User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →homeopathy talk page: Deleting name-calling immature unproductive comments |
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →Take a look at this....: Good job. Not bad for some ArbCom dweeb. :) |
||
| Line 503: | Line 503: | ||
:::::::Yes, I am a godless heathen. And Cla68 thinks I should be blocked because I laughed hysterically at an editor who claimed that I believed that homeopathy was scientifically proven. I think I'm going to revert your edits on [[Abortion]]. That should bring more of them out! :) [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::Yes, I am a godless heathen. And Cla68 thinks I should be blocked because I laughed hysterically at an editor who claimed that I believed that homeopathy was scientifically proven. I think I'm going to revert your edits on [[Abortion]]. That should bring more of them out! :) [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::For all the...endless discussion on the talk page, I'm surprised that no one has reverted any of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#cite_note-definition-0 this], which fills a full page now. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::For all the...endless discussion on the talk page, I'm surprised that no one has reverted any of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#cite_note-definition-0 this], which fills a full page now. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Apparently, everyone is just arguing on the talk page, and you just go on editing. That's almost amusing! So, I think that's the first time I've seen notes on a medical article. There are a few places where that should work, I might use it. And should we get rid of that red-link for that dictionary? [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== homeopathy talk page == |
== homeopathy talk page == |
||
Revision as of 04:29, 17 June 2011
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- 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)
- 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)
AIDS denialism typically right wing?
Hi Orangemarlin,
Just met you on the Camping talk page, and looked at your edits if you don't mind. one of them, is a bit confusing for me. And I mean I am confused, I'm not trolling here. "[..] push a right wing agenda, including publishing AIDS denialism". What exactly is "right wing" about AIDS denialism? I'm not American, so I'm probably missing some major cultural things, but "our" right wing does not "deny" AIDS. Could you elaborate a bit more? What agenda do right-wingers have that is helped by denying AIDS? Joepnl (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Camping? You mean the dude that fucked up the prediction for the end of the world? LOL. Anyways, our right wing denies anything that has to do with science. Global warming. Evolution. AIDS. The journal has an awful anti-science bent with an agenda. It's against the CDC, for example, for some very odd reasons. The problem with the journal is that editors here will use it to further their POV edits, but it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Anyways, you'll not that anyone who tries to use them will probably get their edits reverted, so I'm just helping the editor understand that AIDS denialism has absolutely no real science behind it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I may, the right wing is generally skeptical of any claims that have government support and especially government-industry cooperation. The left actually shares this in some spheres as well, though the left usually points to military-industrial rather than medical-industrial issues. The AIDS hypothesis resonates with some on the far right because it tells a story which smacks of government hyping an answer, directing gobs of funding at it, and generally not being successful despite other promising research avenues which are usually pursued by an iconoclastic scientist somewhere outside the US where regulation is more lax. That's the story. The far left also has some sympathies with AIDS denialism, but in a much less conspiratorial vein, and not dissimilar from the Austism denialism dynamic. The only remotely plausible (I mean remotely logical not remotely supported) alternative to the HIV-AIDS connection involves environmental-species factors such as nutrition, inflammation, and immune response. Those are themes that the left loves since it suggests we can control our illnesses with more tai chi and organic food. I'm sure a few fringe homosexuals also find it a liberating notion that the 'Gay disease' (circa 1980) was not so much about unprotected anal sex, but unprotected sex mixed with vicious cocktails of drugs. That changes the story from 'we were immoral' (the old canard) to 'we partied too hard', which the left finds easier to swallow. 2c. Ocaasi c 16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't conflate "skepticism", which is based on a scientific analysis, with "denialism" which is based on politics, personal beliefs, and malformed logic. The US right wing are denialists on a wide range of issues, whether it's global warming, evolution, or gays are incapable of raising children. The left wing has it's own group of denialists, including the anti-vaccinationists, new age believers, homeopathy, and a wide range of other things. Of course, these are highly generalized, as I know a few right wingers who consider evolution and global warming to be well-supported by science. I've never heard of this Autism denialism, but I tend to ignore conspiracies. And there is no evidence for alternatives to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. You're using the logic that denialists always use, that is, say something and state that it may exist. Sure, maybe the teapot floating on the far side of the moon is putting out some chemical that causes AIDS, and ask me to disprove it. Yes, I've seen on Wikipedia people who are afflicted with diseases become advocates of many wild ass theories of their disease and treatment I know there's a psychiatric term for these people, but for me, it's advocacy over evidence. One more thing, don't excuse the wild right wing denialism by stating the existence of a left wing denialism. In general, as shown by polls, Republicans believe in Creationism by a huge majority. In general, most lefties, though they have their own crazy beliefs about science, accept the biggies like evolution, global warming, etc. The right wing is far worse in it's anti-science attitude. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that the right wing is more anti-science than the left wing is. I don't know about AIDS-denial in the US, but here it's a fringe thing (adoption by gays and evolution too btw). I can't imagine that pretty much half of the US population, "the right-wingers", don't believe AIDS exists. Global Warming might be a valid scientific theory. In my experience, right-wingers are usually pointing out that there are certain obvious flaws in it. Though I'm not an expert in this area, I'm convinced that the embracing of this theory by the left has more to do with prior thinking about policies about cars etc. than a sudden insight. After the earthquake in Haiti, a left wing member of parliament tweeted "we should really do something about climate change now". Another example is nuclear energy where the discussion is not scientific at all. Scientific would be: how many deaths per joule, where nuclear energy wins by a landslide against any other method of producing electricity. Left-wing response: you can't use that. Nuclear=scary, that's enough. That doesn't sound not very scientific to me. I'm not going to spell out the tens of examples I know of, but my gut feeling is that if you would actually measure the scientificness of arguments used by both left and right, the right would win. Apart from that, I'm curious about the US mindset, so to speak. Could you tell me what your wildest guess is how many people in the US don't buy Global warming, evolution or AIDS? Joepnl (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Skepticism means denialism in this context, though it's on a spectrum. Also, I wasn't saying 'this could be true', just 'here's the story they tell, it's not impossible on its face'. Don't be afraid of speaking about ideas; ideas are different from valid theories.
- Don't conflate "skepticism", which is based on a scientific analysis, with "denialism" which is based on politics, personal beliefs, and malformed logic. The US right wing are denialists on a wide range of issues, whether it's global warming, evolution, or gays are incapable of raising children. The left wing has it's own group of denialists, including the anti-vaccinationists, new age believers, homeopathy, and a wide range of other things. Of course, these are highly generalized, as I know a few right wingers who consider evolution and global warming to be well-supported by science. I've never heard of this Autism denialism, but I tend to ignore conspiracies. And there is no evidence for alternatives to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. You're using the logic that denialists always use, that is, say something and state that it may exist. Sure, maybe the teapot floating on the far side of the moon is putting out some chemical that causes AIDS, and ask me to disprove it. Yes, I've seen on Wikipedia people who are afflicted with diseases become advocates of many wild ass theories of their disease and treatment I know there's a psychiatric term for these people, but for me, it's advocacy over evidence. One more thing, don't excuse the wild right wing denialism by stating the existence of a left wing denialism. In general, as shown by polls, Republicans believe in Creationism by a huge majority. In general, most lefties, though they have their own crazy beliefs about science, accept the biggies like evolution, global warming, etc. The right wing is far worse in it's anti-science attitude. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I may, the right wing is generally skeptical of any claims that have government support and especially government-industry cooperation. The left actually shares this in some spheres as well, though the left usually points to military-industrial rather than medical-industrial issues. The AIDS hypothesis resonates with some on the far right because it tells a story which smacks of government hyping an answer, directing gobs of funding at it, and generally not being successful despite other promising research avenues which are usually pursued by an iconoclastic scientist somewhere outside the US where regulation is more lax. That's the story. The far left also has some sympathies with AIDS denialism, but in a much less conspiratorial vein, and not dissimilar from the Austism denialism dynamic. The only remotely plausible (I mean remotely logical not remotely supported) alternative to the HIV-AIDS connection involves environmental-species factors such as nutrition, inflammation, and immune response. Those are themes that the left loves since it suggests we can control our illnesses with more tai chi and organic food. I'm sure a few fringe homosexuals also find it a liberating notion that the 'Gay disease' (circa 1980) was not so much about unprotected anal sex, but unprotected sex mixed with vicious cocktails of drugs. That changes the story from 'we were immoral' (the old canard) to 'we partied too hard', which the left finds easier to swallow. 2c. Ocaasi c 16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The left is just as bad when it comes to skepticism about corporations and corporate medicine, especially with homeopathy, vaccines, and autism, as you mentioned. Some might also say that the left is deluded about prospects for peace through diplomacy, though I think that's more of a philosophical than scientific subject. The right you are referring to is not the 'far right' but the 'religious right', which denies science for its own reasons and just finds overlap with the far anti-government-power right on issues of regulation and funding. Conservative/evangelical Christians are the lurking variable in 'far right', so better to pinpoint it. IMO, it's not much use to try and blame bad thinking on groups. Ideas should succeed and fail on their own merits, not the proclivities or affiliations of their adherents and detractors. Ocaasi c 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- AIDS denialism appeals to extreme elements from both the political right and left. On the right, a lot of the (initial) denialism wasn't anti-science, really, so much as homophobia. Essentially, the argument was that AIDS was caused directly by what people on the right like to term "the gay lifestyle", rather than by a virus that could also infect heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, and children. Duesberg himself was initially treated as a hero by the gay community, for standing up to a scientific establishment which (it was felt at the time) hadn't adequately prioritized HIV/AIDS research. But Duesberg's support quickly dried up as he made a series of statements perceived as homophobic, at which point he became closely identified with a subculture of right-wing ideologues. The best description of the relationship between AIDS denialism and the political right is in Impure Science, by Steven Epstein. On the left, it's the usual blend of muddled postmodernism and knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism. To be clear, most people in America understand that HIV causes AIDS, regardless of their political orientation. MastCell Talk 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your interesting information. If you really want to know something talk pages are way more interesting than the official namespace. I can imagine a meta-wikipedia listing all dissenting opinions which are much more interesting than the official article but can only be found on talk pages since "consensus", NPOV and "Original research" is such a major censor. Joepnl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC).
