User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
==Updated draft of Beyond Intelligent Design== |
==Updated draft of Beyond Intelligent Design== |
||
If you can, please take a look at [[User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign]] and give me your impression. I have tried to update it and put more references and material in it, and I have tried to clean up the text a bit.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
If you can, please take a look at [[User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign]] and give me your impression. I have tried to update it and put more references and material in it, and I have tried to clean up the text a bit.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== moved comment here from user page, where it was left by mistake presumably == |
|||
==[[Fine tuned universe]]== |
|||
You're right. I accidentally coppied some of Victor Stenger's work into the article. I had it in the word document that I was working with and some how I overlooked that it was still there. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html It's here]. I've removed it from the article. You may find Stenger's work interesting. You may want to add some of it to Wikipedia paraphrased or with quotation marks.[[User:Barbara Shack|Barbara Shack]] 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:43, 28 June 2007
|
|
Trolls
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. |
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
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
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Right you are, to be honest I'd resolved to ignore him till he tried to edit the page again. ornis 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Jesus as myth
You asked where the content removal was discussed on talk, regarding the big deletion at Historicity of Jesus. I'd like to direct your attention at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth. It is confusing because usually talk page activity occurs at the bottom of a page. Anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Still don't think that qualifies. Orangemarlin 00:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Updated draft of Beyond Intelligent Design
If you can, please take a look at User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign and give me your impression. I have tried to update it and put more references and material in it, and I have tried to clean up the text a bit.--Filll 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
moved comment here from user page, where it was left by mistake presumably
You're right. I accidentally coppied some of Victor Stenger's work into the article. I had it in the word document that I was working with and some how I overlooked that it was still there. It's here. I've removed it from the article. You may find Stenger's work interesting. You may want to add some of it to Wikipedia paraphrased or with quotation marks.Barbara Shack 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)