User talk:MastCell/Archive 27

4483:

Then, compounding the problem, the warning editor advised the editor, if he was sure that an edit wasn't controversial, to go ahead and make it, but be sure not to revert himself. Unclear on the concept. Look, I really did not make that edit to challenge the ban. I really did think that harmless edits were, well, harmless, unless intended to challenge a ban and to make it complicated, as it turned out they were in the SA case. I cannot fathom why a self-reverted harmless edit is worse than one not reverted; the change to the database is less, overall, than the suggested series of suggestions on various Talk pages, etc, which is so complicated that I certainly wouldn't bother for a spelling correction. Come on, folks, this is for the welfare of the project, it doesn't help my situation at all, which won't change regardless of what decision is made on self-reverted edits not violating bans, just like they don't typically violate anything else. I wasn't planning to make that edit until I happened upon it, and definitely won't do it again unless permitted, it's absolutely not worth the disruption even if I hadn't been blocked, but if you folks showed up at WP:BAN Talk, and supported the idea, all this crap wouldn't happen again. You know and I know what the general policy should be: harmless edits are not a reason to block anyone. That's certainly the consensus, overall, take me out of the picture. Self-reversion removes the one harm from "harmless edits," i.e., complication to ban enforcement. --

2170:), it just goes to show. and "Never mind." That wasn't MastCell, my error. I might be able to figure out how I got confused about this, but I won't, don't have the time. The comments wasn't hostile, in any way, and I believed MastCell's denial of memory even when I thought it had happened. As to my experience with policy, it should be understood that, while I was new to serious Knowledge activity in late 2007, I had, by this time, over twenty years of experience with on-line debate and consensus-formation, plus extensive offline experience with such process. Knowledge policies generally made complete intuitive sense to me, and still do. I just see (and would have predicted) the edges. And I respect those who have experience applying policies and recognize that this experience can certainly trump my theoretical analyses. Hence I propose changes with caution; an example will be work with blacklisting policy and procedures, where I've been involved in long-term discussion with blacklist administrators and whatever I ultimately propose will be hammered out as consensus with them, to the extent possible. ArbComm, in the recent case, Abd and JzG, validated one of the principles involved, though I did not consider that matter ripe for arbitration. 1278:(eg PMID 18411417).I'm not aware of any evidence that extracorporeal ultraviolet irradiation of the blood would be useful in treating infectious diseases. As I mentioned, the predominant effects are immunosuppressive, which would be counterproductive right off the bat. Some wavelengths of UV may cripple or destroy bacteria and viruses, but then you get into the age-old problem of all "blood purification" methods. You can't treat a systemic infection simply by "purifying" the blood, no matter how effectively you do so. Infectious organisms are not confined to the bloodsstream. They reside in tissue, in extracellular fluid, and in other reservoirs separate from the blood pool. Even if you eliminated every last bacterium circulating in the bloodstream, a person could (and likely would) be left with a substantial reservoir of infectious organisms in non-hematologic tissues and compartments.As a means of "damaging" (attenuating) a virus to create a "vaccine", it seems awfully involved, expensive, invasive, and potentially dangerous to have someone undergo extracorporeal photopheresis when the desired effect can be achieved by simple vaccination. Did I address your question, or am I misunderstanding it? 1985:

picking up the dry cleaning, all the stuff a housewife does--ah, I've just given myself away-- yes, I'm a woman) plus I had two part-time research jobs, and I still managed to take 18 hours of science classes and get straight As. But these guys, most of whom had nothing to do but go to school, couldn't even seem to manage Cs without cheating. The college had to keep instituting new practices to foil cheating, like taking photographs of everyone taking tests, to make sure the people taking the tests were the same people whose names were on the tests, otherwise they would pay other people to take their tests for them. They used to even steal the chemistry homework answers out of the reserve library to keep everyone else from checking their homework, just to try to give themselves a little boost up on the grade curve. I had no respect for them at all, and doctors still have to work to earn my respect, after that experience. It's possible that none of those losers were actually accepted to med school; I can hope, but let's just say I wasn't impressed with premeds as a group.

1327:

People who believe in a particular fringe view will tend to edit that article; but if we can somehow poll all Wikipedians on a question, I think we would likely find a similar range of views as in the general population. People who are pro-fringe on one topic are not necessarily pro-fringe on some other topic. This is why RfCs can help, by bringing in input from broader community consensus. As soon as I have a bunch of spare time I'm planning to participate in a bunch of RfCs, to help increase overall involvement in them. Other methods include: asking the pro-fringe editors to recognize that they're disproportionately represented at the page and to avoid aggressive editing (repeated reverting) for that reason; and focussing on literally following policies and guidelines rather than, in effect, voting. Somehow the right balance has to be achieved, neither too much nor too little information about fringe views in articles on fringe topics; different people will have different opinions about what is the right amount.

4906:. In relative terms, I do consider his behavior worse than yours, because he's been ignoring the repeated entreaties to use the talk page. In absolute terms, both of you were edit-warring. I considered blocking both of you, or just him, but in the end I think protection is probably the best way forward - blocks won't help resolve the underlying content dispute, after all. I'd like to see how things go with the article locked for a day. If The Sceptical Chymist begins edit-warring again, then I'll block him.The protection can also be extended if needed, but I hate to lock a high-profile article for an extended length of time if we don't have to. The protection is just a crutch, after all - I'd like to see a commitment to self-restraint from the editors involved, where they won't edit-war even if the article is unlocked. I see you've already made such a commitment, which is good on you. Hopefully The Sceptical Chymist will follow suit; if not, we'll deal with it. 2093:

voting, which it was not. It was, in fact, the seed for a growth of new structure that would supplement what we already have, as nervous systems supplemented more primitive diffusion methods of cellular communication. Good luck in facing your identity crisis, I'd much prefer to retain your experience. At a certain point, though, we move foot-soldiers up to command (or, in this case, advisory positions), and they don't fire weapons any more. To give a present example, my opinion is that ArbComm members should not use tools other than for research purposes. ArbComm can be viewed as a controlling body, or as an advisory body, and the latter is technically more accurate, the former is only true to the extent that the editorial community and the Foundation voluntarily respect ArbComm decisions. Advisors should not be executives, and when they are, it's a structural error which leads to problems, it can be predicted. --

4879:

restraint and not blocking. I was just surprised that the article lock was for one day! I was thinking one week at least if not 2 or 3 weeks. This was a major behavioural, allegations of intentional trolling, POV accusations all over the show, faking refs. There is no way all of that can be resolved in less than 24 hours. That will take lots of mediating, comments going through diffs to verify allegations. This was more than just a one day fall out. Anyway I would request due to the complex nature and prolonged nature of the dispute that the protection tag is increased to 1 week. I have no intention of edit warring or reverting sceptical again but if we are trying to resolve disputes and I see him trashing the article it will effect feelings during mediation. i personally think this is a matter of trolling rather than content dispute but am fair game for giving mediation a shot. Sorry for long post. :)--

2140:"discussing" it with each other were related sock puppets, so if he was "involved" in that anywhere, it's fairly well hidden, maybe on the now deleted talk pages of the several socks who participated in discussing that very odd proposal. As for the proposal itself, it's one of the worst proposals I've seen on Knowledge. I don't see any way the proposal could be interpreted as providing a structural basis for rehabilitating burned out administrators, as claimed above. I don't care to get into a discussion here with Abd about the merits of the proposal; it was soundly rejected and I have no interest in resurrecting it. I'm not sure what the point of bringing it up here would be; the intention seemed to be to suggest that Abd and MastCell had a previous involvement that MastCell hadn't acknowledged, but the link given certainly doesn't provide any evidence to back up that insinuation. 2909:

MadLibs-style grammar of the most commonly used tendentious nonsense and have the computer randomly parse it, but that's simplistic.The ideal algorithm would probably require that you feed it a large series of frivolous AN/I complaints, wikilawyering, fringe-theory advocacy, and other tendentious editing. It would then parse the text and create a web of associations, weighting each word according to those it most commonly precedes or follows. If you run this weighted web through a natural-language filter to create reasonably grammatical sentences, you would probably have output largely indistinguishable from that of any number of human-controlled Knowledge accounts.I believe that it could be done by someone with better coding skills than I. I started looking at something like this in

613:, there's no whey an AfD would succeed here. More to the point, there has been some cursory scientific investigation into potential antiinflammatory or anticancer properties of whey protein. It's a typical problematic case for Knowledge: there are a bunch of individual animal studies, many from the same group of researchers, claiming that whey prevents tumors in mice. There is no human data that I'm aware of.So the whey marketing types come here and feature each of the mouse studies at great length, implying that they're relevant and ignoring the innumerable cases where advances in rodent cancer prevention have failed to translate into advances in human cancer prevention. Since the mouse studies are, technically, reliable sources, it becomes a policy quagmire. 3404:

edits all seem to have their accounts activate 4/7/09. There is around 5 of them now. It just looks a bit hokey to have all these new accounts opened on the same day editing the same artical which looks like it has been organized by the way it is going so far. There isn't much on the talk to show the organiizing, just the way the edits are going. In a way it looks like one editor under multiple names to me. Which is why I am here, I don't know if I am just burned out with vandal patrol at this point or if there is really something wrong going on. I would appreciate another opinion here from you if you have time. There is no rush or urgency to this, just a sanity check on my part. :) I'd appreciate and respect your opinions if you have time. Thanks, --

315:

generalizing it, though. Political and nationalistic disputes are one thing - there is no "right" and "wrong" side, or rather both sides are both "right" and "wrong", or whatever - you know what I'm saying. It's not unreasonable to start from the understanding that both the "Israeli" and the "Palestinian" points of view (as if such monoliths existed) are equally valid for presentation in the encyclopedia. Scientific and technical disputes are different. Some concepts are "right", some are "wrong", and some are controversial. I don't think that you can apply the same precepts used for nationalistic or political disputes to scientific/medical articles. But I get tired of commenting at those sorts of debates, so I figured I'd sit this one out.

2357:

name a proxy. Given that there was no process under way, this wasn't canvassing, but Absidy was warned for canvassing. It could be argued that it was spamming, and, as well, that it was provocative. The actual block, though, was clearly over a defiant response to the warning. ("Too late! I'm done" -- and an image of an upraised finger.) Indeed, this was my first encounter with a problematic block; an admin blocked for an insult to that admin. I discussed this with the admin, who generously agreed to unblock, and that is how the editor was able to return, to become Obuibo Mbstpo. Each time this user abandoned an account, the password was allegedly spiked. Sock puppetry charges were irrelevant to

5033:

non-systematic review article of uncontrolled trials by Roche employed doctors, then knowing I would oppose it preempted me and jumped on and made a post denouncing me as OWNERSHIP, NPOV, neutrality in a big section (even though the previous version had both the NICE and the review of the uncontrolled questionaire based trials so it was absolute hypocracy. I have no choice but to respond and engage the troll then and I can't ignor the edits either or the article goes to pot. Also it gives me a bad name on wikipedia when people see me worked up over these incidents. These trolls do immense harm to wikipedia. Thanks for looking into this. Another long post but should give you enough background.--

2116:

another set who have to get their hands dirty implementing it in the real world. Isolating the people who make decisions from the consequences of their decisions is a bad idea; I'd be happy to adduce any number of historical illustrations of this. Most Arbs are not active as admins, which is understandable due to the nature of the time commitment, but ideally they at least have prior experience applying policy to problem areas. I personally am extremely uncomfortable when people who have no practical experience applying policy in difficult areas start lecturing on How Things Should Be Done. If you can't do something yourself, you shouldn't really be in the business of telling

2361:, and, it might be noted, Kim Bruning was on the side of protecting the proposal from deletion. There were other instances of socking while blocked, i.e., this user did avoid blocks, but did not ever edit with an old account after establishing a new one. I know the real-world person involved and there is much more story that could be told, but which won't be. Sequential accounts aren't sock puppets, unless, perhaps, used to present an appearance of multiple editor support, as in an AfD or other process where !voting is involved. None of the accounts involved were connected through checkuser or sock puppet investigations. In one case (Sarsaparilla -: --> 4510:. He has been editing the article so as to downplay any criticism of the product or the company. In some cases he has introduced blatant factual errors, such as stating that "the FDA suspected" there were additional cases when it was the company itself who said that there were additional cases that they did not disclose to the FDA. I've no interest in demonizing the company or the product but we need to tell it like it is, especially given the current interest in the topic. I think you're involved in some medically-oriented Wikiprojects so could you drop a word there? (Talk page stalkers are of course welcome to keep an eye out too.) 5023:

doing POV unfair reverts, then I get abuse of admins for being unwelcoming to the newcomers. My talk page has new drama from this sockpuppet with an NPOV investigation that they triggered which I will have to go through the thing that mwalla was making fda refs say opposite using irrelevant primary sources and so forth. Then I am in an arbcom with another disruptive editor scuro who took control of talk pages and articles for about 3 years. Now I have Sceptical Chymist. Anyway if you would like to get a good background of this situation with Sceptical, read from this section down to the bottom and you will see what I mean.

576:. In all seriousness, Something Should Probably Be Done about that article.I'm actually putting together a script which will randomly generate crappy Knowledge articles from a set of basic rules and heuristics... a more complex project will be to write a script which will vociferously defend these crappy articles on talk pages by referencing medical-industrial-complex conspiracies and calling anyone who tries to clean up the articles "deletionists". This latter project requires some rudimentary artificial intelligence and I don't have the skill to code it, though. 4537:) reflects yours. Your source, being a secondary source, is preferable to mine. And by "mine" I mean someone else's, which I had removed once as overdependence upon primary material, but did not attempt to remove once it was accompanied by a secondary source. My intention is not to downplay the criticism, but to upgrade the writing. Because much of the writing lately has been critical, it follows that much of the revision will be of critical drafts. Were the writing more laudatory, it would be laudatory writing that would come under scrutiny in revision. 5088:

different. It's hard to maintain perspective when you're in the middle of this sort of situation, so sometimes you can see it more clearly if you put it aside for a couple of days. At the very least, it looks like this is causing you a substantial amount of stress. I'm not saying that you should forget about this, or drop the issue entirely - quite the opposite - but this place is supposed to be fun (we're all volunteers, after all), and sometimes when things get this stressful the best thing you can do is get a bit of distance and then come back.

