Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:44, 29 December 2007

Archives

/Rules archives 1 /Amusing Vandalism /Medical 1 /Miscellaneous 1 /Miscellaneous 2 /Miscellaneous 3 /Religion 1 /Religion 2 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 1 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 2 /Archives 1 /Archives 2 /Archives 3 /Archives 4 /Test page

Barnstars and related

• Please do not feed the trolls
• The Original Barnstar For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• The E=mc² Barnstar You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• The Undeniable Mechanism Award For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• The Original Barnstar For your dedicated work on scientific articles, keeping the pseudo out of science, I hereby award you, Orangemarlin, this Barnstar. Your work on Good and Featured articles like Evolution and Minoan eruption has greatly improved Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• To Orangemarlin for exceptional work on herpes zoster. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• You are retentive and obsesive. Now have a cookie. Tim Vickers 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]]
• For unbelievable efforts to bring Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to FA status. Filll 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC) For unbelievable efforts to bring Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to FA status. Filll 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Have a squeaky rubber Tiktaalik for services to mass extinctions! Thanks for your persistence and hard work, .. dave souza, talk 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Original Dinosaur Barnstar
  For all your work on Petey, Holly, Katie, and hundreds of other articles. Happy 10,000th edit! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for being an ultraviolet ray of sunshine on Misplaced Pages, energetically fighting for encyclopedic standards while not letting yourself or your good humour be censored. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 14:19, December 5, 2007
• Congratulations!--Filll (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• To Orangemarlin: I hereby award you the most esteemed Stinky Sock Barnstar‎ of Olfactory Excellence, for your highly developed sense of smell.--Filll (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Scary articles

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

• List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you're bored...

Check out this edit. It's been fun!!!!  :) OrangeMarlin 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi OM!

Happy 10k! What a great milestone! :)

Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ]]

Congratulations, and, uncharacteristically, it wasn't a vitriolic post to a Christian user on a user or talk page. Make No Name (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? OM's pretty much an equal opportunity editor when it comes to vitriol -- if you deserve it, you get it. While we're at it though, since you singled out the Paulists, is it safe to assume that vitriol leveled at Muslims, Buddhists, Siks, Hindus and so on would be okey-dokey? •Jim62sch• 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, how could someone who registered their account on December 7, 2007, know anything about what I have or haven't done? I actually don't leave vitriol on any user talk page about Christians, unless they try to shove their mythology down my throat. Oops. That might be vitriolic. Does anyone else smell a sock? OrangeMarlin 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's rather pungent and I detect the odor of Trichophyton rubrum: does that make it a sock? No doubt that is it is it's a holey one ... er, I mean holy one. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, let it be noted that our negative namemaker friend referred to "a vitriolic post to a Christian user". Though why there should be any objection to such posts to people who use Christians is beyond me. Wonder who they are – the DI certainly fit the description... Anyway, congrats to OM, relax and enjoy that bevvy. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster

Is a very good article. I learnt something from it and I have been in the business a long time. I thought you might move History back. I put it at the top of Rotavirus and Hepatitis B virus and no-one has told me off yet. (Still time). In my humble opinion, I would get the various names of the wretched virus over and done with somewhere near the top and then just stick to virus from then on. It never changes - always the same virus. The article FA will get my support eventually because it has enlightened me, and, for me, that's more than enough. But I am not going to be first to show support because I am a known Newbie and the Wiki folk who evaluate the article know this. Best of luck to you--GrahamColm 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I just spotted your discussion on Sandy's talk page. As you may have noticed, I've gone through the refs, adding URLs to free online journals, fixing punctuation, ndashes, etc. I believe the convention is to not add URLs for paid-for journal articles (the DOI or PMID will do). Diberri's tool is great if you like the templates, but I suspect the finer points of URLs are beyond it (e.g., if there are two free sources, as is often the case if the article is also at PubMedCentral). As for DOI, I've always found it redundant if you have a PMID. Following a link to an abstract is more useful than a page demanding money. If I get time, I'll review the article text. I think it needs some work, but nothing you can't fix I'm sure. Colin° 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

doi's usually just point to abstracts, not paid-for journals. PMID is a very poor tool for non-medical science journals, where I mostly spend my time. That's why I'm looking for a doi tool. OrangeMarlin 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

et al

Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Citing medical sources. In keeping with WP's relaxed attitude to formatting citations, this doesn't force any particular convention. It mentions the two common medical styles (AMA/Vancouver), which both limit author lists to six before worrying about et al. I prefer the Vancouver style of six, then et al rather than hacking back to three. Currently, Herpes zoster appears a little undecided, with examples of both. If you really prefer the full list, I can't see any reason to object. A really long list of authors is distracting and hard to read IMO. Whatever you decide, the article should be consistent. Colin° 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to admit a high level of anality (is that a word?) with regards to author lists. I like knowing if a critical author is involved with the article. In fact, the 9th or 10th author in one reference is a well-known individual in the study of Herpes zoster. But, seriously, I don't think I'd get worked up one way or another.  :) OrangeMarlin 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I only shorten them to conserve space and follow convention; please revert me if you want them back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I revert just to be mean and curmudgeonly? OrangeMarlin 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Reverts must be done with an edit summary that includes WP:Something, and we don't yet have WP:CURMUDGEON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then Misplaced Pages just isn't very useful. I quit.  :) OrangeMarlin 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

lysine

No, you're not a "complete idiot" but I was surprised that you would use a such a lame and "peripherally related" study.

