Jump to content

User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
comment
Line 320: Line 320:


Hi Orangemarlin. No problem whatsoever. I actually had that article in my watchlist but hadn't really contributed to it. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] ([[User talk:Pocopocopocopoco|talk]]) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Orangemarlin. No problem whatsoever. I actually had that article in my watchlist but hadn't really contributed to it. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] ([[User talk:Pocopocopocopoco|talk]]) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Homeopathy]] edits ==

I'm entirely unsure of what is going on here. Your previous summary hinted at some suspicion that I was inserting POV into the article, but I can't really figure out what the last one was. Could you please explain why you're reverting my edits in detail? Vague wholesale reverts unaccompanied by full justification are a great way of dissuading editors from editing articles entirely, especially when the summaries hint at policy violation. The article in question needs much more focus on copyediting than ideology right now, as it's a 90k train-wreck. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:09, 10 December 2007

* Click here to leave me a new message
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

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.

It's just not on...

I think the best comment (I forget where I got this from) is "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a role-playing game." Just keep having fun! Snalwibma (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having fun tonight here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably going to have to unwatch the Holocaust article after this. I can't even track other articles because of the huge amount of edits (and subsequent reverts) to that article. Good luck with it and the trolls it attracts. Creationism and ID is plenty for me. Knock off and have a much deserved beer. Or a scotch. Baegis (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. So I just unwatched the article, because of the subtle anti-semitism that is going on there in the guise of "let's add every ethnic group". AGF id down the tubes there for me. **** it, as they say! BTW, Glenlivet? If I'm going to get bombed trying to knock off, it's the cheap stuff. LOL.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap stuff? Never! Baegis (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on template:dominionism

You have reverted this template two time in the last two days, but it appears you haven't discussed your changes with the other editors either on the template talk page or on user talk pages. Reverting without discussion is an unproductive editing strategy, and I hope you'll reconsider your methods. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like that helps. Discussions on the talk page are about as useless as my appendix. I'm hoping others who have reverted will come back and participate. I guess not, so I'll wait to see if others care. So, you and your ilk win temporarily. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't care what the template says; I'm not a part of the discussions. I'm only involved in the sense that I'm watching the template to discourage the unproductive edit warring that seems to happen there so often. If you think the discussions on the talk page have stalled, perhaps it's time to look to mediation. I asked the last person to revert to contact you, as well. The only way to resolve the disagreements will be via discussion of one form or another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waste the project's time with mediation? NO way! We've got more important things to do. What has happened is that two or three POV-warriors have ownership of the article. It is a waste of time to discuss, because their behavior is reprehensible. OK, so you're not part of the group? I'm sorry for making the accusation, but it still stands that those individuals who own the article will continue to own it, and whine about "edit warring". Really, it's not worth the time. Their right-wing christian POV is either obvious or not. Discussing it is a waste of time. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this changes anything, but your appendix is perhaps not as useless as your initial simile would imply: PMID 17936308. MastCell Talk 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reliable source? LOL. Well, I still have my appendix and tonsils, so I guess I'm safe!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it wasn't published in any of the high-Wikipedia-impact journals like Medical Hypotheses or the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. It's probably in the second tier of journals in Wikipedia citation rank - you know, down around Science or NEJM... MastCell Talk 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, the refined art of subtle sarcasm....;-) We ought to have a list (in user or project space) of scientific journals and rank them according to reliability, from top to fringe - oops!, I mean bottom: Lancet, NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Science....to....JAPandS, JSE, JVSR, etc.. -- Fyslee / talk 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of my pet ideas, which I've never actually worked on, is to create a Wikipedia-specific journal impact factor table. This should be simple - just count up the number of times a given journal is cited across Wikipedia. My hypothesis is that the results would be horrifying (assuming you believe Wikipedia should aspire to be a serious reference work). It would be interesting to match up the Wikipedia-specific impact factor with the real-world impact factor and generate an "impact gap" statistic as well. In fact, I think the results would be publishable in the actual scientific literature, as Wikipedia is of some interest... but I just don't have the time to do it. MastCell Talk 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fascinating idea! You should share the idea with some others who might have the know how and time to do it. It's too important an idea to let it lie dormant. -- Fyslee / talk 06:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<RI>I agree with this idea. Can it be done automatically? I know that the bullshit...I mean Alternative Medicine articles use journal references that are only slightly better than say Mad Magazine. Wait a minute, I take that back, since Mad Magazine actually doesn't take itself seriously. But the worst problem is that we have amateurs grabbing a sentence or two out of an abstract of a peer-reviewed article and try to prove that say drinking monkey urine cures cancer. The SPOV matters in these articles, since we don't want someone hitting a Wikipedia article and thinking monkey urine does anything more than smell up the place. Yeah, my sarcasm just isn't as refined as MC's :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-time fan of Mad Magazine, I am deeply offended by that remark. Alfred E. Neuman (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I thought you died of some homeopathic procedure during an accupuncture treatment? I'm confused? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath

