User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 5

Chiropractic

Hey Orange - random question. As a medical doctor, what's your opinion of chiropractic? I mean the least pseudoscientific sort - you know, Mixer or Reform. (Wikipedia seems to be rather positive toward the concept overall. Just wondered what you thought. standonbible^Talk! 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't believe that ANY medical procedure should receive a "positive." It should be balanced as to its success or failure rate, side-effects, etc. (No that doesn't mean I think that Alternative medicine is medicine.) However, with respect to chiropractic--undecided. From what I know, Chiropractors receive significant education and training. They can read an x-ray of the spine much better than I can. They understand skeletal-muscular relationships fairly well. I consider them a higher level of masseuse, one that understands kinesiology and other physiological relationships. They can't prescribe drugs (at least here in California), so they aren't quite physicians, but they provide a service. A lot of physicians dislike them. A lot of physicians use their services. I think a neutrally positive article makes a lot of sense. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some peer-reviewed studies have suggested that for some forms of back pain, they are competitive with or superior to surgery or other treatments. However, they do not always work with back pain only, and in those other areas I would be very cautious.--Filll (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask a question?

I see you are a Dr. in CA. So here's my question which I have been unable to find the right search words for to Google. I have had three surgeries since '01. The surgery in "01 never asked me about any alternates or OTC's I was taking, just wanted a lst of RX's. The next two surgeries required me to inform the hospital of all alternates and OTC's tried in the past 6 months. Do you know if this is the norm now everywhere or is it by hospital or state (I'm in FL)? Thanks for any input you may be able to give. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They should always ask. It's usually the anesthesiologist who needs to know if there are going to be any medications, OTC or Rx, that may affect blood pressure or the efficacy of the anesthetic. However, there are drugs like aspirin which, of course, thin the blood, and could cause certain bleeding issues. So, yes, it is an absolute necessity, though I have no clue if it is a legally required. Any hospital or surgery center would need to know what you have flowing through your blood, so they don't accidentally injure you. It's interesting that there are some herbs that people take that, in sufficient quantity, can have a negative effect during anesthesia. It's important information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh just to clarify, I'm not asking for medical advice for me. What I was asking is do you know of a link or at least how I could find whether there are laws (rules) in place for pre-surgery questions like this for articles? I have a complete list on me at all time of everything I take whether it's via RX or OTC. But I sometimes have trouble using the right search words to locate things like this. I totally understand the reasons why everything should be disclosed but amazingly a lot of people are not aware that OTC's of any kind should be disclosed. My mother didn't think it was important because as she put it "OTC's are safe" so she and my aunt felt it wasn't necessary to tell them at the hospital prior to surgery. I think this information can be useful in many articles, don't you? Thanks for your response, it's much appreciated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Medication reconciliation is a step required by policy in many medical institutions, and is just good medicine in general, but I don't believe it is legally required. Some hospitals may implement it based on recommendations from the Joint Commission or other accreditation bodies, you might search through documentation about the accreditation requirements to find what you are looking for. ^Avruchtalk 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am not sure there is a "law" or regulation to cover what is supposed to be done prior to surgery. There'd be dozens of exceptions making it useless. For example, a trauma patient may not be able to communicate or even remember anything. I think hospitals would have guidelines, surgeons and anesthesiologists would be trained to ask these questions, but frankly, I'd laugh hysterically if I saw one of them consulting a set of rules before starting surgery on me. Then I'd ask for a more experienced surgeon.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will check out the Joint Commission but I think you are both correct. Thanks for the the laugh Orangemarlin, I needed it! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence

FYI, the Foundation's lawyer is Mike Godwin who wrote the response not Mike Chad. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was drinking heavily and plotting the overthrow of Iceland. It was difficult to remember a name. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

An arbitrator has added you as a party to the above arbitration case, in which you have already participated. You are invited to add any additional statements or evidence to the relevant pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you include the UCMJ articles and relevant air force regulations either in a statement or evidence in the ArbCom case. Additionally some of the more temperate (later) comments on your talk page on this issue would be appropriate. ^Avruchtalk 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I will not participate. If you choose to sanction me in any way that is opposed to the laws of the United States, I will leave here because I cannot be a party to a request to disobey a law. Only I (or my attorneys) get to interpret the laws of the United States, not a bunch of anonymous individuals on a computer screen--what makes you or anyone here so special that they make that interpretation. Wikipedia does not sit above the law. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree with you - and I think that is the attitude that is prevalent in Wikipedia. There are folks who want to see Wikipedia as a nation unto itself, but it is simply not reality. I hope you aren't offended by my motin to add you as a party - you should know, if you don't already, that it doesn't affect the likelihood of sanction either way but merely serves (in my experience) to broaden the scope of the ultimate decision - which can only be good for Wikipedia. However, it will be difficult for them to address the broader issue of the impact of real-world legal obligations if you don't make a statement or contribute any evidence. ^Avruchtalk 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I plan to make a statement in defense of not only Jim but OM.--Filll (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is so silly as to make me want to cry. First of all, as long as VO kept his identity secret (which, honestly, he did everything but post his last name and SSN on the user page), I'd not be able to do anything. Second, no one here gets to make an interpretation of what is or is not applicable to me. I agree with everyone that if VO were working for say Apple Computer, and he was editing the Microsoft article, I'd not call up Steve and say, "hey dude, VO is ruining the Microsoft article on your internet access." OK, I actually might do that, because Steve would send me a new iPhone.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I feel the need. I think what Avruch says is excellent advice. I have two veteran's in my life and they would react the same way you are. You need to tell it like it is. Don't just let this slide, being a soldier and representative of the United States is an extremely important position and not appreciated by a lot unfortunately. You need to speak up for yourself and the loyalties to our country that you swore to protect. Just my opinion but I support you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Your commentary on the Introduction to Evolution featured article attempt is actively being discussed on Talk:Introduction to evolution. It would be most appreciated if you would be kind enough to contribute to the dialog there. It may be that your concerns have been addressed. If not, then further guidance would be appreciated. The page should be well organized; if you go to the bottom and scroll up you should be able to locate your specific concern which I took the liberty of copying/pasting to this page. Many thanks for following up on the discussion.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A fish is unaware of water