426:. No one got the link, but then so much of my stuff goes over people's heads if they found all the connections their heads would explode. I don't deny I have an agenda, a purpose, a goal, a target. Yes, you are in my sights. No doubt your people have me in theirs. But the simple reality is that you reverted my edits that were SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY cleaning up typos. You used the agenda to affect your decision-making as an adminstrator. I would not. That's the difference between me and you. You can't help yourself. I can. - 2003:. The author was (IIRC) a basic-science professor trying to understand why pre-meds were such jerks, and whether the qualities selected for by the pre-med process were necessarily the ones that would make for an exemplary physician. Taking the pre-med curriculum was among the most depressing experiences of my life - a relentlessly grinding, competitive exercise in rote memorization of material that held little interest or applicability for me. I felt bad for people who took organic chemistry and biology because they were actually 1566:(a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Knowledge as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- 2726: 31: 4763:

opinion, and your work here isn't going to be judged by anything Abd says in an edit summary. I think he should be more careful about what he writes too - not in a threatening, watch-what-you-say sense, but in the way that he's obviously not an effective advocate for his own cause. But that's his business. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it - if he's confining himself to his talk page with the cold-fusion advocacy, then that seems reasonable, especially as it will presumably free up

1687:. According to my calculations, I am 2 months and 14 days away from telling some particularly obnoxious (but relentlessly "civil") miscreant to go fuck himself. It follows that I am 3 months and 1 day away from deleting my user and user-talk pages with a frustrated "retirement" message, 3 months and 6 days from returning out of addiction to Knowledge, and 4 months and 5 days away from being desysopped for failing to uphold the august standards expected of Knowledge administrators. 3469:

fairly heated debate and editing in the past, so I tend to look in on it whenever I see something flaring up.I would agree that the editing atmosphere at the article is not optimal, and I don't think any one person deserves all the blame for that. In an ideal world, I think we could discuss specific content changes and sources without constant digression to our personal opinions and arguments - and I'm probably as guilty of that as anyone. I don't think that the actual

4478:

was that it can complicate ban enforcement, which should, by definition, be kept simple. Being blocked and having nothing better to do, besides, I need to know, I went over all these old discussions last night, and, yes, I noticed those comments mentioned above. Based on that experience, I really did not expect to be blocked for a self-reverted edit, which doesn't complicate ban enforcement like ordinary "harmless edits" can. My motive, in self-reverting, was to

508: 2084:(unindent) We may soon be able to return the favor. MastCell, the problem of admin burnout is a very real one, as you obviously know. In my view, our structure, such as it is, causes this and many other problems that we face. Solutions are possible, but are vigorously resisted, even when they fit within our existing structural philosophy. In the recent RfAr over myself and JzG, you commented that we hadn't been involved before. That wasn't accurate. Remember 5124:

let you know that Sceptical seems to be trying to spread this. He is now on Sandies page trying to get her to turn on me or say something bad about me. I feel as I have throughout the FA under attack and on the defense. I feel this continuation of behaviour is seeking to escalate rather than desescalate. Just saying because if something isn't said to him he could do goodness knows what to escalate this between now and tomorrow morning.--

3124:. This is the background to my stance.The second paragraph in the lead is contentious, it's been like that when I first drafted it and when Vuo decided to rewrite to reflect his understanding. In my opinion, as a whole it probably shouldn't even be there there under verifiability. I've let it slide because I've been working on a draft that replace "studies" and "vectors" using chapter 1 of the surgeon general's report 5294:). I'd probably be angry too in his situation, no matter how professionally Tony explained this site's policies. That's just life. You'd probably have reached the same conclusion if you had the technical ability to see the deleted contribs. As a side note, I've often thought that trusted non-admins should be able to see deleted revisions - since we're gradually unbundling the administrative tools anyway... 5064:. It is on this page.[User:Literaturegeek/Sceptical_Chymist_evidence a collection of evidence. I feel very wronged by what he did. It is a lot of evidence but after reading it you will realise what I had to put up with. read my appeals on sceptical's user page if you have a chance, on the talk pages as well and you will see what happened and why after weeks of this I called him for what he was doing.-- 2264:

connected with Sarsaparilla, he should have done so, and promptly acknowledged the connection when the issue was raised. But it was already blatant, anybody who cared could have found it in minutes, and, indeed, that is what happened. Ron Duvall was also, for different reasons, abandoned and Absidy taken up; this time the connection was properly noted with account creation." (more verbiage follows)

3822:. I.e., real people have been cured or have gone into remission that would otherwise have died without the treatment. The placebo effect doesn't merely affect scientific studies for theoretical reasons, it affects the studies because knowledge of treatment actually does affect outcomes, otherwise we wouldn't really care about "double-blind" in most cases. Whether or not homeopathy has some effect 1082:

activities, it commented extensively on an RfC directly related to the banned topic. The RfC is sort of a historical document - it will be referenced in the future, and it makes sense to clue in readers that at least one of the most vocal accounts was entirely illegitimate. Especially since people have an unfortunate habit of simply counting numbers of signatures rather than evaluating the

5028:

sceptical was saying and turned on me briefly bombarding me with original research, I lost my temper with her then she backed off. No problems with her though, she did help copy edited defended me then turned on me, so if you see a dispute with her don't drag her in, she did not troll me like Sceptical and we are pretty much neutral. It is the hardcore trolling by Sceptical and

232:?? That's not how I read SV's proposal. The way I read it, it does away with the notion of WEIGHT altogether. Fringe editors' favored interpretation of NPOV that says neutrality means having the article say "Some say the earth is flat, others say the earth is not flat," is bad enough, but Slim's proposal takes another step away from NPOV by mandating that every single 1266:, the suppression of graft rejection after solid-organ transplantation, and the (experimental) treatment of some autoimmune disease.The classical explanation for the effectiveness of photopheresis was simple damage from UV light, preferentially affecting activated lymphocytes. More recently, a few more complex mechanisms have been proposed, involving alteration of 4263:

is by no means the worst offender. Nor is he as persistent as some I might name in this regard. But if one claims to be lawful good aligned and a defender of the law, one should make every effort to apply that principle more even handedly than it has been here. That is the point. Nothing more. Nothing less. And without prejudice (in the legal sense). --

3474:

you really think that a small group of editors has inappropriately taken control of the article, then the best solution is to bring the situation to the attention of a wider audience and get uninvolved, outside input. But to do that, you can't just look for people who agree with your "side", like Chido6d, and ask them to pile on. There's more on our pages on

3989:"Some authorities insist that raw clay (as close to its original state as possible) has the best therapeutic effect. This is because the raw clay also tends to contain a variety of micro-organisms that may contribute to healing. Heating the clay may destroy those micro-organisms. Too much processing, likewise, may reduce the clay's healing power."Could 1762:

be needed if they didn't uphold the organization's standards. It's hard to believe that Knowledge is more desperate for volunteers than the average charity, soup kitchen, or after-school program, but for whatever reason our expectations of responsible behavior are several standard deviations lower than the average volunteer-staffed organization.

270:

be selected another way. Elonka's system for ethnic conflicts was trying to make a single admin do too much, and the diffusion of responsibility to a larger group would be good. I could even imagine the neutrality-checkers being elected (like we do now for checkusers), though that would take one election for each major controversy.

2008:

things happening out of plain sight. I was amazed, when I took the MCATs, at the level of security and anti-cheating measures in place. They did basically everything except a retinal scan, but I suppose such things are necessary. The question, of course, is whether such learned behaviors and coping mechanisms can be switched off.

1193:(outdent)I understand and I don't do edit wars, 1 revert for me and I'm done unless it's totally obvious that it's vandalism. I saw the conversation and added to it. Someone else reverted it back to what you did. My last look showed a consensus coming to keep the edits like you had them. Thanks for your help and your time, -- 4747:, who has an extremely poor and problematic namespace editing record, my own contributions are fairly and squarely confined to uncontroversial sourced mainstream content in the arts and sciences. Abd seems to be plummeting towards an indefinite block/ban on wikipedia. He should probably be far more careful about what he writes. 4347:

make a strict rule about participation by topic banned or page banned editors. Part of me wants the community to stand up and say to him, "You know what? You just haven't contributed enough to be cut a lot of slack," while the other part of me knows that this wouldn't be accepted in the present environment here.

3121:.While I was working on the article I've found that quotations and positions really don't improve the reader's understanding. All it ever seems to get across is: don't smoke and that was it. Two months ago I removed the same quotation from the CDC I'm try to remove (again) today, it's at the bottom the section 2286:

creates new accounts because he's blocked, he's not other than that -- which I agree is a problem on its own, and I have privately asked him to stop and to go through proper channels if he wants to return to editing -- disruptive on any major scale. Just to be clear. --Abd (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)"

3923:

usertalk page is unlikely to destroy the encyclopedia. I don't think there is any evidence that homeopathy can produce objective remissions of cancer, whether by the placebo effect or by any other means, but I am not an expert on the matter, so would be willing to be enlightened if such evidence exists.

5123:

I see that you are just going to concentrate on behaviour rather than the citation discussions, fine with me, don't blame you it can be time consuming. There seems to be eyes from wiki medicine/wiki pharm who will be contributing to those discussions so think that side of things is covered. I need to

5100:

Thanks, I will do some refining in the next day or 2. I think that you are right about taking a few days off wikipedia though it is difficult when you feel under attack. The only thing that I have a problem with is collecting diffs for talk pages. I think that reading over talk page can be helpful as

4655:

I've left a comment there. Not sure if I addressed the issues you had in mind - if not, just let me know. I think you guys are actually pretty close on content - after all, you agree on sources and are mostly disputing the wording used to present those sources - so I think it will work out acceptably

4262:

It was never my intent to rub anyone's nose in anything. I am merely making the bald point that these things are not being dealt with in a consistent manner but rather based on who one's friends are. I don't mean to impugn wikipedia user WMC any more than anyone else who is guilty of the same. WMC

4174:

I debated trying to find it, because I think that (as usual) people are spouting off without actually understanding what went down. But then I decided that it wasn't worth the effort, as I don't think there are a lot of minds waiting to be changed on this topic. If you find it, let me know; I'm still

3901:

I didn't say anything negative about their behaviour here. Why did you feel the need to comment? This really isn't fair on MastCell. If you want to comment to me, my talk page is linked in my signature. If you want to make ridiculous comments about an idiomatic turn of phrase, then write them in your

3468:

I don't know if he's been "called in". For my own part, I have no off-wiki contact with Yilloslime, Dessources, or anyone else active on that article. The sum total of our interaction is visible on Knowledge. The article is just on my watchlist, and as you've probably noticed it's been the subject of

3425:

Hi, please ignore, someone took it to ANI during the time I was off line. It has been also been explained by the teacher of the new editors, the reasons for all the new editors. It's a class project apparently, which explains why so many new editors signed up at around the same time. Sorry to have

2356:

for sock puppetry. The editor was apparently embarrassed by one action of Sarsaparilla, a joke, during my RfA, (I reprimanded him for it, in fact) and abandoned the account over that. Sarsaparilla would not have been blocked for this. However, Absidy then suggested to each member of ArbComm that they

1943:

I am also mildly curious how it can possibly be considered that Milo is staying within the letter of civility; my clever stratagem of waiting until the screaming stops and then just writing a decent article in the calm appears not to apply in this case. Meh. If I wanted to collaborate with people who

1761:

organizations have strict criteria in terms of screening and accepting volunteers. I used to volunteer at a homeless shelter, and the screening for volunteers was substantial - they turned people away if they got a bad feeling about them, or informed them that their volunteer services would no longer

1223:

UV as a form of electromagnetic / photon radiation is at a frequency that is able to break chemical bonds, as such it can break up pathogenic causes of disease such as viruses, bacteria, and mycoplasmas. As a proponent of the use of vaccines, you should recognize that damaged virus vaccines and also

1059:

My question is this, isn't it usual procedure to strike any and all comments and edits from a sock account when seen? As you can see, your actions were reverted with the comments that there was no need to adjust the RFC after it was archived. I haven't reverted it back to your edits as I want to be

806:

Thank you, MastCell, and you too, of course, Fainites. My gynecologist, my husband, and my two sons all confirm that I am not a man and have never been one. Actually, in case any one cares, Lester was the name of my first husband. After divorcing, I returned to my birth name, Mercer, and have kept it

645:

Hmmm... I haven't checked the citation index or Google Scholar. The thing is, each of these articles heavily cites the others, which is understandable but hardly indicative of widespread acceptance. There is also a substantial literature from various dairy-farming trade groups on the many benefits of

372:

In all honesty, when I drafted that notice at the top of my page, one of the few areas where I figured I'd remain administratively active (as I expect no one else to bother) was in handling your sockpuppets. I suspect that your apparently boundless energy and enthusiasm for this topic could be put to

171:

on Woonpton's talk page about a couple of ideas that have been floated for areas of conflict. One comes from SlimVirgin originally on the workshop page of the current Israel / Palestine ArbCom, the other from rootology on ANI in relation to the baronets dispute. Both approaches might have potential

5279:

No, I'd probably feel the same as you if I hadn't seen the deleted contribs. In fact, that ability is really the only reason I keep my admin bit. I don't want to make Tony feel like we're blowing it off - he shouldn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense - but I guess that having seen the deleted

5022:

Try dealing with 3 of them. I have a banned sockpuppet mwalla who is regularly following me around monitoring talk page discussions and then creating sockpuppets and messaging people, causing editing conflicts, I revert vandalism or faking of refs, then off he goes to admin noticeboard saying that I

4918:

This had gone on for weeks, I would wake up, refs were distorted, I would correctly reference their conclusions, next day original research, deleting systematic reviews etccand I was freaking out adding them back in as it was destroying FA review. Much of these reverts was done manually. This looks

4811:

that Cold fusion is accepted as a legitimate field of research, and that has been clear since 2004. Different from saying "has been accepted by mainstream science." Notice the qualifier Mathsci used: "within his own very personal terms of reference," which is a flag that I didn't say what he claims.

