself. So instead of believing that the body just heals itself, they think the chiro did it. Medical denialism. As I've been studying AIDS denialism, I see the same anti-science, or even what I now call science denialism, becoming prevalent. I know that medicine sometimes moves forward with guesswork. I know the story on how the first cardiologist and veterinarian invented coronary stents (I heard it first hand, and it's funny). I know how some amazing medical technology rose and feel during it's development. But in the end, it was science that made it last. That's what I don't get about all the anti-science CAM beliefs--if it works, let's prove it. It's not that hard. If chiropractic works, let's see a trial. Just one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you there. I confess that I have a feeling that chiropractic will prove useful for things like work-related back pain. Until RCTs come back with any evidence, however, I still think that providers such as chiropractors do provide a valuable service to physicians (yes, physicians): namely, they keep the patients who have no specific problem from entering the healthcare system. That said, of course, there is a serious risk of harm when the patient actually has a serious problem and the midlevel provider doesn't understand that they can't actually cure it through good intentions. Antelan^talk 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of it your way. Use the quacks for the minor stuff, saving the healthcare system from treating the minor stuff. Wow. That's good.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan <--- Always trying to push the workload onto someone else. Antelan^talk 00:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazy ass. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

gotta weigh in on this,having been involved in the first efforts in the u.s. on minimally invasive discectomy, 20+ years ago. (turns out the procedure/device in question wasn't the answer.)in the end, relief of the patients' symptoms has to be the goal. i've known more people to say,' i saw neurosurgeons, i saw orthopaedic surgeons, i had 2 surgeries, i saw physiatrists and physiotherapists for years. i saw a chiropractor? my back hasn't felt this good in years.' i even knew one neurosurgeon to espouse this pov, although he also said they (chiros) wreck a disc themselves every now and then.now, to suggest that all disease is a result of spinal misalignment is patent nonsense.as for having o2 saturated water bubbled up my ass, i'll take a pass on that, thanks. they've branched out into nutrition during my lifetime, and most efforts to improve that in this country can't be bad.jury is still out in some ways.oh yeah, 2 of their schools field good rugby sides. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Szlevi

Have you seen some of the uncivil comments he's making. He makes me look like a positive nice guy. I'm offended that there's someone that's meaner than me.  :( OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He called me an egghead, nowhere near uncivil enough to even pique my interests. Hopefully he's found more engaging epithets for you. I know you have a high tolerance for insults (and scotch?). Antelan^talk 05:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CSD

Having an empty category is normally a speedy deletion criteria, because we have no use for empty categories. {{emptycat}} is a also speedy because it is non-controversial. However, in this case someone is arguing that this category SHOULD be populated, and WP:CFD is where those decisions can be made by consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the helpful reply. Antelan^talk 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB Comments

As explained there, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my motives/intentions, and I describe in detail why. I would request that you read what I wrote, and I am interested if you have a response. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have responded there. Antelan^talk 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Antelan.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the weeds

Antelan, I worry that we are getting off into the weeds at WT:RFA. I did not make a math error. Let me go point by point. (Of course the general caveat that it's not a strictly numbers based decision). Currently the bureaucrats generally promote when the percentage is above 75percent.

Thus we assume

• S = number of supports
• O = number of opposes
• N = number of neutrals

Currently, we promote when S/(S+O) >=.75

You proposed under your system, we should generally promote when the percentage of supports (including neutrals) divided by the percentage of opposes (including neutrals) is greater than 3.

This is %S/%O >=3.