Thanks for this - I wasn't sure whether to type "mainstream" or not. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but your edits were so fraught with POV that it was beyond belief. You took one little sentence out of context to make it appear that science would deny the existence of designer, even if there was evidence. The remainder of this discussion will not be on my page, but at Talk:Intelligent design.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.

All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued. The Committee also asks that any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, be reported to them immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 13:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nom

I'm not trying to get some glory - just trying to help you, I've nominated many articles which I never edited at the GA and sometimes they passed, sometimes the reviewers found things to improve and the dedicated editors (or myself if it was easy) fixed them to pass. Wikipedia has so many badly done (or half-assed) articles that when a well-crafted one is found, it's not a bad thing to at least see if it passes the GA criteria. igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is in terrible shape. It lacks references for some of the information, it is not constructed correctly, and over half the article discusses something other than the extinction event. you didn't ask anyone's opinion if it was ready for GA. I've brought one extinction event article to FA, and I can tell you this one is not worthy of much right now. I've probably edited it over 100 times, and I still don't like it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design edit

Could you explain how the edit is POV? I'm describing someone else's position, so...? I think the relationship between intelligent design and other forms of creationism is an interesting matter not dealt with in the article, and Dennett's quote on the interaction between ID and YEC is elucidating. Richard001 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Take it to the Discussion section of ID, not here. ID is an FA, and as such, major changes require input from all editors. Moreover, try reading WP:CITET before creating sloppy citations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright then... at least I'll be likely to get a more civil response... Richard001 (talk)

You come to my page with Creationist POV, and you expect me to be nice? Sorry, no. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

OM, those edits coincided with lengthy, civil, productive discussions on the talk page involving several levelheaded editors. Reverting them out of hand and labeling them "POV" in the edit summary is neither civil nor productive. Gnixon (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

tools for checking refs?

Hi, I think i saw some back 'n forth between you 'n Sandy 'n Colin about tools for checking references... I would be very interested in learning anything you've learned (both now & in the future). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here. There are two great tools for checking references. The first, older one, is user:Gimmetrow's Reference Fixer, located here. The talk page has instructions on how to install and use it. It is a wonderful tool for fixing the punctuation so that it precedes the footnote. It also moves citation needed and other such tags to the end of a sentence, all automated. The second, brand-new tool is Dispenser's Linkchecker, which is causing quite a stir on FAC. It uses spider software to search for dead links and references in FACs. It can also be used manually to check individual articles. The link to the spider version for FAC is here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't know you had a sense of humor?????  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Process

The instructions for "Wikiquette alerts" say I should inform you that I've posted there about you. Hope it helps. Gnixon (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Already responded to your personal attack and uncivil behavior, and long ago I asked you to keep your comments off of my page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as the POV and content dispute stuff is difficult to wade through, and frustration probably set in long ago, the best way to mess up your side of the argument is to stoop to graphic sexual allusions like this. All you had to do was phrase that without the vulgarity and you would have made a good point. Instead, you're turning the tables on yourself. Try to keep civil, it will help smooth the process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

O.M,

I just saw the Wikiquette alert on you. I'm going to say my peace: don't give in on this! I see the work that folks like you and User:ScienceApologist do, and its important work. I sympathize with the frustration level. But every time someone says something uncivil, it feeds the very people you are working against. That's the simple truth. I wish it weren't. Stuff like that has to stop. They never seem to be frustrated because in the end, they know there is a mechanism on their side to keep you and similar editors at bay over something like civility. People like S.A. gets blocked, andthey go right back to editing based on their own concensus. Please read what Cheeser1 wrote.

Cheeser1 also alludes to another big problem: admins are not consistently knowledgeable enough about science to know when a supporting source is valid or not. Like so much of the rest of the population, they see good peer reviewed references as being "just as good" as some editorial. I'm no admin, but if there is something I can do to help, please drop me a line ...... whether it is weighing on something, or someone to help with any frustration.

Your work is important ...... never forget that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon has a long history of attacking me personally. He had run away, and I was happy with that, but he seems to be back. I have no other way to describe his activity but in a very guttural level. I shall endeavor to stand up to his attacks more professionally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify Cheeser and LB, I will not shy away from standing up to Gnixons's consitently harsh and condescending personal attacks. But I do agree to be a bit more circumspect in my language with respect to him and his attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Fibromyalgia is getting out of hand. Despite the RFC consensus, Guido continues to stonewall on the issue. Would you mind lending your opinion again to the RFC? Djma12 ^(talk) 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Generally speaking, contributing to an existing edit war is inadvisable. First, constant reversion is disruptive, even if an individual editor is responsible only for few of those reverts. Second, please take note of the fact that Djma12 reverted three times and then alerted you and only you -- see Special:Contributions/Djma12. Votestacking is considered disruptive, and responding positively to votestacking is inadvisable.

