Misplaced Pages

User talk:Orangemarlin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Filll (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 23 December 2007 (→Walt Brown (creationist): r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:50, 23 December 2007 by Filll (talk | contribs) (→Walt Brown (creationist): r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
* Click here to leave me a new message
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Archives

Barnstars and related

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.

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)
    • 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)
          • 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)

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)

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

It's a pleasure to award this triple crown to Orangemarlin in thanks for superb content contributions. Durova 08:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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. HrafnStalk 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. HrafnStalk 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)