To calculate the percentage of S, we use the formula S/(S+O+N). Agree? The number of supports, divided by the sum of supports, neutral and opposes. Now the proof I provided at WT:RFA:

• S/(S+O) >= .75
• S >= .75 (S+O)
• S >= .75S + .75O
• .25S >= .75O
• S >= 3O
• S/(S+O+N) >= 3O/(S+O+N)
• %S >= 3 %O
• S%/O% >=3

I never assumed that (S+O) = (S+O+N). Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, as I pointed out when I struck my comment on the talk page, I didn't see the % signs on your original post. My faith in your algebra is completely restored. The question, of course, becomes: will this cause you to lose faith in my ability to read? Antelan^talk 01:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw your statement that it would just be a change in how the table is displayed. In this case, I have no objection. My concern is that I think some other editors were taking your idea and running with it, and reaching a conclusion that would dramatically alter the expectations at RFA. Genuinely sorry if I seemed pointlessly rude here. No, it seems that you're reading is quite up to snuff (and rather it's my reading that was off the mark)! Apologies for a rather pointless miscommunication here :) --JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Subcutaneous emphysema

Hey, odd cooincidence: I've been working on an article on SubQ emphysema at User:Delldot/subQ. I just now noticed that you recently started the article. I want to move mine to the mainspace at some point, but don't want to lose the revision history (you know, GFDL and all that), so I was thinking of doing a histmerge. Any objection? I was also thinking of DYKing it. Nice job on the medical articles, by the way, it's such a rarely frequented topic! By the way, I'm trying to figure out before I move the thing to the mainspace: does air in the tissues due to gangrene count as SCE proper, or is it considered something else? All the sources are really ambiguous on that point. If you wouldn't mind giving my article a looksee at some point, it could probably use it, since I'm no expert. Thanks much! Peace, delldot talk 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Antelan, I replied to your note on my talk. :) delldot talk 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Sources

Yilloslime has started an informal reference list of Questionable Sources which superficially appear to be reliable. If you would like to add your 2¢ after your wikibreak, there is the link. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why I thought he/she was a administrator

Just some examples of why I thought this user User:Ncmvocalist was and administrator; [1], [2], [3], [4]. Anyways, if you look at his/her contributions, it looks like an administrator; at least it does to me. I am watching an "this" and for obvious reasons I don't want anything to do with this editor but Ncmvocalist got involved early in it and got into a revert war with another editor which got a short block which is when I started to question whether or not he is an administrator. Are regular editors allowed to do the actions like this editor does? I mean close boards, giving advice first then closing and moving things around? I am not asking this very well as I am really uncomfortable asking about this to be honest. I would feel comfortable via email probably but this is really not important to bring it to email so I didn't. But I guess the bottom line to my question is can any editor close active boards talks, block other editors (I am not saying this editor did this as I do not know, I am just curious) and do edits that I usually only see administrators do? Sorry for this confusing post, but I know I can get an honest and reasonable answer about my question from you. To be honest I actually find this behavior confusing. It's seems like an editor trying to be an administrator who is not an administrator. I hope that I don't sound incivil with these comments, I am just confused about it all and I am trying to understand. If I am being rude in anyway, please let me know and accept my deepest apologies. I hope by now you know that I try real hard to never be uncivil to anyone. Thank you in advance, if you are more comfortable answering via email, please do not hesitate at all. You can respond here if you prefer as I do have you on my watch list. Again thank you in advance, my meds have me a little confused lately and I am trying hard to understand these types of things. As always, good health and enjoy what is left of the weekend! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see why you would think that, given some of those edits. He is, assuredly, not an administrator. If you think his behavior is inappropriate, you can report it to WP/ANI or similar admin notice boards. As far as I can tell, there is nothing strictly against policy, but some of those things are a bit confusing. If a non-admin has closed a discussion, I wouldn't hesitate to reopen it if I felt that the closure was inappropriate. In the link you provided, there was little/no comment before he closed the discussion, so it is a bit concerning, but I don't know the context. (You do know that, like him, I'm also not an admin, right?) Warm regards, Antelan^talk 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought I would explain why I even asked if he was an administrator. He seems to be everywhere lately that I go. These kinds of 'calls' he seems to make on his own at time sounds so official. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Glad to see that break template come down! See you around soon I hope. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I'm back. I'll be dedicating minimal time to WP, but I'm only involved in one "disagreement" at the moment (User:Hopping's use of "allopathic" across WP to describe regular medicine) so I should be able to use the majority of my little time to help you with articles. Great work on subcutaneous emphysema, by the way! Any article in particular that you want to focus on now? Antelan^talk 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how delightful that you ask! I'm kind of in article limbo now in terms of actually building any. I was vaguely toying with the idea of expanding penetrating trauma. I don't suppose you're into head trauma? I was also kind of toying with getting post-traumatic epilepsy or post-traumatic seizure to GA. And my secret dream is to get an expert to review pulmonary contusion for accuracy, since without that I wouldn't be comfortable taking it to FAC. But these are all kind of vague plans for sometime, if you have a particular area you'd like to work on I'd be delighted to work with you on it. What types of medicine are you interested in? delldot on a public computer talk 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I'm interested in all areas, especially anything where radiology is part of the diagnostic picture. Penetrating trauma sounds pretty tempting... With my haphazard time, I could probably be most useful to you by (1) finding sources to back statements that you think are probably true, (2) copyediting, or (3) expanding particular subsections of a given article. I'm game for anything medical, so I'll let you guide this. Antelan^talk 00:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds excellent, especially #1. Let's expand penetrating trauma 5 times and get it DYK'd, what do you say? delldot on a public computer talk 03:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned being able to find sources, so I've come to you because I'm stuck! Probably not your thing, but I need to find more information about the epidemiology of post-concussion syndrome in children and how it differs in adults, and I'm having trouble finding new sources. Think you could help? I have access to a lot of journals, so if you find something I'll likely be able to get it. I'd be immensely grateful, but ignore me if you're not interested. delldot talk 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started reading up on it a bit. It looks like the symptomatology is similar between the adult and pediatric syndromes. With regards to the epidemiology... I have a feeling sport is going to play prominently here, but I haven't yet found sources with hard numbers. I'll report back after some more effort. Antelan^talk 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the best Antelan. You gotta start thinking up ways I can repay the favor! delldot talk 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and expanded Penetrating trauma and submitted a (somewhat disgusting) fact to T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on June 12. You're invited to have a look and make any improvements you want! It'd be nice to get it up to better quality before it's on the main page. delldot talk 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got sucked into the hospital! I'm dealing more with amyloidosis than penetrating trauma in real life, but let me take a look! Antelan^talk 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, if you have time great if not no worries at all. Good luck with the hospital! delldot talk 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

