User talk:Orangemarlin

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Archives /Rules archives 1|/Amusing Vandalism|/Medical 1|/Miscellaneous 1|/Miscellaneous 2|/Miscellaneous 3|/Religion 1|/Religion 2|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 1|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 2|/Archives 1|/Archives 2|/Archives 3|/Archives 4|/Archives 5|/Archives 6|/Archives 7|/Archives 8|/Archives 9|/Archives 10|/Archives 11|/Archives 12|/Archives 13|/Archive 14|/Archive 15 Elonka discussions|/Test page|/New user page|/Baseball ideas|/Dinosaur ideas|/Arbitration discussions|/SU Basketball|/Syracuse University|/Herpes zoster|/Archived Election Commentary|/Archives March-April 2011 Important Items to Watch Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/4/0 [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024 Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024 Arbitrator motions Motion name Date posted Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024 Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/4/0 [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024 Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024 Arbitrator motions Motion name Date posted Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024 Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report HouseBlaster 96 6 0 94 Open 00:50, 23 June 2024 3 days, 7 hours no report FACs needing feedback view • 2023 World Snooker Championship Review it now Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 Review it now Featured article removal candidates Bernard Quatermass Review now The Slave Community Review now Exosome complex Review now 7 World Trade Center Review now Mariah Carey Review now Pokémon Channel Review now William Wilberforce Review now Concerto delle donne Review now The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now Geography of Ireland Review now Articles on Quackademic Medicine 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) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites barley 16:45, 11 November 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) Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell Talk 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) This one has been stable in reasonable shape for awhile now. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Working on this one. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites barley 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) This is pretty much fixed, at least until the next SPA... MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelantalk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I tried on this, & only very partially succeeded. DGG (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Magnet therapy and Alex Chiu. You've got to be kidding. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Prostate cancer#Ejaculation frequency I'm sorry, but this just cracked me up. I need to read the references, but my side hurts. Juvenile, I am. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) The section in question seems okay to me, as it more or less just states the recent research and puts it in context. There might be something to it, might not. However, that study has bolstered support for these people, which is, erm, unfortunate... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Colon cleansing– After hearing radio commercials dozens of times for supplements, I had to do something. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) New Thought. Some New Age medicine/religion attempting to hide it's snake-oil medicine by using religion. Intelligent design used the same method, and it didn't work there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Bach flower remedies Like Homeopathy but without even the attempt at balance.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Samuel Hahnemann. Bio on seminal homeopath. Needs watching.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Elimination diet. Why do editors think they can add this crap to the project? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Category:Diets has a number of dubious articles that get a fair bit of traffic and lack perspective. e.g. Cookie diet (800 calories), Alkaline diet, LighterLife, Cyclic ketogenic diet Phil153 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Medical Articles Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA: Alzheimer's Disease Rotavirus Helicobacter pylori Request for Arbitration If you are here to read about all of the Wiki-drama surrounding the secret hearings (so secret that no one on the ArbCom knew about them apparently), you can read it here. No editing allowed. One day this will be funny. I hope. Why Complementary and alternative medicine is pure bullshit The fundamental intellectual flaw of “CAM” as a concept is that it is made to include modalities that are extremely diverse, even mutually contradictory, under one umbrella. Very deliberately modalities which are scientific and mainstream, like the proper use of nutrition, are often included under the CAM umbrella by proponents in order to make it seem like CAM is a bigger phenomenon than it actually is, and as a wedge to open the door for the more pseudoscientific modalities. —Steven Novella There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is “Eastern” or “Western,” is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest…—Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD (1998). "Alternative medicine meets science". JAMA. 280 (18): 1618–9. PMID 9820267. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

DYK for Vaccines for Children Program

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back! It's been a while. I hope you're doing well. --B (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm back. However, I see that some people lack a sense of humor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoo boy

Sigh. Sometimes it's fun to go through contribs and try to guess which policy pages have been merely skimmed, and which have been ignored. --King Öomie 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it cracked me up. I swear when I saw edit summary, I thought he must be joking. I appreciate your comments to him, but anyone who has a vendetta about pornography on Wikipedia...well, they might not be listening. Or reading. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Particularly when he's taking the argument to WT:Content disclaimer. Clearly he hasn't actually read that page. Or if he has, he's unable to discern his internal definitions from the ones everyone else is using. "No, it IS hardcore pornography (according to me, despite pornography having the distinction of being specifically referenced among concepts notoriously difficult to define and identify)". --King Öomie 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some return from the dead observations

And when I say "return from the dead", you have no clue how literal that is.

• I'm watching several thousand articles. It surprising how little editing I'm seeing on these controversial articles. Is it because there are fewer editors? It feels that way, but I'm not sure.
• A lot of old-time admins seem burnt out. That's sad.
• AN/I and ArbCom seem to have the same drama. It just seems to be a location for people to get mad at each other.
• Pseudoskeptic has become a meme around these places. From my standpoint, it's just a method for POV-pushing pseudoscience types to create a word to empower them. I just read someone who says only pseudoskeptics claim there is no scientific evidence supporting homeopathy. Well there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting homeopathy's effects (well, there is one, but it was poorly designed, and just showed a placebo effect). That's not pseudoskepticism. That's just plain science.
• People still think NPOV means that all sides need to be presented in pseudoscience articles. I guess that's just how it goes around here.
• There is definitely a lack of a sense of humor on Wikipedia. Other than some of those old-time admins I've mentioned.
• One thing that hasn't changed: anonymous IP vandals.

Just what I'm observing. Nothing profound, just is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely been a decline in editing - both in the number of edits, and in their substance. I don't think this place is a ghost town, yet, but it's definitely clearing out compared to the good/bad old days. There's been a lot of hand-wringing about the declining level of participation on Wikipedia - although as you might expect, everyone has their own preferred egosyntonic explanation, and nobody can agree long enough to actually address the problem.