I encourage all involved to find a resolution to this dispute which does not involve edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido is an edit warrior that's been blocked several times. He gets no AGF from me, and his edits were patently wrong. I did not consider whether Djma12 was canvassing or not, nor do I care. I care that articles aren't destroyed by editors. So, I guess in conclusion, I'm in strong disagreement with your assessment. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lecturing you rudely

What are you talking about? There was nothing rude in my edit summary. Yours however... Evercat (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your response. Have a wonderful day :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you, and what have you done with OrangeMarlin? MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Drugs. Drinking. Sex. Rock & Roll. Cures for what ails anyone.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Unless what's ailing you is cirrhosis, chlamydia, tinnitus, or amotivational syndrome... MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are no fun at all. But luckily for me, I'm so drunk, high, and deaf along with being ravaged by neurosyphilis that I don't care.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you felt I was being rude - however, I merely felt that I was giving a rationale for my edit, in the same way that you yourself made an edit summary giving your rationale for your edit. Evercat (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. These articles are contentious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knew?

Gee, three kids and no one ever told me to have sex right before delivery because it would make the cervix "riper". Like putting an apple in a bag with unripe tomatoes, presumably. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knew? And how do you test it for ripeness? I think there is an article here. Cervical ripeness. Do you think I can get it to GA status quickly? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ripening" is a somewhat medically meaningful, if perhaps overdescriptive, term in this context. In fact, the Cochrane Library, which is sort of the guiding light (or golden calf, depending on your viewpoint) of evidence-based medicine, has a monograph on the subject of intercourse and semen as a "ripening" agent (PMID 11406072, reviewed in AFP at PMID 12776961). I have heard this advice given during my time, long ago, as an impressionable medical student on OB/Gyn. Perhaps those were the sources being sought for the pregnancy article, though the bottom line is that it requires confirmation in a randomized, controlled trial... er... MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my favorite quote from the Cochrane Library reference: "However, it may prove difficult to standardise sexual intercourse as an intervention." That should go in an article, somewhere. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. The things you learn on Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh... my... Yes, I can see how it would "prove difficult" to "standardize" sexual intercourse. Wow. I wonder how many times they copy-edited that before giving up and deciding there was no way to to write it that isn't funny? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Great. Now your little stalker is adding single source fringe theories to Pregnancy, without discussion or acknowledgment that these are challenged edits. Loverly. I expected it from a newbie, and left a friendly little note, but this is POINT-y from an established editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm being stalked?  :( OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a dense little fishy sometimes, aren't you? :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a freaking fish. We have an IQ of about 0.000001. :P OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cervical ripening is the correct medical term, used by Obstets and Gynaes the world over. Doesn't matter if you don't like it. It happens to be a proper medical term and has a precise meaning (as in softening, effacement and dilation of the cervix). Thank you. from drrem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page as I have already asked. While it may indeed be the correct term, without a source that is original research. I look forward to your participation on the article talk page, Drrem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, don't remember it while in Medical School, internship, residency, etc. Of course, there's a joke here. I just am not sure anyone will appreciate it :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Everything you remember you learned in residency, and that wasn't OB? No idea. What happened to SA? ^Avruchtalk 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology is my knowledge base. Don't smoke. Don't eat bad foods. Exercise. I guess eat ripe apples. That's about it.  :) As for SA, do you mean ScienceApologist? No clue. Maybe the POV warriors wore him down. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

change to evolution page

pls see my discussion on the evolution talk page

Mjharrison (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

As a note, Guido's been reported for 3RR again. Based on his assumptions on my talk page that I have been "bandwagoning," I highly doubt he'll correct his actions even after another block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Hi, Just wondered if your oppose still stands. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reread the article tomorrow, I'm too tired right now. A quick glance makes me wonder if it's worthy of FA. I don't like the use of books as references, when there are better citations with online abstracts and full-articles, some weird things done with references that don't allow for improvement of the article, and odd photos (what's with the triceratops?). I'll look it over and comment later. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

Calling those you disagree with "nutjobs" is hardly appropriate or civil, [1], don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no foul, it was not aimed at anyone specifically and only mentioned in the most general of terms. Are you suggesting there are no nut jobs in wikipedia? David D. (Talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. No way that was uncivil, since it was pointed at no one in particular. I'm guessing Rlevse is trying to do something to get me going. Won't work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the perks of being able to write your on prescriptions.:) TableManners^C·U·T 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Naw. Scotch whisky by the liter. Expensive stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you recommend? I take it not Cutty Sark or Old Smuggler? TableManners^C·U·T 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Single-malt, 30 years old. Probably Talisker. That will make me feel nice and calm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I got and get very mild rosacea (dermatologist diagnosed) when I started drinking the cheap Scotches mentioned above and Johnnie Walker Red and Black label, and it went away when I stopped. Beer, white, and red wine has no affect on rosacea. Still doing the experiment. Any theories? TableManners^C·U·T 06:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you both for being able to afford the good stuff while this poor college kid has to drink the crap scotch. And the always delicious, Wild Irish Rose. Yum. Baegis (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Care for some Court-Martialed Captain Morgan's (i.e., Sailor Jerry), anyone? Disgusting Delicious alternative to scotch, I say. Antelan ^talk 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So we turned a bogus "warning" into a drinking discussion. As it should be :) Court-Martialed Captain Morgan???? LMAO. Now that was hysterical. And Sorry Baegis, but when I was a student (and the drinking age was 18), I drank Genessee Cream Ale, $0.25 per can. But I worked hard in college, graduate school and medical school, and now I don't drink that stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do they still make Genessee Cream Ale? And why can't I find a Wikipedia article on it? I'd still buy it, if only to relive my high school days. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the home of creamy livin'! Antelan ^talk 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

