Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:34, 23 January 2008

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 /Archives 5 /Test page

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)

anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why not just make a list of articles on scientific and medical topics which are well-written, properly balanced, and not at risk of misleading the reader into stopping their HIV meds? It would probably be a shorter list, and would also inspire optimism rather than abject horror. :) MastCell 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. However, I have to keep the scary list up too. The problem is every time I see a great article, I notice it takes work to keep the nutjobs away. It's a full-time job!!!! OrangeMarlin 21:26, 21 January 2008 (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)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Process

The instructions for "Wikiquette alerts" say I should inform you that I've posted there about you. Hope it helps. Gnixon (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Already responded to your personal attack and uncivil behavior, and long ago I asked you to keep your comments off of my page. OrangeMarlin 19:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as the POV and content dispute stuff is difficult to wade through, and frustration probably set in long ago, the best way to mess up your side of the argument is to stoop to graphic sexual allusions like this. All you had to do was phrase that without the vulgarity and you would have made a good point. Instead, you're turning the tables on yourself. Try to keep civil, it will help smooth the process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

O.M,

I just saw the Wikiquette alert on you. I'm going to say my peace: don't give in on this! I see the work that folks like you and User:ScienceApologist do, and its important work. I sympathize with the frustration level. But every time someone says something uncivil, it feeds the very people you are working against. That's the simple truth. I wish it weren't. Stuff like that has to stop. They never seem to be frustrated because in the end, they know there is a mechanism on their side to keep you and similar editors at bay over something like civility. People like S.A. gets blocked, andthey go right back to editing based on their own concensus. Please read what Cheeser1 wrote.

Cheeser1 also alludes to another big problem: admins are not consistently knowledgeable enough about science to know when a supporting source is valid or not. Like so much of the rest of the population, they see good peer reviewed references as being "just as good" as some editorial. I'm no admin, but if there is something I can do to help, please drop me a line ...... whether it is weighing on something, or someone to help with any frustration.

Your work is important ...... never forget that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon has a long history of attacking me personally. He had run away, and I was happy with that, but he seems to be back. I have no other way to describe his activity but in a very guttural level. I shall endeavor to stand up to his attacks more professionally. OrangeMarlin 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify Cheeser and LB, I will not shy away from standing up to Gnixons's consitently harsh and condescending personal attacks. But I do agree to be a bit more circumspect in my language with respect to him and his attacks. OrangeMarlin 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Fibromyalgia is getting out of hand. Despite the RFC consensus, Guido continues to stonewall on the issue. Would you mind lending your opinion again to the RFC? Djma12 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Generally speaking, contributing to an existing edit war is inadvisable. First, constant reversion is disruptive, even if an individual editor is responsible only for few of those reverts. Second, please take note of the fact that Djma12 reverted three times and then alerted you and only you -- see Special:Contributions/Djma12. Votestacking is considered disruptive, and responding positively to votestacking is inadvisable.

I encourage all involved to find a resolution to this dispute which does not involve edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido is an edit warrior that's been blocked several times. He gets no AGF from me, and his edits were patently wrong. I did not consider whether Djma12 was canvassing or not, nor do I care. I care that articles aren't destroyed by editors. So, I guess in conclusion, I'm in strong disagreement with your assessment. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lecturing you rudely

What are you talking about? There was nothing rude in my edit summary. Yours however... Evercat (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your response. Have a wonderful day :) OrangeMarlin 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you, and what have you done with OrangeMarlin? MastCell 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Drugs. Drinking. Sex. Rock & Roll. Cures for what ails anyone.  :) OrangeMarlin 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Unless what's ailing you is cirrhosis, chlamydia, tinnitus, or amotivational syndrome... MastCell 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are no fun at all. But luckily for me, I'm so drunk, high, and deaf along with being ravaged by neurosyphilis that I don't care.  :) OrangeMarlin 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you felt I was being rude - however, I merely felt that I was giving a rationale for my edit, in the same way that you yourself made an edit summary giving your rationale for your edit. Evercat (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. These articles are contentious. OrangeMarlin 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knew?