Burnout is a major problem, but then it always has been, as long as I've been here. We've always treated good editors and good admins as if they're an endlessly renewable resource, and we're starting to find out that they're not. And the lack of a sense of humor is pretty much terminal at this point - it's just not much fun here anymore. Anyhow... welcome back. MastCell ^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: You appear to have been gone so long that you've forgotten how a cabal works. You should enable your email. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? I need to turn on my email for the cabal? Didn't you get the super secret decoder ring and subspace transmitter? It also makes coffee. Yeah there's something different about this place, less fun. But the drama level is the same, I note. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a decoder ring. You can use the Caesar cipher and shift by the number of times per minute that Stephen Meyer mentions the flagellum. That's IDcab-standard cryptography. Of course, it's vulnerable to frequency analysis, but anyone who understands frequency analysis probably understands evolution. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that number hit an asymptote around 50? It's so random. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not random. Just irreducibly complex. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you just need to reverse the polarity...but seriously, I have noticed that many many articles would barely change despite large numbers of edits ever since I got here in 2006. I think the 'instant reward' of seeing your edits in print evaporating as unsourced edits are reversed might have driven off a few potential new editors...and inline referencing might make the whole shebang of editing less attractive as it requires more tweaking...but I dunno. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I need to fire up the flux capacitor to understand all of this. The Wikipedia inline citation system is really cumbersome. I like cleaning them up, but it take a few minutes for each one, even using all of the tools available. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The big new thing in citations while you've been away is wp:LDR, which might actually have some utility if we can get people to use them. Martin's been big on moving cites to template space, e.g. {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}. I still think its a mistake, but it does have its attractions, particularly simplicity. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of arsing around with inline cites, why help out at wikiproject medicine love-in, where pneumonia is the current front runner. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Arsing around? Must be some Aussie-ism. I'm sure Australian Royalty uses it! I'll look at it. I'm sure it will be fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, just a habit of getting any old anglosaxon naughty word (four letter noun) and turning it into a verb for the hell of it, to mean..just..I dunno...arsing around really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Paper remedies

I wonder if these can be generalized? If one writes "Swedish identical twins" on that piece of paper, what happens? Just askin'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)

Templates

Yeah, right. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have did it to be funny. And half to see if some psycho-admin would use it against me to cause trouble. Irony gets lost on those with no wit or intellect.  :) You pass. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pass? No, I'm actually like this! LeadSongDog come howl! 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Orangemarlin for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for your majestic contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Neglected

I have been so neglected-- no one to pick on about lousy baseball teams, and what about my collection of red cocktail dresses? I'm no Nicole Kidman fan, but I want that red dress. (Shoes are awesome, too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I was feeling ignored. And I thought it was black cocktail dresses???? Not that I'm all THAT picky.  :) I see that it's snowing in Boston....they can't be happy about that. But it's like 80º here, so we have baseball! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You failed to mention that California had a miserable winter, with boatloads of rain, rain, rain ... and that it dominates the top 15 list ... http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/cities-where-things-are-getting-worse.html ... it's red !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... and that it's full of Californians... :P MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of us were smart enough to move before the economy tanked (which was shortly after Prop 13 passed)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us remember that on the list of educated states, California ranks at the top. Beautiful weather. Top. Facebook and Apple. And NO ONE wants to live in Bakersfield, Stockton and Riverside. NO ONE!  :) And one more point Ms. Sandy Georgia......without rain and snow in the winter, I can't shower in the summer. But I'm sure I can come to your house and clean up. :P I know the rest of the country is just envious of California. And wish they lived here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Top of what, the US?  :) And you folks who should be spun off to the 51st state (that is, everyone south of Carmel) should stop taking our water from the farmers!! And I did live in Stockton-- got a better education there than at Stanford, btw. More importantly, I notice how quickly you forgot about my red leather dress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this reliable source, the smartest states in the U.S. are actually concentrated in New England, about as far away from California as one can manage to get. California is the 3rd dumbest, doing worse than Alaska and the Deep South. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that CT is above MN, but don't tell Keeper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec X 4)If California were an independent country, we would be like the 6th largest economy in the world. And the US would become a fascist Republican dictatorship with a third world economy, but that's another story. And we would charge you for Facebook. And Wikipedia. :P Pacific? Good school. Not Syracuse of course, but then again what is? You flirt. How could I forget any of this? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell Keeper? Keeper sees all.....As far as I can tell, Mr. Master Cell, five of the top ten are midwest or mountain, and five are east coast. How exactly does that lead you to believe that smartness is "concentrated in New England"? And of course, the one thing this article has wrong is equating education with smartness, when any educated man or woman would surely know that more education does not lead to more smartness. It only leads to more things to hang on one's wall. Keeper | 76 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, there are 6 states in New England (more or less), covering a relatively tiny geographical area, and three were on the list. (While New Hampshire wasn't on this list, it's on a number of other such lists). But yeah, I shouldn't overlook the Midwest, even if you do try to claim Montana, which is Mountain West 4 Life. To be fair, they didn't look at education per se, but at a bunch of other things like reading/math proficiency and SAT scores. But your point is taken, in that all of these ranking efforts are idiotic from a reality-based point of view. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said MT was midwest? ...five of the top ten are midwest or mountain..., he re-reads his own words quietly to himself, glibly. :-) Keeper | 76 17:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you must have just added that... and then messed with the database to make it look like it was in your original comment. OK, you're right - I missed that. But then, I don't come from a top-10 smarty-pants state like Minnesota, so your expectations for my reading comprehension should be adjusted downward accordingly. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request granted. From here forward, I now think much much less of you. I mean, your reading comprehension. Keeper | 76 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. If there's one thing I've learned in my life, it's that one should always strive to set expectations low and then surpass them. Or at least live up to them. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

suggestbot recommends....

Make Perfect

• Permian–Triassic extinction event - Petey's been waiting for you since last time.

Some other shit I guess....

Cas...you forgot to sign?  :) These extinction event articles are difficult to write. I've done some work on it, but maybe when I have a few hours to focus.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No it was suggestbot, honest. Yeah, hard maybe but as hard as medical articles? They start to get a lot less fun when you reach the 3rd FAR... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I got Katie to FA, and I remember the long lists of things that needed to get fixed. Third FAR? I think I'd just surrender after 2. You can just go back to editing your shroom articles.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! Medicinal mushrooms desperately needs some wisdom applied. Not that it's an either/or proposition. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the kind greeting Orangemarlin! I'm sure I'll have some questions as I go along but like to try to figure it out first before asking. Best regards, Cagney3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I like doing by experimenting too. I particularly like that you're doing the citations in proper format! I'm OCD about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on your Profile page is good stuff . . . funny, and insightful.

Yo Dude - Just had to drop by your profile to get to know ya a bit. You gave me some feedback and encouragement on the "Cambrian Explosion" page that I found very helpful. So thank you.

Many of the "Quote's" you had on your Profile I can identify with. Interestingly, I think much the same way you do (It seems to me although I really know very little about you so this is my best guess, ha ha).

