User talk:Orangemarlin

* Click here to leave me a new message

Hello Orangemarlin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Orangemarlin 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Barnstar

		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)

You are AWESOME!!!

		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)

A little something for you

		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)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Hey OM!

Welcome officially to the team. I'm really glad to have you aboard. We could certainly use another set of eyes. Feel free to expand any of the shorter, crappier articles on WP:DABS; in fact, I'm pretty sure new WP:DINO editors are forced to work on lovely articles like Succinodon and Aachenosaurus as a form of painful, ritual hazing.

Oh, and while I'm here:

		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 Wikipedia. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Two on a day

To Orangemarlin for exceptional work on herpes zoster. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

evo-devo

Now that things seem to be stabilizing at the Evolution article, would you consider looking at and working on the evo-devo article? As you mentioned, at one point, this is an important growing area. I did some work on it a while ago an exhausted my relevant knowledge, but it still seems like the length and quality of the article do not match its importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gulp. What am I going to get myself into? LOL. I'll check it out! Orangemarlin 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions here and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance at Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

This looks like a bit of controversy.--Filll 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like lots of people are helping out! I think I need a break from these wars, so I thought I'd work on a few noncontroversial articles. Please see Herpes zoster where a whole new kind of junk science is causing me stress. Orangemarlin 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this

Your talk page seems like a pretty happening place, and since we've talked before about the whole Chemistry in relation to Biology thing, I thought you might be interested in this article from Discover maganize: (Err, that's one of those super authoritative sciency ones, right?) Map: Science’s Family Tree. See, what interested me about this, and what might interest you, is that i'm looking at the Chemistry section, and I don't really see many links between it an Biology, in fact, it looks like the only uninterrupted link between some Biology field and a Chemistry field is one thing connecting Biology with Organic Chemistry. But don't take my unworthy creationist word for it, go see for yourself :D Homestarmy 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting picture, but I am not sure I buy it too much. It appears that organic chemistry is not really good for much, but my impression is that this is wrong, or at least should be wrong. I have never studied it, but I know that potentially it is vitally important in biology and medecine.--Filll 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. First, no Discover is not a magazine I ever read. I find it too popular, meaning they play to their advertisers and audience, rather than delivering science. But I guess it's better than nothing. I actually liked the picture, but I happen to dislike Organic Chemistry. LOL. Anyways, all of biology is fundamentally chemistry, so maybe it only needs one line :) Orangemarlin 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Orangemarlin, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Re:Gnome Week

	Gnomes, unite!
File:P1000744.jpg	You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Zacharycrimsonwolf
Edit message

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythical articles

I still haven't got my head around what goes in what article. I'm really pissed that those that split it up have naffed off into the blue without setting up clear remits for the two articles. I think they probably realised as we did from the start that the "lunatics" that take the theory all the way, so to speak, start from the same point as the comparative mythology crowd. All you are left with as a deciding factor is who upsets the status quo. I'm going to work with Jesus Christ and comparative mythology and see if I can make the other article effectively defunct. You have to laugh though when atheism makes it to the front page and christianity still doesn't seem to stand a chance. Sophia 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. Let's delete the other one eventually. Orangemarlin 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I went with that one as I think it's a better title. Also the reading I have done starts from this point - let's see where else the naratives and symbolism of Jesus Christ are paralleled and then look at what predates what. The concept of demonic imitation is tantamount to admitting that they nicked the ideas from older belief systems. I'm open to pursuading otherwise but I hate the "hypothesis" bit as it's pure OR - no one refers to it as such and I don't see why we have to allow the Chritian condemnation of the whole field to be reflected in the title. Even the critics of the theories don't refer to them in those terms. Sophia 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As you two may be aware, I'm not on as much as I'd like right now, so I'll be of little help doing the actual work - but please feel free to call on me if I can be of assistance if things become sticky and you need a third opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event

OK, my favorite dinosaur expert, I've put in a lot of edits to begin cleaning up this POS article. I've reworked the sections into something resembling an encyclopedic article. The writing is atrocious. In addition, I think I found an article from which much of the writing was plagiarized, which is a major no no. So, I'm beat. It's your turn. I'll clean up and add references, but I've struggled with the lead, and maybe you can rework it. Despite my obsession with post-KT dinosaurs (and Noah's Ark), I think that we gave undue weight to those animals, so I've cut a lot of the writing on it, and moved the best referenced parts to the bottom. It also appears that a couple of POV editors (with or without good intentions) added a lot about the Shiva crater, which from what I read probably isn't a crater. Anyways, I know you have made a lot of GA and FA articles. If you can spend an hour cleaning up some of it, I'll put in a few hours, and maybe we'll have something. Orangemarlin 07:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey OM!