About your message

See User talk:Vassyana#A user you have dealt with previously and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MartinPhi restricted. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concern seriously, and sorry it blew up the way it did. I thought it would be best if I didn't reinsert myself into the discussion at this point, but if there is something that you think I should comment on or explain, please don't hesitate to let me know. Very few people are willing to deal with longstanding, conceptually complicated issues like the relationship between SA and Martinphi, so your ability to tolerate the heat from both sides is much needed and appreciated. Antelan^talk 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

righting great wrongs

Antelan - left a note for you at the bottom of the WP:FRINGE talk page.  :-) --Ludwigs2 04:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Overlapping

Hey, sorry my edits on Lyme disease are overlapping with yours. If I'm getting in your way, just let me know and I'll slow down. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit conflict was my fault, but I figured, given the conflict in sources, I'd override and let people (umm, us?) figure out the best solution on the talk page. I much prefer simultaneous collaboration to solo-work. Likewise, let me know if I'm getting in your way. Antelan^talk 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Patchy infiltrate"

Hey Antelan, I wondered if I could ask your help with pulmonary contusion since you know about radiology. I'm trying to figure out what "patchy infiltrate" is, I see it written everywhere, but no one actually explains it. It has something to do with the appearance of a lung contusion on an X-ray film that results from leakage of fluids into the parenchyma, but I don't know how to explain or describe it. You can see what I have at pulmonary contusion#X-ray. If you could shed any light on this or point me to a resource that might explain it that would be awesome. (By the way, if you wanted to take a look at that diagnosis section to make sure I haven't introduced any errors, that would be mind-blowingly awesome, but I know you're busy). Thanks much! Peace, delldot talk 06:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I got sidetracked with Lyme disease, which still needs tons of work. I am looking into the patchy infiltrate question right now. If I don't find a great source for it, I'll give you my fullest personal description, which others can then improve on. Antelan^talk 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, this is more than I could have asked, thanks so much Antelan. Peace, delldot talk 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So for my input: The term "infiltrate" is nonspecific, but does imply a nondestructive process. When I hear "patchy infiltrate" I think "nodular pattern", which implies airspace badness. This shows up as puffy, diffuse, semi-opaque, closely-spaced spheres 1-3cm in diameter. Imagine a normal chest radiograph. Now, let's say that one of the lungs has a patchy infiltrate. This lung will look like someone superimposed hundreds of 3cm-diameter clouds all across the affected lung. Where these clouds overlap, there will be increased whiteness. Their edges are somewhat jagged, and they fade away instead of having obvious borders. They are too numerous to count (this is important, because if they aren't, then the differential changes).