I've got a whole bunch of comments on the article, and I'm only 2/3 through. I'm unsure whether to add them to the FAC, the talk page or your talk page. I've every confidence that you'll be able to address or rationally ignore my queries/suggestions. Where would you like me to dump them? Can you let me know ASAP? Colin° 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've dropped them on the HZ talk page. Don't feel you have to cross them all off. A suggestion may be misguided or your different opinion equally valid. Hope you find it useful. Colin° 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrt your reputation on complementary medicine, I wondered if ref 2 (Weaver 2007) was a private joke? You only use it once and could have used any number of other sources for that sentence. My lay impression from skimming it is that it is actually quite a good and up-to-date review that could have been used more. It is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Colin° 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit seems to have merged two refs and linked the wrong URL to the ref. JFW has since removed the URL, but I wonder now whether the text<-->source(s) match is correct. Colin° 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Weaver, Osteopathy, to me, is a perfectly respectable group. They attend a "medical school", are licensed to dispense medication (at least here in California), have to go through residency. I do not consider them "alternative", just plain old medicine. Definitely not a private joke, and actually the article is quite good. With regards to the edit, apparently I was trying to clean up the reference (once again, my anality does not like the vertical references). OrangeMarlin 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You called my lysine reference lame. I'm in tears :( OK, I had a hard time finding anything remotely related to zoster. In fact, the lame reference actually made reference to zoster that it might work too. That was why I used it. OrangeMarlin 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a big boy. You can take it. I admit, I didn't read the article, just the abstract. I'm sure you are well aware that a subjective questionnaire is just the sort of "evidence" your friends at homoeopathy like to (ab)use. I had a dig around, as best I could, and found a few reviews in the alternative-medicine journals that, well, I was less than confident in using. I also looked up various clinical guidelines but couldn't find much on HZ. The review I found was just what I was looking for. Evidence based, cited papers that showed positive and negative findings. Didn't say it was all bollocks; just that there wasn't good evidence yet. Your paper's second author was the late RS Griffith, who apparently got the lysine idea from noticing cold sores were more common after Christmas and Easter (chocolate). Lysine was his baby, which is all the more reason to avoid primary sources in this case, don't you think. His opinion that it might work for zoster too would, I fear, be no more than an educated guess, and a tainted one at that. Colin° 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I got over pretty quickly. LOL. I head over to Charles Darwin and beat up a POV vandal to feel better. Are you serious about what started this whole idea about lysine was chocolate? Does chocolate block lysine uptake? Well, the things you learn on Misplaced Pages. BTW, I hope you mean my "friends" at Homeopathy in a wholly sarcastic manner? OrangeMarlin 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I've left some comments on Graham's talk page; I assume you're watching. Don't lose heart. I hope I get some time to help tomorrow, but for now, time for bed... Colin° 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to help, rather than just poking in here and there. It is constantly moving. Just when I sit down to compare some text against the source, or polish a bit of prose, the text changes. Eubulides is still finding issues with text<->source inconsistencies or out-of-date stuff, etc. If you can help with this (either by re-reviewing text/source too, or finding alternative sources for text removed, or changing the text to match, etc) that would be good. I don't think we're there yet. Whether busting a gut under FAC pressure is a good idea, I don't know. Still, there's a team working on the article, improving it, so whether it is this time or the next, it will get there I'm sure. Colin° 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is getting close but we still can't agree on how to explain the fundamental phenomenon of latency in herpes viruses. Without getting this spot on the FAC might be lost -- for now.--GrahamColm 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"can't agree" isn't right and makes it sound like we are arguing. Writing the lead, especially the lead sentence or two, is very hard. We're trying out alternatives. All healthy stuff. I'm pretty happy with those first two sentences now. The reason I'm being fussy about the prose in the lead, is that a weak lead (and my failure to improve it sufficiently) was the first thing that the "brilliant prose" FAC reviewers noticed on Virus. Colin° 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, if we can't get the latency issue right, I think the FAC is irrelevant, it's more an issue of the accuracy of the article. Now, I hate to be silly here, but what if it is impossible to explain it, because it's unknown? OrangeMarlin 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit like Quantum Theory, it can be described, but it's harder to explain. Time for bed. Best wishes.--GrahamColm 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you in a hurry for some reason? Herpes zoster is beyond fortunate in the level and quality of attention that it is receiving. All to the good. All in good time. --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • No, but I think you've been somewhat disruptive to the process--clearly understood points now are totally confusing. I think you have caused the article to be in much worse shape. OrangeMarlin 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you think that. I think the article is much better now and you are shooting the messenger. --Una Smith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hey, please, please, please, assume good faith, that's not fair. Una has spent a lot of time on this article. I couldn't sleep from thinking about this very good article and all our worries over the FAC and getting the facts and style and all those Wiki things right. So I had to check up on it's progress, (I live in a different time zone - it's the middle of my bedtime). Una, has raised many valid points. Overall, she has been very constructive, (eg. who? why? when? How? etc), and our team member has made us reflect, question, and rewrite. Yes, she can be a pain, (a big one), and I think she knows this. But we all share a common goal. Please don't get personal. The article is clearly in a much better shape than it was when I first read it. To be frank, I don't understand many of Una's edits but they make me think and at my age, this is good. We must not shoot our messengers. If we fail FAC, then we will go for it again - a quitter never wins and a winner never quits. --GrahamColm 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I thought you had gone to bed. I should be there too. I don't know about you guys but the pressure of working under FAC is getting to me, and I haven't made half the edits of some folk here. Eubulides brutally honest but very helpful comments at FAC have helped me realise the scale of what remains to be done. Real-life pressures are building up and I think I need to take a wee break from HZ. Colin° 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • My dear Colin, me too. All this is not good for my psoriasis.--GrahamColm 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I strongly disagree. I'm not being personal, I'm just tired of the tendentious editing on points that were clear 100 versions ago. I noticed some of the editing at Cancer bacteria, which were similar to the ones here. And I'm offended that Una thinks that the article is MUCH better because of her editing. I think it's much worse off. OrangeMarlin 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"because of her editing" is your own spin, Orangemarlin, not mine. As far as I am concerned, the editing was a team effort. --Una Smith (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