Gee, three kids and no one ever told me to have sex right before delivery because it would make the cervix "riper". Like putting an apple in a bag with unripe tomatoes, presumably. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knew? And how do you test it for ripeness? I think there is an article here. Cervical ripeness. Do you think I can get it to GA status quickly? OrangeMarlin 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ripening" is a somewhat medically meaningful, if perhaps overdescriptive, term in this context. In fact, the Cochrane Library, which is sort of the guiding light (or golden calf, depending on your viewpoint) of evidence-based medicine, has a monograph on the subject of intercourse and semen as a "ripening" agent (PMID 11406072, reviewed in AFP at PMID 12776961). I have heard this advice given during my time, long ago, as an impressionable medical student on OB/Gyn. Perhaps those were the sources being sought for the pregnancy article, though the bottom line is that it requires confirmation in a randomized, controlled trial... er... MastCell 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my favorite quote from the Cochrane Library reference: "However, it may prove difficult to standardise sexual intercourse as an intervention." That should go in an article, somewhere. MastCell 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. The things you learn on Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh... my... Yes, I can see how it would "prove difficult" to "standardize" sexual intercourse. Wow. I wonder how many times they copy-edited that before giving up and deciding there was no way to to write it that isn't funny? KillerChihuahua 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Great. Now your little stalker is adding single source fringe theories to Pregnancy, without discussion or acknowledgment that these are challenged edits. Loverly. I expected it from a newbie, and left a friendly little note, but this is POINT-y from an established editor. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm being stalked?  :( OrangeMarlin 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a dense little fishy sometimes, aren't you? :-P KillerChihuahua 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a freaking fish. We have an IQ of about 0.000001. :P OrangeMarlin 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cervical ripening is the correct medical term, used by Obstets and Gynaes the world over. Doesn't matter if you don't like it. It happens to be a proper medical term and has a precise meaning (as in softening, effacement and dilation of the cervix). Thank you. from drrem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page as I have already asked. While it may indeed be the correct term, without a source that is original research. I look forward to your participation on the article talk page, Drrem. KillerChihuahua 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, don't remember it while in Medical School, internship, residency, etc. Of course, there's a joke here. I just am not sure anyone will appreciate it :) OrangeMarlin 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Everything you remember you learned in residency, and that wasn't OB? No idea. What happened to SA? 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology is my knowledge base. Don't smoke. Don't eat bad foods. Exercise. I guess eat ripe apples. That's about it.  :) As for SA, do you mean ScienceApologist? No clue. Maybe the POV warriors wore him down. OrangeMarlin 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

change to evolution page

pls see my discussion on the evolution talk page

Mjharrison (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

As a note, Guido's been reported for 3RR again. Based on his assumptions on my talk page that I have been "bandwagoning," I highly doubt he'll correct his actions even after another block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Hi, Just wondered if your oppose still stands. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reread the article tomorrow, I'm too tired right now. A quick glance makes me wonder if it's worthy of FA. I don't like the use of books as references, when there are better citations with online abstracts and full-articles, some weird things done with references that don't allow for improvement of the article, and odd photos (what's with the triceratops?). I'll look it over and comment later. OrangeMarlin 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

Calling those you disagree with "nutjobs" is hardly appropriate or civil, , don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no foul, it was not aimed at anyone specifically and only mentioned in the most general of terms. Are you suggesting there are no nut jobs in wikipedia? David D. (Talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. No way that was uncivil, since it was pointed at no one in particular. I'm guessing Rlevse is trying to do something to get me going. Won't work. OrangeMarlin 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the perks of being able to write your on prescriptions.:) TableManners 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Naw. Scotch whisky by the liter. Expensive stuff. OrangeMarlin 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you recommend? I take it not Cutty Sark or Old Smuggler? TableManners 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Single-malt, 30 years old. Probably Talisker. That will make me feel nice and calm. OrangeMarlin 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I got and get very mild rosacea (dermatologist diagnosed) when I started drinking the cheap Scotches mentioned above and Johnnie Walker Red and Black label, and it went away when I stopped. Beer, white, and red wine has no affect on rosacea. Still doing the experiment. Any theories? TableManners 06:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you both for being able to afford the good stuff while this poor college kid has to drink the crap scotch. And the always delicious, Wild Irish Rose. Yum. Baegis (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Care for some Court-Martialed Captain Morgan's (i.e., Sailor Jerry), anyone? Disgusting Delicious alternative to scotch, I say. Antelan 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So we turned a bogus "warning" into a drinking discussion. As it should be :) Court-Martialed Captain Morgan???? LMAO. Now that was hysterical. And Sorry Baegis, but when I was a student (and the drinking age was 18), I drank Genessee Cream Ale, $0.25 per can. But I worked hard in college, graduate school and medical school, and now I don't drink that stuff. OrangeMarlin 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do they still make Genessee Cream Ale? And why can't I find a Misplaced Pages article on it? I'd still buy it, if only to relive my high school days. MastCell 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the home of creamy livin'! Antelan 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