The IP might be a new editor, and their edits were not completely irrational, just not in line with what is needed in a lead section. Take a deep breath and watch your blood pressure. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English skills of the editor reminds me of someone :) I know the editor wasn't completely irrational, but the ranting on the Talk page was a bit troublesome. I'm drinking a glass of very old scotch whiskey right now. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I'll have some Ardbeg when I get home. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you live in the land of well-made Scotch whiskey? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, I'm in the land of drive-through restaurants and sickly-sweet bourbon at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you WERE there. That's the most important thing. And haven't we Americans invaded all countries with our drive-through restaurants and pathetic tasteless beer? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of one of my favourite Monty Python jokes. Q - Why is American beer like making love in a canoe? A - It's f*@#ing close to water. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insulting our beer?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is insulting water... :) spryde | talk 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I snorted my coffee because of that comment!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Orangemarlin, please refrain from editwarring on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Your viewpoint is against the prevailing consensus; the section that you keep deleting is sourced. If you question the sources, try to argue your case on the talk page. Guido den Broeder 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you're likely to get yourself into trouble. If you can't get yourself to be constructive, you might consider staying away from this article. Guido den Broeder 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're threatening me? ROFLMAO. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, I didn't read the announcement where you were appointed the most knowledgeable and intelligent Wikipedia editor. I must have fucking missed it. Damn, I have to read my emails more often. Can someone point me in the right direction. Fuck me, I'm an idiot. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people are articles. Adam Cuerden talk 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine controversy

Hi, OrangeMarlin; can you please read and engage in the talk page on Vaccine controversy? You are edit warring over productive dialogue and consensus among four knowledgeable editors, and you don't seem to be engaging the talk page. It would be helpful if you would take more careful aim with your reverts and language in edit summaries; using words like "fringe theories" and "original research" to describe the edits of a productive, neutral editor who has authored three featured articles runs the risk of killing one of the good guys with "friendly fire". Your first revert may have been understandable; your second was edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I get accused of the same, and I've done the same (with your help I might add). But if the reference is not accurate, it's not accurate. I call 'em as I see 'em. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Just Call Me Einstein

Let me clear up my "incoherent crap". What I was tryin to say was the edit I made didn't even show up. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=174946065 It probably couldve been worded better, but how do you make your words appear on that page so I can rephrase the situation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Call Me Einstein (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll respond:
  1. Always sign with 4 "~"'s. OK?
  2. The edit was reverted by me, so of course it doesn't show up. I deleted it before anyone could read it.d
  3. I'm not sure what you're asking. Still a bit incoherent. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Institute

You did not address my valid NPOV rationale on the talk page for removing the cite at all, and I consider your characterization in the edit summary of my edit as POV to be a form of personal attack. I have justifiably reverted you. I would recommend that you conduct yourself strictly within Wikipedia's core content and behavior policies and guidelines. I am a well-established editor with a long track record of NPOV, who really has no dog in the ID fight. Dismissing me as a POV troll would be a very serious mistake. - Crockspot 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're retired, I guess I don't give a shit about your lame-ass threats.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our old friend

I was poking around some of the deeper caverns of Wikipedia and found that our old buddy Moulton is planning on staging a comeback with an ArbCom appealing of his ban with the help of Mercury. Get ready for some fun. I reckon his blog will probably liven up with the details. Baegis 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury has a valid point with Moulton. If he wants play here, then so be it, he needs to follow the rules. But his off-Wikipedia BS indicates to me that he just wants to play a game. I think Mercury is well aware of it. But if we do this and Moulton does as expected, then we get a permanent ban. That's the best result ever. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see that his habit of wiki-linking every diagnosis he makes about the community is still in full force. I missed having everything spelled out to me. Due to his off Wikipedia ranting, it will be interesting to see how he defends his actions. Baegis 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some conjectures about M:

  • he is academically interested in online communities, and this is his way to explore Wikipedia and its mechanisms, so he can collect data and write about Wikipedia
  • he still wants badly to change our articles on intelligent design
  • he believes he can "win" by getting us to stop using the New York Times as a reliable source and therefore "correct" the article on his friend Rosalind Picard
  • he believes he can single-handledly reform all of Wikipedia policies and all 10 million articles and 9 million users and get us to start admitting WP:OR and ignoring the statements in reliable sources in the name of "truthful" reporting. --Filll (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you too!!!1!

Sorry for encouraging you :D Seriously though, people should begin to realise how utterly over-rated civility is compared to encyclopedic standards, that's my basic contention too. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 05:31, December 5, 2007

  • Here, I created an all-new award for you. That's how I spent the last 40 minutes of my life, so show some damned appreciation for once!!
The Ultraviolet Ray of Sunshine Award
Thanks for being an ultraviolet ray of sunshine on Wikipedia, energetically fighting for encyclopedic standards while not letting yourself or your good humour be censored. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 14:19, December 5, 2007

Macroevolution

Thanks for the heads up but I believe what I wrote was held by a general consensus of those who oppose macroevolution. In any case the edit standing now is much better regardless, I'm happy what I originally edited over is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris82179 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually respond to this type of comment, but I'm energetic today. First, the article has been edited back to the state it was when I edited it. Second, "oppose macroeveolution?" Not sure what that's about. Thanks for your consideration. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Hi Orangemarlin, I see you feel that you have the last word on homeopathy and it is decidedly in the camp that it is all placebo and that is the end of it. No further discussion.

Are you willing to permit a more balanced article, fully expressing your point of view but also allowing proponents of homeopathy to fully express their point of view?

That way the public gets a balanced view and can then make up their mind?

Btw, I edited out some outright mistakes in the article, which you then replaced with:

Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that, in undiluted

<< NO - provings now days are on diluted remedies. The diluted remedies CAUSE symptoms which is a point that skeptics miss. In dbl-blind provings the provers experience a similar set of symptoms, symptoms they have _never_ experienced before.>> >form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat.[5] >These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, >with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes << NOT NECESSARILY - remedies do not have to be diluted to be homeopathic. Originally Hahnemann did not dilute the remedies. Usually they are since they are much more effective that way>>> >side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where >no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[6] >Hahnemann proposed that this process aroused and enhanced "spirit- >like medicinal powers held within a drug".[7] Sets of remedies used >in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, with >practitioners selecting treatments according to consultations that >try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological

>state of the patient.

If we cant agree to disagree politely in this article, we will have to contact a higher level in the Wikipedia organization to come to some agreement.

Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcoolzip (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deal with threats from an obvious troll. I do not have the last word. Why don't you be a good troll and read how many people edited it. Besides, there IS no scientific basis for this crap. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen how many edited it. I also saw how you immediately undid my edits without discussing them as though you have the final word on homeopathy. I would prefer that you respond to my specific changes rather than ad hominum attacks. Even if there were no scientific basis, the way the article states the case presuposes the conclusion. I think in an article on a topic such as this there are such polarized views that it may be impossible to have a neutral viewpoint. The very language used gives a point of view. Nonetheless it would be better to let what science there is to support homeopathy be stated and then let the reader make his own conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcoolzip (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I would encourage you to read the NPOV statement.

NPOV policy: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

This homeopathy article does not represent the homeopathic community's viewpoint, only the "quackbuster" viewpoint. Saying there "IS no scientific basis" and arbitrarilty undoing somebody elses edits is not following NPOV, in my opinion. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. You need to read the NPOV policy, not just the 0.01% that might help you out, which in fact it doesn't. You need to read WP:WEIGHT, which reads in part:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

In other words, support of homeopathy lacks a lot of reliable sources. So, please do not lecture me further. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the views of the people who actually use and practice homeopathy, say 15% of the population of India (as stated in the article) or about 15 million people plus the rest of the people around the world are such a minority that their viewpoint doesnt count? Isnt an article on homeopathy "devoted to those views?" I would say that to understand a viewpoint you have to express the views of those who hold the viewpoint, no matter how "minority" you might consider them to be. All I am asking for is balance and not a viewpoint that is obviously prejudging the issue. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

45% of Americans believe in Alien abductions. 60% of Americans believe that some magical being created the earth. Homeopathy=Creationism. No science there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention..