About the (inappropriate) use of the word premature

Hello. I insist on this point because using incorrect terms leads to confusion and error. This applies to everyone including professionals in any specific field. Visit the Royal College of OG's site (rcog.org.uk) and check guideline 44 dated November 2006: subject matter is preterm PRELABOUR rupture of membranes. Prelabour is not synonimous with premature. The word premature has thankfully been abandoned by the RCOG. Hope that this is of help.Drrem (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of the article. Merci. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The perks of the job

Heh, looks like I upset someone earlier! Thanks for the revert ;) BLACKKITE 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. That was one weird vandal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Take a look and see how we are doing. Wanna reconsider?--Filll (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You hate WP:CITET, so unless you've changed your attitude towards that, I'm going to remain neutral. I'll take a look. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, regarding this, how do you reuse a reference but change the page numbers? E.g., pages 5-15 on one reference, but 17-18 on a second? Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn if I know. I've asked some experts on here, and it becomes impossible. Some people use WP:CITET and just repeat the reference with different page numbers. Seems inefficient. I think Harvard references is better for books. However, it is my very humble opinion that in science articles, books are useless. They are usually 2-5 years out of date on the day of publication! Besides, key authors usually have published a ton of peer-reviewed articles. So whenever I see books, I try to find the really good journal reference. It takes a bit more work, but oftentimes the article is published online, but the book isn't, so for an FAC, one can actually see if the source matches the statement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr ... an opinion can't be humble.~ It's MD 20/20 for you, no scotch. •Jim62sch• 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... it's a format thing. I was thinking it was the kind of references we were using. I love the template page. I tried to apply it to all of the references. Unfortunately because of the diversity of resources some of them are beastly to apply; especially web sites from institutions which have multi-science contributors. Are you unpleased with all of them? --Random Replicator (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Having played with CITEIT a bit, I find it just is not flexible enough for the variety of sources I encounter, and my desire and need to create real footnotes not just reference citations, and my desire to link as much of the reference or footnote as I can (for PAGERANK purposes etc, or to create redundancy to cope with linkrot), or deal with references with unusual formats that I encounter all the time (like an article in a collection of essays edited by someone else, reprinted in another volume, etc). I know you love citeit. I just do not, except in some special cases. I have decided I really hate the Harvard format for citations as well. Just wasteful and ugly and not easy to use or flexible at all. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Filll, actually CITET works perfectly for your needs. First, they are real footnotes, and once you get the hang of it, it perfectly formats references, italicizing where it needs to be, and forces consistency. Second, it's easy to link to articles, DOI, and PUBMED, which increase rank (which isn't my interest anyways). It's also easy to fix dead links. And I hate Harvard citations, because they are really ugly and not very useful. It's a matter of preference, but FA's are almost always (but there are lots of exceptions in older FA's) consistently reference with automatic references. They really make it easier to reach your goals. But, if you want to be stubborn, we can get you some of the scotch mentioned above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates have already been applied to the references. Doing it after the fact took several hours; compounded by my lack of experience. So I'm still confused. The diversity of resource give the sloppy appearance; unlike using PUB_MED for everything which gives a slick appearance. I did enter the available information from the web resources into the "blanks" of a template. Is it that it was poorly applied? Is it that the notes are intermingled? I would like this oppose resolved; it was meant to be temporary ... right?--Random Replicator (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel powerful. I expect a support for my next FA nomination. LOL. I really haven't spent time reading it, I just found one problem. I'll look more later. Use this to more easily generate citations. It's helped me a ton. Pubmed has weakness that I don't like. If an article is published in a Geology journal, for example, it's impossible to find an article through them. I promise to look at the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To go back to an early question, I've come up with a workaround to repeatedly cite a source but with different page numbers each time. See the passive smoking article, where we repeatedly reference a 2,000-page federal court decision regarding the RICO case against the tobacco industry. So I just repeatedly cited the main document using <ref name="decision"/>, and after each ref tag I added: ^{, pp. 1525-1527}, or whatever the relevant pagespan was. It's easier to see in action than explain, so take a look at the passive smoking article (especially the controversy section) and see if what we did there would work for you. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I love you MastCell. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, see High Falls Brewing Company. And Yes Genny Creme Ale is still available. So where was your misspent youth where you would have had that annoying beer? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to believe that I'm still at the tail end of my misspent youth. I'll send you an email. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm old, and I'm still misspending. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated subject, all the ruckus about divisive userboxes has inspired me. What do you think? MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's funny, because I understand it. Actually, I think it's hysterical. Your common CAM-believer and Pseudoscientist will have no clue!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure --- 1 free FA vote; I pretty much sold my soul for the FA attempt already. (Just kidding --- in case I get charged with vote pandering). I noticed that the template on your recommended site differs slightly from the template of the one I was sent to by the other critic of format; which differs from the one that... I'm not too excited about going in and re-apply a different template - again. If I have to do all of that; I want to be certain it is not a waste of time and that you truly feel it is important. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

<RI> I've reviewed the first couple of paragraphs, and that has caused me to move to Oppose, and really I think I should strong oppose, but I happen to think the world of RR and Filll, and I will try to help. There are a number of issues:

1. Book references should be removed. These books can be replaced by journal articles. The most important point is that you're referencing books that most editors cannot confirm actually confirm validity of a statement. That has to be changed.
2. Remove website references. Websites come and go. Within 6 months, I'll bet 25% of the links will be stale. Again, if it's reliable, you can find a real source. There ARE a few websites that are stable, but even ones run by Universities or Museums change all the time.
3. Copy editing is weak. There is way too much redundancy in the article. There is also some strong POV words used, and I eliminated a couple of them. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is an outstanding source for upgrading the article. It does need some cleaning of the language.