tools for checking refs?

Hi, I think i saw some back 'n forth between you 'n Sandy 'n Colin about tools for checking references... I would be very interested in learning anything you've learned (both now & in the future). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here. There are two great tools for checking references. The first, older one, is user:Gimmetrow's Reference Fixer, located here. The talk page has instructions on how to install and use it. It is a wonderful tool for fixing the punctuation so that it precedes the footnote. It also moves citation needed and other such tags to the end of a sentence, all automated. The second, brand-new tool is Dispenser's Linkchecker, which is causing quite a stir on FAC. It uses spider software to search for dead links and references in FACs. It can also be used manually to check individual articles. The link to the spider version for FAC is here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't know you had a sense of humor?????  :) OrangeMarlin 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have had the time to read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Complementary_and_alternative_medicine and your comments on Fyslee's talk page. Do you have any idea why this article, since it's a duplication of other articles, has not been deleted? --CrohnieGal 12:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it. It appears that it is an attempt to start a new article that totally lacks scientific criticism. It's almost like the Creatiionists creating (pun intended) Intelligent design as a method to make it sound scientific. In the case of CAM, they're trying to follow the lead of the new NIH group (I think called NCCAM) which is studying this stuff. What they're not realizing is that NCCAM is charged with making sense of CAM not endorsing it. They might find an herb or two that has some small effect, but most of the studies are going to prove nothing. So CAM is covered elsewhere. It should be deleted. OrangeMarlin 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since you brought this article to my attention I have been watching and I think WP:OWN and many other policies fall into this article. A bunch of information that was put in by other editors have now just been deleted and on the talk page other editors are told to ignore it. There are comments about how some editors do not deserve WP:AGF too. What is going on here? I know that attacks happen but this articles talk page is full of it. I am going to stop watching as it is depressing to see WP:GAME like what seems to be happening. I wish you luck on tackling this one. Keep in mind that there are a group that are working together to keep this article as is, this is said in the talk pages. Good luck to you, I'll go back to the IBD articles Crohn's disease and try to make them so anyone can understand what the articles are trying to say (too scientific for someone like me! :) ) --CrohnieGal 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sorry I started watching this page because it is totally getting out of control in civility and ownership. Just to bring to your attentions in case you haven't seen is the following; . Also this lists which to me are notes for attacking editors which isn't Wiki nice. . You may take note that you and some other editors are being 'collected', for what I don't know and I don't think I want to. I am bringing this to your attention because I think you are an administrator and can put out the fire before it spreads. It's seems to be heating up a lot lately in the past couple days since you showed it to me. I was going to read and join but I decided that I didn't want to get burned. I hope you don't mind me bringing this to your attention. I want to state up front that I do know a good portion of the editor's editing there including John Gohde. --CrohnieGal 23:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you're still watching this page. With respect to John Gohde, you should read the following: John Gohde's sock and rulings. OrangeMarlin 09:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

Hi, I see you did a lot of the recent work on Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and the result is excellent. Of course the better an article gets the more noticable its areas with scope for improvement become. I've posted some suggestions at Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and would appreciate comments from you and those who helped you to get Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to its current excellence. Philcha (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mail