The article is looking much better, thanks to your extensive efforts. However, if your plan is to eventually send this to WP:FAC, I must make an important observation about the bulleted text: FAC reviewers hate bulleted text, and no article which uses them extensively, as this article does, will pass FAC, I guarantee. We must replace lists with delightful, polished prose.

Lately, I have been having great difficulty writing, OM. I'm not sure the term "writer's block" applies, as I'm basically just regurgitating what someone else has already written, but I've noticed I've had some difficulty stringing together coherent non-wooden sentences. I had planned to expand Herrerasaurus, Scipionyx, and Protoceratops, and help you with this article, as well as offering writing "back-up" on articles the WP:DINO team was working on. Scipionyx remains quite short, Arthur did all the expansion on Herrerasaurus, and Protoceratops needs a lot of work. Please don't think my lack of assistance so far with this article is because I haven't wanted to help rewrite this article. I'm off to edit it right now, but bear all this in mind as I begin reworking the material. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Roight. I put in a few edits on the article, converting lists to prose, removing two "facts" I couldn't support with references (Ammonites eating zooplankton, and crocodilians being able to live a year without eating), adding a bit to the lead, and trying to de-clutter when possible. I'll work on the article some more later today. Cheers, Firsfron of Ronchester 12:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Post-KT Dinosaurs from Noah's Ark have asked me to pass along special thanks. They're a little hungry these days hiding from humans and eating cat food for dinner. Anyways, I too hate bullet points (unless someone is sending me a business email). From what I can tell, the article was plagiarized from an online lecture on the KT event. Of course, that's written in bullet point style. I'm going to work on it too this weekend, but tomorrow is father's day. Orangemarlin 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see those articles every now and again, when people add them to Category:Dinosaurs. Then we have to go and revert, and explain why those aren't dinosaurs (aside from not being described as dinosaurs in peer-reviewed papers, there's the obvious problem of them being aquatic animals, and also highly unlikely). Good stuff. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Herpes Zoster

Hello! Thank you for your efforts on improving the article. There are plenty of things to do before a possible FAC, but I think I can make it pass. First, I was shocked by seeing the Tai-Chi link in the article, but it's well-referenced so it should stay. Our only weapon against POV editors are references. Great job, mate! NCurse _work 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

comments

Me confused? No, go look at user Homestarmy's talk page, you removed my comments. why? it was a general response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.52.244 (talk) 11:35, June 17, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but...

...I've been here a while and am well acquainted with the rules. And considering your biased little comment here, I hardly think you are in any position to be handing out warnings regarding that article. Jinxmchue 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you reverted three times. You apparently are not familiar with WP:3RR. And I don't appreciate your personal attacks. FeloniousMonk made three valid points which in hockey IS a hat trick. Therefore, I hardly think that is biased. Good luck in your edit warring. Orangemarlin 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching my edits, thanks. I've actually reverted more than 3 times, but not in the same 24-hour period. Please check your information before you make further baseless accusations of ignorance of and violations of Wiki rules. Regarding your comment, the tone was pretty biased. Finally, it's not "edit warring" when people are making well-based, rational arguments to back up their edits. The sources being provided to support the claim of Kennedy's alleged support of ID are poor at best, and rely heavily on what is being read into them than what they actually say. That's not good editing. Furthermore, the material is highly contentious and poorly supported, thus Wiki rules are on my side. Jinxmchue 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you should thoroughly review the following guidelines, because it might appear that you have misinterpreted them: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:VERIFY, and WP:AGF. I could be wrong about it, but you might be wandering over to the side of violating some of those guidelines. I want to be helpful to you, because it appears you are trying really hard to be a good editor. Let me know if I can help. Orangemarlin 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Notation

I don't argue that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact -- simply that the number of those who do not is increasing and that the "over 99%" statistic is from a magazine article two decades ago. I'm sure you could find a current statistic to use. Just find one to use rather than resorting to the 80's and making one search through another page to even find the citation.

You seem an intelligent person with a solid knowledge of your faith in evolution. As such, I pose this question in the spirit of honest academic debate:

As someone in the medical field, with (I would assume) a substantial background in the study of biology, what do you believe was beneficial about the many transitory phases between animal types? The driving force behind evolution is natural selection (which Creationists don't refute and celebrate as the cause of such diversity in the animal kingdom today), but more importantly, a belief that Natural Selection enabled the evolution of one animal type to another (fish to amphibian or reptile to bird). Even forgiving the internal biological changes that would have to radically take place, how do the changes in these animals' structures themselves give them a competitive benefit? Birds have (and require) hollow bones to fly. In what period of evolution was it somehow beneficial for an organism to live on land with such a frail body? Surely animals with more brittle bones would have died as a result of natural selection. What would the transition between a reptile's arms and a bird's wings appear like? How would the loss of the use of arms in replace of nubs slowly evolving toward wings have benefited the creature? If I saw a creature with nubs for arms and a weak skeleton, I wouldn't expect it to thrive among the other predators on the ground. In effect, the question is this: How would these transitory organisms have been seen most fit to survive according to natural selection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christof1887 (talk • contribs)