- AIDS denialism appeals to extreme elements from both the political right and left. On the right, a lot of the (initial) denialism wasn't anti-science, really, so much as homophobia. Essentially, the argument was that AIDS was caused directly by what people on the right like to term "the gay lifestyle", rather than by a virus that could also infect heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, and children. Duesberg himself was initially treated as a hero by the gay community, for standing up to a scientific establishment which (it was felt at the time) hadn't adequately prioritized HIV/AIDS research. But Duesberg's support quickly dried up as he made a series of statements perceived as homophobic, at which point he became closely identified with a subculture of right-wing ideologues. The best description of the relationship between AIDS denialism and the political right is in Impure Science, by Steven Epstein. On the left, it's the usual blend of muddled postmodernism and knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism. To be clear, most people in America understand that HIV causes AIDS, regardless of their political orientation. MastCell Talk 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The left is just as bad when it comes to skepticism about corporations and corporate medicine, especially with homeopathy, vaccines, and autism, as you mentioned. Some might also say that the left is deluded about prospects for peace through diplomacy, though I think that's more of a philosophical than scientific subject. The right you are referring to is not the 'far right' but the 'religious right', which denies science for its own reasons and just finds overlap with the far anti-government-power right on issues of regulation and funding. Conservative/evangelical Christians are the lurking variable in 'far right', so better to pinpoint it. IMO, it's not much use to try and blame bad thinking on groups. Ideas should succeed and fail on their own merits, not the proclivities or affiliations of their adherents and detractors. Ocaasi c 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
A couple of comments about Talk:Utah
First, I agree with you in principle on the underlying issue: extended demographic data doesn't need to go in the Utah article unless it's supported by reliable sources, and even then it might not warrant inclusion.
That said, I disagree with your style in comments and especially in the edit summaries. Even in the course of kicking somebody to the curb—be it handing out an indefinite block on-Wiki or ejecting a coach from a game off-Wiki—I find it better to treat them with far more respect than they deserve. We may find ourselves dealing the lowest of the low—people on the Group W bench with Arlo Guthrie in "Alice's Restaurant", patrons of the Mos Eisley spaceport, or season ticket holders at East 161st and River Avenue, The Bronx—but there's absolutely no reason to lower ourselves to their level in the course of dealing with them. Besides, the calmer we stay, the bigger of fools they show themselves to be if they go off on a tirade. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comrade Fred (must be what "C" stands for) espouses proper doctrine. Bourgeois stooges will hang themselves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Come on now. Every good Bolshevik knows that kulaks don't hang themselves. Sounds like Right Deviationism to me. But I agree that C. Fred is giving you good advice as far as Wikipedia goes. MastCell Talk 20:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think Utah is a very contentious article, and I wasn't worried about much. All I was doing was supporting the removal of Chamber of Commerce information that the dear Comrade had removed, since it represented the will of the elite. The edit summaries were there as reminder for the local theocracy. It was very passive aggressive. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Come on now. Every good Bolshevik knows that kulaks don't hang themselves. Sounds like Right Deviationism to me. But I agree that C. Fred is giving you good advice as far as Wikipedia goes. MastCell Talk 20:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Milikguay (talk · contribs) has written a rather poor article about this man, with at least one major factual inaccuracy—that Shapiro and not Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box. I did a little bit of cleanup; could you take a look at the rest of it? I'm especially concerned about the AIDS Denialism part, because of the sentence that goes "Some websites link him to AIDS Denialism,[13][14]though he haven't took a public stand about this subject." Best, NW (Talk) 13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Zoiks. MastCell Talk 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently Shapiro is another form of Intelligent design pusher. I'm trying to figure out what he's saying, but it sounds awfully post modernist. It almost reads like he thinks that the design is internal to the organism, but I'm still reading. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two points: (1) The guy has a solid understanding of modern genetics; (2) he is suggesting the possibility of a kind of "intelligent design" of the genome in which the intelligence arises from biological mechanisms built into the cell rather than from anything external. The idea is a long stretch but I don't see anything blatantly impossible about it. I couldn't detect any religious overtones in his essay; on the other hand it is written at a level that genuine ID proponents would find impossible to understand and no doubt they would be happy to quote-mine it to support their claims. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like he speculated on the possibility of a revival of orthogenesis, hinting at scientific examination of "design" in a way that would have pleased Richard Owen. However, it's very tentative and look at the date, when ID was a shiny new pseudoscience which had yet to be exposed in court. We should really find if his ideas have changed, in the interim I've modified the section and emphasised the date. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- dave, that's what it does look like. As I always say, science shouldn't be dogmatic, it should be open to other ideas. However, evolution is about as close to a fact as you can get. The mechanisms may be under discussion, there have been a lot of attacks on natural selection and genetic drift, but they seem plausible and experimentally supported. I am concerned when a theory is proposed that makes us think there's a power beyond our understanding, like intelligent genomes. It's just chemistry. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like he speculated on the possibility of a revival of orthogenesis, hinting at scientific examination of "design" in a way that would have pleased Richard Owen. However, it's very tentative and look at the date, when ID was a shiny new pseudoscience which had yet to be exposed in court. We should really find if his ideas have changed, in the interim I've modified the section and emphasised the date. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two points: (1) The guy has a solid understanding of modern genetics; (2) he is suggesting the possibility of a kind of "intelligent design" of the genome in which the intelligence arises from biological mechanisms built into the cell rather than from anything external. The idea is a long stretch but I don't see anything blatantly impossible about it. I couldn't detect any religious overtones in his essay; on the other hand it is written at a level that genuine ID proponents would find impossible to understand and no doubt they would be happy to quote-mine it to support their claims. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Dumb Republicans Again
Medical Schools can't teach abortion techniques. Well, this law will die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama, but these dumbfuck Republicans are so blinded in their hatred of the perfectly legal and important medical procedure that they fail to understand that abortion is a procedure that sometimes needs to be used to save the life of the mother. Fuck the Republicans. Just fuck them. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The proposed law would conflict with ACGME requirements for OB/GYN residencies. Currently, the ACGME mandates that "access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education" in order for a program to be accredited. There is an exception for training programs with institutional objections to abortion (e.g. at Catholic medical centers), but even in such cases residents must be allowed to acquire experience in induced abortion off-site if they choose ([2]).