That the sentence below is not quite accurate:

"substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers"

Hahnemann started dilution because he was concerned about giving toxic medicines (most medicines are toxic at some level) to sick people. He then discovered that substances that are not very medicinal or toxic like sea salt or lycopodium, developed medicinal powers when they are diluted. And medicinal substances developed stronger medicinal powers.

A question of semantics maybe but semantics can be important.

So I think this article could be improved by both of our inputs.

Thanks for your consideration,

Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcoolzip (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Roger, some friendly advice. Learn to sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end of your posts, or else a bot or someone else has to sign for you. Also, the article homeopathy you are so upset about is the result of hundreds of editors working on it for years, and compromise and consensus of supporters and detractors of homeopathy.
Once an article has been through multiple layers of review and thousands upon thousands of edits as homeopathy, to make big changes requires consensus and reliable sources. This means peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific journal studies like in the Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine or Nature magazine. You cannot just expect to capriciously and gratuitously make changes and expect others to accept them on your say-so. Bring any suggestions for changes up on the article talk page at Talk:Homeopathy and try to build a case for your edits. If others agree, then they will be implemented. You cannot just change these well-established articles by fiat and fatwa and expect them to stay that way. If we allowed this, very quickly this project would degenerate into nonsense. --Filll (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're all worried about losing money and suckers...errrr customers. Why should these homeopaths be worried about declining income? Wouldn't diluting their income make it stronger, according to homeopathic principles? Love that comment. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw three mistakes in the second paragraph (see above) so there is plenty of room for improvement. Another great ad hominum attack by Orange. I dont know too many homeopaths making much money, not like doctors... but anyway your point is taken, Filll. But you will have to expand the range of acceptable sources. NEJM, Natr, Lancet and JAMA dont publish a lot of articles on homeopathy, except hit pieces. Lancet did one positive meta-study a few years back and they have been doing penance ever since. Most articles on homeopathy come from peer-reviewed NON-mainstream journals. Why not allow the reader to examine the sources and make up their minds whether they accept them? They have a brain. The sources for how homeopathy is actually practiced will have to come from homeopathic literature. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-mainstream science gets written up in non-mainstream journals. That is often why it remains non-mainstream. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me. This is Wikipedia policy. Bring it up on the talk page of the article.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this troll. Just POV-pushing for a fringe theory that is backed up by nothing. BTW, there is science and there is not science. There is nothing called mainstream science, except by people trying to create things out of the air. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that these non-mainstream journal writers might be interested in purchasing. Can you put me in touch with them Mr. Zip? Helluva deal. Baegis (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his defense, I like his username. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, that's a rather weak defense. Have you been drinking?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy scales

OM, I have taken the material we worked out before and distilled some of it into a draft at User:Filll/homeopathyscales. Please take a look at this admittedly very rough text and let me know where I have made some mistakes. I probably should have some more references as well I guess. I want this to explain the potency scales as clearly as we can. Any other material that should be included? Other scales? Even if obscure?--Filll (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Swarm Internationale's talk page

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Swarm Internationale. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Swarm Internationale (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your warnings to his talk page, Orange. Is the cluestick in order? Marskell (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this amusing. Just one more piece of evidence for the RfCU.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, do see his talk page. I think this may be a happy outcome. Marskell (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Medicine

Hi Orangemarlin. No problem whatsoever. I actually had that article in my watchlist but hadn't really contributed to it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy edits

I'm entirely unsure of what is going on here. Your previous summary hinted at some suspicion that I was inserting POV into the article, but I can't really figure out what the last one was. Could you please explain why you're reverting my edits in detail? Vague wholesale reverts unaccompanied by full justification are a great way of dissuading editors from editing articles entirely, especially when the summaries hint at policy violation. The article in question needs much more focus on copyediting than ideology right now, as it's a 90k train-wreck. Chris Cunningham (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&oldid=176905981"