User talk:Orangemarlin

* Click here to leave me a new message

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

Barnstars and related

• 
  Please do not feed the trolls
• 
  The Original Barnstar For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• 
  The E=mc² Barnstar You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• 
  The Undeniable Mechanism Award For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• 
  The Original Barnstar For your dedicated work on scientific articles, keeping the pseudo out of science, I hereby award you, Orangemarlin, this Barnstar. Your work on Good and Featured articles like Evolution and Minoan eruption has greatly improved Wikipedia. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• 
  To Orangemarlin for exceptional work on herpes zoster. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• 
  You are retentive and obsesive. Now have a cookie. Tim Vickers 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]]

On the Hoyle-Boeing-thing-going

Hi Orange, I will try to get back when I have an identity on WP, planning to do so. Until now I've left comments here and there signing with IP. I saw you had a bad day checking for the original Hoyle quotation. This was from some archived discussion group, objections - evolution, or something. I don't have a firm reference at hand. Here's what I think, what I remember (I'm a physicist). Hoyle might have written it in a book, rather than an article. The book was coauthred, but I don't remember the name of the other author (Indian sounding). Whether or not the quote is there in that book, I think I know what he was referring to. Hoyle (almost certainly) firmly believed in evolution through natural selection, he understood that mechanism, he never questioned it, or he was just uninterested in it. What he was actually concerned about was the origin of life. He thought that life must have emerged somewhere in the universe, not on Earth specifically. Wherever it originated, it has travelled everywhere through comets and the likes. His motivation for coming up with this hypothesis was that life is very improbable, too improbable to arise in many planets independently at (more or less) the same time. But the Universe is very vast. So, by extending the "pool" for life to begin to the entire universe, such probability might become sensible. In summary, he argued, life has originated only once somewhere sometime in a vast universe (he probably still believed vaster than most do), and then was spread all around. This is also known as panspermia. Hoyle is using a kind of entropic principle he had used before for an outstanding discovery in Physics regarding how carbon atoms arose in stars. To paraphrase, he thought that a functional boeing can actually come around by chance if tornadoes are happening all over a vast universe at the same time. To conclude, his boeing argument was an argument in favor of panspermia, in relation to the origin of life, and had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, nor evolution by means of natural selection. It goes without saying that recent findings that suggest life exists in meteorites, compatibly with Hoyle, are dismissed as false by creationists, who cite Hoyle's objections out of conetxt, but then refuse to embrace his authority in regard to the origin of life (and the related findings possibly confirming one prediction of his). In other words, Hoyle passes from being a total genius in their view when he proposes the boeing argument, to a pure idiot just a few lines later when he advocates panspermia. --209.150.240.231 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Hoyle, the confusing guy? I swear everytime I read something of his, he's saying something different. Do I know you? Orangemarlin 05:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not likely we know each other. Not from WP though, I still have to open a user account. I make just comments to talk pages, usually suggestions for articles, anonimously.

Re: Hoyle. I am certain he proposed panspermia. I'm almost certain (99.9%) that's were he used the Boeing 747 example, which was not meant to be literal, of course it wasn't. He couldn't see an easy mechanism for the origin of life, so he kind of went for an argument from ignorance (I cannot see it so it must be very very improbable). But in essence he was just trying to increase the probability for life, still from the point of view of a pure naturalist/scientist, by enlarging the stage for life's first step (from Earth alone to space). One could accuse him of not being expert in that field, but he was not totally crazy, just bizarre (none other than Crick is another proponent of panspermia). His version also had kind of constant injection of biological "stuff" from space. But predisposition to bizarre theories is what has made the day for many scientists. Holye not being awarded the Nobel prize in Physics with Fowler was an injustice, but the intuition he started from was kind of bizarre, but absolutely correct. He was opposed, maybe, for his character. But to my knowledge, he never took any stance on Darwin. --209.150.240.231 05:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if this helps, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html attributes the Boeing quote to Hoyle F Evolution from Space JM Dent 1981, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#nonchris refers panspermia to Hoyle, Fred & Chandra Wickramsinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (Simon & Schuster, NY, 1981). At Kitzmiller, Behe testified that "n the year 1973, a man named Francis Crick, the eminent Nobel laureate who discovered the double helicle shape of DNA with James Watson, he published, with a co-author named Leslie Orgle, he published a paper entitled Directed Panspermia, which appeared in the science journal Icarus.", while Buell testified "Dr. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe published together an article in the journal, a technical journal called Icarus. The title of the article was Directed Panspermia. ... and then Dr. Hoyle... wrote a book entitled the Intelligent Universe." Make what you will of that lot. .. dave souza, talk 11:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoyle also presented a paper on panspermia at a Royal Astronomical Society meeting in 85/86 (can't quite remember but can look it up if necessary) which was not well received (got very heated to say the least). Chandra Wickramasinghe was also lecturing at the time as we invited him to talk to our Astrosoc and from what I remember he was analysing cyclical patterns in disease outbreaks - the biologists in the audience complained that all he had done was prove that people got colds in the winter! Neither mentioned boeings in relation to these as far as I recall - they were just trying to get a serious debate started on whether life could have "seeded" in the same way other elements that make up the earth have come from other parts of the universe. Hoyle was a really nice man and it's sad that his legacy is so warped by the fixations of the time. This "life in comets" could prove him right yet. Sophia 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably Hoyle had an issue with natural selection too. Anyway, the 747 mystery might have no solution. Maybe it's not even in print anywhere. One hypothesis is that he mentioned it during a radio program. Now, that'd be interesting, as he had also invented the term Big Bang during a radio program (to mock it, actually). Anyway, Dawkins mentions it in The Blind Watchmaker. He's quite reliable, therefore I assume the quote is correctly attributed, wherever he learned about it. --209.150.240.231 06:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