I was interested in the "Quiz" you mentioned in your Profile so I went to that page and took the quiz too. This was the results: Cultural Creative 81% Postmodernist 56% Fundamentalist 44% Existentialist 38% Idealist 31% Romanticist 19% Modernist 13% Materialist 6% Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

I'm not sure what this means but will do some research on it.

If I'm not mistaken what it seems to me is that both of us are critical thinkers, and try and be objective in evaluating arguments. You also seem to be rather skeptical if I can read between the lines of your Profile. I too am skeptical . . . rather extremely skeptical.

I too tend strongly to side with the "experts" and give weight to their opinions. I am just not "that" smart although I have a lot of college education . . . about 12 years worth . . . mostly in the sciences and social sciences.

In the case of the argument about Evolution I consider it a special case in that Evolutionary Biology is a science than could learn much from the study of History. In the case of Evolutionary Biology I smell a rat. Put another way my BS detectors start going off. As Historians have found reconstructing what happened just a thousand years ago in the middle ages is extremely difficult. How Evolutionary Biology can reconstruct with any degree of certainty what happened millions of years ago is . . . well I am skeptical. Even more surprising to me is how confident Evolutionary Biologist are about what they suppose happened. It is this smug, it seems to me, attitude that makes me even more skeptical.

What is most discouraging to me is that many who espouse Evolutionary Biologist refuse to consider any and all attempts to explain the diversity of life. This is what really bugs me. The scientific method works only if all explanations are heard and considered with the utmost impartiality. And the scientific method will only work if even the most accepted theory's are open to challenge.

I welcome any comments and observations you may wish to make.

Best regards, Doug Johnson TDurden1937 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Aw, so you're the guy at the Cambrian article. I would suggest that you don't use your real name, unless it's your registered user name. I'm just going to call you Durden. Second, when you hit the four tilde's ~~~ it signs for you. You don't have to add anything else, which you're doing. You'll get the hang of it. I wish education mattered on Wikipedia, but what I've found is that it's an anarchy of the anti-intellectuals. Be polite (which I'm not, but I try to be), and use references (which I always do), and you can edit easily.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about recurrent references

Hi Orangemarlin, There is a question for which I cannot seem to find an answer. If the same reference is used more than once in the same article, is there some way to refer to the initially cited reference, rather than re-entering the same one again and cluttering up the reference section? Thanks so much! Cagney3 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, an easy question. You name the first instance of a citation with <ref name="Name this citation">. A lot of people use the name of the author, or the PMID number. There is no standard. When you want to use it again, then you add <ref name="Name this citation"/> I think the citations are case sensitive, so make sure you are exact. I hope this helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reguarding the stormfront page.

I don't appreciate you demonizing the stormfront community. I changed the word "racists" to "white supremacists" because racist is the wrong word. I would appreciate that you keep your politically correct bias out of your pages and keep a neutral view on the subject like you claim to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.163.15 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Demonizing Stormfront? Sorry they are racist, and they did that themselves.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You're so brainwashed it's not even funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.163.15 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And that my anonymous racist is considered a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Be nice, IP. Or, if you are going to choose to be insulting, at the very least be good at it. You need much deeper barbs to hook a fish like Orange Marlin. He doesn't take the bait when offered so poorly. Keeper | 76 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He's going to be violating 3RR soon, which will get him blocked. I'm not too worried.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just like the good old days of Ought-Eight. Glad I logged in today, :-) Keeper | 76 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You just came here because Joe Nathan gave you a stroke this weekend. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And in other "news"....

Glenn Beck's show was dropped by FoxNews. Cue the crying.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Who? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he's some sort of substitute for silent Sky News updates [see the last line]. The curse of the Murdoch, one presumes. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad ratings? Hm, I think I want to catch Stewart and Colbert tonight. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting times. . . . dave souza, talk 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Calisber...Glenn Beck was a right wing employee of the Australian Satan. He used charts to prove that Obama was the child of Nazis who grew up in Kenya and Malaysia, then, at the behest of Queen Elizabeth II, moved to the US to take over our country. Or something like that.  :) And Dave....yup, we're watching that. But it leads to a point that most Americans don't like the message of the Democrats. Sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Tomasky's viewpoint is largely shared by the wild-eyed Trotskyist fellow travellers at the New England Journal of Medicine:

The amounts of money saved by these cuts [to Title X, WIC, and Planned Parenthood] would be trivial, but the damage to the health of low-income women and children — especially from the loss of direct federal funding for food and preventive health care — could be devastating. The proposed cuts are simply cruel. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood makes little health or fiscal sense, because the organization’s services are necessary for the health of millions of women who have little access to health care... The other cuts, such as those to Title X clinics, are primarily designed to reduce funding for contraception counseling and reproductive health aspects of primary care.

Two years ago, before the current debate over ACA funding, a Guttmacher Institute study concluded that eliminating Title X clinics (and Medicaid funding for contraception counseling) would result in an additional 860,000 unintended pregnancies and 810,000 abortions per year among low-income women. The study also found that from a strictly budgetary perspective, helping low-income women prevent pregnancies saved almost $4 for every $1 spent. Rational policymakers who oppose abortion and support fiscal restraint should thus also support current federal efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies. [2]

The key word in that last sentence is, of course, "rational". MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn MastCell, you're a freaking liberal. But you're forgetting that these abortions kill babies who, at two weeks in utero, are viable, sentient beings. </end sarcasm> That was my argument for a single payer system for health care in the US. We have the 38th (or whatever) rated health care system in the world. However, for the wealthy, it's probably in the top 5. So here we go with making abortion moved to the back alleys, where the resultant health care costs will be tremendous. And also, some states will continue to fund them, which means California and New York will have healthier citizens. Wait a minute, that means, through Darwinian evolution, that New York and California will rule the world. Cool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About abortion, that was exactly the article's point. It's clear that Title X is a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions performed. So the more anti-abortion you are, the more strongly you should support Title X funding. On top of that, it's a good investment from a purely budgetary perspective, since every dollar spent on Title X programs generates $4 in savings. So then the question becomes: why are these programs such high-priority targets for pro-life fiscal conservatives? MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I might put this information in the abortion article, because it's got to be a noncontroversial addition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-controversial? Hah. You're funny. Or else you just haven't spent much time at the abortion article. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Or a certain admin is missing the sarcasm translator. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Do you know what you call an admin without a sarcasm detector? Nothing, or you'll end up blocked for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm always impressed if an admin knows their ass from an ass. I'm counting on you to mess up the curve.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Pigzilla