That's a lot of questions! Most of which can be answered at Talk Origins Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm at work at the moment, and the site is blocked. Any articles on wikipedia that would provide explanations? I've printed the article on Evolution in its entirety and am reading it now.Christof1887 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a FAQ here. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Christof1887, first of al, I have no "faith" in Evolution. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle, and as such I accept Evolution, not without question, because I am a critical thinker, but because the wealth of scientific evidence confirms the hypothesis. Your points about natural selection are not valid and are easily dispatched in the FAQ that Firsfron has linked. Moreover, natural selection has no compass of what is good or bad. LIghter bones may have evolved not to fly, but because a dinosaur could leap higher to get prey or to keep from becoming prey. Feathers probably evolved as insulation, but became the aerodynamic material that allows birds to fly. By the way, I only use over 99% because I'm a scientist and I don't believe in absolute values. Actually, in being in science and medicine for over 30 years, I've yet to run across any scientist or physician (including several physicians who are fundamentalist Christians) who disputes Evolution. None. Orangemarlin 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I might also note that I recently read that only about 10% of all Christian schools and colleges reject evolution (I should find a reference to that). If you find your faith and your school rejects evolution, just realize that you are a teeny tiny minority. Granted, a large group of the general public rejects evolution, but in general most of the general public do not know what evolution is, or even what science is, or even what their own religion's fundamental doctrine is, and a lot of the public believes in ghosts, astrology, UFO abductions, etc. So the fact that the public sometimes rejects evolution means very little. --Filll 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OM and I wrote most of the article that discusses how many scientists subscribe to NeoDarwinian Evolution. Yes, the Newsweek article is 20 years old. However, we also right after that, quote a reference 1-2 years old from the National Institute of Health with the same figures. We repeat the calculation done in the Newsweek article at the bottom of Level of support for evolution and find that the figures given in the Newsweek article are probably an underestimate. Instead of about 99.84% of the biologists and earth scientists accepting the NeoDarwinian theory, the figure is probably greater than 99.98% of the biologists and earth scientists in the US, and even larger in other countries than the US. To try to make any case that there is significant rejection of evolution mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift etc. among the relevant part of the scientific community is beyond ludicrous and borders on insanity. The main problem here is biblical literalism, not evolution. Look into biblical literalism.--Filll 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the article here on Evolution and just wanted to point out that I agree with most of the article. I think it's worth noting that accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean disagreeing with every bit of science at all related to Evolution. In fact, the only part of the article I'd disagree with is the evolution of one type of animal into a totally different kind (which itself would mean I'd disagree with the later section on the origin on life). The rest on natural selection and the different methods of species diverging I don't feel pose any conflict with Biblical Literalism. Exaptations, while providing some possible explanations, don't seem valid enough to explain all the changes and transitory stages -- but alas, I'm not going to try and start an argument on a Wikipedia User talk page and will leave you all to your editing. I just wanted to be sure and leave the comment that just because someone rejects the concept of macro-evolution, that doesn't mean they reject all principles of science related to Evolution. You seem quick to judge that someone who disregards macro-evolution automatically rejects natural selection and the evidence for genetics proven through repeated controlled experiments and research... thus deeming them an absolute moron and idiot. I hope to disagree but leave this without hostilities. Christof1887 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, in spite of actual observed and repeated evidence of "macroevolution" (which is mainly a term used by creationists and science-deniers, so even using that term reflects negatively on you). However, there should be some place where the actual scientific understanding that we currently have, and accepted by over 99.98 % of biologists, should be described and accessible. If you want to read a religious tract, there are many other places for that on the internet. However, Wikipedia articles about science should contain science, not nonsense and superstition and assorted horse****. Thanks.--Filll 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Orangemarlin,

I've noticed that the talk page on homeopathy got a little heated over the weekend. Tony Mobily has shown himself to be cooperative and understanding when we assume good faith and respond in a civil manner. The question of homeopathy's effectiveness isn't really being disputed, simply the neutrality of the article. I think that he just doesn't understand that negative comments can be neutral. We need to help him understand the policy and why it makes sense which I very much believe is possible.Pdelongchamp 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you on Tony Mobily's ability to be civil. But I will assist in keeping the article neutral and helping Tony make sense of what is really a complex issue. Orangemarlin 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you reread the discussion you'll see that a productive discussion has been taking place which includes concessions from Tony's side. Please AGF. Pdelongchamp 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)