4806:

I do disagree on this, you know. The ban isn't WMC's any more, it was confirmed by the community, and the closing admin for that discussion, when asked, set it at a month. Mathsci is contentious, highly so, and that will be easy to show; he's followed me around, posting where he never posted before,

4477:

You know, when the issue of "harmless edits" was previously discussed, I certainly understood that the sense of the community was that someone shouldn't be blocked for harmless edits, not to mention for useful ones, and the only issue, that actually came up partly because I brought it up explicitly,

4346:

that others just couldn't stand to deal with. But eventually he went too far. Abd has no such history; quite the opposite, if anything. This is compounded by Abd's -- well, let's just say he is not handicapped by a lack of self-esteem. But to reach a clean resolution of this situation requires us to

4247:

Oh, come on, GoRight, you repeated the edit given above by Hipocrite. It's a tad rude to rub WMC's nose in it when he's already seen and acknowledged the problem, and I admire his admission, he asked to be shown it. Yeah, he's in some deep do-do, I suspect, but maybe there could be some way to clean

3831:

Suppose that homeopathic remedies do have some real effect, in themselves, but that effect requires knowledge of treatment by the patient to set up the conditions. How would you do a double-blind study on this? Basically, you'd have to pretend to treat patients but not actually give them the remedy,

3473:

under dispute is a big deal - it really seems trivial whether we say "partly funded" or "funded and managed"; I think both are supportable with reliable sources, and neither one seems outrageous to me. Certainly it doesn't seem worth edit-warring about.In the end, this is a collaborative project. If

2607:

It's ok. I think it should probably stay out of the article for now. The person who originally added the material (I merely attributed the quote and expanded some of the material) didn't really connect it to human rights, but I suspect I'll find a source that does. Until then, it's ok if it stays

2595:

as well as best practices are pretty clear that quotes should always be sourced (particularly inflammatory or contentious quotes) - that's where I was coming from.As a separate issue, a brief glance at the talk page suggests that your overall take is reasonable - if the UN and other reliable sources

2285:

But then on the sock puppet investigation for Obuibo Mbstpo Abd argues: "Note that calling Obuibo Mbstpo a "sock" of Sarsaparilla, as has been done in the archives below, is a little misleading. Yes. Same user. But Obuibo Mbstpo was a replacement account for Sarsaparilla, and openly. This user only

2218:

No sockpuppetry involved with WP:PRX? Woonpton has misinterpreted the history? That's an interesting formulation on both counts. Just because I disagree with your interpretation of the history, doesn't mean I have the history wrong. I'm generally thought to be pretty good at reading a batch of text

1388:

Coppertwig, there are a load of reasons why there will be a high proportion of pro-fringe bias here - promotional health claims are easy to read, numerous and accessible, heck, online or in any chemist (drugstore) or supermarket, let alone television. Many absorb this more than attempting to analyse

1086:

of support for each RfC view.But whatever. There are more important things to attend to on this site, and I'm tired of spending my volunteer time here dealing with zealots. The more time I spend interacting with those sorts of editors, the less I enjoy this site and the less patient I become. Thanks

5027:

If you read from that section down to the bottom you will see a good background of what I mean. No one in the community defended me (or defended sceptical, i.e. I was left to deal with this on my own largely) except mattissee who challenged sceptical but then she seemed to buy into medical nonsense

4941:

I honestly think this was more than a content dispute, for almost a month refs were made to say something different. It is obvious to me he was trolling, even the first few days of the FAC I flipped out and was on the FA talk page demanding admins intervene and topic block him as I could see he was

4843:

Watch. Your involvement, WMC, does not decrease with repeated assertions. Don't worry, I'm not planning on creating disruption; I didn't take your ban to AN/I, nor did I take your block of me to AN, I didn't even put up an unblock template. No, I'm going to follow process, without the equivalent of

3403:

article and there are a group of new editors there adding lots of information to the article. The edits have been quite quick for me so that I've really not had a chance to check the sources being used though so far I don't see anything really wrong. But what I am concerned with is that the newer

3117:

He's accusing me of PoV pushing. In my opinion it's reversed, but that's probably would not be helpful. His first edit began with the accusation, so I really can't assume good faith. Therefore I've decided just to be simple. Stick to the point on what's wrong with the edit, and hopefully it'll get

2799:

comment. There are prominent adherents to the view that relative risk should be larger before something is seriously considered, and I could reference a few, but I thought that going into any exhaustive detail or adding that many references would've invoked WP: WEIGHT in the first place, and that a

2187:

On the other hand, there was no sock puppetry involved with WP:PRX, and Woonpton has misinterpreted the history. There was one editor who changed his name, dropping one account and starting up a new one, without any concealment, that's all, but arguably inadequate disclosure. Nobody was blocked for

1895:

I'm not following "that" article actively, but have dropped in occasionally to check what's going on (I confess: it's like watching a horrible car accident unfold in slow motion - I can't turn away). My favorite part was the claim that letters to the editor are considered reliable sources, and when

1431:

capable of, writing and editing articles. (We also need to think about how to make this place welcoming to experts.) Your arguments about people reading ads etc. would apply to the general population too, not just to Wikipedians. (I hope MastCell doesn't mind me continuing this conversation here.)

1430:

Certainly some experts are too busy to edit Knowledge, but there are also many experts here. I would guess that the overall level of education and expertise is higher on Knowledge than in the general population, since the type of person who is an expert is also more likely to be interested in, and

1409:

incentive to be here. Some I suspect are playing for keeps and will really not be interested in negotiating. Others I presume (hope) are better. I come here to relax, and like Mastcell, I am not keen on spending time slugging it out on contentious article and talk pages either and have spent little

269:

Thanks to MastCell for opening up his Talk page for this interesting debate. I think that there could be some value in SlimVirgin's proposal, if the team of neutrality checkers were picked differently. For nationalities, having some people from each side is good. For fringe, the team would need to

4986:

Last comment (running on adrenaline so not my usual self), thank you for your comments and thank you for saying you will deal with it if necessary. First time I have had an admin take disruptive editing seriously and this time I don't particularly deserve it for descending to edit war. Have a good

2970:

It sounds like you're thinking of something like the Bayesian model for spam filters. I was fascinated with that and read some papers about it several years ago, but don't know if spam filters are still using that kind of model. You keep feeding it examples of the way spammers use language and it

2908:

Incidentally, the development of a algorithm which would generate automated but realistic AN/I complaints, or arguments in favor of using snakeoil.com as a reliable source, etc is an interesting computer-science puzzle. Well, I think it's interesting, anyway. Of course, you could simply generate a

2351:

change of account occurred. Yes, the accounts were all blocked, but each account was blocked for actions taken by that account, and Sarsaparilla wasn't blocked for anything, except later as some kind of technical formality (i.e., user is blocked, this is a former account, so it was blocked). There

2309:

I'll let the TPS contingent here draw their own conclusions about the implications of this, but the fact remains that by Abd's own admission, Sarsaparilla, Ron Duvall, Absidy, and Obuibo Mbstpo were all the same person (all accounts now blocked) and they all argued in support of the proposal as if

2092:

that would have the potential, if implemented broadly (participation would be totally voluntary and would remain so), to set up conditions where burnout could be converted to recognition and intelligent and efficient process. Obviously, it wasn't understood as that, it was seen merely as a kind of

1468:

Oh, by "chemists" you mean stores that sell drugs and stuff (what I call "drug stores" or "pharmacies" or even an "apothecary"). At first I thought you meant scientists in the field of chemistry. Not sure whether they're growing, but drug stores and some grocery stores and natural food/health food

5087:

I will take a look. I think spending some time refining the diffs and presentation, if you feel strongly about it, would be useful. On the other hand, if I can give you a bit of unsolicited advice - sometimes it's best to take a few days away from the conflict in question and do something totally

4482:

the ban. One of the sad results of this affair is that another editor who was banned and who had used a self-reverted edit to an article to help quickly negotiate consensus, even though restricted to the Talk page, was then warned not to do it again as a result of the "decision" in my case at AN.

4028:

provided to support the claim that clay has "healing powers", much less that these supposed powers would be destroyed by heating the clay. That makes me dubious. If you'd prefer to frame this in terms of your superior familiarity with the topic, very well: please understand that most readers will

2346:

They were all the same person, acknowledged being the same person, and did not edit simultaneously, but sequentially. They did not argue as if they were separate people, but at one point it appeared so to some editors. There is no evidence that there was any intention to present the appearance of

2263:

Abd responded (same link) : "Kim, you got most of this right, but not the sock puppet thing. This page was created by one user, Sarsaparilla, but Sarsaparilla was abandoned as an account and that user began using Ron Duvall, consistently. While policy did not require that Ron Duvall be explicitly

2115:

somewhere? I can't remember taking a stance of any sort on the issue, but it was awhile ago, so please refresh my admittedly spotty memory.I take a different view of the advisory/executory roles. I think it does us no good to have one set of people who theorize about policy in an ivory tower, and

299:

I thought the checkuser/oversight election was rather civil. (No comments were allowed with the votes). The advantage of the mainstream over the fringe is that there are more people in the mainstream. With an election, you will presumably wind up with people who are typical of regular experienced

4878:

First of all I apologise for losing control and edit warring. The stress of it being an FA and disruptive editing made me lose my cool as I saw the FA going down the drain with all the original research and warping of refs etc. Thank you for having some understanding of the situation and showing

2791:

Hey there! I just saw your reversion on the Passive Smoking page edit I did yesterday. Wanted to know if I could ask your help with the cite tags in that article. I wasn't quite sure how to properly cite the 1999 study from the who. When adding that in, I figured that somebody else who knew more

2007:

in those subjects - they were trampled in a horde of people who had come from the top of their high school classes and were trying to beat the curve, inexorably normed to a C+/B-, to get into med school.I certainly witnessed a reasonable amount of cheating, and I'm sure there were more egregious

1984:

Funny, when I was an undergrad, I didn't wonder at all; I hated the pre-meds as much as the chemistry and physics TAs did. I wasn't a pre-med but I took basically a pre-med curriculum, lots of chemistry and biology. I kept a household going (cooking, cleaning, running kids to the orthodontist,

314:

Oh, I don't mind people discussing this stuff on my talk page. I guess I think SlimVirgin's proposal is reasonable as a means of addressing the problems at Israeli-Palestinian articles - certainly it can't be any less successful than what's been done so far, right? I'm a bit leery of the idea of

4942:

trolling, intentionally faking refs, claiming they weren't verified, making them say things they didn't. he got a kick out of destroying an article he knew I had put a lot of work into. It is just like children in a school yard getting a kick out of bullying someone. That is what I liked it to--

1878:

It's not the trolls and vandals that make this place so unpleasant, it's the Milos and Nortons and the rest who get away with dishonesty while staying within the letter of "the rules." And there should be a special room in purgatory reserved for those "respected admins and content creators" who

1326:

I agree with you that among editors of any particular fringe article, there tends to be a disproportion of editors favouring the fringe POV on that topic. I'm not sure whether you mean that you think there's a disproportion of pro-fringe editors on Knowledge in general. I assume there isn't.

4696:

Hi. I had noticed that Abd is making unsupported statements on his talk page. In particular he now claims that, within his own very personal terms of reference, cold fusion has been accepted as mainstream science. I challenged this extreme point of view on his talk page. In an edit summary, he

3922:

Editing this encyclopedia can be an exercise in cumulative frustration. I purposely don't watchlist certain articles for my own sanity, homeopathy being one of them. It's best not to say negative things about other editors, but we're all human, and venting in a non-specific manner on someone's

2362:

Absidy), the user hadn't explicitly connected the accounts, though it was blatantly obvious, and in that case the user, when the issue was raised, then directly connected the accounts. The other accounts (Obuibo Mbstpo and Ron Duvall) were created under arrangements to return as a new account.

401:

I think other admins would probably agree that your sockpuppets should be blocked. I don't think that the long-suffering, law-abiding editors on your favorite topics should have to go through the lengthy process of familiarizing a new admin with your habits each time you create a few dozen new

284:

Oh, what a good idea, an election, something like an RfA. What could go wrong with that? As to MastCell "opening up" his talk for this, you'll notice he's not commenting. Perhaps anyone wanting to continue the discussion to do so on my talk, although you'll notice I'm not too keen on the idea

4762:

Eh, it is his talk page. He's welcome to discuss his beliefs about cold fusion there. Obviously, some of these assertions would be (have been) problematic in article/talkspace, but he deserves some latitude on his own talk page. I wouldn't be too concerned about his labeling of you - it's his

3817:

This explains a great deal. Verbal, if you feel crazy every time someone proposes something you think preposterous, you will have one trouble after another. That some unknown editor says something "off" isn't a reason to make a big splash or to become mentally ill. And, in fact, I'm sure that

1081:

I don't think you'll find a policy explicitly describing such situations; it's one of the many areas where Knowledge depends on the common sense of its editors. This seemed like a clear-cut case to me - an editor was using a sockpuppet to egregiously violate a topic ban. As part of the sock's

3579:

Honestly, I don't see why it's necessary to jump through dozens of hoops when dealing with a clear-cut tendentious agenda account who (incidentally) has solicited meatpuppets and edit-warred well past 3RR with their help. But I guess I'm old-fashioned. I'll participate in whatever process is

3452:

Whither Yilloslime and DarrenHusted? They appeared to revert my changes to the article at the same time as Dessources, and yet have not said one word on the discussion page. I note that the last time I was in an edit war with Dessources, Yillowslime also showed up to revert changes. He is

2139:

I was about to comment that I searched the history of WP:PRX and searched its talk page, and can find no evidence of MastCell editing the proposal or commenting on the talk page, nor is he mentioned on the sock report where it was revealed that most of the editors supporting the proposal and

250:

In my initial response on my talk, before I'd looked at the specific proposals, I said that my first reaction to any suggestion that something that would work in geopolitical or ethnic conflicts should also work for fringe science topics is, "been there, done that." Perhaps a further word of

5147:

I think the best advice I can give you (and Sceptical Chymist) right now is to disengage. There's no deadline on the content issues; and at this point I think the interpersonal dispute is heated enough that both of you are more likely to shoot yourselves in the foot than to make progress.

5032:

editors such as Sceptical who I cannot deal with and need intervention. I cannot ignor trolls because they bombard the talk page denouncing people as ownership, NPOV all sorts of nonsense. Like Sceptical deleted a National Institute of Clinical Excellence systematic review leaving only a

1705:

Re the "user rehab" project: In the real world people who kick over the office furniture and delete all their coworkers' data get fired. In Knowledge we shower them with the attention they crave, sending an implicit "up yours" to all the constructive users whose time they have wasted.

3546:

OK; I've commented there. Next time, do you mind using more measured language, at least off the bat, rather than accusing me of a hagiographic attempt to obfuscate the historical record? Believe it or not, I (and I suspect most other people) respond better to the former approach.

2310:

they were separate people, making it look as if more people supported that daft proposal than actually did. If that's not sock puppetry, maybe I don't know what sock puppetry is. Whatever you call it, it's misleading and not in keeping with collegial editing and decisionmaking.