"Pigzilla"? [3] Do you mind, little orange user? Keep civil tongue in head! [Bishzilla shakes the little user gently, then less gently, for emphasis. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

ROFLMFAO. Someone got my irony. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

be afraid, be very afraid...oink Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my another Australian horror movie. And I thought Australia, the Movie was bad enough. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Couldn't find a reason to go and see it, nor even when it was on TV.....just so...vanilla.Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to see it because it was an incredible cast. I just wanted to believe that it would be great. Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman? That should have been an Oscar winner. It told me nothing about Australia. Well, except that the Japanese bombed Darwin, which I hadn't known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is as always very interested in potential additions to her harem: ] Come here little Gigantic Razorback! You pretty cute! bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Hmm, Hugh Jackman was a Wolverine not a Razorback...oh wait...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Harassment will not be tolerated.

Hello, Orangemarlin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been schooled. You really need to take a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss, and denial is not a river in Egypt

wow, that's a lot of ignorance on your part, coupled with a troubling amount of confidence. As a nurse who has benefitted personally from the wonders of homeopathy,and whose patients have benefitted greatly, allow me to educate you. Homeopathy works on an energetic level, one that is referred to in modern physics as "cellular imprinting." We cannot measure it at this time, because of what is referred to as the "limit of the assay." That is to say, that we have not developed measuring devices that can allow us to "see" the active medicine. Just because our impotent and as-of-yet crude measuring devices cannot detect active medicine, does not mean that it is not there. Allopathy cannot even adequately explain the workings of aspirin, attributing it's ability to cure headaches to one of two biochemical processes including prostaglandin inhibition - we do not know which. Yet, despite our inability to measure and prove the chemical processes by which aspirin works, it is a commonly accepted therapy. Consider furthermore that if homeopathy were a placebo, it would not work on children and animals, and yet it does. If you yourself have not seen this work, please do not be so ignorant as to unilaterally dismiss those of us who have. When properly applied on an individual by individual basis, homeopathy has been proven to work much better than placebo. The journals you are reading are testing homeopathy as if it were a chemical therapy, as if the same remedy should work the same on every person to whom that one remedy is applied - which goes against the basis by which homeopathy works. When homoepathic principles are applied to a group of individuals, representing a different appropriate remedy for each person, it is proven to work much better than placebo. Or haven't you actually looked up the evidence? Clearly, you have not personally experienced the curative effects of this medicine, and limit yourself to those curative principles that are supported by the popular scientific opinion of your time. I beleive it was Galileo who told us that the world was round and whom, when "scientific evidence" failed to prove this, was put under house arrest for heresy. How dare you feign confidence over a subject about which you know so very little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.41.246 (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't read a screed like that in a few weeks. Because I'm bored, and I think you need to be schooled, I will discount each of your claims. However, since you're an anonymous IP, I doubt you'll read this, but I doubt more than you have an open mind, so this is really for me.

• First, your anecdotes have no meaning and are not relevant to the discourse. Anecdotes rely upon everything from selection bias to post hoc ergo propter hoc, all logical fallacies. By the way, I could list out all the logical issues of anecdotes, but it takes an open mind to understand them.
• There is no such thing in modern physics as "cellular imprinting." Like all alternative medicine types, you just invent stuff. However, there is something called molecular imprinting, but that's for building enzymes and proteins, and it cannot happen in water. Again, typical of pseudoscience, you make some vague claim about imprinting, but make no explanation on how it works.
• Our "measuring devices" are quite sophisticated.
• Allopathy is a pejorative term used by alternative medicine types to make it appear scientific medicine is equivalent to the pseudoscientific alt med types. It has no meaning to real medicine.
• Science can explain the mechanism of aspirin. I believe that a Nobel Prize was given to a British scientist who uncovered the mechanism. YHou can't even get your facts right.
• Galileo wasn't imprisoned by other scientists but by the church. But a great thing about science is we question everything and revise our understanding with new information. There hasn't been a single study that has shown efficacy of homeopathy, not one. Of course, you have some secret studies. I guess that's what people do when they really don't have anything.
• Homeopathy isn't a science, because it cannot be falsified, and it relies upon confirmation rather than refutation. You see, every single piece of medical science is tested not to prove that it works, but to disprove that it works. That's how science works.
• I don't feign confidence over anything. But you feign knowledge of science. I have an open mind. I don't completely dismiss homeopathy, but I won't recommend it, and replace real medical knowledge with it, until there's real science that supports it. But until you explain how it might work with real science, then show that it does work, you're using rhetoric than science.

You are filled with close-minded beliefs as opposed to logical science. You rely upon woeful science rather than sound knowledge of science and the scientific method. You rely upon a personalization of this issue rather than providing evidence, published in real journals. Homeopathy is just water. Drinking water is a good thing. Of course, water flows through a toilet and if it does have a memory, it is obvious that homeopathy is full of shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed that, too, especially the last bit. Here's what I always think about homeopathy. There are billions of people on the planet taking thousands of different substances and also drinking/urinating. That water gets recycled repeatedly, so every glass of water we drink contains the "memory" of, say, hundreds of substances. Not to underestimate the level of idiocy out there, but why would anyone pay for something they're already getting for free? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's violate Occam's razor, and attempt to find a memory mechanism for water. Even a liter of water has a finite number of particles that could be arranged to "remember" something. Since water has been on earth for around 4 billion years, it's had to see an infinite number of other molecules. It couldn't hold all that memory. The homeopaths will respond that it remembers the last thing it sees. By what process does it rearrange itself? And how does it now? And wouldn't that "memory" change on the way down the esophagus? There's a lot of stuff growing in the esophagus, so what next? Suddenly your water thinks it's mucus? Or what happens when it hits the stomach? Does it change to HCl? They'll invent a rule that prevents it I assume. I am a very openminded person, but I expect that two standards are met before I'm willing to jump on board:

• First, I want to see lots of evidence that it happens. I tell this story a lot, but when I started graduate school, there were no solid theories on what killed the dinosaurs. None. Then I went to some science meeting (I'm forgetting more than I remember these days), and they were debating whether a meteor killed them off, based on the iridium layers proposed by Alvarez. Everyone thought he was clueless. But science works in a curious way. People found more evidence. Then more evidence. Then the evidence was repeated by other labs. Ten years later, we have a solid theory on the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. After 100 or so years of clinical trials, there has not been one repeatable clinical trial that shows any efficacy beyond placebo.