My ass is sore from the hits I took trying to make some FA articles. I want to help make it get there, but it needs some work to reverse the opposes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the overview. I think I'll lay down on the mat for the full count on this one. Maybe someone else can come along and clean up the mess. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest you RfA, surprised you're not already an admin...-- penubag  06:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if Santa Claus is real.  :) I'm sure you mean well, but you ought to see my edits. I might be the first RfA that gets over a 250 negative votes. But it would be amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If I RfA'd right now, I'd beat you in the number of Opposes no doubt. You have 11k edits and plenty metals of honor. I see you everywhere as well. Easy admin, maybe easier if I nominated you? -- penubag  07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lacking in civility, and about 10 POV warriors would round up their usual meatpuppets for a gay old time, bashing me. Again, as amusing as that would be, let's not cause a war on Wikipedia. I can stand up to them much easier by not being an Admin. Because, despite my attitude about those POV warriors, my honor would force me to follow the distinctly fair admin attitude. I'd do it, but I wouldn't be happy. I'd suggest others for the job. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a shame, but a good reason. Admins have to try to be as unbiased, civil, and as whatnot as possible. I can see how trying to be perfect can be stressful; too much responsibility. But, good luck nonetheless! -- penubag  07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is funny

I guess I didn't express myself appropriately. I had my tongue in my cheek, didn't you see it? Viva la Evolución! ;p←Gee♥Alice 07:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought you were glad to see him. TableManners^C·U·T 07:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sensitive these days. I think I"m going to cry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. Just don't file a report at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. TableManners^C·U·T 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I rarely do those things, I leave that to whiny POV-warriors. I told you, I drink expensive scotch!!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi Orangemarlin, I know complaints against you are plenty because some don't feel you are civil. I am curious though, how do you feel about what is going on in many location about Scienceapologist. I don't know you very well, other than our brief comments a while back and I didn't know anything about SA until recently. If you prefer to take this to email, please don't hesitate. I find that there is a lot of drama over the way editors state things. I am not the sensitive type that gets angry and runs to boards. If I have a probem or a question I go to the editor. Lately I've been spending my time reading the ANI board, ARB. amd other boards like this which seems to me to be totally out of control on some of the complaints and problems. Remember, just curious, you do not have to answer if you don't want to! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first I do have you on my watch list. Second, I agree with what you say. But what Ronz says is also a good suggestion. I am finding that there is a lot of tag team behavior going on to get editors blocked/banned/or sick of it all so they just leave. I am watching a lot of pages lately because of all the complaints and attacking going on with what I consider good editors. Mr. Guru is now not blocked. I though he left on his own only to find out that he got indefitiely blocked by an editor who is no longer here. I find that the attacks on SA are getting desperate. Being blocked for 'colorful language' surprised me since I see a lot of foul language even from some administrators. I am also surprised by how the unblocking of these editors come with conditions (like only a certain amount of reverts, a certain amount of edits and no uncivil behavior in the forms of 'colorful language.) If you want to talk more, emai me. Just remember, don't take the baiting and also check and see if editors are following you to see if they can see you make a mistake. I think some of the policies need to be changed but I don't know where to go or if there is anyway to add why certain polcies need changing. I am still very upset at Avb retiring. I don't know what the final straw was to make him make this decision, but I hope he is just taking a Wiki break and will return. Anyways, feel free to email me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for Wikidudeman

I have no way of knowing whether your question has much valid point behind it or not, as I know nothing about the subject. My only reason for commenting here is to just state that the discussion is scheduled to close in about 22 hours, and that there is a very real chance that he may not respond, given the fact that tomorrow is a holiday. I know several people will be offline tomorrow, me among them, and just think you shouldn't get too frustrated if he doesn't answer before the discussion closes, if at all. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm going to have to move to oppose, not that it matters much. His edits appear to be anti-Semitic in nature, thought I may grant him the fact that he did not intend to be, nor do I think he is. But if you fight so hard for what YOU think is NPOV, but both the sourcing and the reality is not what you think it is, maybe you don't have the skills to be an admin. That would be WDM, not you of course. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to edit war?

I saw your reversion of my edit on the Bill Clinton article. I wonder if you are misinformed or are attempting to whitewash the article.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, A) misinformed or B) whitewashing the article. Those are the only options? Have you stopped beating your wife as well? Or is it secret option C: you actually believe that Wikipedia has a higher purpose than coopting Bill Clinton's article to trash Scientology? MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm at Double Secret Option D. Choosing between watching The Patriot with the anti-semitic Road Warrior, or War of the Worlds with the Scientologist Pete Mitchell. Then I decided to get drunk again. My liver is getting cirrhotic thanks to Wikipedia. But then again, I can drink a diluted Homeopathic solution of scotch, and get just as drunk, because the water remembers the alcohol. What fun we have. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was weird. BTW, I use a diluted Homeopathic solution of beer. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Miller Lite? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There ya go.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's even more diluted than that, fellas. More in the range of this homeopathic solution. Baegis (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I tried the O'Doul's homeopathic solution once, but that only had a sugar and piss memory. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hopefully it will all smooth over. TableManners^C·U·T 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for me at Dana Ullman. TableManners^C·U·T 06:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your removal of well-sourced information on plants used in homeopathy is tantamount to vandalism, please stop.Number48 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