385:

Ahhh...so you admit you knew no one else would "bother" if a sockpuppet cleaned up typos. So you had to step up to the plate on your lonesome, eh? The question is: If no one else would bother doing something so petty and spiteful and damaging to the "project", why would you? -

4296:

edit at atropa belladona, something he's edit-warred about for probably a couple years now. He also significantly upped his bad faith behavior with disruptive and poorly-researched (sometimes libelous) talk page comments, and called for my ban on ANI with no diffs presented.

1834:

I think my favorite part was when a particular user accused me of deceptively stubbing the article, despite the fact that I specifically noted and diffed the stubbing (which was done by an anomymous IP) in my nomination statement. When called on this, the editor in question

236:

must edit both ways; if the panel of uninvolved neutrality arbiters can tell that your edits are more toward "the earth is not flat" POV and don't favor the "earth is flat" POV enough, then you are tagged as a not-neutral editor and topic banned. This doesn't seem crazy to

2958:

to be tendentious, by observing actual tendentious editors at work. You know - with each additional exemplary post that you feed it, the program analyzes the post and refines its algorithm accordingly. Of course, the problem is that I know nothing about computer science.

1224:

live virus vaccines exist, and that their usage influences the human immune system to fend off those and similar viruses. The purpose of this treatment method is a self-development, as it were, of its own vaccine to the actual blood borne pathogens present in the body.

1147:

Thanks for taking the time explaining. I agree with you and I'll do the revert if no one else has. I think common sense should be used here. The editor was very active in a lot of places that I saw, including the recall that got started during the RFC. Thanks again,

3594:), and I came to the conclusion that mediation is only useful if all parties are here to build an encyclopedia and simply disagree about the details. If one party is obviously here solely to push an agenda, encyclopedia be damned, then mediation is worse than useless. 187:

I'm not MastCell but I'll answer anyway because I'm obnoxious like that. A proposal requiring that every edit opposing the flat earth hypothesis or perpetual motion to be balanced with an edit favoring flat earth or perpetual motion is not something I would support.

571:

You guys really need to take your whey supplements. They can cure cynicism and empiricism (along with cancer, AIDS, and jock itch). If you don't believe me, just follow the 20+ links from our article to the "Whey Protein Institute" (wheyoflife.org), a member of the

1172:

than just leaving the sockpuppetry stand, which is why I'm not bothering to re-strike the material. It's up to you; it seems like there's some discussion about it on the RfC talk page, so whatever gets decided is fine with me - I'm not going to edit the RfC again.

4140:

That's very kind of you, and I appreciate it, although I think my politeness level has slipped several (dozen) notches over the years on Knowledge. This place really takes a toll after awhile. But your note will encourage me to try a bit harder to stay polite. :)

4525:

I'll take advantage of the parenthetical bit at the end. I stated that the FDA suspected additional cases because the FDA stated that the FDA suspected additional cases. What they said was, "the agency is aware that Matrixx appears to have more than 800 reports"

2240:"This page was originally created by someone using a small number of sockpuppets. There was in fact very little support for this proposal at all. It is kept in the historic record as an example of manipulation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" 348:

not me. I don't embarrass easily (I hope that's obvious by now). My soul request (or should that be sole?): Could you please (as a now ACTIVE administrator) clean up the typos and graffiti I had cleaned up before my actions were reverted. This occurred on

4158:

Hi... your memory or archives may be better than mine. There was a point where blocking or not of SA for minor improving edits was being discussed, and I contributed, amusingly at variance with the current situation. I don't suppose you know where that was?

3453:

obivously a long time editor and not a sockpuppet, but it is equally obvious he has been called in as one more user to revert changes. This is the sort of thing that makes editing the article impossible and causes guys like Chido to object to the process.

5101:

well otherwise it is impossible to get an accurate perception of the situation. I will be trying to avoid any name calling from now on as I realise losing my cool over the ruineed FA is not going to do anyone any favours. Thanks and have a nice day. :)--

4812:

Reading what I write on the topic on my Talk and making inflammatory comments about it, both there and now on an administrator Talk page, that's not "contentious"? Very personal terms of reference indeed. Thanks, MastCell, for your sober response. --

4291:

The minor edits weren't the issue, and I'm grateful that ArbCom actually did the research rather than listen to the people who kept making false statements. SA went immediately back to his old battles and made some pointless edits; for example, see

1219:

site:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov extracorporeal ultraviolet blood irradiation< one will find that many studies have been done. Some of the studies are a bit silly like exposing blood for many hours in UV, but others are more genuine and honestly done.

2971:

keeps refining the filter based on the new information. That's what we really need, not a grammar-generator that generates that kind of language, but a grammar-detector that identifies that kind of language and automatically rejects the input. :)

4919:

like a temporary flare up, 1 day wonder edit war but has been going on weeks, appealed to help to admins alledging trolling, they dismissed and said it is just content dispute, tried appealing on talk page to sceptical, was ignored repeatedly.--

1720:

Oh nonsense. If I can watch Knowledge "keep" an article on a redneck teenager whose claim to notability is that he fucked his girlfriend, you can surely survive an article on a woo-pushing crank being kept. :-P Boris: your point?

1581:

I've occasionally taken a stab at this informally, if I'm in the right mood, but I don't have the time or (more importantly) the energy and optimism to undertake a structured project along these lines. I do wish you luck, though.

4378:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

872:

Whoa....well,I do stacks of thyroid tests in psychiatry...all teh lithium, plus a one-off screening early on...one positive in the latter category in fifteen years there...and it was when I was working in the UK for six months.

807:

for well over 30 years now. (Fortunately, the fellows don't know the name of the present husband.) I legally changed the spelling of my first name, which was given to me by my mother in a fit of ill-advised cuteness. XX to all--

3863:

Abd, baiting isn't very good behaviour. I'm sure MastCell could fill in the details about the Placebo effect for you, and its relation to cancer therapy, but I wouldn't be surprised if he ignored your addition to this thread.

617:

was drafted partly in response to this problem, and aims to avoid the laundry lists of primary animal studies which are generally touted at dietary-supplement articles as proof of benefit. Anyhow, I think with a few minutes of

1923:

in this context. I was not around for it myself, but it gets mentioned at the MfD (which you may have seen since posting that, I cannot be arsed to check the chronology). I am not going to express much of an opinion regarding

2699: 717:. I'd suggest nominating the article for deletion, explaining that it appears to be a hoax (certainly there's no Google presence for this supposedly notable author). If you need help with the AfD nomination, let me know. 4363:

Excellent, so it looks like I was inconsistent with this as in everything else. Or perhaps, being more generous, having seen which way the wind was blowing I advised him to trim his sails to it (see, I can do Nautical)

3664: 4529:). I could have noted that that the FDA "had an apparent awareness" (or, better still, "an awareness of an appearance"), but figured that "suspected" would suffice for a paraphrase. My version reflected my source, and 2411:

I believe this is still the same person with the same obsessions though. The old Candcae Newmaker was killed by rebirthing, not attachment therapy was a good old sock issue. Adding the quals in this way is another.

1843:

of "further deception" in his edit summary. But we're talking about someone capable of making an ArbCom case out of the use of quotes in footnotes - there is no winning outcome in arguing with such a person, as the

1682:

Well, that's good to hear - I've been feeling pretty cranky and cynical recently. I think I'm definitely past the apogee and on the downswing of my Knowledge-admin career arc. I think the turning point can be found

483:

This might very well be the worst article of all time? It has it all: uncritical advertising copy, biological nonsense , unreliable sources AND commercial spam. Is there some kind of award I could nominate it for?

2837: 5233:

It's weird whose pages get left there. I automatically watch every page I edit but go prune the watchlist once in a while...I actually saw the 'foaming at the mouth' comment below so should have written there I

4054:

Congrats on the main page! That article was all you my friend. I have much better ERCP images that I should add to the article (ones that don't have the scope covering the stricture, lol). Take care dude --

4964:

Like one day he would be saying paradoxical effects happen in 10% of people, edit war over it, when I had reffed it to 1%, then he would be edit warring from the other POV playing down paradoxical effects.--

1060:

clear about the policy here about this. Thanks for your time. I have to admit, I had seen this editor around a lot and was quite surprised by the socking. Again, thanks for clarifying for me. Be well, --

1734:. The "user rehab" project involves disruptive users, not fringe articles. (FWIW, I'm fascinated with "woo-pushing cranks" and in the pre-interweb days used to seek them out on late-night shortwave radio.) 357:. If you have a soul you'll improve WP by cleaning this up. If you don't you won't just out of spite. We'll see. If you're really a hard nut you'll delete this and do nothing (rot in H*ll if you do). - 3192: 4216:

Do you think so, you mean old blocker you? :) Like I said, the decisions are being made whimsically. It's all about who your friends are, not what's good for the project. This is a prime example. --

3184: 908:

Ahaa. Was there not a good peer-reviewed paper rebuffing this that can be added? Anyway, i met a makeup artist who'd picked up hyperthyroidism by detecting the protruding eyes in someone she was making

4792:

Just to note that Abd's return to the t:CF page will be conditional on (amongst any number of things) him *not* labelling people like Mathsci contentious (he did the same to me too, but I can cope :-)

4069:, which is the other FA I worked on, and it's kind of mired in 2006 (and in a time when I knew less about Knowledge and its style guidelines etc). I've been meaning to update it. Anyhow, thanks again. 1297: 2439:-tagging? It is a bit outside my range of familiarity, though, so I'll probably have to pass this one on to someone else. Might be worth having a checkuser clear out any nests of sleeper sockpuppets. 5010:

I know how frustrating it can be to deal with something like that when you have trouble attracting administrative attention. Let me look into the situation a bit more fully over the next few days.

5463:

Thanks. He also edits from various places - probably when he's on holiday or at conferences or something. He's unlikely to give up. Persistance seems to be a key feature of attachment therapy.

4551:

I'll take another look at the article tomorrow - I've been editing it a bit. If there's a dispute that can't be resolved easily, then involving the medicine wikiproject would be reasonable.

1786:

That AfD is depressing. Honestly - an arbitrator voting with the most basic "per X", and citing someone whose version of reliable sourcing is "Per Amazon reviewer who said blah blah"? Nuts.

1848:

would say. I was a bit nonplussed by the Arbitrator's vote (and it was, simply, a vote) - he seemed to be endorsing behavior that I thought was objectively appalling. But what the hell. As

3682:

Good Lord... since software is one of the most commonly cited examples of "intelligent design", you'd think they could use find-and-replace correctly. Worse, from my perspective, is that

1562:

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues.

3845:

works through the placebo effect, but that's not based on reading it in reliable source, and I only propose that here to point out that I'm not biased toward homeopathy, au contraire. --

2874:

Just visiting, thought I'd say hello. So: "hello". Thanks for the pointer to the complaint generator: it is so true! Now I know where all those messages on my talk page came from. Best,

3133:, but it's not quality, so I've held it back.I really don't know what to say. Vuo managed to stay out of this COI, I probably should have too. I really didn't want to take the stance: 1019: 2569: 1258:, and so it would likely be counterproductive in treating an infectious disease. In fact, photopheresis is used to suppress inappropriate immune responses, as in the treatment of 1290: 4571: 1965:

You know, when I was an undergrad, I used to wonder why my chemistry and physics TAs were so mean to pre-meds. Then I looked around at my fellow pre-meds, and I was amazed that

2347:

multiple persons supporting something, and the existence of one more person (say, three, rather than two) would have been completely moot. I believe that during that process,

4402: 4388: 1673:

Oh like we're not already screwed? Hah. I love you, MastCell, and one of the things I love about your is your boundless, almost childlike, optimism and AGF. You're adorable.

945:, it's a bit complicated. Ideally, we could cover the notable aspects of his biography without giving undue weight to ignored or discredited health claims, but there are the 2472: 1500:

chemist in Australia = drugstore in US of A. Must go and take my vitamin C tablet as there are lots of colds and flu about and it has just gotten cold the last week or so...

3188: 1643:

I hate to break in here, but what's the deal with this "AMA" thing. It's obviously not the American Medical Association, but some ghost from wikipast. What's the story? --

776:

and one of the things raised in the arbitration. Lester is Mercers pre-marriage name and the rest is spelling. Isn't there some rule about not having offensive user names?

1448:....and hence my comment about the popularity of vitamins..I also presume even normal chemists in your neck of the woods have ever-growing alternative/herbal sections? :) 1743: 1725: 4084:

if you have a chance -- I think it's getting into FA territory (still some work left) but it could use the seasoned touch of an FA pro like yourself. Best regards --

3826:

of the placebo effect is where the legitimate controversy is, and to come to a true scientific conclusion on this is actually quite difficult. For how do you study it?

4546: 1324: 5373: 4668: 4461: 2689: 1357: 408: 379: 4202:

Ah yes, thats the one. I see I hung myself even further out to dry than I recalled. Or, following my previous naval metaphor, nailed my colours firmly to the mast

1401:. Many scientific experts are too time-poor to edit here and have no direct benefit to do so, unlike many proponents of various fringe theories and practices, who 566: 4356: 3770: 3731: 2965: 2945: 2712: 2055: 2036: 1888: 1768: 1715: 1242:

Extracoporeal irradiation of the blood with UV-A has a variety of reasonably well-described effects on the immune system. The most widely used approach is called

1130: 1111: 582: 395: 4649: 3458: 3758: 3744: 435: 366: 219: 197: 4807:

and most lately making provocative comments in my Talk space. And you can see an example of unnecessary contention above. I've been arguing that there is some

4684: 4010:

Being sourced isn't the same as being dubious. None of this material is dubious or even in any way unusual for those who are familiar with the subject matter.

2643: 1944:

enjoy disagreeing about project aims, I would just mentor undergraduates whose argument that they should not be kicked out of the lab for gross negligence is

1375: 968:

Is this a good place to hang out now OMs gone? I'd add something constructive but I'm far too tired after messing about with a circular hand saw. Goodnight!

593: 3623:, I think one could argue for 3RR enforcement, where reverts by the original editor plus all meats are counted together towards the four revert limitation. 5380:

Accurate criticism really hurts, other times it is more like the noises made by a dog running up and down behind a fence, barking at those who pass it by.

4587: 674: 402:

accounts, so I keep an eye on it. Let's not go any further with the charade that you're interested in fixing typos - it insults both of our intelligences.

4211: 4634:. I think you might be able to communicate more effectively with User:Keepcalmandcarryon. Plus, this is a sensitive subject that we've discussed before. 4425: 4373: 4181: 3168: 2903: 1236: 1213: 1056: 5448:. Given that his IP appears quite static and stable, going back at least to 2007, I've hardblocked it. That will prevent it from being used anonymously 4801: 4662: 4225: 4093:

Well, since you buttered me up... :) I will take a look, maybe not before Friday though given some other things I need to attend to. Interesting topic.