  Second, I want a scientifically viable mechanism. Creationism, most alternative medicine, Psychics, Alien abductions, Sasquatch, and just about everything else in the pseudoscience requires a suspension of scientific principles to make them work. Magical water with an undiscovered memory power, or some great wizard in the sky creating the earth, just have no known science behind it. I am open that there might be something out there that we don't understand. Maybe water has a magical memory feature that is based on some heretofore unknown intelligent particle of energy that exists in all molecules. It has never been found, and based on our knowledge of physics, I doubt it could exist. I know that some people will say "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In fact, if you look and look and look, and evidence is absent, then that is, in itself, evidence of absence. The close-minded refuse to examine the contrary evidence. Or they give equal weight to the poorly designed study that has never been repeated, as opposed to the 50,000 well-designed studies that have been repeated and published.

Homeopathy does not work. Unless there's something we're all missing, and that's a lot of cumulative IQ in the sciences, homeopathy will never be shown to work. Of course, we fail to mention that people who go to these quacks oftentimes harm themselves or the ones they love. The anti-vaccinations are particularly offensive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

GMOs

I don't want to continue the discussion on a talk page where it is not relevant, but I'd like to point out that a blanket dismissal of risks of GMOs is not really right. There are lots of plants that produce toxins -- if you engineer genes that produce toxins into a food plant, it may end up producing toxins. This is especially a concern when plants are being modified to be more pest-resistant -- one must make sure that the pest resistance does not depend on toxins that may be harmful to humans. In short, it is not a good idea to simply assert that all genetic modifications are harmless, period, end of story. There really does have to be some sort of systematic evaluation of safety. Of course the general public completely misunderstands the situation, but the appropriate response to that is not just to wave our hands and say la-dee-da: if we do that, eventually some modified plant will slip through that really does have harmful effects, and the situation will get a whole lot worse. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So, we're supposed to be afraid of everything? Can you show me where your prediction has happened? Right now, all evidence is that GMO's are perfectly safe. I'm willing to argue that GMO's are bad for a lot of reasons, but food safety isn't one of them. I knew where the OP was coming from on that thread. I wasn't going to let him push a nonsense POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making a prediction. There is, in fact, a formal safety evaluation for GMO foods, and so far it has worked, and I see no reason why it would stop working. But there is a need to have those evaluations. Let me just give an example of the sort of thing that could happen in a completely unregulated environment. Almonds contain cyanide, but in levels too low to be toxic. Their wild ancestors, however, contained considerably higher levels, and it would have been dangerous to eat them in large quantities. It would probably be a straightforward matter to create a GM almond with dangerous levels of cyanide. Nobody would do that on purpose, of course, but with no regulation, how could you be sure that it would never happen by accident? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume I wouldn't want regulations? In fact, I want strict regulations of anything we consume, whether food, water, drugs, or air! I'm just saying that GMO's, as they stand, are perfectly safe. We aren't going to pick up a miscreant gene in our intestine from eating GMO wheat. And they better not be touching my almonds!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert, but it seems hard to imagine genetically modified Bt corn not leading to a sooner resistance (see Transgenic_maize#Preventing_Bt_resistance_in_pests). Considering how important Bt has been in controlling pests in agriculture, that will be an interesting day. II | (t - c) 06:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, these are tough choices. We've got 7.5 billion people on this planet, and we have to feed them. Crappy choices with bad consequences are probably what we're going to see. But, GMO's are not dangerous as foods. BTW, nice to see you around II! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could say that the feeling is totally mutual, but I am glad to see that you are alive - and amused that your irascible personality has not changed. This place has seemed a bit meek lately. As far as Bt corn, I certainly don't think the regulators were thinking about the poor children in Africa when they approved it, but I could be wrong. I think there's adequate agricultural capacity right now without even cutting down trees to feed another few billion. We might have to eat a little less salad and meat, though. And in 50 years we'll probably be feeding 10 billion at least (I would budget conservatively for 12 billion), so pest resistance could an issue, assuming that the innovative strategies don't appear as economists expect. Of course, the increased carbon in the air should improve yields, and we might see some arable land open up in Canada and Alaska to balance other land going underwater or drying up. All in all, us Americans will be OK. II | (t - c) 07:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

=

Hi Orangemarlin, influenza article.

I will welcome a different and/or better picture. Previous, we had a picture of a person sneezing (!)(!) which is way inaccurate.

I have been a wiki contributor for about four years. However, I am inexperienced with photographs. I was concerned about doing it right regarding copyright issues. I wanted to be on the safe side, so I just pulled the same picture we use on the 'Cough' article. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was much more concerned about an infobox for a "symptom", coughing. The photo was of someone with pertussis...for accuracy sake, we could do better. Of all the things in an article I find photos to be the most problematic. If I had my way, we'd delete them all and be done with it. :) Seriously, whether we pull up a sneeze, cough, or whatever photo, to me, it adds nothing. So, anyways, put in any photo you want, but try to keep it disease specific. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange associations...

Checking the links to Elasmotherium one day ....one from Tahash (which I thought must be an archaological site or something...but ...erm.......wow...that's just....so...out there....reminds me of the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'm missing the connection to an animal extinct a good 45000 years before the Hebrews decided to write the Bronze Age Book of Fairytales, Myths, and Folktales. Tahash needs to be cleaned up, but I know squat about it. However, the link from Elasmotherium should be removed...unless like sasquatch and nessie, they're still around.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Praagh edits

Why does this article have to contain criticism? That doesn't seem very neutral to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BooRadley08 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-annual denialist booksale and clam bake

I thought we were done, too, but our fair-minded friend seems to be readying a mediation request. It had been so quiet around here. Must be the pollen in the air. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he think people are going to be supportive of denialism around here? Where is The Anti-Denialist Supreme Leader and Adored Human when you need him?????OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

All hail the Diligent Degranulator. I'll have to pick up something nice for MC at the book sale. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotta look in the shadows!

It seems that there's a vast conspiracy in industry that has been covertly causing PD! LeadSongDog come howl! 00:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The damn milk industry. I knew it! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I never trusted those cows, they're so black-and-white. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WAR!?