no, it really isn't. really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed that one. I gave #48 a short wikibreak for essentially identical comments on others' pages and for harassment of SA. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm used to these types of comments from POV-warriors. We'll see how the wikibreak works.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't have OrangeMarlin's advanced double-secret Navy Intelligence training, but it seems pretty obvious that Number48 (talk · contribs) is a sock and not a new editor. I'm sure in today's climate I'll be desysopped for even suggesting this, but a guy whose first edit is to {{fact}} tag? Within a couple hours, talking reliable sources, citing policy, and canvassing WikiProjects for support? Quickly dropping the pretense of newbie-ism to go after User:ScienceApologist, always a popular target? Within 12 hours, citing diffs and describing organized campaigns of disruption? MastCell ^Talk 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My advanced double-secret Navy intelligence training was trumped by your analysis! The worst part is I spent so much time reverting his edits (then of course, the other POV-warriors joined in, the nameless usual suspects), I didn't even spend time checking into his edits. It's pretty clear watching SA's page is going to be fun over the next few weeks. Oh, BTW, I shouldn't watch your page, because I got lead to that damn Abortion/mental health article. That seems like loads of fun....leading to drinking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalker. Serves you right. :) MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight. And proud of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make up your mind

If you have something to say to me, please post it on my talk page, not on anybody else's.

"Providing any reference that states what is used in homeopathy is neither notable or neutral POV. Essentially, whatever the source, unless it clearly states that the plant, used in a homeopathic treatment cures whatever, it is giving undue weight to a discredited therapy."

vs. what you posted just one day earlier:

"NPOV requires verifiability. So, if editors can provide a verified source that a homeopath uses a plant, I have no problem."

So which is it, or will you just keep moving the goalposts? (BTW if you think I'm making an argument for homeopathy, then you're mistaken--but thank you for making my point that some editors are apparently so anti-homeopathy that they will not accept any reference to homeopathic uses in any plant article.) MrDarwin (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some further review of the NPOV issue, and not only did I move the goalpost, I tore it down, and shipped off to the town dump. In other words, I changed my mind. Rather quickly I might add. Since I've had it with the bullshit around this place, any further personal attacks from you will be addressed quickly. So stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

THe claim is OR. Please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert it yourself. It's perfectly well written. If Tim Vickers will revert it, I'll agree with his decision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Crypto-Judaism

Hey you joker, self-proclaimed master of Wikipedia, if you want to delete my input then YOU go to the discussion page and explain why, my edits are legitimate and the article is sorely lacking in the details which I have begun to add. Don't delete my updates and tell me I need to explain, I have explained and it is YOUR turn to explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.195.2 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arsenicum album (aka water)

An article that you may have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album (aka water), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album. Thank you.

Edit war on source/section

Sorry for edit warring with you in the Homeopathy#Evaluation_of_homeopathic_dillution. However, the video program has a slew of pages on the program, including transcript. Also, my reading of Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Science_article_in_the_popular_press says the 20/20 program and the BBC program are reliable sources, especially if quoted with attribution (e.g., "BBC reported", "ABC reported"). However, if you still protest, let me know why on the talk page, and I will revert myself. TableManners^C·U·T 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How about using the transcript as the reliable source, and using the video as the external link? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go make the adjustment. TableManners^C·U·T 07:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it this way:

• Williams, Nathan (2002-11-26) Homeopathy: The Test, Horizon (BBC) Retrieved on 2007-01-26 (transcript video) "Homeopathy is back where it started without any credible scientific explanation. That won't stop millions of people putting their faith in it, but science is confident. Homeopathy is impossible."

This links to the BBC site first, and the transcript second, video third, and quote fourth. Or should I go transcript, program guide, video, loose the quote? TableManners^C·U·T 07:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate quotes in references, but that might be a personal opinion. You should either quote directly in the article, or paraphrase (which is better). So lose the quote. And don't link the video in the inline citation. Put it in external links. But I might be anal on this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would you ever think that? :) --Filll (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, but is your objection to video based on the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or the previousy released An Inconvenient Truth? TableManners^C·U·T 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Any editing I do to those two articles is just to revert POV-warriors. Otherwise, I don't care all that much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy

While I think it might be a tad incivil to the homeopathic side, the series of edits to talk talk page beginning with Raymond Arrit's "calzone" comment are quite amusing. I'm thinking of adding this to Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. Horologium (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree they are brilliant. I started to laugh out loud, honestly.--Filll (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no intent whatsoever to be uncivil (just so you know the word, officially, is uncivil, I had been using incivil for months, but we checked OED for officialness). Raymond Arritt got me started, so if someone wants to block him for starting the whole thing.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

[2]--Filll (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

Thought you might be interested to see what your old friend Kdbuffalo has been up to: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kdbuffalo. This account is definitely the classiest. MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I'm so happy for Ken. He's quite the nice guy too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WDM