FYI, your mail is bouncing: Reason: Illegal host/domain name found Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's possible it's a plot by the Republican Party. OrangeMarlin 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just tested it, and it's working perfectly. In fact, I received an email from someone else on here. It might have been a temporary issues. I hope. OrangeMarlin 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You know you've been on Misplaced Pages too long when your first response to any setback is to blame a vast conspiracy. That sort of reasoning never fails at AfD, does it? MastCell 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true. Aliens from the Planet A47382ZZ are controlling Misplaced Pages through the Trilateral Commission and the Republican's Military Industrial complex in league with Fundamentalist Christians and Homeopaths. Didn't you know? OrangeMarlin 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was more surprised. MastCell 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy "revert war"

Please be advised that the "edit war" you are alluding to consists of my reinstating an {{NPOV}} tag that some editors are removing - in clear violation of the text on the tag and arguably policy itself - without a resolution of the issue. And in most cases even without even attempting to engage in a constructive discussion. It would be really really helpful if you actually reviewed the matter before issuing warnings.

In short, I categorically reject your baseless accusation that I am engaging in an edit war. --Leifern (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll be reverting your baseless tag too, and file a 3RR ANI. I'll have fun doing it too. Makes my day!!!! OrangeMarlin 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, good to know what maturity level I'm dealing with here. --Leifern (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you mean your childish commentary above. OrangeMarlin 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I do not get the impression you have consensus for an NPOV tag. All I see are some people who do not understand what NPOV means. I have explained it over and over on that page. Somehow you are not getting the message. ACCORDING TO WP RULES, the article is allowed to be 99% negative to Homeopathy. That is what NPOV means on Misplaced Pages. Get it? If you do not, you better read the WP policy. I would be glad to give you directions.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP policy states that WP:NPOV is an inviolable policy. When the NPOV of articles is in dispute, we are supposed to tag it accordingly. There is no quantitative measure along the lines of 99%; what is clear is that there's a very high burden before anyone can state a scientific opinion - no matter how well-founded as an undisputed fact. The hurdle is that the topic must clearly and undisputably be branded a pseudoscience. If Lancet publishes articles about the topic and calls for further research, it is by definition not pseudoscience, though I can see why many would call it questionable science. --Leifern (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how people abuse NPOV to fit their needs. Giving undue weight to fringe theories that are not back up by verifiable and reliable sources is not neutral. So, what this POV warrior wants us to do is give undue weight to unverified and unreliable claims, while completely ignoring peer-reviewed and reliable science. Just like Creationists these CAM nutjobs want us to BELIEVE in the magical power of the faith instead of science. Homeopathy is bullshit not because I think it's bullshit, but because it violates the basic principles of science, for example, water does not have "memory" of the substances within it. I don't BELIEVE in anything that I cannot test through scientific method. Faith, whether in some alien gods of Alpha Ceti 3 or in faith healing, is best left to the religious nutjobs.OrangeMarlin 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If I were a POV warrior, I'd really want you to continue along this vein, as you're completely discrediting yourself. I would really like to arrive at a decent wording for this article and put these kinds of strawman arguments and other fallacies behind us. --Leifern (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> And not only is a claim of water memory, but what about sugar memory? You can triturate substances down to very very low concentrations, in the same way as you dilute them down, with sugar particles, instead of water.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Leifern, but you're throwing around Wiki-terms very poorly. 1. I haven't discredited myself, because I am a strong contributor to the project. I have a bombastic attitude to counter the bombastic crap flung by Creationists like you. 2. There's no strawman anywhere. Homeopathy lacks evidence, lacks support, etc. Water memory is so bogus because it relies on magic. 3. I do agree with you that Homeopathy is a fallacy. Finally, we speak the same language. OrangeMarlin 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are putting up arguments that I have never made and arguing with them as if I have made them. That's what a strawman argument is. Excellent example in this very message, where you label me as a Creationist, although a) I have never written anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion; b) it's irrelevant for the discussion on making homeopathy an NPOV article; and c) is patently untrue. So yes, in doing so you utterly discredit yourself and bring shame to the absolutely credible point of view of being skeptical to homeopathy. --Leifern (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you're a few IQ points above the typical brain-dead Creationist. But you missed my point. Homeopathy=Creationism, because they are both pseudoscientific concepts, they rely on faith rather than science, they are not falsifiable, etc. etc. etc. You may not be a Creationist per se, but if you edited the articles, you must wonder if there is any difference. They both require belief in powers that just don't exist. OrangeMarlin 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't give a flying crap what you think of my IQ, but I do reserve the right to take exception to logical fallacies that wouldn't pass a debate class in a low-end high school. As I have made clear in my comments, I am neither an apologist nor supporter of homeopathy. On the other hand, I would urge you to actually educate yourself on homeopathy before making such comparisons. --Leifern (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On my watchlist