About the (inappropriate) use of the word premature

Hello. I insist on this point because using incorrect terms leads to confusion and error. This applies to everyone including professionals in any specific field. Visit the Royal College of OG's site (rcog.org.uk) and check guideline 44 dated November 2006: subject matter is preterm PRELABOUR rupture of membranes. Prelabour is not synonimous with premature. The word premature has thankfully been abandoned by the RCOG. Hope that this is of help.Drrem (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of the article. Merci. OrangeMarlin 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The perks of the job

Heh, looks like I upset someone earlier! Thanks for the revert ;) BLACKKITE 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. That was one weird vandal. OrangeMarlin 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Take a look and see how we are doing. Wanna reconsider?--Filll (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You hate WP:CITET, so unless you've changed your attitude towards that, I'm going to remain neutral. I'll take a look. OrangeMarlin 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, regarding this, how do you reuse a reference but change the page numbers? E.g., pages 5-15 on one reference, but 17-18 on a second? Thanks. TableManners 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn if I know. I've asked some experts on here, and it becomes impossible. Some people use WP:CITET and just repeat the reference with different page numbers. Seems inefficient. I think Harvard references is better for books. However, it is my very humble opinion that in science articles, books are useless. They are usually 2-5 years out of date on the day of publication! Besides, key authors usually have published a ton of peer-reviewed articles. So whenever I see books, I try to find the really good journal reference. It takes a bit more work, but oftentimes the article is published online, but the book isn't, so for an FAC, one can actually see if the source matches the statement. OrangeMarlin 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr ... an opinion can't be humble.~ It's MD 20/20 for you, no scotch. •Jim62sch• 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... it's a format thing. I was thinking it was the kind of references we were using. I love the template page. I tried to apply it to all of the references. Unfortunately because of the diversity of resources some of them are beastly to apply; especially web sites from institutions which have multi-science contributors. Are you unpleased with all of them? --Random Replicator (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Having played with CITEIT a bit, I find it just is not flexible enough for the variety of sources I encounter, and my desire and need to create real footnotes not just reference citations, and my desire to link as much of the reference or footnote as I can (for PAGERANK purposes etc, or to create redundancy to cope with linkrot), or deal with references with unusual formats that I encounter all the time (like an article in a collection of essays edited by someone else, reprinted in another volume, etc). I know you love citeit. I just do not, except in some special cases. I have decided I really hate the Harvard format for citations as well. Just wasteful and ugly and not easy to use or flexible at all. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Filll, actually CITET works perfectly for your needs. First, they are real footnotes, and once you get the hang of it, it perfectly formats references, italicizing where it needs to be, and forces consistency. Second, it's easy to link to articles, DOI, and PUBMED, which increase rank (which isn't my interest anyways). It's also easy to fix dead links. And I hate Harvard citations, because they are really ugly and not very useful. It's a matter of preference, but FA's are almost always (but there are lots of exceptions in older FA's) consistently reference with automatic references. They really make it easier to reach your goals. But, if you want to be stubborn, we can get you some of the scotch mentioned above. OrangeMarlin 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates have already been applied to the references. Doing it after the fact took several hours; compounded by my lack of experience. So I'm still confused. The diversity of resource give the sloppy appearance; unlike using PUB_MED for everything which gives a slick appearance. I did enter the available information from the web resources into the "blanks" of a template. Is it that it was poorly applied? Is it that the notes are intermingled? I would like this oppose resolved; it was meant to be temporary ... right?--Random Replicator (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel powerful. I expect a support for my next FA nomination. LOL. I really haven't spent time reading it, I just found one problem. I'll look more later. Use this to more easily generate citations. It's helped me a ton. Pubmed has weakness that I don't like. If an article is published in a Geology journal, for example, it's impossible to find an article through them. I promise to look at the article. OrangeMarlin 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To go back to an early question, I've come up with a workaround to repeatedly cite a source but with different page numbers each time. See the passive smoking article, where we repeatedly reference a 2,000-page federal court decision regarding the RICO case against the tobacco industry. So I just repeatedly cited the main document using <ref name="decision"/>, and after each ref tag I added: ^{, pp. 1525-1527}, or whatever the relevant pagespan was. It's easier to see in action than explain, so take a look at the passive smoking article (especially the controversy section) and see if what we did there would work for you. MastCell 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I love you MastCell. OrangeMarlin 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, see High Falls Brewing Company. And Yes Genny Creme Ale is still available. So where was your misspent youth where you would have had that annoying beer? OrangeMarlin 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to believe that I'm still at the tail end of my misspent youth. I'll send you an email. MastCell 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm old, and I'm still misspending. OrangeMarlin 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated subject, all the ruckus about divisive userboxes has inspired me. What do you think? MastCell 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's funny, because I understand it. Actually, I think it's hysterical. Your common CAM-believer and Pseudoscientist will have no clue!!! OrangeMarlin 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure --- 1 free FA vote; I pretty much sold my soul for the FA attempt already. (Just kidding --- in case I get charged with vote pandering). I noticed that the template on your recommended site differs slightly from the template of the one I was sent to by the other critic of format; which differs from the one that... I'm not too excited about going in and re-apply a different template - again. If I have to do all of that; I want to be certain it is not a waste of time and that you truly feel it is important. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