Residencies are, of course, largely taxpayer-funded through Medicare DME payments, so they use "taxpayer money" to train residents to perform abortions. Granted, the bill is a political stunt rather than a serious legislative proposal - after all, the Republicans need to somehow shift the focus off the Ryan budget, so they're going back to the most dog-eared pages in their playbook. Still, I'm curious about the reaction from ACGME (and ACOG, for that matter), since this bill would essentially overturn (on political grounds) the basic training requirements set by the profession. MastCell Talk 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- We know it's a stunt, but I'm sure there are true believers out there who think this is the way it should be. I better not tell the pro-abortion crowd on my graduate research, where a research assistant and I would stand outside the medical school's ob department waiting to pick up placenta and fetal material to harvest proteins and receptors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- ^Agree to all of the above. But the Obama administration hasn't been very kind to the ACGME either: Pediatrics residencies will have fun supporting themselves at their current level with no GME funding (if that plan actually went through). NW (Talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just so so glad I practise medicine in Australia...did occasionally think about working in the US.Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cas, I'm curious about something: The average full time psychiatrist earns between 150 and 170k here, I believe. Is the situation similar in Australia? NW (Talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Our dollar, which has zoomed to $1.05 US has changed things a little - the Australian system is a bit weird - consultants in hospital earn anywhere from $140,000 to 240,000 depending on seniority, management, overtime etc. See page 38 of this document...and that is with 5 week's holiday and 5 weeks' study leave, but sessional specialists (called VMOs or Visiting Medical Officers) the rate is $184 or $198 an hour. This is all state goverment based (figures are from New South Wales). The federal government funds the medicare system which runs parallel. This is works like a benevolent insurance company - folks are free to see whichever doctor they like (as long as they have a referral from a GP) - here the rate for a psychiatrist is based on per service. Hence the gov't reimburses (pays) a psychiatrist ~$145 for seeing a patient for 45-75 min (usually 50 min), and it is up to the psychiatrist whether they Bulk Bill (i.e. just claim that and leaving the patient with zero to pay, or charge anywhere from 150 to 300 dollars and the patient pay the excess. However the rates of reimbursement are not indexed to the CPI and so have fallen in real terms since the introduction of Medicare in 1983 (and so have bulk billing rates around the country) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you could just up your volume and stop wasting time listening to patients talk about their problems... Anyhow, here you have to take a pay cut to stay in academia, and a pretty substantial one at that, but it's worth it. MastCell Talk 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Our dollar, which has zoomed to $1.05 US has changed things a little - the Australian system is a bit weird - consultants in hospital earn anywhere from $140,000 to 240,000 depending on seniority, management, overtime etc. See page 38 of this document...and that is with 5 week's holiday and 5 weeks' study leave, but sessional specialists (called VMOs or Visiting Medical Officers) the rate is $184 or $198 an hour. This is all state goverment based (figures are from New South Wales). The federal government funds the medicare system which runs parallel. This is works like a benevolent insurance company - folks are free to see whichever doctor they like (as long as they have a referral from a GP) - here the rate for a psychiatrist is based on per service. Hence the gov't reimburses (pays) a psychiatrist ~$145 for seeing a patient for 45-75 min (usually 50 min), and it is up to the psychiatrist whether they Bulk Bill (i.e. just claim that and leaving the patient with zero to pay, or charge anywhere from 150 to 300 dollars and the patient pay the excess. However the rates of reimbursement are not indexed to the CPI and so have fallen in real terms since the introduction of Medicare in 1983 (and so have bulk billing rates around the country) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cas, I'm curious about something: The average full time psychiatrist earns between 150 and 170k here, I believe. Is the situation similar in Australia? NW (Talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just so so glad I practise medicine in Australia...did occasionally think about working in the US.Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- ^Agree to all of the above. But the Obama administration hasn't been very kind to the ACGME either: Pediatrics residencies will have fun supporting themselves at their current level with no GME funding (if that plan actually went through). NW (Talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- We know it's a stunt, but I'm sure there are true believers out there who think this is the way it should be. I better not tell the pro-abortion crowd on my graduate research, where a research assistant and I would stand outside the medical school's ob department waiting to pick up placenta and fetal material to harvest proteins and receptors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I feel I should be helping save this article..but I just look at it and my eyes just glaze over....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a total mess, and I'm just not that knowledgeable about infectious diseases. I've noticed this a lot with medical FA's. People stop watching it, then it just gets to be a load of junk. I think SandyGeorgia does her best to watch over the medical FA's, but she's just one person. I'll give it a try, but I remember how much time it took for my two FA's. It's like writing a dissertation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Your deletion
Please revisit Talk:Lung cancer#Palliative care. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The Marlins
Did you see the hit that Scott Cousins put on Buster Posey? I'm not a Giants fan (quite the opposite), but that was painful to watch. MastCell Talk 17:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I thought about going to the game, but it was really cold up in the Bay Area. That was just awful, and of course ESPN had to show it over and over again. I hate watching those athlete's legs move in directions that were never meant to be. Like the Joe Theisman leg break. Worse yet, Posey is my catcher on my fantasy baseball team. And it's not like there is a lot of talent out there that plays catcher. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he's out for the year, so you might want to start checking the waiver wires. The scariest part wasn't his leg, but rather what seemed like a pretty serious head injury and concussion. Your brain just isn't designed to be bounced around like that. I used to love football - I still do - but I can hardly watch it anymore with the accumulating evidence of long-term neurologic sequelae. MastCell Talk 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was so focused on his leg, I missed what happened to the head. MLB has one of the best programs for concussions, considering that there probably less chances of head injury in baseball than in hockey or football. They do a thorough baseline for all players in spring, so that they can make a better diagnosis of concussions. I think hockey and football have serious long-term health care issues for their players. I saw a published article a few months ago that described the decreased lifespan of NFL linemen. I think it was over 20 years shorter, but now I've got to find the article again to confirm that. Anyways, it's amazing how long Carlton Fisk played as a full-time catcher. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he's out for the year, so you might want to start checking the waiver wires. The scariest part wasn't his leg, but rather what seemed like a pretty serious head injury and concussion. Your brain just isn't designed to be bounced around like that. I used to love football - I still do - but I can hardly watch it anymore with the accumulating evidence of long-term neurologic sequelae. MastCell Talk 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Terrain theory
Ran across a link to terrain theory and thought "geomorphology" -- heh, wrong. Anyways thought you'd enjoy applying your vast knowledge there. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think you admins drop these notes on my User Talk page in an effort to distract me! LOL Germ theory anyone???? And modern day Terrain theory nutjobs think that viruses mutate into bacteria which mutate into fungus when infecting someone. FACEPALM. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, tho't you'd enjoy it :) Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're evil. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, tho't you'd enjoy it :) Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Given the history (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) will likely attempt Edit warring with me, on Iain Stewart (geologist), anything you can do?
Given the history (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) will likely attempt Edit warring with me, on Iain Stewart (geologist), anything you can do? 99.181.156.30 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Also, note this IP User may get knocked off-line ... DDOS? 99.181.156.30 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly hope he's knocked off-line; he's clearly the same person who violated 3RR on 4 different IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? What's this about? By the way, I'm not an admin. The pay isn't sufficient. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, May 19th on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics). 99.190.80.45 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- The irony :-) an IP v an admin Shot info (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- And of course, I'm not an admin, and think the world of Arthur Rubin. This because, in a momentary fit of niceness, I put a Welcome Template on the IP's talk page. This is what I get for being nice. LOL. The answer is, of course, not only is there nothing I can do, but even if I could do something, I won't. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heh - being "nice" the overriding and overarching policy here at Wikipedia. And of course, the path the woo and pseudoscience :-) Shot info (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- O man - after months of kicking the wiki-crack I've started editing again...................noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Shot info (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I gave it up for precisely two years. Then I read an article, pissed that I wasn't logged on to edit it, then I was mainlining again. I see that you're out of rehab too. :)OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sighhh, It's like I'm reliving the past - I've got another couple of editors trying it on that because Barrett is chairman of QW, anything ever published by him is automatically SPS....jeeze, the more things change, the more they stay the same..... Shot info (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Be aware, there are mind-readers. 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no spoon Shot info (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- If of interest, more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 99.181.140.6 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no spoon Shot info (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Be aware, there are mind-readers. 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sighhh, It's like I'm reliving the past - I've got another couple of editors trying it on that because Barrett is chairman of QW, anything ever published by him is automatically SPS....jeeze, the more things change, the more they stay the same..... Shot info (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I gave it up for precisely two years. Then I read an article, pissed that I wasn't logged on to edit it, then I was mainlining again. I see that you're out of rehab too. :)OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- And of course, I'm not an admin, and think the world of Arthur Rubin. This because, in a momentary fit of niceness, I put a Welcome Template on the IP's talk page. This is what I get for being nice. LOL. The answer is, of course, not only is there nothing I can do, but even if I could do something, I won't. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- The irony :-) an IP v an admin Shot info (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, May 19th on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics). 99.190.80.45 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? What's this about? By the way, I'm not an admin. The pay isn't sufficient. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
How is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries?