I put the article in question on my watchlist. Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now let's go get Medical Creationists (my new term, since Creationists and CAM requires faith rather than science). OrangeMarlin 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, a thought for you regarding the CAM stuff on Zoster: Do you see any benefit in mentioning the CAM material in contrast to acyclovir? That is, state that "acyclovir has X demonstrable benefits. Other treatments, including X, Y, and Z, have never been shown to produce any benefit." I'm suggesting this because I think people may be searching the internet for this info, and I wonder if you think that we should try to pull them into Misplaced Pages and give them the info they're looking for, or if we should leave the material out of the article entirely and let them get their info from elsewhere. Regards, Antelan 11:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're giving undue weight to items that have no verification or reliable sources. Actually, the last I checked there were two Complementary therapies still in the article, one about fruits and vegetables (which is just necessary for good health, but as I recall the reference clearly stated that it reduced stress-induced zoster), and the whole Tai Chai thing. To keep this article NPOV, we are not required to mention failures, like lysine (and that bogosity even fooled me). So, my opinion, unless you can verify it with reliable sources that it works, it should be there. OrangeMarlin 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm agreeing that they don't work, but I think that it may be useful to note this on the page instead of purely ignoring it. Antelan 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we have a reliable source that says something to the effect of, "what a bunch of crap."  :) But you're probably right. OrangeMarlin 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

Your Majesty, I really got absorbed in the K-T extinction event. Thank you for devoting your efforts to such an important subject. And I understand you have more featured content? Please update if you have enough DYKs and GAs to qualify for an upgraded award. Best regards, Durova 08:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Walt Brown (creationist)

I've been clearing out quite a bit of unsourced/WP:SYNTH material from this article recently, and given that it doesn't have any reliable third-party sources establishing Brown's notability, I've tagged it for notability. Before I redirected it (most probably to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy‎) I thought I'd give you a heads-up, as you've been active editing this article in the past. Hrafn_Stalk 13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? Hard for me to believe. Surely we can find material to pad this article out appropriately.--Filll (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you've been in the trenches for some time. He's regularly cited by Creationist trolls as an "authority", but other than diehards on both sides of the conflict, he's unknown to the world. Heck, he's not even mentioned in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, which makes it difficult to claim that he's a notable one. Hrafn_Stalk 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's investigate. Let's enlist the assistance of creationists to dig up information.--Filll (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Adriansrfr

Hey Orangemarlin, thanks for your antivandal work. Could you explain to Adriansrfr why you reverted their edits as vandalism? (I think they're talking about this). It wasn't totally clear to me why the external links violated NPOV, but you probably saw something I didn't there. Anyway, yeah, they asked for an explanation so it'd be good if you could discuss it with them. Thanks! Peace, delldot talk 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending this, but you seem to be trying to teach the little troll a lesson, so I'll reply here. In the case of Objections to evolution, he added really only one link that can be somewhat defined as an objection, Intelligent design. But that's mentioned in the body of the article, so by the standards of WP:MOS, it shouldn't be in See also. No matter. The other links were POV links to pejorative terms that are used to attack scientists who accept Evolution as a scientific fact. They're not objections, just POV crap. Adrian now needs to go away and edit Conservapedia or something. Not needed here. Oh, and I'm guessing he's one of the regular socks of banned users who show up on these articles. It's almost amusing. OrangeMarlin 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add this is a ridiculous complaint. World View belongs as a link? Remember, we are not supposed to turn our articles into link farms. If World View is supposed to be a link, about 1 million other links also should be in there. This is pure nonsense. --Filll (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice how fast he whined to AN/I? Sock. OrangeMarlin 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion - edit sumaries

I thought I'd put edit summaries (usually section headings) on all of my non-minor edits. In fact I've just looked at the history and see edit summaries. Most of them are simply section headings because I'm restructuring the article (after a lay-off because I was trying to get hold of some useful material) - is that what got you concerned? Thanks anyway for not reverting! Philcha (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because Philcha is putting his edit summary inside the star and slash points, instead of outside it. I'm testing my theory now. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the problem was. Easily fixed. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us

I noticed you have The World Without Us linked to your talk page. The article is at FAC with few comments. Would you mind reviewing the article for its candidacy? --maclean 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I will do it. Great book!!!! OrangeMarlin 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL?

Hi, OrangeMarlin. I noticed you made this revert and marked it vandalism. I'm wondering why you consider this vandalism though. It looks more like a content dispute issue to me. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean reverting the edits of a blocked sock is considered content disputing?????? Wow, news to me. You're wrong. Do you feel better coming to my page and abusing me over a bullshit charge? Well, I hope so. OrangeMarlin 07:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My... no need to go overboard. I was simply curious as to how you considered that vandalism--not that you were wrong in reverting him. In future, please avoid personal attacks. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little pissed of about the number of socks attacking articles around here. I think giving good faith is not getting us far. I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it. I guess that sounds a bit fascist of me. Anyways, I wasn't attacking you, I was pissed that I gave AGF to that little sock POS. OrangeMarlin 15:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hrfan, we consistently revert creationists who use blogs, which are not a reliable source. We need to be consistent. The other citations work."