<RI> I've reviewed the first couple of paragraphs, and that has caused me to move to Oppose, and really I think I should strong oppose, but I happen to think the world of RR and Filll, and I will try to help. There are a number of issues:

1. Book references should be removed. These books can be replaced by journal articles. The most important point is that you're referencing books that most editors cannot confirm actually confirm validity of a statement. That has to be changed.
2. Remove website references. Websites come and go. Within 6 months, I'll bet 25% of the links will be stale. Again, if it's reliable, you can find a real source. There ARE a few websites that are stable, but even ones run by Universities or Museums change all the time.
3. Copy editing is weak. There is way too much redundancy in the article. There is also some strong POV words used, and I eliminated a couple of them. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is an outstanding source for upgrading the article. It does need some cleaning of the language.

My ass is sore from the hits I took trying to make some FA articles. I want to help make it get there, but it needs some work to reverse the opposes. OrangeMarlin 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the overview. I think I'll lay down on the mat for the full count on this one. Maybe someone else can come along and clean up the mess. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest you RfA, surprised you're not already an admin...-- penubag  06:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if Santa Claus is real.  :) I'm sure you mean well, but you ought to see my edits. I might be the first RfA that gets over a 250 negative votes. But it would be amusing. OrangeMarlin 06:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If I RfA'd right now, I'd beat you in the number of Opposes no doubt. You have 11k edits and plenty metals of honor. I see you everywhere as well. Easy admin, maybe easier if I nominated you? -- penubag  07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lacking in civility, and about 10 POV warriors would round up their usual meatpuppets for a gay old time, bashing me. Again, as amusing as that would be, let's not cause a war on Misplaced Pages. I can stand up to them much easier by not being an Admin. Because, despite my attitude about those POV warriors, my honor would force me to follow the distinctly fair admin attitude. I'd do it, but I wouldn't be happy. I'd suggest others for the job. OrangeMarlin 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a shame, but a good reason. Admins have to try to be as unbiased, civil, and as whatnot as possible. I can see how trying to be perfect can be stressful; too much responsibility. But, good luck nonetheless! -- penubag  07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is funny