Edit war!? I don't believe I'm right, I actually am right!!! Quit trying to be smarter than me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Praagh article

Hello, I need your advice. If I want to add some content to counter the criticism portion of this article, what are my best options? Should I a)include the content under the Criticism heading; or b)make a new heading using an antonym for criticism. Plus, I didn't want to attempt to add this content without your approval for fear of being banned. I also realize you have final editing over what I contribute so I hope you offer constructive criticism (there's that word again!)about my addition. I would cite sources. I totally understand your policy regarding fringe theories and pseudo-science; but since this is an article about a human being, I'd like to see it become more well-balanced. If there is going to be negative content, I'd like to see positive content; or no negative content at all. Put the "cold-reading" content into the article about mediumship in general and have the Van Praagh article be about the man and his life. Thanks for your help. BooRadley08 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Amusing. First, I cannot ban you. There are only two editors that, if I had the power, I would ban, and you aren't in that group. LOL. Second, I don't have final say over anything around here. No one does, it's supposed to be about consensus and the such. Since, Van Praagh is a living person, you need to read the rules and regulations about living persons. We cannot say anything about him/her/it without very reliable sources. How are you going to counter criticism? That he has some magical power that doesn't exist? You'd have to have some very substantial citations to support that. Remember, WP:NPOV isn't about balance between criticism and approval. We cannot give undue weight to fringe ideas, so the article isn't going to read that his abilities to speak with the dead (or whatever he does) actually works, without any critique at all. Retitle the section "Skepticism"...that's a better word. Hope this helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

About origin of hidrocarbons, please, it's time to wake up! And you have an excellent opportunity. We're in the 21st century and not the Middle Ages or in times of spontaneous generation. Learn a little about the Cassini-Huygens and read the book The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold...is a good start to change paradigms and thinking of nonsense as well said Sir Fred Hoyle. He was an astrophysicist who contributed significantly about stelar evolution and surely he and Gold understand what are in fact natural hydrocarbons and its origin. Of course, Hoyle is a reliable source. Unfortunately geologists...well... geologists...(at least the most part)

“Geology is the prisoner of several dogmas that have had widespread influence on the development of scientific thought.” — William R. Corliss, 1975

“It is a singular and notable fact that, while most other branches of science have emancipated themselves from the trammels of metaphysical reasoning, the science of geology still remains imprisoned in ‘a priori’ theories.” — Sir Henry H. Howorth, 1895189.32.132.90 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bring science, and then I'll spend time discussing it. But using rhetoric and quote mining as your method of science...well, go away, it's kind of boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you follow my suggestions surely you will find true science and not junk science...go on!164.85.67.52 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

I've started an ANI regarding a discussion you're involved in. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Orangemarlin. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied! NickCT (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

The most amusing WP site ever. I just wasted a good hour reading over some of the edit wars. All because of an em-dash in Mexican-American. Seriously. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fish takes bait

Saul & Hoffer, as RS? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Only in the sense that they use orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin interchangeably. I washed my hands after posting the citation. I found bunches of others, but I thought the pro-Alt Med crowd would respect a citation from one of their own. Maybe faulty logic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Chummed a little? . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Curry chum sounds like anti-chumming. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yum! Curry!LeadSongDog come howl! 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The things I find on Wikipedia

I did not know that Lynn Margulis, AIDS denialist, was married to Carl Sagan. Obviously, something did not click. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

She's been wading in the deep end for a while now; the Discover article is, frankly, beyond embarrassing. — Scientizzle 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just read it, in response to someone posting her AIDS denialism theories. HIV is a spirochete according to her. When I was in grad school, we were just starting to learn the evolution of organelles, and she was a rock star. Not so much anymore. I guess she's not only denies the HIV cause of AIDS, but also evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, she's one of those 'I've always been right so I can't ever be wrong' types that has a massively overinflated ego. This is worth reading, too. — Scientizzle 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm speechless. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In his book Why People Believe Weird Things (which should be required reading at the high-school level), Michael Shermer has an afterword on why smart people believe weird things. Shermer calls this the Hard Question: we usually think of intelligence and academic achievement as antidotes to nonsense, yet "the problem of smart people believing weird things is a genuine one that is quantifiable through measurable data." Shermer's answer is as close as anyone has come to nailing it: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll need to add that book to my reading list. I'm such a skeptic that I barely believe the sky is blue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The chapter on smart people is excerpted at the author's website ([4]). Another snippet relevant to Margulis, Duesberg, and their ilk:

A community of scientists read the same journals, go to the same conferences, review each others' papers and books, and generally exchange ideas about the facts, hypotheses, and theories in that field. Through vast experience they know, fairly quickly, which new ideas stand a chance of succeeding and which are obviously wrong.

Newcomers from other fields, who typically dive in with both feet without the requisite training and experience, proceed to generate new ideas that they think — because of their success in their own field — will be revolutionary. Instead, they are usually greeted with disdain (or, more typically, simply ignored) by the professionals in the field. This is not because (as they usually think is the reason) insiders don’t like outsiders (or that all great revolutionaries are persecuted or ignored), but because in most cases those ideas were considered years or decades before and rejected for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Again, I think this is as good a summary of the phenomenon as anyone has written. These people act like no one has ever considered alternative causes of AIDS besides HIV. In fact, Duesberg's ideas were tested quite thoroughly in the 1980s and early 1990s. They turned out to provide an extremely poor description of reality, as opposed to the HIV/AIDS model, which has led to effective diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive approaches.

This is Science 101: you don't just talk out of your ass. You make testable predictions, and then test them and revise your hypothesis. Let's say AIDS is a spirochetal disease, just syphilis in disguise: what testable predictions flow from that assumption? Galileo isn't famous because he was persecuted - he's famous because he made testable predictions about objective reality which turned out to be correct. But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule about people jumping into new scientific fields. Luis Walter Alvarez is probably the most famous. And he was ridiculed extensively in the early 80's. Now, he and his son are heros of sorts. Maybe his son, being a geologist, helped out. Anyways, I remember going to some meeting and listening to various paleontologists argue about it. Anyways, the problem with these silly ideas (not Alvarez) is that people grab onto them like they were the truth. Whether it is Andrew Wakefield (not the best example) or some random scientist who claims that there is no global warming, they become an issue with public discourse. Now everyone of the AIDS denialism articles are going to be filled with "Lynn Margalis, esteemed evolutionary biologist, widower of Carl Sagan, says that neo-Darwinism is wrong, spirochetes cause AIDS, and Carl never said 'billions.'"OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

?