How is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries? 99.19.42.17 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Global warming my ass
It's June. It's snowing a few miles away. Tornadoes hitting the ground. Sure, maybe in Iowa. But this is freaking California. Yes, Comrade Boris, it is evidence of a Capitalist Conspiracy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Capitalist plots cannot overcome revolutionary zeal. Have methods for bringing bourgeois "weather" into doctrinal conformity. Strenuous efforts must continue in face of all obstacles through aid of reliable comrades. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess KGB did control Amerikanski weathermen. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno, the heat here's been sapping my precious bodily fluids. Of course, it's the first dry week in three months, so I'm not complaining just yet. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the heat; it's the fluoride. That's why I only drink bourbon and rainwater. MastCell Talk 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bourbon? Is that reb-speak for uisge beatha? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rainwater? That contains destructive acids and Japanese secret radioactive particles caused by New Zealand's attempt to take over the world.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- OM, you're sounding a little stressed. Let me help you with a little Reiki massage .....(waves hands over keyboard and screen and focusses...)......there, how does that feel? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you licensed to do that in the US? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Offering "massage therapy" to patients is actually a pretty common way for psychiatrists to become delicensed in the States. MastCell Talk 05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- (points over there) look, there's an
alienalien! (runs out opposite door quickly) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)- Been there. Done that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Took the liberty of fixing that for ya. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Whut, you do Reiki too? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- With a hammer, maybe.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Whut, you do Reiki too? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Took the liberty of fixing that for ya. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Been there. Done that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- (points over there) look, there's an
- Offering "massage therapy" to patients is actually a pretty common way for psychiatrists to become delicensed in the States. MastCell Talk 05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reiki? That is respectable (it has a Wikipedia article after all) compared to something like quantum touch therapy or colour acupuncture or EMF balancing therapy. I'm actually reassured that we don't have articles on those (though I probably missed them under other names). We do have one on Tibetan singing bowls, which are also used in some therapies. I can understand sounds like that being useful in relaxation and meditation, but 'therapies' where people wave their hands or use coloured lights and/or crystals and claim some effect, makes me really wonder sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you licensed to do that in the US? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- OM, you're sounding a little stressed. Let me help you with a little Reiki massage .....(waves hands over keyboard and screen and focusses...)......there, how does that feel? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rainwater? That contains destructive acids and Japanese secret radioactive particles caused by New Zealand's attempt to take over the world.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bourbon? Is that reb-speak for uisge beatha? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the heat; it's the fluoride. That's why I only drink bourbon and rainwater. MastCell Talk 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno, the heat here's been sapping my precious bodily fluids. Of course, it's the first dry week in three months, so I'm not complaining just yet. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess KGB did control Amerikanski weathermen. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration policy
As someone who has encountered arbitration up close and personal, you may be interested in opining on the proposed new arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification. --B (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now I'm pissed. Actually endorsing secret hearings? Your point made sense too, but I can't get over secret. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, whether they hear it in secret or don't hear it isn't central to my point. My point is that if some vandal posts my real name and phone number on Wikipedia and then it gets oversighted, from this rule, anyone is now permitted to introduce that personal information as public evidence for arbitration. Ideally, there would be some language requiring that notification be served in public that the private evidence was submitted and then a redacted version would be placed publicly on the evidence page. For example, post the checkuser results with IP addresses stricken. I think that would be a good rule. But the way it's written is terrible - the way it's written is that the default is that you should post it publicly and if you send something privately because you believe that it meets the undefined "compelling reasons" to send it in privately, there might be a secret hearing to decide whether to use it. --B (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I got your point, and I do actually think some things should be kept secret. But it has to "open", in the sense that the Arbcom has to state that it is discussing B's real name and telephone number, and the fact that he's a VaTech guy. :) It's when you get FT2 using it for his personal vendetta, then I have a problem. So, how do you draw the line? You draw it by stating exactly what can be done in secret. So, Rule #4 gets to be abused from two directions. The FT2's of the world can use it to further their cause, or someone could abuse the system to out users. So it's doubly bad. Another well thought out regulation around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, whether they hear it in secret or don't hear it isn't central to my point. My point is that if some vandal posts my real name and phone number on Wikipedia and then it gets oversighted, from this rule, anyone is now permitted to introduce that personal information as public evidence for arbitration. Ideally, there would be some language requiring that notification be served in public that the private evidence was submitted and then a redacted version would be placed publicly on the evidence page. For example, post the checkuser results with IP addresses stricken. I think that would be a good rule. But the way it's written is terrible - the way it's written is that the default is that you should post it publicly and if you send something privately because you believe that it meets the undefined "compelling reasons" to send it in privately, there might be a secret hearing to decide whether to use it. --B (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just been reading some of the comments you made on that page. Do you think you could tone the language down a bit? I wouldn't normally ask, but I helped a new user the other day who was starting out with editing Wikipedia, and it occurred to me that if they had read what you had said, it might have put them off editing forever. I know that page is not likely to be frequented by new or potential editors, but I think that people who get angry and use language like that may not realise how offputting it is to those reading it who aren't aware of the background here. All I'd be able to say to someone who was shocked at what you said is to say rather weakly, "Well, he is very upset about something that happened years ago, and it can be like that on Wikipedia sometimes, but if you avoid the grouchy old-timers (they are easily recognisable), things tend to be OK." But I shouldn't really have to say that, should I? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just adding a note here to say that I had thought the above was a one-off (I was referring to the edits you made here and here), but I see from this that you do this fairly often. It doesn't take long to find stuff like this and this. Could I ask that you at least refrain from swearing in edit summaries? There seems little need to do that, and edit summaries stay on the record unlike talk page comments which eventually end up in archives. I agree that making points forcefully is sometimes needed, but it is perfectly possible to make your points with as much force without crossing the line into using language that you know is gratuitous and not needed. Just because you can say something in a certain way doesn't mean you have to. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
RfA comments
Hi, I don't think we've met. I wanted to drop you a line about some of your recent comments at RfAs, which seem unnecessarily hostile to me. You are, of course, quite within your rights to state why you think a candidate is unsuited (or suited) to adminship, but rude or passive-aggressive comments only further the impression that RfA is a very unpleasant place and can diminish the candidate's enthusiasm for editing. Also, I'm sure it's not meant as such, but the lack of pronouns in some of your comments makes them sound quite cold and impersonal. I'd be grateful if you;d take this into consideration in other RfAs. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted my original comment, because I just had to read about FT2's bullshit comments, and reminded as to what kind of person he is around here. I'll take it into consideration, but why should I spend a nanosecond worried about these wholly immature and unsuitable candidates? If they can't deal with my kicking them in their whiny asses, then how can they deal with the usual group of trolls around here? BTW, really, you want to call ME passive aggressive? I think I don't make any secret on how I feel about anything. However, why don't you drop by the King of Passive-aggressive narcissists around here.....oh wait, can't mention his name, cause it's a "personal attack". Waaaah. Yeah, that was passive aggressive. :)OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- PMID 11430454 refers.
Efficacy
Ok, you said this. I suspect you were preaching to the choir, but that sort of sermon's likely bring about conversions you don't want. Anyhow, where do we have sources showing placebos are inefficaceous? Of course they're not the most efficaceous, but the question afaik was whether they are ever ethically justifiable. Brings to mind the whole debate over shoddy practices in control selection for trials. I never did figure out why trial vs the best available treatment wasn't required for NDAs (aside from the whole eats-into-profits thing of course). LeadSongDog come howl! 19:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- You know me, I'm not all that concerned about unwanted conversations. :) I'm not one who buys into placebo effects being a definition of efficacy. They are random, and unpredictable. I think it's just what the junk medicine types use as their last bastion. As for inefficacious, it's a clumsy word, but it doesn't mean the opposite of efficacious (like dangerous or something), it merely means it's not efficacious. And besides, there's no placebo effect across most diseases. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I just did this, but it got me thinking, which is always dangerous :-) If physicians are supposed to ensure nothing serious is overlooked before referring a patient to a CAM practitioner for placebo-by-proxy, surely there should be better outcome statistics for the cadre coming into CAM practices on referrals from physicians in comparison to self-referrals. I wonder if anyone's looked at this? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am a physiotherapy student and I would like to collaborate on Wikipedya through a contribution.
Hi, I am a physiotherapy student and I would like to collaborate on Wikipedya through a contribution.
I've seen that it is very active in articles about energy and alternative medicine such as acupuncture. I would like to send a review of a technique called Karatherapy which I have got very good references with. I think it could be included in the encyclopedia. I dont know exactly how to write a good article but I could send it to you to give me your opinion and help me.