3207:

for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged.

557:

As a valuable bonus prize the prose sparkles like a divot. It's got that finely balanced almost-but-not-quite-gibberish quality that's hard to imitate.

4625: 4617: 4599: 3722:¡Yow! Talk about a smoking gun. The cat is out of the bag, or should I say the panda is out of the pen. Whatever cliche you want to use this is great. 1896:

that source was removed, it was reverted once because it is claimed that "LTE are a reliable source unless a retraction is printed". Hang in there. --

729: 1611: 4669: 4631: 2559:

Suggesting that a US politician ordered troops to fire on civilians seems like the kind of thing that should probably be, like, sourced, or something

1684: 1291:

Another link for a Google search has numerous articles about what I was initially thinking about vis a vis viruses, bacteria, mycoplasma, fungus, etc

610: 162: 4857: 4838: 4821: 1858: 1693: 1677: 1624: 1601: 5281: 5154: 5094: 5016: 4912: 4519: 3580:

necessary to restore some sanity, but I don't think I have the energy to take the lead. I don't think mediation will be useful. We tried that with

3146: 3112: 181: 2581: 1905: 1829: 1820: 1804: 816: 4557: 3949: 3365: 1652: 1588: 5359: 5337: 5314: 5300: 5061: 3488: 3100: 3002: 888: 867: 548: 154: 138: 5404: 5389: 4439: 3717: 3706: 3692: 3646: 3581: 3540: 3506: 2167: 1481: 1463: 1443: 1310: 1284: 850: 785: 752: 741: 321: 309: 294: 279: 4981: 4959: 4197: 4147: 3204: 3072: 2628: 2617: 2602: 1342: 691:

So, it would be appropriate to delete page "Ferzakerly Kernott". Is there a procedure to follow? Should this be notated in some standard way?

5472: 5458: 4565: 3983: 3917: 3896: 3632: 3553: 3389: 3295: 3284: 3262: 3228: 2980: 2919: 2552: 2536: 2525: 2509: 2487: 2462: 2445: 2149: 2014: 1994: 1873: 1836: 1549: 963: 924: 903: 800: 652: 640: 628: 470: 5177: 5141: 5118: 5081: 5050: 5004: 4936: 4896: 4787: 4773: 2825: 2780: 1515: 1179: 1163: 1093: 723: 4242: 3961: 3929: 3614: 3600: 3441: 1975: 1920: 1607: 994: 983: 732:

based on not finding any evidence that this person ever existed. (It's hard to hide a published novelist from the libraries of the world).

264: 4099: 4088: 4075: 4039: 4019: 4005: 3676: 988:

I can't match Orangemarlin's legendary hospitality. But I do have free beer and pretzels, as long as you show your Cabal Membership card.

5249: 5228: 5211: 3514: 2102: 762: 3311: 2386: 2372: 2319: 2197: 2126: 1425: 1393:

etc. So I think many laypeople don't really give it much thought - speaking of unproven remedies, think of how many of us take vitamins

4272: 4257: 2954:, and the trick is coming up with a grammar that captures the formulaic AN/I post. But it would be so much cooler if the program could 4675:

Contains the hilarious statement "Telepathy and war is kind of like Siamese cats and cheese" and then gets better from there. Superb.

4231: 3879: 3854: 1575: 4645: 4308: 2883: 3419: 2890: 2744: 2078: 1318: 4168: 5369: 4515: 4457: 4384: 4352: 3754: 3727: 2941: 2685: 2478: 2032: 1884: 1739: 1711: 1353: 1299:

extracorporeal UV irradiation vaccine Berger OR Salskov-Iversen dendritic cell cancer< found articles regarding research that,

1263: 1107: 562: 193: 5024: 1959: 1794: 1124:

a bunch of classic amps? For the low, low price of $ 1,500 - $ 2,500? It's tempting to stimulate the economy by purchasing one.

1042: 3811: 3353: 3119: 3078: 2936:), of course? Presumably all you'd have to do is load their database with Knowledge drivel instead of postmodern or CS drivel. 2219:

and quickly boiling it down to its essence. But let's not take my word for it, let's hear what Kim Bruning had to say about it:

633:

Let me guess, the only citations these papers have are from letters to the editor saying that their research is complete crap?

431: 391: 362: 2423: 703: 3106:

I don't quite get it - is the IP accusing you of having a COI and working for a tobacco company? Maybe I need more coffee...

2768: 838: 339: 2809: 1935: 1399:(and I am guilty as well as I pop another vitamin C and cross my fingers I don't get too many viral URTIs this winter in Oz) 4059: 3658: 3462: 5187:... for catching that weirdness on my Talk. AGF probably wouldn't have been my first thought, so thanks for handling it. 4186: 4134: 3216: 953:, essentially a slightly less sophisticated version of Barnes' claims, which has achieved sufficient fame (infamy?) to be 493: 5452:

to support logged-in editing. Depending on technical matters, that may or may not put a significant dent in the problem.

5445: 1864: 763: 3334: 2841:

With this new therapy you can cure the autism definitively? You can lose the diagnosis and the symptons definitively ?--

2592: 603: 353:

where some idiot has inserted "finance" crunch in the first sentence just to be a smart*ss and "bubbles" to "bubble" in

5365: 4873: 4511: 4453: 4380: 4348: 4316: 3750: 3723: 3638: 3371: 3319: 2937: 2864: 2850: 2681: 2028: 1880: 1735: 1707: 1349: 1103: 558: 458: 189: 5273: 4328: 3520: 2674: 5438: 5305:

Ooooh, "trusted non-admin". I'm honored, but I think you've just damaged your public reputation for good judgment. --

3394: 2588: 2497: 1208: 1075: 954: 791: 573: 521: 427: 387: 358: 5429:

old IP that he accidently used when harrassing users about their tax returns just before he got permanently banned.

4248:

it up, give him and his friends a chance. It will probably be a few days before I can get to writing the request. --

3344:

Since OM has abandoned us, are there any pages where my meager talents at quackfighting can be of marginal service?

4756: 4718: 3498: 3250: 2720: 1556: 5320: 1757:@Boris: That's true of an employer/employee situation. The really interesting thing, to me, is that virtually all 118: 5291: 4903: 4492: 3056: 3046: 3035: 2045:... it's probably part of assessing their vocational aptitude (ducks and covers). It's like Kirk cheating on the 1537: 1389:

metaanalyses which show an apparent affect but with insufficient benefit to be confirmed as real, or things like

1168:

Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to reinstate the edits. I actually think that edit-warring over it would be

373:

more productive use, but that's your call. No comment on whether I have a soul - I like to keep people guessing.

4698: 4416: 3125: 1227:

What is your view on extracorporeal ultraviolet blood irradiation for assisting the mammalian immune systems?

893:

Well, think of the thousands of cases you've missed by relying on scientific, evidence-based testing instead of

5467: 5433: 5245: 4834: 4797: 4398: 4369: 4207: 4164: 4115: 3969: 3279: 3245: 3152: 3088: 3030: 2879: 2815:

I'm sorry for not providing more detail or explanation when I reverted your edit. I'll cross-post this over to

2740: 2520: 2504: 2457: 2418: 1555: 1532: 1511: 1459: 1421: 1301:

at first inspection, seems not to be indexed at Pub-Med for whatever reason. Is any of this information valid?

920: 884: 780: 453: 5319:

Hah. That reputation must involve some public other than Knowledge's. Although I was recently told that I had

4827: 5199: 4641: 4304: 4293: 3884:

Verbal, I think that was just Abd's way of suggesting to you not to say negative things about other editors.

3788: 3749:

The quality of discourse is higher here. I'm not sure what to say about that, except that I have no comment.

3591: 3573: 3315: 770: 619: 446: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4613: 4583: 4527: 3049:

in our article, and stopped myself. This sounds so interesting I'm heading straight out to get it myself.

1954: 1243: 3380:

discussion page and would very much appreciate your input on the matter when you have time. Respectfully,

4412: 2910: 1254:), exposing them to ultraviolet light, and then reinfusing them. However, the effect of photopheresis is 662: 344:

You've still got the energy to block me. This madness is both frustrating and mildly embarrassing - for

168: 4497: 4407:

Total consistency isn't a natural human state. For one thing, it precludes the possibility of actually

4339: 4049: 3902:

diary. If you both remove your comments, feel free to remove my replies, or move them to my talk page.

3128: 2855:

News video released today that shows an autistic girl improving after receiving stem cell injections --

2750: 2729:

nevermind, spend US$ 800 on one of these handy-dandy dowsing stick-things and set to "award page" heh,

2406: 354: 38: 5347: 5328: 2860: 2846: 1397:

when we have a healthy diet which should provide us with everything - I reckon it's be 90% of us all

4830: 4793: 4712: 4394: 4365: 4203: 4160: 3385: 2875: 2786: 4109: 2819:

and respond there, so that the discussion can be seen and followed by other editors of the article.

2800:

short one-line comment on the further controversy would be acceptable. How should I have posted it?

2774:

The fate of the worm is to be resolved by civil discussion and consensus among involved editors. :)

2024: 5170: 5134: 5111: 5074: 5043: 4997: 4974: 4952: 4929: 4889: 4742: 4635: 4298: 3164: 3156: 3142: 3118:

through. So far I've raised verifiability, and relevance, which is described in my first post, diff

3096: 2990: 1839:(thus destroying the context of my complaint for subsequent readers) while simultaneously accusing 5060:

Hi, not sure if you want to investigate this or not but I compiled my evidence and summarised it.

3318:, and I would be interested in your comments on it. I invite you to participate in discussion on 1348:

Somehow the phrase "the fox guarding the henhouse" pops into my mind. I wonder why that could be?

855: 4730: 4609: 4579: 4530: 3937: 3339: 2986: 1901: 1275: 1038: 821: 148: 112: 4574:. If you have any objections, please let me know. To me, the org simply doesn't seem notable by 3376:

I just wanted to let you know that I posted some issues about the "microscopy" paragraph on the

1698:

Welcome to reality. The sooner you go through these stages, the sooner you'll be on the road to

933:, it's far enough below the radar screen of the scholarly community that no one has bothered to 172:

for fringe science areas, and I thought you'd be interested. I'd welcome your thoughts. Best,

4593:

Fine with me. It's not a notable organization, and the article will never be more than a stub.

4542: 4066: 3349: 3178: 3066:

being exhibit A - but as long as you go in with your eyes open, there's some good stuff there.

2468: 1648: 1571: 1259: 4778:

Thanks, MastCell. Abd's absence from cold fusion and its talk page seems completely positive.

4393:

So true. I will refraim from making any comment on your comment of 03:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

3137:

It's how I got accused of being the "antagonist". This is what's on my mind. What's on yours?

5355: 5310: 5269: 4121: 3399:

Hi MastCell, you seem to be able to get your radar up in a good way. I've been watching the

3377: 3122: 2998: 2869: 2565: 863: 812: 529: 129: 2856: 2842: 2287: 5385: 4680: 4435: 4081: 3970:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Medicinal_clay&diff=294470245&oldid=294470069

3945: 3892: 3702: 3672: 3628: 3447: 3381: 3330: 3084: 2951: 2816: 2670: 1826: 1810: 1801: 1722: 1674: 1598: 1477: 1439: 1338: 1306: 1232: 937:

rebut this particular person's claims. Ordinarily this would be grounds for deletion under

834: 737: 489: 476: 305: 275: 8: 5285: 5161: 5125: 5102: 5065: 5034: 4988: 4965: 4943: 4920: 4880: 4449: 4193: 4130: 3524: 3160: 3138: 3092: 3053: 2613: 2596:

have cited Katrina as a human-rights issue, then that warrants inclusion in the article.

2577: 2429:

I strongly suspect you're correct - I mean, how many legitimately new users start out by

2074: 1852:

said (or maybe it was Johnny Cash), I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way.

1812:. Could've threaded it better I guess, but I hate breaking into the middle of a section. 1267: 545: 464:

OK. Looks quiet for now, but if it picks up feel free to let me know and I'll handle it.

440: 4430:

Only Stalin was completely consistent, all the surviving documents agree on this point.

3796:

An editor is going around saying homeopathy cures cancer... I think I'm going insane...

2111:

I honestly don't remember interacting with you before the ArbCom case. Did I comment on

5239: 4324: 4153: 3911: 3873: 3805: 3767: 3536: 3305: 3212: 3063: 2976: 2734: 2382: 2315: 2145: 1990: 1897: 1752: 1505: 1453: 1415: 1057:

deleted the remarks at this RFC from a sock that went unnoticed for a really long time.

1050: 1034: 977: 950: 946: 914: 878: 637: 600: 290: 260: 47: 17: 3239: 5418: 5029: 4783: 4752: 4736: 4538: 4503: 4268: 4238: 4221: 3585: 3439: 3417: 3345: 2805: 2764: 2241: 1644: 1567: 1271: 1251: 1206: 1161: 1073: 894: 699: 3564:

It appears SonofFeanor isn't going to be reasonable. I suggest either Cabal or RfC.

2950:

Yeah, that's what I initially had in mind - a straightforward random expansion of a

2792:

would come along and fix the cite, since it was directly from their page, but... :)

5351: 5306: 5265: 4764: 4689: 4343: 3742: 3610: 3569: 3479: 3454: 2994: 2796: 2638: 2481:) account looks like it matches the overall pattern - if it persists, let me know. 1949: 1818: 1792: 938: 930: 859: 808: 773: 215: 177: 144: 108: 5423: 4338:

has to be thrown out the window in favor of strict policies. SA was cut enormous

3222:

No thanks - I'm over the temporary insanity that led me to comment on that issue.

2933: 688:

Middle Wallop is a geographical oddity in England. Ha, ha. She married at age 66.

5381: 5259: 4724: 4676: 4431: 4025: 4015: 3979: 3941: 3888: 3698: 3668: 3624: 3494: 3326: 3234: 2989:. Nobody has found anything better yet. I see that there is some refinement like 2666: 2662: 2655: 2514: 2496:. If you look at the article, she is the daughter of two of the three leaders of 2413: 1825:

Yeah, that was a sucky Afd all around. Teh Idiots R Winning, head for the hills!