Hi, if you sent me mail recently, I did not receive it. Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm. You already replied, and I replied back to your reply.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That old tabloid

Damn the New York Times, that rag. Doesn't anyone know it's not reliable? Seriously, thanks for your support of the Old Gray Lady. You'll be thanked for it, I'm sure, by a sockpuppet filing that claims you and I are the same person based on:

1. overlapping editing patterns or
2. non-overlapping editing patterns. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and this is us trying to throw everyone off the trail, but talking to each other. Hey, don't forget to pick up some beer for the weekend, we're out. And if you don't clean the toilet, I'm going to not let you use my computer ever again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forget what kind of beer you like, wink, wink. Won't you tell me what it is again? I was going to get some Pipeline porter, but let me know. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's cold and wet, I don't care. I'll order the pizza. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)K's comment about socket puppetry is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the history of this dialogue on the WPI talk pages over the last 15 months. So I ask you to familiarise yourself with this by reviewing the talk page archives, and the arguments that have been raised by all of the editors involved? No one other than Keepcalmandcarryon has even raised the issue of whether the NYT can be deemed RS, so this is also entirely irrelevant. There are two moot issues here (i) the level of interpretation that can be placed on the various versions of content based on this RS wording and whether it is safe to include content on this basis, and (ii) the view by the remaining editors that what is surely relevant to the content of the WPI article is Mikovits professional training and background, and the quality of her MEDRS publications.

If your judgement is that any NYT content is sufficient in itself to determine a precedent for inclusion here, then any content from such an RS should be unchallengeable. As I said in my comments there is an important difference between necessity and sufficiency. Maybe I am confused, but I thought that WP was aiming to be encyclopaedic in its articles rather than parrot incidental anecdotes of a (albeit renown) newspaper. -- TerryE (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this discussion is at the article talk page, but since you've kindly followed me here: as both OM and I have said, the professional status of Mikovits is an important piece of the background to the controversy. There is nothing interpretable about the clear wording in the New York Times piece. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I rarely, if ever, reply to condescending strawman arguments about editing articles which appear on my talk page. And this is one of the most ridiculous strawman arguments I've read in a long time. Take it to the talk page of the article. If I choose to respond to the strawman, I will. Don't bet on it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you

Great to see you back! Sorry I missed your return (haven't edited since mid-Feb). Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and good to see you. This place is raising my blood pressure. I'll have a stroke soon.  :) Sadly, I see too few editors left, and the same old POV-pushing fringe crowd still causing trouble. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude

You really need to see The Big Lebowski. I think it would be right up your alley (no pun intended). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't picture you using the moniker "dude" with anyone. I, on the other hand, use it all the time, but I'm a native Californian. I will watch it. Netflix here I come (no advertising intended or otherwise). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me second Boris' recommendation. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you're missing something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Attention all science editors

We have been diagnosed. Fuck the world. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was distracted by counting the number of periods in Battle Cry of Freedom. Can you repeat what you wrote above? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirty four, including the ellipsis and the boilerplate text down at the bottom. Yeesh, do I have to do everything around here? - 2/0 (cont.) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The book, not the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, counting the 34 in the article was interesting. LOL OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was "told by email" that I can get 10% of $64 million dollars from a Nigerian prince, just for giving them my banking information. But I fixated on the errors in spelling and grammar and let the opportunity pass me by. Speaking of bullying...I wonder what the excuse was here (see E.2). Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a script being used? This looks awfully familiar, not having chosen his words more carefully. Did any of you notice that no examples were offered when asked for? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Who knows with Cla68 and Ludwigs2. Cla68 is actually a good editor, and I've read some of his FA's, especially on military topics. There is no reason for him to engage in such rhetoric, it makes him look foolish. He had no evidence, which is obvious, and I'm sure he's embarrassed that he made some medical claim without anything backing it up. But emails that no one will ever see. Ludwigs2, on the other hand, just pontificates. I think he gets excited when he maximizes the number of words he uses, so drama is more important than actually creating content. He's had like 14 blocks, I wonder when the patience of community is worn out. I think I'll go back to squashing a couple of sockpuppets trying to screw up some articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Good editor", IMO, requires more than just the ability to write. Accurately representing sources is more important than writing well. (See the second part of the FOF here. Bear in mind that these links are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.) Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 was being phenomenally tone deaf in his remark, but I believe it was meant as a sincere attempt at explaining why some editors can come off as uncommunicative or unable to see other points of view. "Fringe" editors are frequently looking for the inclusion of more information, and they often get responses that immediately tag them as crazy idiots, or just ignore them, or repeat policy at them. So I think Cla's point was supposed to be sincere, that there is a group of editors who are not communicating well and act as if their way is inherently right. This can come off as stubborn or anti-social.

OM, that is obviously not your style; you prefer sarcastic remarks, which are the opposite of an autistic trait, but it's also a kind of unwillingness to engage. Now, should you have to 'waste time with fringe trolls'? of course not, but any editor fails the basic rule of assuming good faith when they determine someone else or someone else's point of view is unworthy of consideration, before it is even made.

Last, as an encyclopedia, we document Fringe views, even if we are not endorsing them. And as an encyclopedia with NPOV as policy not WP:SPOV, we don't even write with science as Wikipedia's voice. Even there, we are representing scientific views rather than declaiming them. That's a distinction without a difference if there are no conflicting reliable sources, but it matters when there are Fringe sources or Fringe topics. Ocaasi ^c 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually SPOV is NPOV. Pretty much. Look at what NPOV was like back in March 2005 when Dunc wrote that essay. Most of what he called for has been incorporated into our sourcing policy since then. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's partly true but not completely, and in a key way. Fringe, Pseudoscience, the intervening arbcom rulings, and MEDRS have gone a long way, but I still think there's a difference, and it has to do with voice. We don't 'speak for science', we just assume scientific/academic sources are extremely reliable, and we don't 'speak against' fringe topics, we just put them in the proper context and give them appropriate weight. Neutrality is still the proper term--science applies to the sources we privilege rather than our point of view. I think WP:MAINSTREAM is closer than SPOV on those grounds but still different. For many topics, experts completely disregard aspects that have a lot of social interest or niche interest, sometimes on the fringe. Plenty of editors think those aspects are worth inclusion whereas those who find SPOV to be the goal think they should not be dignified with mention. There's a reasonable spectrum of approaches there without either side being 'autistic' or 'loonies'. Ocaasi ^c 21:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the problem stems from editors wanting their fringe viewpoint to be over-represented in articles on the mainstream topic, and also wanting articles about the minority viewpoint to be from the perspective of the minority view, without showing the majority view of that topic. Such editors do at times seem to have a conviction but my ignorance of psychology (and psychobabble) prevents me from even suggesting any diagnosis. Equally, I can only note that Cla's efforts in military history are well regarded, but I have no expertise in that area. . . dave souza, talk