And regarding pulmonary contusion, Grainger & Allison's Diagnostic Radiology says "Pulmonary contusion occurs in up to 75% of cases of blunt chest trauma[5]. In simple contusion the basic lung structure remains intact. Shock waves from blunt trauma lead to intra-alveolar and interstitial haemorrhage from the rupture of microvessels, associated with alveolar and interstitial oedema. Radiographically, contusion presents as nonsegmental consolidation typicallyadjacent to the ribs, spine, or heart—kinetic energy from the impact tends to be absorbed by the lung tissue at interfaces between tissues of different densities ( Fig. 20.9 )[13]. The extent of the consolidation depends on the severity of the injury. Radiographic opacities appear within 6 h of impact and typically clear within 3–10 d[5]. Shadowing that increases in the days following admission is unlikely to be due to simple contusion and should alert those responsible for the management of the patient to other possibilities, such as infection, aspiration, fat embolism, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)[13]. CT will detect areas of contusion not visible on the chest radiograph[4]."

Hope this helps a bit. Probably just muddles things. Hmph. Antelan^talk 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Grainger & Allison seems to think that nonsegmental consolidation is the pattern seen with pulmonary contusion, I've made that change in the article. If you want to show both sources since they seem to differ, don't let me hold you back. Antelan^talk 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is perfect. You are now my favorite person ever. Thank you so much. delldot talk 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bug you again, but can you add the page numbers for the refs from Grainger & Allison's Diagnostic Radiology? I can't get access to it, or I would do it myself. The article will hopefully be going to FAC soon! Thanks much, delldot talk 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Secure servers

Tech note: I noticed that in a lot of your links, you include "https" versus "http" in the beginning of the URL. When one clicks it, they are given the "s" version of the site (secure server version). Because that is a mirror server, they are not logged into the site on that version, so you may want to drop the "s" part of http as a matter of convenience to your readers. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I had considered doing that; however, just dropping the s doesn't work because the secure servers format URLs differently from en.wiki. Therefore, I'd have to rewrite the entire URL every time, which I don't plan to do. So, much like I have to go through some hassle when I want to edit something that I've come to via non-secure hardlinks, others will have to do the same when clicking through on my links. This isn't on purpose, and it gives me no pleasure, but it's a reality. Thank you for the note, though, and if you hear of an easy way to make the conversion automatically, I'll be happy to do it. Regards, Antelan^talk 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Im confuzzled

I dont understand. What did o do wrong? He asked me for sorces and I gave him some. It was a goodnatured, lightheart debate over content. No one was swaering or making legal threats and I think that we both stayed with the bonds of civility, although i confess I was a little too supererior during my victor.y. I will refactor my comments if you think that they are aout of line but I dont quite see what I did wrong? Smith Jones (talk)`

If you both saw it as lighthearted banter, then nothing needs to be changed. Regards, Antelan^talk 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't redact edits

There are only a very small number of situations in which you should redact peoples edits, and they don't apply simply to people who use open proxies.

There are several reasons for this, but I've gotten really allergic to it since I saw how Conservapedia recently treated people (to their great demerit and dishonour).