1473: 1435: 1334: 1302: 1228: 830: 733: 614: 485: 419: 418:" not charade. I once sweated for two days over which word to use. I went with 301: 271: 207: 125: 2450: 1525: 826: 646:

whey protein, though they should probably be taken with a grain of lactalbumin.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5224: 5205:

No problem. I can't remember why your talk page is on my watchlist, but it is.

5195: 4534: 4189: 4126: 3819: 3620: 3528: 3050: 2831: 2756: 2725: 2609: 2573: 2070: 2046: 1699: 1390: 542: 5264:

Sure, go ahead, make me feel guilty about a perfectly harmless lynching. :) --

3272: 3127:, which should both verify and clarify the second paragraph in the old version 2570:

Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#cite_note-shoottokill-64

5464: 5454: 5444:

I've blocked the named account as a sock, and restored the semiprotection of

5430: 5426: 5400: 5333: 5296: 5235: 5207: 5182: 5150: 5090: 5012: 4908: 4853: 4817: 4769: 4706: 4658: 4595: 4575: 4553: 4488: 4421: 4335: 4320: 4253: 4177: 4143: 4095: 4071: 4035: 4001: 3925: 3850: 3764: 3713: 3688: 3642: 3596: 3549: 3532: 3484: 3482:

has some general guidelines about appropriate ways to solicit outside input.

3400: 3361: 3291: 3276: 3258: 3242: 3224: 3208: 3200: 3196: 3108: 3087:

you seem to be better at handling this. There's an active COI, article is at

3068: 3027: 3018: 2972: 2961: 2915: 2899: 2821: 2776: 2730: 2708: 2658: 2651: 2647: 2624: 2598: 2532: 2517: 2501: 2483: 2454: 2441: 2433: 2415: 2378: 2368: 2358: 2311: 2193: 2141: 2122: 2112: 2098: 2085: 2051: 2010: 1986: 1971: 1869: 1854: 1764: 1689: 1620: 1597:

of luck. It looks just like the AMA to me and several other "older" editors.

1584: 1545: 1529: 1520: 1501: 1449: 1411: 1371: 1280: 1175: 1126: 1089: 990: 959: 942: 910: 899: 874: 846: 796: 777: 748: 719: 714: 710: 683: 648: 634: 624: 597: 578: 466: 450: 423: 404: 375: 350: 317: 286: 256: 134: 2608:

deleted. I suspect a lot of additional material should be removed as well.

4779: 4748: 4445: 4264: 4234: 4217: 3475: 3427: 3405: 3062:

Yeah. The French sometimes confuse transgressiveness with literary merit -

3040: 3023: 2894: 2801: 2760: 1194: 1149: 1099: 1061: 895:

one person's anecdotes backed by a handful of obscure infomercials-in-print

695: 477: 5062:

Talk:Benzodiazepine#Refute_the_evidence_base_both_scientific_and_wikipedia

4844:

wheel-warring, on a matter that is far more important than whether I edit

4632:

Talk:Megavitamin_therapy#Vitamin_C_and_the_cold.3B_toxicity_of_vitamin_B12

3183:

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one

4845: 4030: 4029:

lack your deep knowledge of the subject. We provide reliable sources and

3995: 3903: 3865: 3797: 3737: 3606: 3565: 3559: 3205:

Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake

3131: 2893:, so I should really pour out a bit of tequila on the ground in honor of 1813: 1787: 1615: 969: 507: 211: 173: 102: 4697:

labeled such a challenge as the act of a recognized contentious editor.

1121: 949:.Curiously, one of Barnes' modern disciples has marketed the concept of 670:

I raised the issue of the hoaxing user Phillind back in April with you.

210:, and (from my perspective) everyone is welcome to chip in their view. 4085: 4056: 4011: 3975: 3789: 2493: 1731: 415: 4848:

or not, and it's become very clear what the next necessary step is. --

4829:

remains true. Please make sure that you have read and understood that

4608:

At least one editor disputes, so I'm taking it to AfD for more input.

4230:

And to provide a contrast in self-consistency, consider the following

300:

editors, and maybe with some fringe people who are generally trusted.

5218: 5189: 3974:

could you please explain in which way any of this info is "dubious"?

3736:

Bets on whether you edit MastCell's talkpage more than your own? ;-)

3359:

Most of the pages I'm involved I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. :)

1330:

I'm sorry you went through the frustrating experience you mentioned.

1247: 5327:

such a reputation to damage. Hell, I've even been downgraded from a

3619:

In the Sonof Feanor case, there is admitted use of meatpuppets. Per

2929: 2925: 2913:

once, but I'm probably dating myself. Does anyone use Lisp anymore?

2622:

OK. I will probably leave a brief comment on the article talk page.

2188:

sock puppetry, and there was no significant effect on any result. --

1018: 728:

Your talk page stalkers sometimes come through for you. I've opened

4849: 4813: 4701: 4690: 4630:

Hi MastCell, I was wondering if you could offer some input over at

4484: 4452:. Otherwise I would sternly rebuke your imperialist provocations. 4249: 3846: 2467:

I agree about the latter and have blocked it. In that context, the

2364: 2189: 2094: 1367: 772:. Please note the user name. This is one of his regular attacks on 4342:

because for years he defended the integrity of Knowledge against

1849: 345: 5395: 4572:

Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis

1117: 541:(Modified from one of the deleted revisions of Template:Sucks) 445:

The DPeterson entity/Weidman has amde another brief appearance

4118:, I thought you might be interested. 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4065:

I hope it's still up to date. I was looking at the article on

3151:

I think it may be clearing up. Discusion are now centered at:

1928:

as such work lies outside my skillset, but every time I think

1323:

Re "more editors available to protect the majority position":

4507: 3763:

Well I'm glad it's on my watchlist. The figure is great. :)

3135:

look, we need to check what's going into our 100+ Kb article.

1614:. One more repetition of its name and we're screwed, like in 4033:

as a courtesy to those readers. Short summary: sources plz.

3195:

thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the

2453:

looks deffo. Obviously not much going on in the world of AT.

682:

He describes the author's husband "whom she met at a pub in

3605:

Topic ban is the next step, but I'll ask for an RfC first.

2020: 1845: 1246:, which involves separating lymphocytes from the blood via 4315:

WMC, I think this is the thread you were thinking of. . .(

3637:

From the Statements of the Blindingly Obvious Department:

673:

He's responsible for this oddball children's author page "

2564:

It already appears sourced in two articles on Knowledge (

3639:"Don't care if you are willing to compromise. I am not." 3493:

As a compromise, how about "partly funded and managed"?

2069:

I laughed. I KILLED AMA BEFORE AND I CAN IGNORE IT NOW.

5342:

Whew, I was afraid you were going to say "I never said

2492:

I should also mention that the fact tagging started on

1606:

Speaking of the AMA, it's apparently alive and well at

1593:

Don't bother to wish them luck; or perhaps wish them a

1033:

You're a better (more civil) man than I am, Gunga Din.

107:

You nearly made me spill my coffee, I laughed so hard.

5364:

Yeah, the bad economy is hitting everybody nowadays.

3940:

has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor.

1946:

but then I cannot get into my favorite medical school

609:

Hah - if the turned out in full force to shoot down

3993:

please explain in which way any of this material is

2889:

Well, the drinking game was actually first proposed

2680:

must... resist... temptation to start ANI thread...

667:

Hi, I see you are off admin duties. So, quickly ...

414:

If you knew me better you would have used the term "