I guess I didn't express myself appropriately. I had my tongue in my cheek, didn't you see it? Viva la Evolución! ;p←Gee♥Alice 07:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought you were glad to see him. TableManners 07:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sensitive these days. I think I"m going to cry. OrangeMarlin 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. Just don't file a report at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests. TableManners 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I rarely do those things, I leave that to whiny POV-warriors. I told you, I drink expensive scotch!!!!!! OrangeMarlin 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi Orangemarlin, I know complaints against you are plenty because some don't feel you are civil. I am curious though, how do you feel about what is going on in many location about Scienceapologist. I don't know you very well, other than our brief comments a while back and I didn't know anything about SA until recently. If you prefer to take this to email, please don't hesitate. I find that there is a lot of drama over the way editors state things. I am not the sensitive type that gets angry and runs to boards. If I have a probem or a question I go to the editor. Lately I've been spending my time reading the ANI board, ARB. amd other boards like this which seems to me to be totally out of control on some of the complaints and problems. Remember, just curious, you do not have to answer if you don't want to! :) --CrohnieGal 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for Wikidudeman

I have no way of knowing whether your question has much valid point behind it or not, as I know nothing about the subject. My only reason for commenting here is to just state that the discussion is scheduled to close in about 22 hours, and that there is a very real chance that he may not respond, given the fact that tomorrow is a holiday. I know several people will be offline tomorrow, me among them, and just think you shouldn't get too frustrated if he doesn't answer before the discussion closes, if at all. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm going to have to move to oppose, not that it matters much. His edits appear to be anti-Semitic in nature, thought I may grant him the fact that he did not intend to be, nor do I think he is. But if you fight so hard for what YOU think is NPOV, but both the sourcing and the reality is not what you think it is, maybe you don't have the skills to be an admin. That would be WDM, not you of course. OrangeMarlin 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to edit war?

I saw your reversion of my edit on the Bill Clinton article. I wonder if you are misinformed or are attempting to whitewash the article.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, A) misinformed or B) whitewashing the article. Those are the only options? Have you stopped beating your wife as well? Or is it secret option C: you actually believe that Misplaced Pages has a higher purpose than coopting Bill Clinton's article to trash Scientology? MastCell 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm at Double Secret Option D. Choosing between watching The Patriot with the anti-semitic Road Warrior, or War of the Worlds with the Scientologist Pete Mitchell. Then I decided to get drunk again. My liver is getting cirrhotic thanks to Misplaced Pages. But then again, I can drink a diluted Homeopathic solution of scotch, and get just as drunk, because the water remembers the alcohol. What fun we have. OrangeMarlin 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was weird. BTW, I use a diluted Homeopathic solution of beer. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Miller Lite? OrangeMarlin 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There ya go.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's even more diluted than that, fellas. More in the range of this homeopathic solution. Baegis (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hopefully it will all smooth over. TableManners 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your removal of well-sourced information on plants used in homeopathy is tantamount to vandalism, please stop.Number48 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

no, it really isn't. really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed that one. I gave #48 a short wikibreak for essentially identical comments on others' pages and for harassment of SA. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm used to these types of comments from POV-warriors. We'll see how the wikibreak works.  :) OrangeMarlin 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't have OrangeMarlin's advanced double-secret Navy Intelligence training, but it seems pretty obvious that Number48 (talk · contribs) is a sock and not a new editor. I'm sure in today's climate I'll be desysopped for even suggesting this, but a guy whose first edit is to {{fact}} tag? Within a couple hours, talking reliable sources, citing policy, and canvassing WikiProjects for support? Quickly dropping the pretense of newbie-ism to go after User:ScienceApologist, always a popular target? Within 12 hours, citing diffs and describing organized campaigns of disruption? MastCell 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My advanced double-secret Navy intelligence training was trumped by your analysis! The worst part is I spent so much time reverting his edits (then of course, the other POV-warriors joined in, the nameless usual suspects), I didn't even spend time checking into his edits. It's pretty clear watching SA's page is going to be fun over the next few weeks. Oh, BTW, I shouldn't watch your page, because I got lead to that damn Abortion/mental health article. That seems like loads of fun....leading to drinking. OrangeMarlin 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)