Thanks
Helena — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.75.68 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- First, I'm a skeptic, so my critique will be a harsh critique. Second, you can't send it to me, because I won't give out my email address. However, if you want, you can sign up here, and I can show you how to post it to a user page, and you can collaboratively edit it until it's ready for creating an article. Those are my suggestions. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Something tells me this is will end badly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. Definitely. BUT, we can have articles fringe theories, as long as we show that the science is solidly not there. It is the power of the proletariat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, also, if it makes babes like that appear, I am all over it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- No kidding. I think Comrade Boris shouldn't be searching these sites on the KGB computer system. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, also, if it makes babes like that appear, I am all over it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Boris, you've been suckered by Google. "Karatherapy is a medical discipline which consist in the application of movements and positions taken form the karate katas, positions taken from the karate kata, and any respiratory dynamics and states of consciousness for use in health. Established in the eighties by rehabilitation doctor Pablo Pereda who founded a school in Logroño, La Rioja to spread their practices." Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- He was actually suckered by the hot girl. Come on Looie, you know those Commies don't get enough.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. Definitely. BUT, we can have articles fringe theories, as long as we show that the science is solidly not there. It is the power of the proletariat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Something tells me this is will end badly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- On a related note, I am planning an article on a novel health discipline which I've founded: osmiorosaceatherapy. It is a holistic, integrative approach to wellness based on the ancient Eastern practice of stopping to smell the roses. I mean, along with the associated respiratory dynamics and whatnot. MastCell Talk 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- But, does it lead to babes? I can get behind anything that leads to babes... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're a bit obsessed with the babes??? I hear that editing Wikipedia always gets babes. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't smelled a rose in years. I have stopped and smelled the pot wafting in from a neighbor's house. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way MastCell, if you ever watch Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, there was an episode on some New Age mumbo jumbo using pebbles. The "therapist" picked up the pebbles from her driveway, and made tons of money. I'll bet osmiorosaceatherapy would make you stinking rich, though Gorski might write some nasty blogs about you. :)OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who's Gorski? :P Anyhow, the point is to get rich. It's so much easier to profit from ignorance than to remedy it. I'm getting tired, and the lure of the Dark Side is strong. MastCell Talk 04:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The best thing about the dark side is that you don't have to have any medical success. Just claim it, even if nothing is happening, and everyone will believe you. Throw a diploma mill Ph.D. up on the wall, and you'll speak the truth.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, the best thing is that if someone calls out your claims as ignorant nonsense, you can just say they're part of a conspiracy to suppress natural cures. In all seriousness: I have been tempted on more than one occasion to submit a manuscript to Medical Hypotheses (the most cited journal on Wikipedia). MastCell Talk 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, osmiorosaceatherapy is worthy of inclusion in the journal. Then it will be a reliable source for osmiorosaceatherapy. Of course, you'll have to add an external link to your practice, so that anyone reading the article will know how to find you. Oh, then we have to add the article Mast Cell (osmiorosaceatherapy) as the notable discoverer of the curative therapy.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- And since the NIH has yet to issue a consensus statement about the validity of osmiorosaceotherapy, we cannot claim that it lacks scientific support (that would be WP:OR). Until the American Physics Association addresses the topic, we cannot say that it violates all known laws of physics. If Stephen Barrett questions osmiorosaceotherapy, we need to note that he's a professional skeptic and that he once got sued, and isn't Quackwatch a self-published source anyway? No, we just have to present the positive results published in Medical Hypotheses by the marketer and promoter of the therapy and leave it at that. That's how a serious, respectable reference work operates. MastCell Talk 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have a plan. Maybe it will help the Marlins win the NL East. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a miracle worker. They got hit with a double-dose of karma after The Posey Incident: both Josh Johnson and Hanley are on the DL. Bad news. Besides, the Phillies are a machine. They don't even start trying until September, and they're already cruising with a lineup full of second-stringers. MastCell Talk 21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Let's see, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, Roy Halladay, and Roy Oswalt, and some unnamed fifth starter (doesn't matter, they have 3 who could be third starters on other teams). You could throw out the the Pirate hitters, and go 100-62. Ramirez is on my fantasy league team. As was Posey. I also drafted Dan Ugla who has been butt-UGLY. But I have Lee and Hamels. I'm in 2nd place, because of my pitching. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a miracle worker. They got hit with a double-dose of karma after The Posey Incident: both Josh Johnson and Hanley are on the DL. Bad news. Besides, the Phillies are a machine. They don't even start trying until September, and they're already cruising with a lineup full of second-stringers. MastCell Talk 21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have a plan. Maybe it will help the Marlins win the NL East. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- And since the NIH has yet to issue a consensus statement about the validity of osmiorosaceotherapy, we cannot claim that it lacks scientific support (that would be WP:OR). Until the American Physics Association addresses the topic, we cannot say that it violates all known laws of physics. If Stephen Barrett questions osmiorosaceotherapy, we need to note that he's a professional skeptic and that he once got sued, and isn't Quackwatch a self-published source anyway? No, we just have to present the positive results published in Medical Hypotheses by the marketer and promoter of the therapy and leave it at that. That's how a serious, respectable reference work operates. MastCell Talk 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, osmiorosaceatherapy is worthy of inclusion in the journal. Then it will be a reliable source for osmiorosaceatherapy. Of course, you'll have to add an external link to your practice, so that anyone reading the article will know how to find you. Oh, then we have to add the article Mast Cell (osmiorosaceatherapy) as the notable discoverer of the curative therapy.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, the best thing is that if someone calls out your claims as ignorant nonsense, you can just say they're part of a conspiracy to suppress natural cures. In all seriousness: I have been tempted on more than one occasion to submit a manuscript to Medical Hypotheses (the most cited journal on Wikipedia). MastCell Talk 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The best thing about the dark side is that you don't have to have any medical success. Just claim it, even if nothing is happening, and everyone will believe you. Throw a diploma mill Ph.D. up on the wall, and you'll speak the truth.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who's Gorski? :P Anyhow, the point is to get rich. It's so much easier to profit from ignorance than to remedy it. I'm getting tired, and the lure of the Dark Side is strong. MastCell Talk 04:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Eduardo Perez just named hitting coach of the Marlins. OK, this should fix things! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In Marlins news...
... or maybe Giants news, but it relates to Scott Cousins. Since we were talking about Johnny Bench earlier, you might be interested to know that he publicly placed most of the blame for Buster Posey's injury on Posey.
I was also thinking about the apparently greater durability of catchers in the 1970s (Carlton Fisk, Gary Carter, Johnny Bench). I think a lot of it has to do with post-steroid-era baseball. The players who ran into Johnny Bench were mostly little guys by today's standards - I mean, Rickey Henderson would probably bounce right off Buster Posey. And the big guys, like Greg Luzinski, were slow as oxes. These days, you have massive 230 lb. players with incredible speed, like Cousins - there's just no comparison in terms of the punishment that a catcher takes blocking the plate between then and now.
Anyhow, Brian Sabean, the Giants GM, said that "if I never hear from Cousins again, or he doesn't play another day in the big leagues, I think we'll all be happy." Which sounds to my ears a bit... threatening, but I think he's walked it back since. Cheers. MastCell Talk 21:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point about size. I was watching a video about the 1965 Dodgers, and Don Drysdale was being interviewed. I remember his being kind of tall, but not very big. I doubt he weighed over 190, so he'd be a skinny tall kid these days. Didn't Luzinski get thrown out at first on a hit to the outfield? By the way, Sabean has apologized. He apparently called Cousins, but had to leave a message. Cousins is from the Bay Area, and I think he's not coming home for the winter! Anyways, there might be a sea change in catcher athletes over the next few years. Big athletic types, maybe like defensive linemen. It becomes a fully defensive position, because you can't risk a valuable offensive player there. An strong hitting catcher will be moved to 1B or outfield quickly. Look at Joe Mauer, a great offensive and defensive catcher. But the Twins can't risk any further loss of his offensive skills, and have got to move him to 1B. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- But you can't really put big D-lineman types at catcher. There's sort of a built-in size and weight limit for the position, because their knees won't hold up. You can't ask a 250-lb. guy to spend 3 hours crouching down, getting up, crouching down, getting up... unless maybe you sell knee replacement hardware. Most catchers aren't actually that big. I think the answer is probably going to be to outlaw certain kinds of hits on the catcher - Cousins left his feet, which would be one place to start - but it's tough to do that if catchers are still allowed to block the plate, since it disadvantages the runner. MastCell Talk 21:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you might be right about the knees of a big guy. And no, I know squat about orthopedics, nor derive any profits thereof. I do have a few breast implants sitting on my desk now, but then again, I'm just a pervert. Are we concerned about something that happens rarely? I wonder how many guys get hurt sliding into the catcher for example. Or jumping on home plate! Sports can't legislate against every contingency, it is sports with an assumed amount of risk. What happened to Posey is sad, but it is rare, and a result of a chain of events that is just random. Still, I think the catcher is going to evolve into a purely defensive position. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Carter had an amazing arm, and always seemed a big guy, but not by today's standards, he would be medium sized. Oh and I remember Ellis Valentine throwing out Luzinski at first once... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- And the Kid has a malignant brain tumor. :( OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah it sucks, he was my favourite Expo when I was a kid. I used to wear a batting helmet in the outfield because he did. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- That video you posted a couple of weeks ago (which I loved) about the Spo's centered on the author's love of the Kid. When I was a kid (way back when), a lot of the Dodgers loved Montreal, because it used to be the Dodgers AAA team. I think Tommy Lasorda was a big fan of the Habs. Éric Gagné was a big Candiens fan himself. When he won the Cy Young Award, he dropped the puck at a Kings game, and Ian Laperrière gave him a huge hug. I guess they used to play hockey and baseball together in Montreal. A lot of hockey players second sport is almost always baseball. It's sad that Vancouver and Montreal don't have baseball teams. I used to go up to Calgary to manage clinical trials on new cardiovascular devices (better you Canadians than Americans get them implanted....LOL). One of the physicians had played minor league baseball after college, because it was harder to break into hockey. He was also a Expos fan because A) he hated Toronto and all that it represented (must be some Canadian thing, I happen to love Toronto), and B) because the designated hitter was, to quote him, "a flying piece of American shit." Well, I hate the designated hitter too, but then again, I am not an American League fan. Anyways, as you can see, I love baseball and hockey more than kicking the royal ass out of a CAM-believing editor. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very nice, my Dad had a theory about the American League, and about the DH. He said that Conservatives (in Canada) and Republicans liked them (and the Toronto Maple Leafs, and by extension, the Argos) whereas Liberals and Democrats liked the NL and the Habs... My grandfather was a part time sportscaster in Montreal in the 40s and 50s, so he knew Lasorda and they would talk at Expo games years later. He took my Mom to see the Royals (the Dodges AAA team) play a lot. Apparently he took her to a game when Jackie Robinson was playing and she was a little baby, which is pretty cool. Many of the Expos lived in the same neighbourhood as my grandparents in Montreal (this is back before they were all multi millionaires). I used to play sandlot ball with John Boccabella's and Clyde Mashores son Damon Mashore when we would visit Montreal. Years later, my uncle and I helped Bill Gullickson move a fridge into his house. Ahh back when ballplayers were not steroid induced hulks making millions.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- That video you posted a couple of weeks ago (which I loved) about the Spo's centered on the author's love of the Kid. When I was a kid (way back when), a lot of the Dodgers loved Montreal, because it used to be the Dodgers AAA team. I think Tommy Lasorda was a big fan of the Habs. Éric Gagné was a big Candiens fan himself. When he won the Cy Young Award, he dropped the puck at a Kings game, and Ian Laperrière gave him a huge hug. I guess they used to play hockey and baseball together in Montreal. A lot of hockey players second sport is almost always baseball. It's sad that Vancouver and Montreal don't have baseball teams. I used to go up to Calgary to manage clinical trials on new cardiovascular devices (better you Canadians than Americans get them implanted....LOL). One of the physicians had played minor league baseball after college, because it was harder to break into hockey. He was also a Expos fan because A) he hated Toronto and all that it represented (must be some Canadian thing, I happen to love Toronto), and B) because the designated hitter was, to quote him, "a flying piece of American shit." Well, I hate the designated hitter too, but then again, I am not an American League fan. Anyways, as you can see, I love baseball and hockey more than kicking the royal ass out of a CAM-believing editor. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah it sucks, he was my favourite Expo when I was a kid. I used to wear a batting helmet in the outfield because he did. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- And the Kid has a malignant brain tumor. :( OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Carter had an amazing arm, and always seemed a big guy, but not by today's standards, he would be medium sized. Oh and I remember Ellis Valentine throwing out Luzinski at first once... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you might be right about the knees of a big guy. And no, I know squat about orthopedics, nor derive any profits thereof. I do have a few breast implants sitting on my desk now, but then again, I'm just a pervert. Are we concerned about something that happens rarely? I wonder how many guys get hurt sliding into the catcher for example. Or jumping on home plate! Sports can't legislate against every contingency, it is sports with an assumed amount of risk. What happened to Posey is sad, but it is rare, and a result of a chain of events that is just random. Still, I think the catcher is going to evolve into a purely defensive position. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- But you can't really put big D-lineman types at catcher. There's sort of a built-in size and weight limit for the position, because their knees won't hold up. You can't ask a 250-lb. guy to spend 3 hours crouching down, getting up, crouching down, getting up... unless maybe you sell knee replacement hardware. Most catchers aren't actually that big. I think the answer is probably going to be to outlaw certain kinds of hits on the catcher - Cousins left his feet, which would be one place to start - but it's tough to do that if catchers are still allowed to block the plate, since it disadvantages the runner. MastCell Talk 21:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a baseball geek, but the Mashores are outside of my knowledge base. LOL. Did you see that The Great One's son Trevor was drafted pretty high by the Chicago Cubs. Based on the history of that team, he's never going to sniff as many rings as his dad has. Apparently good genes!OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, apparently that kid can play. I work with a guy whose brother is married to Greta'z sister. I have all kinds of oddball stories about the NHL that I cannot share in public... I will say this, my buddy's son's bedroom looks like the freaking Hall of Fame, awesome memorabilia etc. Damned kid and my friend got to hang out with Team Canada at the 2004 World Cup of Hockey, I am not related to anyone famous, except my brother the other prof Brodbeck who never went to University, am I bitter? Yes.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad music and vaccine denialism = ???
The Refusers is some band that makes the denialists at Age of Autism very happy. Crazies. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my comments about FT2, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
However, there is no reason for secret hearings except under an extremely narrow and defined set of circumstances. And mental illness is a laughable exception, since I contend no one can diagnose any disease over the internet. Unless you're Cla68 who apparently has learned how to diagnose Asperger's Syndrome over the internet. Oh wait, he got the info over an email, and it's only those who oppose his POV on Wikipedia who have that particular form of autism.
Since many weren't around three years ago, FT2's personal vendetta against me is still a sore spot, and I still have no clue why he's still on this project. But if Arbcom allows secret hearings at their discretion, power hungry individuals like FT2 will use it as an excuse to do the same to another editor. An open community cannot allow that.
Again sorry if I offended, but I'm not going to stop using "fuck" whenever I fucking feel like saying fuck. Right Fences & Windows? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good thing that editor is not a psychologist, because that Asperger's comment that guy made that is way way unethical (at least to a psychologist, and I think frankly here too). On the other stuff, FWIW, fucking A Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
- No, I don't believe he's a shrink. I think he's just some random dude on Wikipedia. However, I thought it was so lame, I bring it up at least once a month whenever he spouts off about anything. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"failure of an experiment", what are you talking about?
You're incorrect, and you used a revert. Wrong move. - RoyBoy 04:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever. I'm NEVER wrong. I am, in fact, PERFECT. The last time I made a mistake, it wasn't really a mistake. I just admitted to it so that I'd get a date with a hot babe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- WRONG MOVE DUDE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <rolls eyes> :-) Shot info (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- You mean getting the date? LOL OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- WRONG MOVE DUDE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <rolls eyes> :-) Shot info (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I already thought you were awesome, now I KNOW it! - RoyBoy 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dude. Be more subtle. BTW, the check was sent yesterday. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I already thought you were awesome, now I KNOW it! - RoyBoy 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Taoist Medicine
Not sure what to do with Taoist Medicine. Recently created article, probably can't be speedied, any ideas? Noformation Talk 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for one thing, it's nothing but original research. What's the difference between it and Traditional chinese medicine? Probably deserves a paragraph in TCM. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll speedy it as purely promotional tomorrow if you like. (My computer is closing down now.) Bishonen | talk 00:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
- Damn. I just xfd'ed it. Delete that and speedy it if you can. It's really just advertising. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, XfD will resolve the issue. OM, you need to do something more constructive than futzing around with these pages - tuberculosis is at FAR and rhabdomyolysis at FAC... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been playing around with a bunch of geology articles, which is fun. I have little knowledge about infectious diseases. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I just wrote a nice strong delete reason for the original version, but now I see there's so little left, I guess there's not much point in posting my comment. We'd better keep an eye on it though. I have a feeling the author liked it as it was. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
- Meh, XfD will resolve the issue. OM, you need to do something more constructive than futzing around with these pages - tuberculosis is at FAR and rhabdomyolysis at FAC... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Damn. I just xfd'ed it. Delete that and speedy it if you can. It's really just advertising. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll speedy it as purely promotional tomorrow if you like. (My computer is closing down now.) Bishonen | talk 00:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Medical Barnstar
|
The Medicine Barnstar | |
| Good work on medicine article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC) |
- Why thank you Doc. I'm playing around with the Antidepressant#Herbal section. Do these alt-cam twerps ever read the citations? Conclusions based on a 30 patient study published in a low ranked journal from a group in Iran? Geez, I hate to be skeptical, but.....OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So ...
A couple of months in, and I just (coincidentally) found my first free moment to check the stats, and look at that, whadyaknow ?? Boston on top, Minnesota on the bottom, and the Marlins in the middle !!! You should learn to wait for the Fat Lady before gloating on my talk page !!!! I'll check again in July, which is about when my next free moment should be ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have a friend in Boston (who also looks good in a black cocktail dress), who was having a wonderful time tonight texting me about the Bruins and the Bosox. But you are right. That Fat Lady is one fickle woman. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Marlins have lost 8 in a row. I'm switching teams. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do live in California, so you never know! Just saying!OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: DMSBel
Hadn't we better wait to hear from the blocking admin, before posting on a noticeboard? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why? It's publicly posted that he is topic banned that was resulting from a community discussion. If the block admin wants to defend him, the he/she will. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we don't know that the admin intended the topic ban to apply that broadly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll notify him. It's one of the good, fair admins. If it were Dreadstar, then I'd just delete it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I poked around a bit, and couldn't find an instance of DMS discussing this with an admin. The whole admin thing is such a tangle, though, that I could have missed something easily. In any case, the ban is a community consensus, which the admin simply implemented. I'd say that whether it applied to abortion is a community matter, too, and I'm not sure which side I'm on. What's of concern is that the editor's current behavior is of the same sort that caused the ban. PhGustaf (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think to be fair to DMS, he should argue the reasons why he can edit it, the community decides and sets the conditions. I too looked at the talk page history of GWH, and found nothing. I'm opposed to all editors who use rhetoric and politics to make a point on medical articles. It should be always WP:MEDRS. That ends some arguments, sometimes prolongs them. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I poked around a bit, and couldn't find an instance of DMS discussing this with an admin. The whole admin thing is such a tangle, though, that I could have missed something easily. In any case, the ban is a community consensus, which the admin simply implemented. I'd say that whether it applied to abortion is a community matter, too, and I'm not sure which side I'm on. What's of concern is that the editor's current behavior is of the same sort that caused the ban. PhGustaf (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll notify him. It's one of the good, fair admins. If it were Dreadstar, then I'd just delete it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we don't know that the admin intended the topic ban to apply that broadly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
POV tag
Apparently you thought that The Twilight Saga, Young Frankenstein and Night of the Living Dead are fiction. I'm shocked. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- However, I remain concerned about the zombie apocalypse. I have a 5 m brick wall around my house, several automatic weapons, and a years supply of popcorn and beer. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks ignored by useless admins
- Childish comment from Michael C Price (talk · contribs)
- Another childish comment from Michael C Price (talk · contribs)
- Childish comment from topic banned editor DMSBel (talk · contribs)
- Childish personal attack from Michael C Price (talk · contribs)
- Uninformed personal attack by Chester Markel (talk · contribs). Makes an immature claim that I'm against MEDRS. Laughable at best. Personal attack of the most heinous nature at worst.