I'm sure you simply weren't aware of the effect such actions have in the eyes of third parties. Could you please return the redacted statements? Especially since they were not deliberately harming the discussion. Thank you very much! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not removing these edits simply because they came from an open proxy. This is either a banned editor, evading their ban with open proxies, or an editor inappropriately using sockpuppets in a dispute. Either way, I don't see a problem with redaction in this case. Were their comments at least on-topic on AN/I, I wouldn't have removed them. That said, per your request, I will carefully consider if I will continue removing this user's comments. At the same time, I would like to hear your rationale for the defense of the behavior of an abusive account. Antelan 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

People don't get to use proxy IP's to snipe at other editors or press their grudges. That's pretty straightforward as far as I'm concerned, and a basic part of trying to make AN/I a useful forum. The likelihood that this is Davkal-related (i.e. ban evasion) is better than even money, but it's actually academic. I see no problem with removing such posts; I'm more troubled by the handful of editors who are willing to enable this sort of ban-evasion and anonymous sniping because it happens to coincide with their dislike of ScienceApologist. But that's me. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously as the one doing the removal, I'm in agreement with you. What I haven't had the opportunity to do is remove anonymous posts sniping Tom Butler or Martinphi, which I would do with the same alacrity. I hope I don't ever have to do that, but I certainly would. Antelan 20:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no grudge with Scienceapologist whatsoever, I actually kinda like the guy. :-) I do have a bit of a thing about people "circling the wagons" as it were. Wikipedia should not become a closed community.

I have a rather tough skin myself, and do sort of expect the same from others. I don't mind taking a bit of anonymous sniping once in a while, if that means that wikipedia continues to appear (and actually be) more open for it. :-)

(it's the whole freedom vs. safety thing on a smaller scale. I'm willing to pay that price!).

Does that help explain my motivation a bit better? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kim. I should clarify that I was not at all referring to you in my last sentence. I understand where you're coming from, and I feel the same way myself - I try to be pretty thick-skinned and tolerant of criticism, even the sniping kind, when directed at me. But I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of debates here derailed when personal animus supplants reasonable discussion, hence my support for redacting the comments.

I'm not actually that sympathetic to the freedom argument. No one reasonably expects that they are "free" to run into their local town meeting, grab the microphone, and start ranting about cabals and personal grudges. Yet people seem to expect unlimited tolerance for such behavior here, when it clearly disrupts the actual goal of the project. So I guess I err on the side of law-and-order here, which is ironic given my real-life beliefs, but there you have it. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am just as unhappy as you are about people running into their local town hall meeting and ranting about cabals and personal grudges.

Of course, a good way to make absolutely certain that people presume the existence of cabals, and start running into meetings ranting about personal grudges (even those who previously had no such inclination)... is to start redacting their comments.

So Don't Do That (tm). --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I had actually agreed with you more before I saw this recent explanation of why redaction is not a Good Thing (tm). Allowing banned editors to bypass the community's or ArbCom's restrictions simply because someone is afraid of being associated with a "cabal" is an exercise in timidity in which I have no interest. Antelan 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is actually no way to stop some proportion of people from presuming the existence of a cabal or conspiracy to explain their disappointments or failures. See the final quote in the "Conspiracy Theories" section of my userpage. It's just human nature. What we can do is minimize the amount of time wasted on such distractions. MastCell ^Talk 03:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're dead certain that this is someone banned by arbcom evading their ban? Before it sounded like you were merely speculating, but you didn't specify on what basis. If true, who is this, and can you link their arbcom case? (+I would owe you an apology, as "banned by arbcom" is one of the exceptions to the rule) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are very few things I'm dead certain about, and on-wiki identity matching is not on the list. As I said above, I think it's likely that this IP is related to Davkal (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked and de-facto-community-banned prolific sockpuppeteer and WP:BATTLEr. That is a judgement call. Since this editor uses numerous anonymizing proxies, technical confirmation to the "dead certain" standard is impossible, but the pattern is there. My instincts on this sort of thing are usually correct, though not infallible.

Again, as I said above, while I think the IP is likely tied to Davkal on the basis of its pursuit of a relatively narrow facet of the ScienceApologist situation, I think that's actually a largely academic point. The bottom line is that someone using an anonymizing IP to pursue an obviously longstanding grudge and attack another editor is damaging the encyclopedia, as far as I'm concerned.