Here's some unsolicited advice... I think it's time to walk away from WDM's post-RfA discussion before it deteriorates further. I can't see that there's anything to be gained by persisting, after all, the results of the vote are what matter most. All the best. Pinkville (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to pester him or hurt him. I want to offer him some advice so he can recover his dignity, understand what went wrong, correct any potential problems and learn from any mistakes and move on to further successes in the future.--Filll (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Commendable, but I think it's pretty clear he's not in a frame of mind at the moment to respond too well to constructive criticism - which is hardly surprising, considering the way the RfA went. He must have thought (with only hours remaining) that he would be unopposed, then suddenly... Maybe it would be better to wait a week or two before providing any suggestions. Pinkville (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it had been a couple of weeks, so I guess I thought I could ask him about his reasoning. I'm certainly not going to speak with him again. His rudeness exceeds even mine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh :~) I mean, he only withdrew his RfA 5 days ago. Pinkville (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will wait. I won't bug him. I think he just has to manage his responses and explanations a bit better.--Filll (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When joining in on discussion of particularly sensitive (to use the wretched euphemism) subjects, it's that much more important to be careful and open with one's reasoning for one's (proposed) edits. For me, that was the significant unmentioned element of the Stormfront case, for instance. Pinkville (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people noticed the Stormfront edits. His explanation, in his rude attack on my inability to read, did not actually answer the question. It's a classic pathology to reflect back your personality to the person asking the questions. It's all right, I'm good with that. I'm glad User:Slrubenstein uncovered the edits. There really isn't an explanation, even if Filll thinks there's one. I'm fairly certain I know where WDM stands on these issues. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

restless leg syndrome "home remedies'

HI: novice here. I responded to your 'talk' to me about sighting references for m change that you removed but am not sure that I got the message to you. does editing your message send it back to you for review. but at any rate here is my messsage / response:

"Excuse me. Can you suggest how I might pass on information it took 30 years for me to find out on this condition. I decided to add this after my brother linked me to the final casualty of the 'USS Swordfish (SSN-579)' which is obviously an un-sitable story. 3% of the population may be waiting for this information. Pardon me for being a novice but will "http://www.medicinenet.com/muscle_cramps/page4.htm' under 'treatment for skeletal muscle cramps' be OK for use as a reference? Also the following quote "Magnesium is needed for more than 300 biochemical reactions in the body. It helps maintain normal muscle and nerve function, keeps heart rhythm steady, supports a healthy immune system, and keeps bones strong. Magnesium also helps regulate blood sugar levels, promotes normal blood pressure, and is known to be involved in energy metabolism and protein synthesis [2-3]. There is an increased interest in the role of magnesium in preventing and managing disorders such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Dietary magnesium is absorbed in the small intestines. Magnesium is excreted through the kidneys [1-3,4]. " from 'http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/magnesium.asp.' noting particularly 'normal muscle...funcion.' I apologize for using you (orangemarlin) as my Q&A person but as I wrote I'm new. Perhaps if I re-wrote it using these sitings it would 'fly'? R/ rrinks@juno.com Robert inks (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Publish an article. Wikipedia does not accept personal research. Alternatively, find reliable articles that describe what you've observed. But, I watch the article, and I don't buy into much alternative medicine woo. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For a good laugh

Since we all need a good laugh every now and again, I encourage you to read this absolutely hilarious bit of comedy. Enjoy it with a good drink, but be careful that it doesn't shoot out of your nose when you laugh. It would burn like napalm, I'm sure. Also, congrats on being the de-facto leader of the mob rule! Cheers! Baegis (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed for a number of reasons

You attack editors on Wikipedia Review, specifically me in:

OrangeMarlin isn't an admin. I know because I told him I wouldn't support an RFA for him. He's just too quick to bite people, especially newbies, and he cannot stay civil. I can't comment on the rest of your message, as I haven't looked at the diffs, but it's unfortunate that this couldn't be handled better.

Your damn straight I'm not an admin, because I do more for this project than 90% of admins. And I do not recall asking for your help to be an admin. I bite newbies, especially POV-warrior types, but very nice to the ones who edit well. And I do not choose to stay civil, though I am entertaining the belief that Admin thought police are more interested in blocking individuals on judgement calls rather than on actual science and neutral points of view.

As for the case described in the Wikipedia Attack site which you apparently frequent, you have none of the facts. I had been trying to clean up the article per WP:MEDMOS, and one of the sections is called "prognosis" It has been hijacked a bit to mean the course of a disease, but it should mean and can mean the course of any medical state from a broken bone to bone cancer to bone replacement. DRREM, without consulting MEDMOS, went about restructuring the article, until it made no sense.

And as opposed to your attack site buddies, I rarely reverted her edits. In fact, I looked who might have, from the old gang that your buddies accuse us of having, and there were normal edits and such. There was a significant discussion on talk about Prognosis and we all compromised at using Progression. Wow, that must mean we ran DRREM off the project.

I have no use for those admins who test their power on attack sites. Have fun there with the rest of the liars, blowhards, losers, POV-warriors and a few sociopaths. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi OM,

I don't believe I've ever attacked you anywhere. I'm sorry you're upset, but you do bite newbies (all sorts, actually, not just the "bad" ones), and you've said so yourself. I don't know what to say at this point. How many times have you been asked to stay civil with other editors? And after all those times, you respond with "I do not choose to stay civil," as if it's perfectly ok to be uncivil.

I stated very clearly on that "attack site" that I had none of the facts concerning the case. I stated that pretty clearly when I said "I can't comment on the rest of your message, as I haven't looked at the diffs".