1098:6SJ7 (despite being named for the preamp tube in a 206:That would not be 'balanced' within the meaning of 1274:production, or selection of suppressive-phenotype 1250:, incubating them with a photosensitizer (usually 730:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ferzakerly Kernott 4670:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war 1809:MastCell mentioned it above as the turning point 858:really needs a good wacking using that source. -- 794:. I semiprotected the target page again as well. 533:in any way you can, if such a thing is possible. 5216:Surely because it is such fascinating reading! 5160:You are right, good advice and dualy noted. :)-- 5025:Talk:Benzodiazepine/Archive_3#Withdrawal_section 3697:The Lord must have nudged the poor guy's elbow. 3686:sentences are grammatically offensive run-ons. 2591:article as well? I'll be happy to do this, but 1863:... and, of course, I have sought solace in my 2993:, but I'm not sure of how popular they are. -- 1543:Blocked as matching the now-familiar pattern. 4334:Sadly, Knowledge is reaching the stage where 2698:Careful... the last time I was "blocked", it 3832:which raises ethical issues. Not easy to do. 2088:? This was a trial balloon for a structural 1999:I read an interesting essay once, entitled: 1610:- funny you should mention it, since I just 1608:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse 1469:stores have big vitamin/herb/etc. sections. 2700:messed with peoples' heads something fierce 1921:Knowledge:Association of Members' Advocates 1289:I accept that what you say has been found. 1214:Non-Drug, Non-Vaccine treatment of diseases 941:, but as the person himself has a claim to 5321:"badly damaged my intellectual reputation" 4626:Megavitamin therapy and Keepcalmandcarryon 622:, the article has improved substantially. 143:Did you count the grilled cheese sandwich? 1930:maybe we could have ScienceApologist back 163:A new approach for dealing with conflict? 4767:, where progress can hopefully be made. 3527:to explain further your recent edits to 2724: 2166:In the immortal words of Emily Latella ( 1264:hematopoietic stem cell transplantation 14: 5346:were a trusted non-admin". And ouch; 4411:anything new, a point I tried to make 2795:Also, I'm a little confused about the 2001:The Pre-Med as a Metaphor of Antipathy 1016: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4566:Prod at Group for the Scientific etc. 3818:homeopathy cures cancer, through the 3045:I started reading the description of 2836:Watch this video, it is interesting. 2572:) and in dozens of sources on GNews. 2553:Re: Human rights in the United States 957:by the American Thyroid Association. 680:He left us a little clue to his hoax: 3962:Preparation of clay (Medicinal clay) 2985:Spam filters are still all based in 1218:If one does a Google Search of : --> 1102:) is prone to do things like that. 25: 5446:Attachment-based therapy (children) 4080:MastCell, could you have a peek at 3515:Could you please explain further... 3199:article. As of May 24th, 2009, an 764:Attachment-based therapy (children) 23: 5329:"paid biostitute" to an unpaid one 1116:That reminds me: did you see that 506: 24: 5486: 5323:, which at least presumes that I 2589:Human rights in the United States 2498:Advocates for Children in Therapy 1865:campaign to vandalize the article 1100:highly regarded classic amplifier 856:Hypothyroidism#Diagnostic_testing 132:), we laugh to keep from crying. 4826:Your agreement is not required. 2895:homies who are no longer with us 2377:Guys, how's that filter coming? 2025:cheating is virtually unheard of 1969:could put up with them (us). :) 1319:Proportion of pro-fringe editors 1017: 251:clarification would be helpful: 29: 5280:contribs, I can empathize with 4904:User Talk:The Sceptical Chymist 502: 5394:... and, more often than not, 4116:Talk:Health effects of tobacco 3153:Talk:Health effects of tobacco 3089:Talk:Health effects of tobacco 3079:Talk:Health effects of tobacco 13: 1: 5366:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4700:As far as I am aware, unlike 4570:MastCell, I placed a prod on 4512:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4454:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4381:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4349:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4114:An RFC is being conducted at 4110:RFC Health effects of tobacco 3751:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 3724:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 3316:User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing 2938:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 2682:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 2041:Yeah, but those are aspiring 2029:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1881:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1736:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1708:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1366:This reveals a great deal. -- 1350:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1104:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 559:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 190:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4533:(I'll take the edit summary 3663:Taken from PMID 17494747 is 3659:Funniest article figure ever 2587:OK. Can we source it in the 1919:@BR way on up there - AMA = 1244:extracorporeal photopheresis 574:National Academy of Sciences 7: 4444:Presently I am in a pub in 2566:Kathleen_Blanco#cite_note-0 709:Hoaxes generally cannot be 10: 5491: 4874:Only one day hi by the way 3936:FYI, The user in question 3372:Robert Young (author) page 1087:for the heads-up, though. 929:As is often the case with 5459:20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 5439:19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 5405:19:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5390:19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5374:18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5360:18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5350:at least a little bit. -- 5338:18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5315:18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5301:18:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5274:18:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5250:19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5229:18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5212:17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5200:17:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 5178:20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 5155:20:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 5142:20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 5119:19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 5095:19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 5082:18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 5051:22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 5017:20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 5005:18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4982:18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4960:18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4937:18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4913:18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4897:18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4858:13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4839:11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4822:11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4802:10:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4788:03:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4774:03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4757:03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 4685:23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 4663:19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 4650:18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 4618:20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 4600:05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 4588:20:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 4558:05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 4547:15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 4520:15:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 4493:23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4462:21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4440:21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4426:21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4403:21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4389:19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4374:19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4357:19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4329:19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4273:04:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 4258:02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 4243:00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 4226:00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 4212:19:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4198:18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4182:18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4169:18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 4148:04:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 4135:04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 4100:16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 4089:10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 3395:Could use your experience 3314:to Abd's userspace essay 3310:Hi, MastCell. I added a 2932:(the latter resulting in 1879:shelter and enable them. 1730:(ec a go go) ::::::::See 1023: 769:Hi. That AT sock is back 713:, and need to go through 5473:08:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 4076:16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4060:06:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4040:23:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4020:22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4006:04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3984:15:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3966:In regard to this edit, 3950:06:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3930:04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3918:19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3897:19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3880:19:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3855:18:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3812:09:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3771:04:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 3759:01:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 3745:00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 3732:00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 3718:22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3707:22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3693:22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3677:21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3647:01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 3633:21:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3615:14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3601:03:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3574:03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 3554:15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 3541:13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 3507:16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3489:15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3463:15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3442:14:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 3420:12:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3390:02:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3366:03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3354:14:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 3335:13:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 3296:17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 3285:16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 3263:16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 3251:16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 3229:03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 3217:23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 3169:19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 3157:User talk:ChyranandChloe 3147:03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 3113:23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 3101:23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 3073:23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 3057:04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 3036:07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 3003:05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2991:Markovian discrimination 2981:04:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2966:03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2946:00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2920:22:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2904:22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2884:22:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2865:17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2851:17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2826:21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2810:16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2781:20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2769:08:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2745:06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2721:lost your barnstar page? 2713:04:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 2706:at my actual block log. 2690:22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2675:22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2629:16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 2618:16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 2603:16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 2582:16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 2537:17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2526:21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 2510:21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2488:18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2463:18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2446:17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2424:07:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2387:18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 2373:18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 2320:17:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 2198:13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 2150:23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2127:23:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2103:13:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2079:19:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2056:19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2037:18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2015:18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 1995:18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 1976:17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 1960:16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 1906:13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 1889:21:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1874:21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1859:20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1830:20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1821:20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1805:19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1795:19:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1769:18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1744:19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1726:18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1716:18:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1694:18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1678:18:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1653:05:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 1625:18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1602:18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1589:08:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1576:04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1550:01:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1538:21:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1516:14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1482:13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1464:12:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1444:12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1426:02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1376:01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1358:01:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1343:01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1311:18:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1285:20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1276:antigen-presenting cells 1237:19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1209:20:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1180:18:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1164:09:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 1131:17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1112:17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1094:16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1076:10:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1043:21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 995:21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 984:21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 964:21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 925:20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 904:20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 889:20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 868:20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 851:19:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 839:19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 817:14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 801:17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 786:06:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 753:17:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 742:17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 724:17:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 704:06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 653:18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 641:18:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 629:18:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 604:18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 583:17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 567:03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 549:03:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 494:03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 471:16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 459:07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 436:08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 409:02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 396:08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 380:00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 367:08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 322:00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 3938:User:NootherIDAvailable 2987:Bayesian spam filtering 1932:I have to counter with 943:biographical notability 310:17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 295:15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 280:13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 265:04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 220:13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 198:09:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 182:05:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 167:Hi MastCell, I started 155:20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 139:17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 119:17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 4448:, feeling somewhat... 4319:-old page revision). 4067:acute myeloid leukemia 4031:verifiable information 3480:the page on canvassing 3130:. Draft is online here 2747: 1800:Which afd? Which arb? 1557:WikiProject User Rehab 1260:graft-vs.-host disease 511: 422:as a hidden homage to 128:said (or maybe it was 3378:Robert Young (author) 2728: 2120:people how to do it. 715:articles for deletion 510: 499:Here's my suggestion: 428:Lizzy"KeenEye"Coleman 388:Lizzy"KeenEye"Coleman 359:Lizzy"KeenEye"Coleman 42:of past discussions. 5396:foaming at the mouth 4831:William M. Connolley 4794:William M. Connolley 4502:I'm concerned about 4395:William M. Connolley 4366:William M. Connolley 4204:William M. Connolley 4161:William M. Connolley 4082:hepatorenal syndrome 3085:Talk:Passive smoking 2952:context-free grammar 2876:William M. Connolley 2817:Talk:Passive smoking 2755:What happens to the 1934:maybe we could have 4187:21:41, 6 March 2009 3841:is that homeopathy 3525:Talk:Gladys Kessler 2530:OK, I'm convinced. 2019:As compared to the 1926:User rehabilitation 1298:Google search : --> 1296:Also the following 1268:natural killer cell 955:officially debunked 663:User Phillind again 340:"Stepping Back" eh? 5221: 5192: 4656:for all involved. 4610:Keepcalmandcarryon 4580:Keepcalmandcarryon 4498:Need eyes on Zicam 4050:Cholangiocarcinoma 3740: 3476:dispute resolution 3064:Michel Houellebecq 2751:AN/I drinking game 2748: 2407:Slightly different 1816: 1790: 675:Ferzakerly Kernott 520:and is in need of 512: 18:User talk:MastCell 5470: 5436: 5348:that's gotta hurt 5227: 5217: 5198: 5188: 4902:I left a note at 4504:User:Cosmic Latte 3916: 3878: 3810: 3738: 3711:Mysterious ways. 3523:you to return to 3502: 3282: 3248: 3203:has been open at 3033: 2787:Help with sources 2702:. And don't even 2523: 2507: 2469:CarbonNot_Silicon 2460: 2421: 2354:of these accounts 1958: 1814: 1788: 1756: 1535: 1272:regulatory T cell 1256:immunosuppressive 1252:8-methoxypsoralen 1055:Hi MastCell, you 1048: 1047: 982: 951:Wilson's syndrome 829:might be useful. 