It misses the point a bit to worry that people will make accusations of cabalism. People prone to that sort of thing will find a reason to dream up cabals no matter what you or I do, while more pragmatic people will, I think, recognize the logic behind removing these comments that I've set forth above. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lest this blow up out of proportion: (1) I'm agreed with MastCell and Kim Bruning that, though it's remarkably likely that I correctly identified this self-admitted sockpuppet as a banned user, it's impossible to be 100% certain of most things, including this; (2) I agree that redacting comments should be an uncommon activity. I just disagree with Kim on why redaction should be uncommon, not on the more important point that redaction should be uncommon. Agreement on the course of action is a good starting point, even if we don't agree why. Cheers, Antelan 23:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot IV

Thought I'd just tell you that your comment about ClueBot IV on Kelly's talk page is correct --> ClueBot always errs to the side of caution when checking (false negatives are always better than false positives), and it can't find CGI/PHP web-proxies like the two currently at WP:OP (it can't do Google searches and interpret the results, etc. etc.) It can only detect Tor exit nodes and normal open proxies. And occasionally it messes up it's Nmap and/or it's attempt to connect. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... Again, I appreciate the bot's work [redacted], and I'm in 100% agreement with regards to which side the bot should err on. I just need to get myself verified and join in the effort on the human side of things, I guess. Antelan 05:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My work? It's not my bot... :) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well let me redact myself then (see above section for the irony). Antelan 05:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka

Thanks for stepping in. I'm certainly not trying to appear aggressive, intimidating, disruptive, etc in any way. Suggestions welcome. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I completely accept that that is your perspective, and I equally believe that, from her perspective, she is not trying to misunderstand your questions. I think you two are well-intentioned but have hit a stumbling block. I actually thought that getting someone in there to try to translate for the two of you, so you could both speak through that person, who would act as an impartial filter of emotion, would be a good idea. From her replies to me it appears that she is not interested in that approach, so I hope that you two can work things out amicably without such a crutch. If I think of something else I'll let the two of you know. Antelan 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene

Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions between "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?

In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I get the point. My first response is that using more concise language would help avoid the TL;DNR syndrome. I am not a mediator, and a direct request for my help will make other parties suspicious that I will treat them unfairly, regardless of whether or not that is true. In this case, I respectfully decline. Antelan 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Update on Natalizumab

I just read the new information about PML in the two new patients. All I can say is that I was saddened to read about this. For obvious reasons, it is sadly not a choice I would make for myself to use if I got stuck without a med and had to rely on this medication. Personally, I don't think that PML is worth the chance with use. :( Thanks for sharing it though, I do like to keep up with updates like this. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! With regards to your own personal health, I would never say "never" until speaking with your doctor. PML, caused by the JC virus, is a terrible adverse event, to be sure. But for some people with extensive disease, a 1 in 5000 chance may be worth it. I know you already know this, but I'm just putting it out there to make it clear that I'm not an antithesis of User:Io io editor. That is, unlike him, I think that information about adverse events should be prominent in WP articles. However, I am like him in the sense that I still think that these medications can be of great use. I hope you're doing well! Regards, Antelan 23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, fortunately I'm not there yet at least to have to make this kind of decision. Right now things aren't well except with large amounts of pain meds but my first decision is to locate a new local doctor since we moved to a new location. I find locating good doctors almost as hard as managing my disease. :( I just hate going through a list of names and shutting my eyes and pointing, "Try this one, I can pronounce it and it's close." But I will remember to keep your suggestions in mind. ;) I hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Shhhh

Don't tell anybody, but there could be a tagteam of admins ignoring what the Community is upset about :-). --Shot info (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

False statement in your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Your point #2 is demonstrably false, at least as it applies to Quackwatch. It is getting 6.75 times more editing activity since 0RR was applied than it did before 0RR was applied. [5]. Could you amend for truthfulness. GRBerry 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)