Two points:

1. This original edit was in fact correct. It was not introducing a reference to a blog, it was merely ensuring that the URL in it matched the existing description (which clearly indicated that it was to this blog-post). Even if you do not agree with the reference, the correct thing to do would have been to remove the entire reference (as you eventually did after much edit-warring, and a pointed edit summary from myself).
2. Scienceblogs are generally considered to be WP:RS, and numerous pro-science editors have defended them as such on a number of occasions against Creationist detractors.

I agree that we should be consistent -- but feel that you haven't been demonstrating much consistency in this incident. Hrafn_Stalk 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Hrafn here. Scienceblogs are notable, and the bloggers there have to be invited. Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula and Aetiology are highly rated science blogs, according to a rating and ranking done by Nature. Usually the bloggers are identified by name, and are notable in their own right, and so by the rules of WP:SPS, are therefore considered reliable sources by WP when they are writing in their blogs, especially on science if they are scientists. If someone is renowned as a scholar in religion, his self published sources on religion are also considered reliable sources for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. A person who is renowned as a creationist will be a reliable source on his own views of creationism, but not on science, or many other subjects, as another example. --Filll (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree strongly, but I'll go along with you guys, since I'd rather have fun making certain Guido is not too disruptive an element to the project. Do whatever you want, but blogs are bad reference sources. They disappear after a certain, whereas a journal source is rather permanent. OrangeMarlin 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Guido realizes that in some places in the English speaking world, use of the name "Guido" itself can be viewed as an ethnic slur. Tsk tsk.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a physician?

OrangeMarlin, I didn't realize until I saw your posting at ANI that you were a doctor - I was gathering references on palatal implants as an anti-snoring technique (known by the commercial name "The Pillar Procedure") but all I can find are a few news reports (written for an extremely dumb audience) and some references to clinical studies that I can't access. Would you have any suggestions for finding some good references on the subject? Videmus Omnia 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not my field, but I'll try to help. Are you writing an article? If so, what is it, and maybe I'll help from there. I made a promise to SandyGeorgia to help out on medical articles. It lowers my blood pressure in dealing with trolls and socks. OrangeMarlin 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wanting to write the article patatal implant but I haven't put a draft on-wiki yet. (I was actually part of a study and had the procedure done - it worked for me, too. It got me interested in writing an article on the subject.) I did get a get whole bunch of images under free license from the inventor of the process, but I'm discouraged at the lack of real sources out there. Videmus Omnia 20:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I once considered ENT as a career path so I have some residual interest in this sort of thing. You could try these medical sources (the good news is that they're peer-reviewed; the bad news is they're fairly technical and you may not have the full-text available):

• PMID 17302023 - decent review article on the Pillar Procedure from Jan 2007
• Some primary studies of palatal implants for snoring, all recent: PMID 17453480, PMID 17478222, PMID 17011415, PMID 17599575. Hope that's helpful. MastCell 21:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Videmus Omnia 02:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Young Earth creationism

Hey Orange! Long time no see. I don't know of any YECs or YEC organizations who don't believe that Noah took dinosaurs with him on the Ark (if they believe in Noah, the Ark, Flood, etc). Hence my change from the very weasel-word "Some of them believe" to a more overall "They usually believe". Don't see how that's POV. Feel free to correct me if you know of enough YECs who believe/teach that there were no dinosaurs on the Ark to warrant a "some of them" for those who believe that there were dinosaurs on the ark. While I am happily accepting of the fact that Creationist views do not deserve equal consideration/space on Misplaced Pages (in accordance with WP policy), I tend to object to mischaracterizations of YEC positions. standonbible 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrogance. The one quality of fundies that you can always count on. You see I don't believe in absolutes. OrangeMarlin 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be respectful here. I'm not exactly a raving lunatic when it comes to these things - many editors will tell you that. I was just trying to make something factually accurate, not start a POV-NPOV war. standonbible 05:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

S.O.B. Just do a google search first. Did you know that there are lots of biblical literalists and other assorted fundies who believe dinosaurs never existed? And it was quite a common, in fact the most common viewpoint just a short time ago? Before you shoot your mouth off, try to learn a bit. And do not revert like that unless you have a WP:RS.--Filll (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but believing that Noah existed or that he took dinosaurs with him on a mythical Ark sounds like a raving lunatic to me. Dinosaurs died out 65.5 million years ago, a fact. To believe otherwise indicates a certain level of delusion, that cannot be treated on a Misplaced Pages talk page. OrangeMarlin 06:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My kids aren't convinced dinosaurs have died out -- they think I am one. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My kids think I'm a fossil. Based on how much they listen to me, I may as well be one! OrangeMarlin 07:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Filll. I did a Google search ("dinosaur noah ark"). In the first five pages of results, there was only mention of some creationist who didn't believe dinos were on the Ark was some comic book author. That sounds like "They (creationists) usually believe that Noah took dinosaurs with him on the ark" rather than "Some believe that...". I'm well aware that a common viewpoint used to be that dinos never existed, but that's no longer a part of the Creation-evolution controversy. Put it in the history section if you want to; it's just misleading to say "some believe" when this is the position of virtually all these "lunatics." Speaking of which, I'm not going to argue about whether Creationists are lunatics right now - that's beside the point - but as long as we are writing about these lunatics, we might as well differentiate between the prominent ones and the unheard-of ones. I may be a lunatic, Orange, but I'm hardly a raving one.