- Uninformed personal attack by Michael C Price (talk · contribs). Obviously lacks any knowledge of MEDRS.
- Typical childish personal attack by Michael C Price (talk · contribs). I didn't realize how long Price has been obsessed by me. See WP:STALK
- More childish and immature personal attacks by Michael C Price (talk · contribs). Really obsessed with me. I'm flattered.
- Childish personal attack by Cla68 (talk · contribs)
- Outright lies and personal attack by Cla68 (talk · contribs). Love that WP:BOOMERANG.
- Whiny childish personal attack from Chester Markel (talk · contribs). Of course 99.9999% of my 30,000 edits are fucking excellent. But that requires advanced reading skills.
Yes, I am uncivil. Yes, I say fuck. But most of you incompetent, hypocritical admins refuse to deal with this shit. I intend to post more. Just don't expect me to withhold personal attacks from these little immature "editors" whose knowledge of the topics in which they throw out their personal attacks ranks right up there with ....oh wait...nothing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep taking the tablets
As G said to Moses.... . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
On the Origin of Species
Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't know that "summarised" is proper in British English, I thought it was just a misspelling. My apologies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.243.207 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Those English are trying to ruin real English written by Americans. It's truly sad. Colour? What's with the extra letter? Gaol? What's that? A lorrie? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Volcanic Explosivity Index
Hello OrangeMarlin. While watching the VEI page, I noticed an IP editor updating the article with more recent examples of eruptions, to include 2011 Puyehue eruption and Mount Pinatubo. I made no comment as I thought these were valid edits which contributed to the article. Now that you've reverted them, I would humbly suggest that you reconsider. Although the editor entered no edit summaries and has not linked entirely correctly, I think we could AGF and accept these updates. The eruptions he/she has mentioned do appear to be properly cited within their source articles. But I don't want to tread on your toes and revert your rollback. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- One edit didn't make sense, and I have a personal policy that the original edits stand until such time the changes are explained or sourced. Since it was an anonymous IP with no edit summary, I concluded the original should stand. I see this a lot in various articles, where someone makes what seems to be "reasonable" changes, then they turn out to be incorrect, even a subtle form of vandalism. If you think anonymous made the right changes, go ahead and revert. One more thing, sometimes older eruptions are more notable or even more famous. I saw some TV show where the character was saying "newer is always better". Maybe that's not so true with eruptions. Hahahaha. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
The Medicine Barnstar | |
| To Orangemarlin, for contributions to medical articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Tuberculosis is driving me nuts. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, my talk-page stalkers. You know who you are. Get off your lazy butts and help me clean up this article. It's non-controversial, no CAM bullshit, but is very complicated. Some of the citations are dead or out-of-date, the microbiology is way over my head, and there's a lot of drug-resistance stuff that needs to be reviewed carefully. It's on an FAR started by editors who seem to like to point out all the problems with the FA, but not really lift a finger to assist (annoying). Anyways, HELP!!!!! Remember, when I focus on an article, I stay away from the whining drama-queens that seem to inhabit this project. You know who you are. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to focus on tuberculosis for the next few days and let things work themselves out at Trevor Marshall. I think there are a number of concerning issues about the page and what's going on there, but I don't think those issues are going to be resolved (at least not in any satisfying or encyclopedically useful way) in the current climate. Certainly, arguing with the article subject on the talk page with Jimbo looking over your shoulder isn't going to end well (although I do think it was useful to correct clear misstatements about rickets, FWIW). Just a suggestion. MastCell Talk 17:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Puts T.B. Blues on the gramophone, Jimmie Rodgers recorded on January 31, 1931, at San Antonio, Texas. Goes off and edits page, tweaks sequence. Glad to assist. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Talk-page stalkers"? Hey, I resent being called a "talk-page stalker". Oh, wait.... Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Busted. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Talk-page stalkers"? Hey, I resent being called a "talk-page stalker". Oh, wait.... Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Puts T.B. Blues on the gramophone, Jimmie Rodgers recorded on January 31, 1931, at San Antonio, Texas. Goes off and edits page, tweaks sequence. Glad to assist. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If I have one due to the trevor marshall discussion do you think that I could include it in the article?
I found this, you might have read it already, but it's from a comment here:
"The confusion lies here: some variants of sarcoidosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcoidosis) involve malfunctioning macrophages that convert the less active form of Vitamin D (25-hydroxy-vitamin D) to the much more active form (1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D) via an unregulated process, making the sufferers extremely sensitive to 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels, and making supplemental D3 or even excess sunlight dangerous. Dr. Marshall has improperly extended this etiology from exactly one condition to everything that ails man, and has therefore entered “quack” terrority.
The resolution is probably not, “Everyone should avoid Vitamin D3.” but is much more likely to be something like, “For people diagnosed with some variants of sarcoidosis, supplemental Vitamin D3 is contraindicated as it is much more likely to cause hypercalcemia than in the general population. For individuals who are not suffering from sarcoidosis, supplemental Vitamin D3 in the range of 2000-10,000 IU/day is likely to be unambiguously beneficial.”
I'm just starting my second year of biochem so I'm not knowledgeable enough to verify, but I do know after reading up on TM the last couple days that all of this is ludicrous. I also know the above isn't an RS, I just thought I'd share the horses with you, cause they sure as shit aren't zebras.
Also, is there anyway that this could be a source? If so, it specifically states that he has published no studies, just an essay.
One day, after I get my PhD, I'm going to publish as many articles as I can on quacks, specifically calling them quacks, just so it can be said on WP without being a BLP violation :) Noformation Talk 02:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been warned off the article because apparently it's illegal to call a quack a quack. Quack quack. I'm still offended that Jimbo has gone all nuclear over germ theory, which was an admitted throwaway minor point of mine.
- Yes, if you have anecdotal evidence, in the post-modernist world of science that is much more valid than experimentation, analysis and peer-review. So, I'd add it to several articles if I were you. Just go crazy. You will do well in your anecdotal publications. Don't bother with the Ph.D. In the anti-science, post-modernist Wikipedia, expertise is a lot less relevant than being some electrical engineer who couldn't even give a straight answer to what was on his Ph.D., and had no clue what constituted Rickets.
- Yes, as of this moment, there just isn't any reliable evidence about this protocol. None. Nada.
- But read this article in an alt-med website. I mean when your quack remedy is even hated by the CAM types, it's the end of the world. BTW, the author of that article lays out a very reasoned discussion, despite having been badly harmed by the Marshall Protocol.