Ocaasi, NPOV=SPOV. Case closed. You'll get a better reception over with the editor with 14 blocks to his name. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore Ocaasi, I've never once called you or anyone a Fringe Troll. But you and others seem to hallucinate things like this. Hard to really take you seriously when you make such a personal attack (yes, inventing things that I say is a personal attack, just more passive aggressive). Yes, I know MEDRS and other FRINGE bashing guidelines don't give you enough space to say that Psychic powers exist. Oh well, so sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Say what

Thank you for your comments on my attempted contributions to HIV Test. I am not attempting to break Wikilaw. Amy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoan57 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ani

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your attack on Periannan Senapathy at WP:ANI per WP:BLP. It is absolutely unacceptable to refer to article subjects in such terms, and if you repeat it I will block you. If you continue to be uncivil I will also block you, and that includes gratuitous swearing even if not directly targeted at another editor. "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." Please tone it down. Fences&Windows 20:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you will find that the standards of acceptable behaviour have tightened since you were last here! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Fucking shit they have. Random morons can still run around unchecked for months, wasting competent editors time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WOW .. gotta say .. I didn't see that one coming. — Ched :  ?  21:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see the enforcement of our WP:CIVIL policy coming? Personally, i'm surprised it wasn't enforced far sooner. Silverseren^C 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ched and Silver. So, you've got nothing better to do around Wikipedia but to make some point? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

SS, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of civility, and I try to remain so. But to be perfectly blunt, this just really seems to be such a mountain/molehill issue that I'm having a hard time reconciling the heat with the light here. First and foremost, the "word" was not directed at an individual. Second, if it really is such a terrible word to be uttered, I'm wondering if we should put this up for AfD so as not to offend people. I don't have any dogs in that particular article's fight, and to be honest, I actually tend to stand on the opposite end of "religious/creationist vs. evolutionist" issues than OM; however, I don't edit those articles either because much of my beliefs require a "leap of faith", and unless we get into using refs from (nevermind)... I digress. I greatly admire OM's dedication to our project, and admire the work he's done on so very many medical and scientific articles. I just don't see this as being worthy of being risen to the level of acrimony that it has. Don't get me wrong, I see it in religious, scientific, political, and nationalistic articles all the time .. but no .. that just was not block-worthy IMHO.

Well, I had been looking for a reason to stop by and say "Welcome Back" OM ... sorry it comes on the heels of such ... [if I don't post it I won't have to redact it] Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ched...thanks. I know. "Fuck" (note that it's in quotes DGG, not meant as a Personal Attack on anyone on Wikipedia) is just a word. Actually, I wonder what people would think if I were blocked for using "fuck" as long as I don't say "fuck you" to some random editor. Note again DGG, "fuck you" was in quotes, not intended or used as a personal attack on anyone on this project.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• OM, if you want my advice (and there's no indication that you do), just chill. The Ducks are on TV tonight, right? Have a beer, watch the game, and chat with people you consider rational and sane. You can always come back and get blocked tomorrow. :P MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I hate the Ducks! LOL. And the Dodgers are now being run by MLB! Did you see that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Everybody hates the Ducks, but I figured you might root for them out of some sense of shared SoCal identity. As for the Dodgers, they're now the General Motors of baseball. As much as I enjoyed watching them get pwned in NLCS after NLCS, I couldn't even tell you who plays for the Dodgers anymore, now that Manny's gone. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Apparently, they do have some good fighters in the parking lot. Frank McCourt attempted to buy the Red Sox. Not that the Sox are looking that good this year, but they are infinitely better run than the Dodgers. Oh wait? Am I guilty of a BLP attack on McCourt? Please admins, forgive me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• OM, you'll probably find this comment piling on, but it's not intended as such. The tensions between 'fringe' and 'anti-fringe' editors have dramatically reduced in the past few months in my opinion--although admittedly not in the hottest locations--but in some generally better patterns of productive non-accusatory discussions between 'sides'. I found your recent interactions regarding my edits to be pretty negative and unmediated and counter to that generally productive trend. I don't doubt you believe such reactions are your best weapon to protect the encyclopedia, and I don't think you should stop trying to protect the encyclopedia necessarily, but perhaps you could choose a different tool. Ocaasi ^c 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Piling on to what? A couple of Admins that are mad at me? It happens. As for your point, it's dramatically reduced because EVERY good editor gets run out of town. As for your other points, whatever. You haven't earned my trust. Not that you should or even care. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• First a delayed welcome back. You don't know me (I think), but it is good to see you editing again. Next, the policy change to really watch out for is in wp:blp; it has grown and become stricter in recent years. You are reasonably likely to encounter it, because the new expanded wp:blp policy is often used as a weapon by wiki-savvy pushers of fringe POVs, sometimes in coordinated fashion. Cardamon (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cardamon, hey. Actually, I wouldn't have done it, because of BLP, which I actually respect. I should have called the theory names, I suppose. It's interesting because Parallel Genome Assembly is the theory, which I find just weird, has had its contents moved to the author's page. But still, very little is sourced. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey DGG and Fences&Windows

Apparently, not everyone agreed. What a waste of a day. But the drama was fun. Maybe not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What a day indeed. Jesus fucking Christ six ways to Sunday. Does it entertain you that the shit that comes off your keyboard led to at least 3 fucking threads on ANI in a single day, a few hours of furious typing by pissed off people, and further harm to the constantly sore relationships in this relatively small and emotionally hypersensitive (but exceedingly important) community? Are you doing it for the lulz? II | (t - c) 01:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you and I don't see eye to eye on much. And you nearly messed up my laptop when I fell onto the ground laughing. This was one of the best comments ever. I'm going for the world record tomorrow. Oh wait, I'm traveling. It'll have to wait until next week. I'm going to explore a Holocene volcanic crater in southern california. Maybe I'll take some pictures, write the article, and try not to drop an F-bomb. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)