So yeah - come up with some WP:RS of your own showing enough prominent "lunatics" who believe there were no dinos on the ark, and I'll gladly accede my position on this. It's not something to get worked up over - just a question of what most of these "lunatics" believe. standonbible 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a novel idea. Why do you not come up with a few WP:RS for what fraction of young earth creationists believe in dinosaurs on the ark, and what fraction believe they never existed? And some of the history for when this happened, and all the different beliefs, and reasoning? For example, dinosaur bones at one time were thought to the evidence of giants that existed after angels mated with human females. And there are lots of other crazy ideas out there, some of which people still subscribe to, to varying degrees Just because you and a few of your friends believe X, does not mean it is true. Frankly, personal assertions do not count for much on an encyclopedia.

You might want to check into the article Young Earth Creationism#Palaeontology and dinosaurs or whatever it was called. It was deleted, although I and a few others voted against it. It might have more information in it. Get it userfied.

I get tired of assorted POV warriors from minority positions asking other editors to do their work for them. Writing these articles is hard work. Finding references is hard work. Why not help out a bit here, instead of just engaging in tendentious edit warring and complaining? You might find a much more welcoming reception if the appearance of a creationist did not mean huge headaches and fights and hours of wasted time. Also, many hands make light work, as they say.--Filll (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to userfy. I found it at . See if it can get you started. But frankly, this is a tempest in a teapot over a tiny non-notable detail--Filll (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by userfy? And are you trying to bring back an article that we killed months ago? OrangeMarlin 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested userfication because it might have some material he could use to write a few sentences or a phrase or two about this topic he seems to be interested. Namely, do ALL young earth creationists believe that the dinosaurs were loaded onto the ark? If not, how many do? Is it more than half? Was there ever another majority opinion among YEC? How have these views changed over time? And so on. What is going on is he is making crazy assertions and unilaterally changing articles on this, based on what he personally thinks, with no references.

And I notice this over and over and over among creationists. They are unwilling or unable to actually write anything, or find sources. That is too much hard work it seems. It is easier to just say "well this part is not what I believe and I am a YEC and all my friends dont believe this either so I will just change it to what I believe" without any more thought that than. Totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

If someone is a creationist, and they want to help instead of being a massive pain in the butt, they should actually help to write the encyclopedia, instead of introducing unsourced meaningless cruft that has to be reverted over and over in a huge edit war until they get banned. That is why it does not appear to me that they are here to write an encyclopedia; they are just here to cause havoc.

I notice when I see one with a "great" idea at the evolution or creationism or intelligent design talk pages, it usually involves "why dont you rewrite this for me or write this new article for me about X". Well if I think it is a reasonable idea, I suggest that they do it. And guess what? They never do it. Because they are not really interested in doing any work. --Filll (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears we are getting close to violations of WP:AGF here. And yes, it is perfectly appropriate to cite WP:AGF if comments like "just here to cause havoc" or "engaging in tendentious edit warring and complaining" or "arrogance" have been made. It's not a big deal to me; just try to watch it and maybe if you AGF then we can have a meaningful discussion rather than a heated argument.

First - sorry I haven't responded sooner; I've got mono and have been sleeping quite a bit.

I wasn't intending to do a "well this part is not what I believe and I am a YEC and all my friends dont believe this either so I will just change it to what I believe" edit. I ran across the statement "Some believe that {statement of pseudoscientific opinion}", which would lead a reader to believe that only a small percentage (probably less than 50%) currently hold that opinion. And that is, frankly, incorrect. Either examples of YECs who presently believe otherwise should be given, or the text should be changed to reflect the fact that the majority of YECs currently hold that position (rather than only a few). I tried to find examples of the former, and failing to do so I changed it to the latter.

I looked at the article you cited because I thought it might have such examples. However, all the references to beliefs other than Noah-took-T-Rex were uncited. Bummer. Since all the research I've been able to do, even with your help, has failed to provide any examples of YECs who don't believe there were dinosaurs on the ark, I must conclude that the statement "some believe" is misleading and should be replaced with "many believe" or more accurately "most believe".