783: 538: 537: 456: 153: 117: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5482: 5468: 5434: 5223: 5194: 5175: 5167: 5164: 5139: 5131: 5128: 5116: 5108: 5105: 5079: 5071: 5068: 5048: 5040: 5037: 5002: 4994: 4991: 4979: 4971: 4968: 4957: 4949: 4946: 4934: 4926: 4923: 4894: 4886: 4883: 4765:Talk:Cold fusion 4746: 4719:deleted contribs 4638: 4301: 4026:reliable sources 3914: 3910: 3908: 3887: 3876: 3872: 3870: 3808: 3804: 3802: 3500: 3437: 3432: 3426:bothered you, -- 3415: 3410: 3325: 3280: 3271:Looks like he's 3246: 3031: 2521: 2505: 2458: 2438: 2432: 2419: 1952: 1837:altered his post 1750: 1533: 1472: 1434: 1410:time doing so. 1333: 1204: 1199: 1159: 1154: 1071: 1066: 1021: 1014: 1013: 980: 976: 974: 947:usual roadblocks 781: 774:User:Jean Mercer 711:speedily deleted 620:hardcore editing 503: 454: 151: 147: 115: 111: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5490: 5489: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5421: 5262: 5185: 5171: 5165: 5162: 5135: 5129: 5126: 5112: 5106: 5103: 5075: 5069: 5066: 5044: 5038: 5035: 4998: 4992: 4989: 4975: 4969: 4966: 4953: 4947: 4944: 4930: 4924: 4921: 4890: 4884: 4881: 4876: 4704: 4694: 4673: 4636: 4628: 4568: 4500: 4299: 4156: 4124: 4112: 4052: 3964: 3912: 3904: 3885: 3874: 3866: 3806: 3798: 3794: 3661: 3562: 3517: 3505: 3450: 3433: 3428: 3411: 3406: 3397: 3382:Honest Research 3374: 3342: 3340:How can I help? 3323: 3308: 3237: 3181: 3081: 3043: 3021: 2924:You know about 2872: 2834: 2789: 2753: 2723: 2641: 2555: 2436: 2430: 2409: 2352:were no blocks 1827:KillerChihuahua 1802:KillerChihuahua 1723:KillerChihuahua 1675:KillerChihuahua 1599:KillerChihuahua 1560: 1523: 1470: 1432: 1331: 1321: 1216: 1200: 1195: 1155: 1150: 1067: 1062: 1053: 978: 970: 824: 822:Thyroid article 767: 665: 481: 443: 342: 165: 149: 126:Langston Hughes 113: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5488: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5420: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5331:. No respect. 5261: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5184: 5181: 5158: 5157: 5098: 5097: 5020: 5019: 4916: 4915: 4875: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4693: 4688: 4672: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4627: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4603: 4602: 4567: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4499: 4496: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4417:unsuccessfully 4360: 4359: 4317:Useless advice 4313: 4312: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4175:idly curious. 4155: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4123: 4120: 4111: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4051: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 3963: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3858: 3857: 3834: 3833: 3828: 3827: 3820:Placebo effect 3793: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3660: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3561: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3529:Gladys Kessler 3516: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3497: 3449: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3396: 3393: 3373: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3341: 3338: 3307: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3289:Must be nice. 3266: 3265: 3236: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3180: 3179:RfC Invitation 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3161:ChyranandChloe 3139:ChyranandChloe 3093:ChyranandChloe 3080: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3042: 3039: 3020: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2871: 2868: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2752: 2749: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2693: 2692: 2640: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2593:our guidelines 2562: 2561: 2554: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2106: 2105: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2047:Kobayashi Maru 1979: 1978: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1703: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1522: 1519: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1391:placebo effect 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1361: 1360: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1294: 1293: 1215: 1212: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1052: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1030: 1029: 1027:Civility Award 1024: 1022: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 823: 820: 804: 803: 766: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 687: 681: 664: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 552: 551: 536: 535: 513: 501: 500: 480: 475: 474: 473: 442: 439: 412: 411: 383: 382: 341: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 225: 224: 223: 222: 201: 200: 164: 161: 160: 159: 158: 157: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5487: 5474: 5471: 5466: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5457: 5456: 5451: 5447: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5437: 5432: 5428: 5424: 5406: 5403: 5402: 5397: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5387: 5383: 5379: 5375: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5357: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5336: 5335: 5330: 5326: 5322: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5299: 5298: 5293: 5290: 5287: 5283: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5271: 5267: 5251: 5247: 5244: 5241: 5237: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5226: 5220: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5210: 5209: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5197: 5191: 5180: 5179: 5176: 5174: 5168: 5156: 5153: 5152: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5140: 5138: 5132: 5121: 5120: 5117: 5115: 5109: 5096: 5093: 5092: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5080: 5078: 5072: 5063: 5058: 5057: 5053: 5052: 5049: 5047: 5041: 5031: 5026: 5018: 5015: 5014: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5003: 5001: 4995: 4984: 4983: 4980: 4978: 4972: 4962: 4961: 4958: 4956: 4950: 4939: 4938: 4935: 4933: 4927: 4914: 4911: 4910: 4905: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4895: 4893: 4887: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4810: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4772: 4771: 4766: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4754: 4750: 4744: 4741: 4738: 4735: 4732: 4729: 4726: 4723: 4720: 4717: 4714: 4711: 4708: 4703: 4699: 4692: 4687: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4671: 4664: 4661: 4660: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4633: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4601: 4598: 4597: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4559: 4556: 4555: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4495: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4424: 4423: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4362: 4361: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4295: 4290: 4289: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4188: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4180: 4179: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4149: 4146: 4145: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4122:Water Ionizer 4119: 4117: 4101: 4098: 4097: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4074: 4073: 4068: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4058: 4041: 4038: 4037: 4032: 4027: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4004: 4003: 3998: 3997: 3992: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3972: 3971: 3967: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3909: 3907: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3877: 3871: 3869: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3830: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3809: 3803: 3801: 3791: 3772: 3769: 3766: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3741: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3716: 3715: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3690: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3648: 3645: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3599: 3598: 3593: 3590: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3555: 3552: 3551: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3508: 3504: 3503: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3487: 3486: 3481: 3477: 3472: 3471:content issue 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3443: 3440: 3438: 3436: 3431: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3418: 3416: 3414: 3409: 3402: 3401:Serial killer 3392: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3367: 3364: 3363: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3321: 3320:the talk page 3317: 3313: 3297: 3294: 3293: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3283: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3261: 3260: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3244: 3241: 3230: 3227: 3226: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3197:Rachel Corrie 3194: 3190: 3186: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3129: 3126: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3110: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3074: 3071: 3070: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3038: 3037: 3034: 3029: 3025: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2963: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2918: 2917: 2912: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2870:Just visiting 2867: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2827: 2824: 2823: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2798: 2793: 2782: 2779: 2778: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2746: 2742: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2727: 2714: 2711: 2710: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2630: 2627: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2600: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2524: 2519: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2485: 2480: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2444: 2443: 2435: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2422: 2417: 2414: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2360: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2242: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2128: 2125: 2124: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1956: 1951: 1947: 1941: 1939: 1937: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898:Quartermaster 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1838: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1811: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1770: 1767: 1766: 1760: 1754: 1753:edit conflict 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1691: 1686: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1558: 1551: 1548: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1328: 1325: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1221: 1211: 1210: 1207: 1205: 1203: 1198: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1158: 1153: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1072: 1070: 1065: 1058: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035:Quartermaster 1032: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1020: 1015: 996: 993: 992: 987: 986: 985: 981: 975: 973: 967: 966: 965: 962: 961: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 922: 919: 916: 912: 907: 906: 905: 902: 901: 896: 892: 891: 890: 886: 883: 880: 876: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 857: 854: 853: 852: 849: 848: 844:Thanks, Tim. 843: 842: 841: 840: 836: 832: 828: 819: 818: 814: 810: 802: 799: 798: 793: 790: 789: 788: 787: 784: 779: 775: 771: 765: 754: 751: 750: 745: 744: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 726: 725: 722: 721: 716: 712: 708: 707: 706: 705: 701: 697: 692: 689: 685: 684:Middle Wallop 678: 676: 671: 668: 654: 651: 650: 644: 643: 642: 639: 636: 632: 631: 630: 627: 626: 621: 616: 612: 608: 607: 606: 605: 602: 599: 595: 584: 581: 580: 575: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 556: 555: 554: 553: 550: 547: 544: 540: 539: 534: 532: 531: 524: 523: 519: 516:This article 514: 509: 505: 504: 498: 497: 496: 495: 491: 487: 479: 472: 469: 468: 463: 462: 461: 460: 457: 452: 448: 438: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424:George Benson 421: 417: 410: 407: 406: 400: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 381: 378: 377: 371: 370: 369: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 351:credit crunch 347: 323: 320: 319: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 298: 297: 296: 292: 288: 283: 282: 281: 277: 273: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 254: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 235: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 204: 203: 202: 199: 195: 191: 186: 185: 184: 183: 179: 175: 170: 156: 152: 146: 142: 141: 140: 137: 136: 131: 127: 123: 122: 121: 120: 116: 110: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5453: 5449: 5422: 5399: 5343: 5332: 5324: 5295: 5288: 5263: 5242: 5206: 5186: 5172: 5159: 5149: 5136: 5122: 5113: 5099: 5089: 5076: 5059: 5055: 5054: 5045: 5021: 5011: 4999: 4985: 4976: 4963: 4954: 4940: 4931: 4917: 4907: 4891: 4877: 4808: 4768: 4739: 4733: 4727: 4721: 4715: 4709: 4695: 4674: 4657: 4629: 4594: 4569: 4552: 4539:Cosmic Latte 4531:your version 4506:'s edits of 4501: 4479: 4476: 4420: 4408: 4336:common sense 4314: 4176: 4157: 4142: 4125: 4113: 4094: 4070: 4053: 4034: 4024:I don't see 4000: 3994: 3990: 3973: 3968: 3965: 3924: 3905: 3867: 3842: 3838: 3823: 3799: 3795: 3712: 3687: 3683: 3662: 3641: 3595: 3588: 3563: 3548: 3518: 3499: 3483: 3470: 3451: 3448:Meatpuppetry 3434: 3429: 3412: 3407: 3398: 3375: 3360: 3346:Aunt Entropy 3343: 3309: 3290: 3257: 3240:Dr DDP again 3238: 3223: 3182: 3134: 3107: 3082: 3067: 3044: 3022: 2960: 2955: 2914: 2898: 2873: 2857:green island 2854: 2843:green island 2840: 2835: 2820: 2794: 2790: 2775: 2754: 2737: 2707: 2703: 2642: 2623: 2597: 2563: 2558: 2531: 2482: 2475: 2440: 2410: 2353: 2348: 2168:Gilda Ratner 2121: 2117: 2089: 2068: 2050: 2042: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1970: 1966: 1945: 1942: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1918: 1868: 1853: 1840: 1785: 1763: 1758: 1688: 1619: 1612:did the same 1594: 1583: 1563: 1561: 1544: 1524: 1508: 1497: 1496: 1456: 1418: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1329: 1322: 1279: 1270:reactivity, 1255: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1174: 1169: 1156: 1151: 1125: 1088: 1083: 1068: 1063: 1054: 1026: 989: 971: 958: 935:specifically 934: 931:fringe stuff 917: 898: 881: 845: 825: 805: 795: 768: 747: 718: 693: 690: 679: 672: 669: 666: 647: 623: 591: 577: 528: 526: 517: 515: 482: 478:Whey protein 465: 444: 413: 403: 384: 374: 343: 316: 252: 233: 169:this section 166: 133: 106: 78: 43: 37: 5382:Tim Vickers 5352:Floquenbeam 5307:Floquenbeam 5266:Floquenbeam 4846:Cold fusion 4677:Tim Vickers 4432:Tim Vickers 3942:Tim Vickers 3699:Tim Vickers 3669:Tim Vickers 3455:SonofFeanor 2995:Enric Naval 2667:Tim Vickers 2661:now, dat's 1616:Beetlejuice 1526:neverending 1395:(hahahahha) 1122:"reissuing" 860:Enric Naval 831:Tim Vickers 809:Jean Mercer 746:Thanks. :) 486:Tim Vickers 441:Banned User 145:LeadSongDog 109:LeadSongDog 36:This is an 5163:Literature 5127:Literature 5104:Literature 5067:Literature 5036:Literature 5030:WP:DISRUPT 4990:Literature 4967:Literature 4945:Literature 4922:Literature 4882:Literature 4737:block user 4731:filter log 4154:SA minor Q 3889:Coppertwig 3792:and cancer 3790:Homeopathy 3665:this image 3625:EdJohnston 3495:Yilloslime 3327:Coppertwig 3306:Invitation 3273:on holiday 3051:Antandrus 2797:WP: WEIGHT 2648:dissing me 2494:Emily Rosa 2090:supplement 2005:interested 1936:Firefly322 1732:skew lines 1474:Coppertwig 1436:Coppertwig 1335:Coppertwig 1303:Oldspammer 1229:Oldspammer 1051:A question 734:EdJohnston 543:Antandrus 530:improve it 420:masquerade 416:masquerade 302:EdJohnston 272:EdJohnston 95:Archive 30 90:Archive 29 85:Archive 28 79:Archive 27 73:Archive 26 68:Archive 25 60:Archive 20 5419:And again 5282:MitchCool 4743:block log 4535:in stride 4415:, albeit 4190:Hipocrite 4127:Gillyweed 3837:Note, my 2654:. Got to 2610:Viriditas 2574:Viriditas 2071:Hipocrite 1759:volunteer 1645:Brangifer 1568:Brangifer 1498:(outdent) 1248:apheresis 939:WP:FRINGE 594:precedent 522:attention 285:myself. 150:come howl 114:come howl 5465:Fainites 5455:MastCell 5431:Fainites 5401:MastCell 5334:MastCell 5297:MastCell 5292:contribs 5246:contribs 5236:Casliber 5234:guess... 5208:MastCell 5151:MastCell 5091:MastCell 5056:Evidence 5013:MastCell 4909:MastCell 4809:evidence 4770:MastCell 4713:contribs 4691:User:Abd 4659:MastCell 4596:MastCell 4554:MastCell 4450:tolerant 4446:Toulouse 4422:MastCell 4409:learning 4344:lunatics 4321:R. Baley 4178:MastCell 4144:MastCell 4096:MastCell 4072:MastCell 4036:MastCell 4002:MastCell 3926:MastCell 3765:David D. 3714:MastCell 3689:MastCell 3643:MastCell 3597:MastCell 3592:contribs 3550:MastCell 3533:Geo Swan 3485:MastCell 3362:MastCell 3292:MastCell 3277:Fainites 3259:MastCell 3243:Fainites 3225:MastCell 3209:Jclemens 3109:MastCell 3069:MastCell 3047:the book 3028:Fainites 2973:Woonpton 2962:MastCell 2916:MastCell 2900:MastCell 2822:MastCell 2777:MastCell 2741:contribs 2731:Casliber 2709:MastCell 2646:Feckin' 2639:Beatdown 2625:MastCell 2599:MastCell 2533:MastCell 2518:Fainites 2502:Fainites 2484:MastCell 2479:contribs 2455:Fainites 2451:This one 2442:MastCell 2416:Fainites 2379:Woonpton 2312:Woonpton 2142:Woonpton 2123:MastCell 2052:MastCell 2023:, where 2011:MastCell 1987:Woonpton 1972:MastCell 1870:MastCell 1855:MastCell 1765:MastCell 1700:recovery 1690:MastCell 1621:MastCell 1585:MastCell 1546:MastCell 1530:Fainites 1512:contribs 1502:Casliber 1460:contribs 1450:Casliber 1422:contribs 1412:Casliber 1281:MastCell 1176:MastCell 1127:MastCell 1090:MastCell 991:MastCell 960:MastCell 921:contribs 911:Casliber 900:MastCell 885:contribs 875:Casliber 847:MastCell 797:MastCell 778:Fainites 749:MastCell 720:MastCell 694:Thanks, 649:MastCell 635:David D. 625:MastCell 615:WP:MEDRS 611:this AfD 598:David D. 579:MastCell 467:MastCell 451:Fainites 405:MastCell 376:MastCell 318:MastCell 287:Woonpton 257:Woonpton 208:WP:UNDUE 135:MastCell 5260:Killjoy 4780:Mathsci 4749:Mathsci 4480:respect 4265:GoRight 4235:GoRight 4218:GoRight 3996:sourced 3824:outside 3621:WP:TEAM 3582:Chido6d 3430:Crohnie 3408:Crohnie 3312:section 3235:Oh God! 2802:Crickel 2761:Mathsci 2043:lawyers 1850:Lao Tsu 1405:have a 1197:Crohnie 1152:Crohnie 1084:quality 1064:Crohnie 696:Varlaam 527:Please 130:Madonna 39:archive 5469:scribs 5435:scribs 4987:day.-- 4576:WP:ORG 3906:Verbal 3868:Verbal 3839:belief 3800:Verbal 3768:(Talk) 3739:Nathan 3607:Soxwon 3566:Soxwon 3478:, and 3281:scribs 3275:again. 3247:scribs 3155:, and 3054:(talk) 3032:scribs 2832:Autism 2522:scribs 2506:scribs 2459:scribs 2420:scribs 2359:WP:PRX 2113:WP:PRX 2086:WP:PRX 2049:test. 1967:anyone 1815:Nathan 1789:Nathan 1534:scribs 1262:after 1118:Fender 972:Verbal 909:up.... 782:scribs 638:(Talk) 601:(Talk) 546:(talk) 455:scribs 253:Elonka 234:editor 212:EdChem 174:EdChem 5173:T@1k? 5137:T@1k? 5114:T@1k? 5077:T@1k? 5046:T@1k? 5000:T@1k? 4977:T@1k? 4955:T@1k? 4932:T@1k? 4892:T@1k? 4508:Zicam 4340:slack 4086:Samir 4057:Samir 4012:Dyuku 3976:Dyuku 3521:asked 3193:BLP/N 3191:, or 3083:From 3019:Next! 2956:learn 2656:block 2118:other 1955:cont. 1521:Sorry 1170:worse 518:sucks 16:< 5427:this 5425:and 5398:... 5386:talk 5370:talk 5356:talk 5311:talk 5286:talk 5270:talk 5240:talk 5225:talk 5219:Tvoz 5196:talk 5190:Tvoz 5166:geek 5130:geek 5107:geek 5070:geek 5039:geek 4993:geek 4970:geek 4948:geek 4925:geek 4885:geek 4854:talk 4835:talk 4818:talk 4798:talk 4784:talk 4753:talk 4725:logs 4707:talk 4681:talk 4614:talk 4584:talk 4543:talk 4516:talk 4489:talk 4458:talk 4436:talk 4413:here 4399:talk 4385:talk 4370:talk 4353:talk 4325:talk 4294:this 4269:talk 4254:talk 4239:talk 4233:. -- 4222:talk 4208:talk 4194:talk 4165:talk 4131:talk 4016:talk 3980:talk 3946:talk 3913:chat 3893:talk 3875:chat 3851:talk 3843:only 3807:chat 3755:talk 3728:talk 3703:talk 3684:both 3673:talk 3629:talk 3611:talk 3586:talk 3570:talk 3537:talk 3459:talk 3386:talk 3350:talk 3331:talk 3256:OK. 3213:talk 3189:RS/N 3185:AN/I 3165:talk 3143:talk 3097:talk 3041:Book 3024:Here 2999:talk 2977:talk 2942:talk 2934:this 2930:this 2928:and 2926:this 2911:Lisp 2891:here 2880:talk 2861:talk 2847:talk 2806:talk 2765:talk 2757:worm 2735:talk 2704:look 2686:talk 2671:talk 2663:rulz 2652:punk 2644:Diff 2614:talk 2578:talk 2515:Yeah 2473:talk 2434:fact 2383:talk 2369:talk 2316:talk 2194:talk 2146:talk 2099:talk 2075:talk 2033:talk 2027:... 2021:LSAT 1991:talk 1948:. - 1938:back 1902:talk 1885:talk 1846:WOPR 1740:talk 1712:talk 1685:here 1649:talk 1572:talk 1506:talk 1478:talk 1454:talk 1440:talk 1416:talk 1372:talk 1354:talk 1339:talk 1307:talk 1233:talk 1108:talk 1039:talk 979:chat 915:talk 897:... 879:talk 864:talk 835:talk 827:This 813:talk 738:talk 700:talk 563:talk 490:talk 447:here 432:talk 392:talk 363:talk 355:DBMS 306:talk 291:talk 276:talk 261:talk 237:you? 216:talk 194:talk 178:talk 5344:you 5325:had 5183:thx 4850:Abd 4814:Abd 4702:Abd 4640:| ( 4485:Abd 4303:| ( 4250:Abd 3991:you 3847:Abd 3560:RfC 3531:. 3435:Gal 3413:Gal 3201:RfC 2659:you 2365:Abd 2349:one 2190:Abd 2095:Abd 1950:2/0 1595:lot 1407:big 1403:may 1368:Abd 1202:Gal 1157:Gal 1120:is 1069:Gal 792:Yup 677:". 124:As 103:Thx 5450:or 5388:) 5372:) 5358:) 5313:) 5272:) 5248:) 5169:| 5133:| 5110:| 5073:| 5042:| 4996:| 4973:| 4951:| 4928:| 4888:| 4856:) 4837:) 4820:) 4800:) 4786:) 4755:) 4683:) 4648:) 4644:- 4637:II 4616:) 4586:) 4578:. 4545:) 4518:) 4491:) 4460:) 4438:) 4419:. 4401:) 4387:) 4372:) 4355:) 4327:) 4307:- 4300:II 4271:) 4256:) 4241:) 4224:) 4210:) 4196:) 4167:) 4133:) 4018:) 3999:? 3982:) 3948:) 3895:) 3853:) 3757:) 3730:) 3705:) 3675:) 3667:. 3631:) 3613:) 3572:) 3539:) 3519:I 3461:) 3388:) 3352:) 3333:) 3322:. 3215:) 3187:, 3167:) 3159:. 3145:) 3099:) 3091:. 3026:. 3001:) 2979:) 2944:) 2897:. 2882:) 2863:) 2849:) 2808:) 2767:) 2759:? 2743:) 2688:) 2673:) 2665:. 2650:, 2616:) 2580:) 2568:, 2437:}} 2431:{{ 2385:) 2371:) 2363:-- 2318:) 2196:) 2148:) 2101:) 2077:) 2035:) 1993:) 1940:. 1904:) 1887:) 1867:. 1841:me 1742:) 1714:) 1651:) 1618:. 1574:) 1564:IF 1528:. 1514:) 1480:) 1462:) 1442:) 1424:) 1374:) 1356:) 1341:) 1309:) 1235:) 1148:-- 1110:) 1041:) 923:) 887:) 866:) 837:) 815:) 740:) 702:) 686:". 596:? 592:A 565:) 525:. 492:) 434:) 394:) 365:) 346:LK 308:) 293:) 278:) 263:) 255:. 218:) 196:) 180:) 64:← 5384:( 5368:( 5354:( 5309:( 5289:· 5284:( 5268:( 5243:· 5238:( 5222:/ 5193:/ 4852:( 4833:( 4816:( 4796:( 4782:( 4751:( 4745:) 4740:· 4734:· 4728:· 4722:· 4716:· 4710:· 4705:( 4679:( 4646:c 4642:t 4612:( 4582:( 4541:( 4526:( 4514:( 4487:( 4456:( 4434:( 4397:( 4383:( 4368:( 4351:( 4323:( 4311:) 4309:c 4305:t 4267:( 4252:( 4237:( 4220:( 4206:( 4192:( 4163:( 4129:( 4014:( 3978:( 3944:( 3891:( 3886:☺ 3849:( 3753:( 3726:( 3701:( 3671:( 3627:( 3609:( 3589:· 3584:( 3568:( 3535:( 3501:C 3457:( 3384:( 3348:( 3329:( 3324:☺ 3211:( 3163:( 3141:( 3095:( 2997:( 2975:( 2940:( 2878:( 2859:( 2845:( 2804:( 2763:( 2738:· 2733:( 2684:( 2669:( 2612:( 2576:( 2500:. 2476:· 2471:( 2381:( 2367:( 2314:( 2192:( 2144:( 2097:( 2073:( 2031:( 1989:( 1957:) 1953:( 1900:( 1883:( 1755:) 1751:( 1738:( 1710:( 1702:. 1647:( 1570:( 1509:· 1504:( 1476:( 1471:☺ 1457:· 1452:( 1438:( 1433:☺ 1419:· 1414:( 1370:( 1352:( 1337:( 1332:☺ 1305:( 1231:( 1106:( 1037:( 918:· 913:( 882:· 877:( 862:( 833:( 811:( 736:( 698:( 561:( 488:( 449:. 430:( 390:( 361:( 304:( 289:( 274:( 259:( 214:( 192:( 176:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index