re: This will amuse you

See this comment from an editor who's complaining that her POV edits to the Herpes zoster article is being reverted because they are unsourced BS. Orangemarlin 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't act like you're surprised... hey on a related topic have you seen this abomination? ornis 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't surprised. I'm just in the mood for rabble rousing after watching you get screwed on that block. Well, I'm attacking that abomination. That lead was full of BS. Now, just so you know, there are some aspects of naturopathy that I respect--but only if the practitioners have an MD or LPN, so that they can detect if the disease state underlying the symptoms. There are some issues like food allergies that a differential diagnosis misses--Naturopaths do a better job. I just don't buy into naturopaths who sit around with herbs and crap. That's nothing more than the other garbage articles we've cleaned up. Orangemarlin 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree completely, properly applied natural medicine can be a useful complement to conventional medicine. It's only when it is used in place of conventional treatment for life threatening ailments that it becomes objectionable. Though I have to say, an MD is sometimes no guarantee of good sense. A good friend of mine's mother died of breast cancer, because her doctor, rather than referring her to a specialist for a lumpectomy, lymph node biopsy, chemotherapy etc, fed her a bunch of herbal crap. Anyway I'll be with you there in a bit. ornis 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have often had people seriously object when I point out that 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their medical school class.--Filll 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not defend MD's across the board. There are many physicians are incompetent. But, incompetence might still be higher on the social order than the charlatans who claim that root of dandelion cures all that ails you. Alchemy, astrology, crystals, creationism, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle, Noah's Ark, herbalism, homeopathy, alien abduction are all equal to me in being pseudoscientific hooey. Orangemarlin 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal from Alexandria VA

Who do we known in Alexandria VA? Wow. He got a nice 3 month block for actions on your talk page, my user page and on FeloniousMonk's page.--Filll 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Always do a traceroute, don't rely upon Whois or other tool. It resolves to dc.cox.net, which is the provider for User:Rbj. He's back. Orangemarlin 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj ?= User:72.196.232.174

You are probably right. But even if we knew for sure, I doubt we'd block an IP for much more than the three months I already did, so not much point in chasing this. Feel free to add "suspected sockpuppet" tags on this and others you feel you have evidence for. Oh--and let me know when you decide to run for adminship! :) Owen× ☎ 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support you for sure. And I bet many others would as well. --Filll 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all that, but my civility level would probably negate any positives. I'd love to be an admin, but I suffer fools so poorly. Like this Fatalis episode recently--two admins came in here and "yelled" at me.Orangemarlin 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Same problem with me. I would like to have the power and the extra buttons, but I am more of a creator, not an administrator. I am afraid I might misuse my powers. Instead, I just write mediocre articles (however, they still please me, even if they are not world-class) and fill in gaps here and there. --Filll 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the most fun things I did was take two articles to GA. I learned a lot from that. You should take one of the articles you did awhile ago, clean it up, submit it for GA. You'll get good feedback, clean up according to their recommendations. Then take it to FA. This is a great process. Orangemarlin 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I might go back and rewrite the Bee article, although it already reached GA. Also there is the Evolution as theory and fact, which I have a huge amount of other material to use in the rewrite. I am having fun writing new articles however. I have written a very large number of stubs for the Isle of Wight, for example. I get a real sense of accomplishment in fleshing this out a bit and making the red links disappear. It might not be as satisfying in other ways as some other kinds of articles, but it is restful. I should rewrite the Frere Jacques articles, and I have been slowly cleaning them up. Of course I still am working on the falsifiability draft. It is a real bear to do, however.--Filll 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles

Orangemarlin Hi my friend! As you know, I just wrote and put online 5 new articles in my Republic of Texas/Comache Wars series, Buffalo Hump, Council House Fight, Great Raid of 1840, Battle of Plum Creek. and Battle of Pease River. I also completely rewrote from beginning to end, quadrupling in size, Peta Nocona. Would you do me a huge favor, and give me your honest opinion on those articles? I would like someone who is not a military history buff, but a well versed layperson, to read them and tell me whether or not they are informative, and well written. I want them to be interesting to the lay reader! I would appreciate the help, and thanks for the good wishes on the RfA nomination; if i am elected, I will do my best! In the interim, I am winding up this series of articles, and getting ready, once they are reviewed and passed, to start the large task of rewriting virtually all of the articles in the Mongol Era, and adding additional ones. Anyway, thanks for your help in linking the articles, and if you do have time, thanks in advance for reviewing them!old windy bear 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Buffalo Hump, and made some suggestions, which you can apply to all of them.--Filll 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scary articles

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

• List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

K-T extinction

So, do you think we're ready to submit for GA status? Orangemarlin 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see you got the last few citation needed areas cited... but there are still entire paragraphs that are uncited... GA might be possible, depending on the reviewer. Have you done a scientific peer review before? It might help us target areas for improvement. Or it might be a big fat waste of time. The one for Styracosaurus was really helpful, but I've had others which received no comments at all (which was discouraging and wasted a lot of effort). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hey weird dude stop deleting good NPOV material from this article. your POV comments do not enhance the view that scientists are neutral persons. Your comments like "this junk science" reveal that you are wholly incapable of editing an article about which you have very prejudicial views and about which you know nothing. Your persistent vandalism of this article will be reported. Peter morrell 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)