Again, I've already done research in an attempt to answer the questions "(1) do ALL young earth creationists believe that the dinosaurs were loaded onto the ark? (2) If not, how many do? (3) Is it more than half? (4) Was there ever another majority opinion among YEC? (5) How have these views changed over time?" I've been unable to find any who don't believe it (thus giving evidence in the affirmative for (1) even if it's not definitive), which would seem to indicate answers for (2) and (3). (4) and (5) deal with the history of YEC, not the present positions taught by YEC.

Would "Today, most usually believe that Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark" be alright for you? It's factually accurate and it's not misleading. If no, what's wrong with that? Please, no more ad hominem attacks. standonbible 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, get better. Mono can have long-term consequences unless you keep it under control. Yes, I'm a doc. I could get my 18 g needle on a 50cc syringe and inject you with magic Evolution potion. Hehehehehe.

OK, seriously. The problem with us editors with science backgrounds is that we don't believe in absolutes. You might be right that all YEC's believe that dinosaurs were on the ark, but I don't believe in absolutes. Most works quite well. So, see, you're now on my list of Wikipedian Creationists with whom I can have a reasonable conversation. NPOV does not require truth. It just requires verifiability. So if you find a reference that says "we polled 5000 YEC's, and yep, they all said dinosaurs were on the ark." I'm there!!!! Still don't believe in the ark or YEC, but I'd believe the NPOV that all YEC's believe that stuff. OrangeMarlin 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL I'm definitely taking Señor Epstein-Barr seriously. 'Tis no fun whatsoever.

I'm glad we understand each other. I'm equally glad I made it onto your "reasonable lunatic" list (no offense intended there; just inserting a bit of self-deprecating levity). I don't believe in (statistical) absolutes either; I never wanted the article to say "all YECs believe", just that most do. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that before. So, to express this, would you say that "They usually believe" or "Most believe" or "The predominant view is" expresses verified fact better?

Naturally I understand that one can make NPOV edits on a subject regardless of the position they hold on the issue. I'll try to remember that. After all, even you believe in YECreationists, just not YECreationism. :) standonbible 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse warning

Accusing someone of "anti-Semitism" (here) is a violation of our policies on civility. Please avoid such baseless accusations or you will be temporarily blocked from editing and that would be silly. violet/riga (t) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It was very anti-Semitic. I make no secret that I am Jewish, and his use of "chutzpah" was fully intended to insult me and my religion. It was based on MY perception of the use of the word. Unless you are 1) Jewish, 2) have relatives who were killed in anti-Semitic activities, and 3) know anything about me, your attack on me is extremely offensive. I know exactly what Evil Spartan was intending by his use of words, because I have been subject to it frequently. So, unless you are going to apologize for this attack on me, then I would suggest you leave me alone and ponder what it is to be attacked by bigots. OrangeMarlin 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm attacking you? By my perception calling someone an anti-Semite is more insulting than using a word that you don't particularly like. It is an offensive label that you should never throw around, and it would've been far better if you had just ignored anything you thought offensive. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't ignore it. If you can find one edit where Evil Spartan uses a Yiddish word, then I'll shut up. I think he has around 3000 edits, and I looked through a random sample of them, found nothing. He used the word intentionally to insult me in a racist manner. It's obvious. Please, continue your personal attacks on me. OrangeMarlin 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's gone quiet there now so hopefully that'll be the end of it from all sides. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone must stop using the c word here at once. It is trademarked by Leo Stoller. StollerTMenforcement (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm grandfathered in. Talk to my lawyers, Epstein, Shapiro, and Rabinowitz. OrangeMarlin 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I have submitted a comment about you, here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Thank you for contributing to Quackwatch. However, I hope you don't mind my reminding you to participate on the talk page rather than just reverting others' edits. Please see WP:EW and WP:3RR for more information. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Participating in talk pages is not my style. Nothing good happens there. OrangeMarlin 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I think the version you reverted to is preferable, but it would be nice to see more discussion about it. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that contentious articles end up being yada yada yada, your mother wears army boots followed up with yada yada yada, your mother is ugly. I do participate in discussion that actually build an article. The anti-Quackwatch people will do anything to discredit them. I'm opposed to that kind of thinking. OrangeMarlin 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. Best not feed the trolls. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For being one of the sane ones...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		We need more editors like Orangemarlin who are willing to stand up to POV-pushing from the fringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

I'm seeking a pot smoking, merlot drinking, democrate who could care less about anything, to beat us up on the Introduction to Evolution FA Page. I've been attacked by citation hounds, equal time advocates, and those who see errors that clearly don't exist. It would be appreciate if you could give us an informed and honest beating; which would lead to improvement. At present, I will have to cite every word and include a section on Ken Ham! Ahhh let the good times roll and join in here ] Cheers --Random Replicator (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch Merlot. Got the wrong person!!! LOL. Let me see how I might help out. This is obnoxious. OrangeMarlin 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken it as far as a North Carolina, bible thumping, moonshine, chugging republican vot'in redneck can... any help is appreciated; especially on citation issues!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

With regard to your comments on User talk:GusChiggins21: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sandstein (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)