- Good that you're into Biochemistry. When I was an undergraduate, we were given this crazy final exam. We were allowed to write down every biochemical equation on both sides of an 8 1/2X11 sheet of paper. We sat down for the exam, and we were given a question that was merely: provided H20, CO2, and NH3, make DNA (or something like that). The exam was open-ended, meaning you had up to infinite amount of time to complete the exam. They brought in pizza, coffee, soda, popcorn, all kinds of sugar. It took me around 8 hours to complete. And because I was pre-med, I couldn't risk not getting an A. I think I lost a good 2 years of my life that night.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've had an offer outstanding for awhile now, from the editor of a reasonably respectable medical journal (not top-10, but MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, reputable, etc), to write a review article on the topic of my choosing. While I have no particular expertise in vitamin D metabolism, the temptation to take up the offer (and thus provide a Reliable Secondary SourceTM) is powerful. MastCell Talk 06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Could have been worse ;) NW (Talk) 11:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- NW, that was hysterical. And I'm sure there are some evil professors who thought of those! In my case, it wasn't a joke....I think I had nightmares about it last night. I was writing the formulas in tiny print to cover the page. And I cannot for the life of me remember how I got S into the equations. LOL. Also my biochem prof is very notable on Wikipedia, and I've thought about vandalizing his article. Mwahahahahahahhaha.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- In our department we've found that if the committee members sit in different corners of the room, by properly sequencing our questions we can get the candidate rotating at up to 15 rpm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. A new energy source! The Party continues to show the shortcomings of the capitalist bourgeoisie.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- In our department we've found that if the committee members sit in different corners of the room, by properly sequencing our questions we can get the candidate rotating at up to 15 rpm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- NW, that was hysterical. And I'm sure there are some evil professors who thought of those! In my case, it wasn't a joke....I think I had nightmares about it last night. I was writing the formulas in tiny print to cover the page. And I cannot for the life of me remember how I got S into the equations. LOL. Also my biochem prof is very notable on Wikipedia, and I've thought about vandalizing his article. Mwahahahahahahhaha.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Help
My evil admin tendencies™ are telling me that the best way to go about handling this issue at Talk:Abortion is to indef block everyone who I disagree with. But something tells me that would be a Bad Idea™. What can I do that I haven't done already? NW (Talk) 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't ask me. I thought a couple of editors were getting to a pretty good consensus. Your citations seem to support the non-use of "death". So block 'em all. And when they try to take it to Arbcom, just use your clerk powers to put in the queue right below all of the global warming complaints. LOL. But let me look more carefully. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes you know for a fact that indef-blocking someone would make the encyclopedia a better place, but there's no ironclad wikilegal rationale for a block. It would be nice if there was actually a corps of courageous, sensible admins who handled such situations, but there isn't. And ArbCom isn't going to back someone who does the Right Thing the wrong way. Such is life. MastCell Talk 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Go Rouge! Click these buttons!!! - 2/0 (cont.) 04:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Evil 2over0. Just evil. I remember back in the day when MastCell was a lot more liberal with blocks. I don't think I've seen you block anyone since my return. I don't think blocks work, unless it's for obvious vandals or for some criminal act. Ban editors or ignore them. Everyone games the blocking system, through whining at ANI or WQA, or wasting Arbcom's time. I find the whole block bullshit amusing. One admin actually blocked another recently. And the blocking admin couldn't count, and was completely in the wrong.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Blocks work, if they're done right. For me, it's just too much work to deal with the wikilegal complications of even a straightforward block these days. There's no mechanism for distinguishing frivolous wikilawyering from honest, well-founded complaints about admin abuse. In that context, I'm not really interested. Let's say I get it right 99 times - if I get it wrong the 100th time, there will be a mob with pitchforks and torches. On the topics I really care about, I edit (so I can't block anyone anyway). And I no longer altruistically intervene against arrant nonsense or abusive editing on topics I don't care about, because it's just not taking the risk without any prospect of reward for a volunteer website that doesn't value its volunteers. MastCell Talk 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- You used to get rid of the sockpuppets. I used to think those were straightforward, but now I'm seeing Wiki-lawyering about that. So this is probably why Boris stopped too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Blocks work, if they're done right. For me, it's just too much work to deal with the wikilegal complications of even a straightforward block these days. There's no mechanism for distinguishing frivolous wikilawyering from honest, well-founded complaints about admin abuse. In that context, I'm not really interested. Let's say I get it right 99 times - if I get it wrong the 100th time, there will be a mob with pitchforks and torches. On the topics I really care about, I edit (so I can't block anyone anyway). And I no longer altruistically intervene against arrant nonsense or abusive editing on topics I don't care about, because it's just not taking the risk without any prospect of reward for a volunteer website that doesn't value its volunteers. MastCell Talk 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes you know for a fact that indef-blocking someone would make the encyclopedia a better place, but there's no ironclad wikilegal rationale for a block. It would be nice if there was actually a corps of courageous, sensible admins who handled such situations, but there isn't. And ArbCom isn't going to back someone who does the Right Thing the wrong way. Such is life. MastCell Talk 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What about violations of [WP:DONTCHANGETHEFUCKINGSUBJECTJUSTANSWERTHEFUCKINGQUESTION] or [WP:NOFUCKINGSOURCESNOFUCKINGSOUP] or [WP:YOURFUCKINGSIXYEAROLDFAQISNOTAVALIDSOURCE]? Sorry if I vented on your page. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a bunch of reasonable gents here, tell me, am I being unreasonable over in Front organization? Shot info (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is certainly legitimate criticism of ACSH that they might be too much in bed with chemical manufacturers, but the sourcing would need to be a lot better to include such a statement at Front organization. I reverted the edit and added a statement to the talkpage. The other editor is new, but might turn out productive. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not only Wikipedia
Creationists try to invade real Geology. I cannot figure out how a real university would give a Ph.D. to a creationist. I just don't get it. When I was in grad school, some of the biology grad students were very religious, but they were not creationists. Of course, when I was in grad school, there was no debate that the earth was over 4 billion years old, even amongst the more religious. I think most of the faculty would have laughed out of the program anyone who was a creationist. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this....
[3] and [4] - >4k a day! Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- For some reason, that seems like a low number. Of course, I didn't know either existed. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- type in some more esoteric pages - even Portal:medicine and see...they're quite high indeed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- So 4K hits a day is high? Pharyngula, which is definitely the most popular science blog out there, gets around 1.5-2 million hits a month. We've got work to do! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have never heard of that blog - must take a look sometime...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pharyngula is the blog for P.Z. Myers who is one of the most beloved or hated scientists on the internet (maybe outside of Dawkins, but just barely). If I want to know if something is notable, one of the first things I do is search his blog. If he doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. OK, I exaggerate. When some guy in Australia (cough cough) wrote a pretend peer-reviewed article that he found fossils on an meteorite, I was extremely skeptical. But Myers took the article and dissected it completely. Put it on your regular read. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, you have now (as in just now, you've never done it before) outed yourself as a Godless heathen. I can block you for that, right? NW (Talk) 03:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am a godless heathen. And Cla68 thinks I should be blocked because I laughed hysterically at an editor who claimed that I believed that homeopathy was scientifically proven. I think I'm going to revert your edits on Abortion. That should bring more of them out! :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- For all the...endless discussion on the talk page, I'm surprised that no one has reverted any of this, which fills a full page now. NW (Talk) 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, everyone is just arguing on the talk page, and you just go on editing. That's almost amusing! So, I think that's the first time I've seen notes on a medical article. There are a few places where that should work, I might use it. And should we get rid of that red-link for that dictionary? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- For all the...endless discussion on the talk page, I'm surprised that no one has reverted any of this, which fills a full page now. NW (Talk) 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am a godless heathen. And Cla68 thinks I should be blocked because I laughed hysterically at an editor who claimed that I believed that homeopathy was scientifically proven. I think I'm going to revert your edits on Abortion. That should bring more of them out! :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, you have now (as in just now, you've never done it before) outed yourself as a Godless heathen. I can block you for that, right? NW (Talk) 03:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pharyngula is the blog for P.Z. Myers who is one of the most beloved or hated scientists on the internet (maybe outside of Dawkins, but just barely). If I want to know if something is notable, one of the first things I do is search his blog. If he doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. OK, I exaggerate. When some guy in Australia (cough cough) wrote a pretend peer-reviewed article that he found fossils on an meteorite, I was extremely skeptical. But Myers took the article and dissected it completely. Put it on your regular read. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have never heard of that blog - must take a look sometime...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- So 4K hits a day is high? Pharyngula, which is definitely the most popular science blog out there, gets around 1.5-2 million hits a month. We've got work to do! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- type in some more esoteric pages - even Portal:medicine and see...they're quite high indeed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
homeopathy talk page
Hiya, you just reverted an edit I made on homeopathy. I understand that you might want the reference for my edit, though I can assure you I am correct on this point, and very strange that the standing text is there as its never been the case that 10 shakes is how to do it. Its an extremely poor refernce that is used currently. Could you direct me to the url to talk about homeopathy? Thanks, Cjwilky (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're catching me in a good mood. I never ever discuss articles on my user talk page. Did you not read the instructions above? Nevertheless, it doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what you can verify with reliable medical sources. Also, we do not use url's here (usually, unless we're point to something off-wiki), so you can discuss what you want to do at Talk:Homeopathy. But, unless it is an outstanding citation, don't bother. Read over what makes up reliable sources. Don't reply here, just discuss it on the talk page for homeopathy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- OM, this edit is really disruptive for a number of reasons. As an established editor, I think you know how to edit in a collaborative, cooperative, congenial way. Are you willing and able to start doing so? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you ever get tired of yourself? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no one else pays attention to him, so he has to entertain himself somehow. I guess his accusation that I have Asperger's Syndrome isn't sticking. Laughing my fucking ass off. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you ever get tired of yourself? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- OM, this edit is really disruptive for a number of reasons. As an established editor, I think you know how to edit in a collaborative, cooperative, congenial way. Are you willing and able to start doing so? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)