The problem characterizing everyone at WR as "liars, blowhards, losers, POV-warriors and a few sociopaths" is that it's too easy. It's too easy to write off several hundred users and ignore the genuine problems with Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Firsfron, at first I defended you. I was positive that someone was impersonating you. I thought that you would have more good sense than to engage in hostile discussions of editors here on a site that is anathema to Jimbo and the Wikipedia hierarchy. Wow. I am stunned. Shocked. I am sorely disappointed. I thought far far more highly of you than that. Good Lord. I think I have to reevaluate my opinion of you, drastically. Now I really do not know what to think, but I am afraid my propensity here is to not think good things about you. Sorry if that offends or is judged uncivil.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in you Firs. Do you realize how ridiculous that site is? I read the thread on the Pregnancy article, and I dare you to find where I was uncivil to anyone. And, in fact, they were whining that some Dr went to the article to "fix" it. Which is why I was there to get it into better condition. And what the fuck am I? A janitor? That group is made up of liars, blowhards, losers, POV-warriors and a few sociopaths. And apparently several illiterate assholes who are incapable of reading my edits. I don't think you're going to be so popular working for an attack site, who's goal is to protect Creationists, Alternative Medicine, and other fringe theory POV-pushers. You, who claims to be a member of the NCSE ought to resign if you're going to associate with them. Finally, I just think the lack of civility is used by the Creationists and Alternative Medicine POV-warriors to suppress science. A huge number of the scientists who edit here, myself included, are close to resigning this place (or at least going on strike) because of the anti-science POV that is pervasive here. I suffer fools lightly, and anyone who claims that water retains memories of molecules, deserves derision, poor treatment, and uncivility. I'm about 100 IQ points smarter than those POV-warriors, and if you don't appreciate it, then leave me alone. Civility is a lie, and it cannot be judged. I will not ATTACK anyone. I will not run off-site to ATTACK anyone like you have. But I will not respect someone who is anti-science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

cat restore

[3] oh, hai, thx. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Dispute tag removal

Per WP:NPOVD, "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." MilesAgain (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the tendentious and boring talk. This article has been fucked over every which way, and it's getting tiresome. Some new anti-science editor shows up, places a tag, we argue about it for days, and it goes away. The fact is, I think the article is POV, because it should state one simple sentence in the lead. "HOMEOPATHY IS A LOAD OF BULLSHIT." However, I do not whine about the fact that these Homeopaths screw innocent and gullible people out of $2000 for a liter of water. It is simply a pseudoscience and the article is neutral.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm trying to get it called out as quackery in the intro, because it is. Sorry I deleted the category in undoing, and thanks very much for replacing the tag. MilesAgain (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm on board now. I thought you were one of the pro-Magic-in-Medicine group. I haven't had my third cup of coffee yet. Please forgive me.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy#History

I noticed you placed the {{inuse}} template on Pregnancy, as the WP:MEDMOS suggests a medical subject requires a history subject.

Do you still intend to write something there, or should I change the template into something more appropriate? --Koert van der Veer (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to work on that this weekend. I keep forgetting. So hold off for now, and if I don't get to it, I'll change the template. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. —Whig (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you dare put your BS on my page. Probationer editors ought to not throw stones. You are hereby banned permanently from my page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

User: Random Replicator has gotten tired of all the attacks and has quit. And I do not blame RR, to be honest. As I have said over and over, if we have one productive editor, are they not worth more than many many unproductive disruptive trolls and POV pushers? But of course, we have to WP:AGF and behind over backwards for the disruptive trolls and POV pushers, and then we suffer the consequences.--Filll (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why Firsfron has it all wrong. Giving AGF has been nothing but a disaster for experienced editors. You know, Raymond is right. Time for all of us to quit. Then Jimbo will have a total piece of shit. Firs plays around with the Dinosaur articles, which is fine, and they are well-written. But he doesn't spend a nanosecond with the articles that test ones mind. RR is a great editor. Too bad. This sucks. The fucking nutjobs win again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoot, I'm sorry, OM. I'm really sorry that I offended you and opened my big mouth. I do see your point about not welcoming POV warriors, and you're absolutely positively right about my time in the trenches. You don't have to forgive me, but please do know that I'm sorry I did offend you. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading what people are posting to your page. I am fine that I am not civil, though I have attempted to tone it down. But you don't fight in the trenches, you stay in the articles that everyone loves to read. And save for one or two Cretinists who show up in a vain attempt to state that dinosaurs and Noah were buddies, your job is easy. Even Katie's most significant controversy was whether an asteroid or the Deccan Traps caused the demise of dinosaurs. But go look at any alternative medicine or creationist article. Every day we get one of the following showing up: some anonymous editor putting in their POV, a non-anonymous editor arguing tendentiously in the talk page, or out and out POV-warriors doing everything including throwing Arbcomm at individuals. It's tiresome, and to stand up to it requires strong will. You remind me of the officers in the US Navy like myself. I wore pretty uniforms and never shot anyone. But there were a bunch of people doing some nasty stuff keeping me in clean uniforms. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the analogies I've read today, I think that one is pretty accurate. Again, I'm very sorry that I upset you. It was not my intention. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Oh FF, you KNOW you are always right, no matter what. Yep, old FF, he is right and everyone else is always wrong. Yep, that is the truth. Why didn't I see it earlier? Yep, he never does anything wrong and his opinion is worth more than anyone else's. Ok now I see it. --Filll (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OM I know you will join me in an AfD of Introduction to evolution. Because of editors like Firsfron, I have decided he is right. Let's get rid of our articles that might possibly offend trolls and POV pushers. Good work Firsfron. Feel proud of yourself. Let's delete it. --Filll (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, time to chill out. This place tests the patience of a Rabbi. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And again, because of the incredibly successful FF policy, another productive editor quits [4]. I am sure glad we WP:AGF aren't you?--Filll (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I didn't like him very much. FF policy? What's that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FF policy= The Firsfron policy. It is to WP:AGF and value unproductive editors over productive editors because the place is nicer and friendlier then. --Filll (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of admins do that. I think Firs is getting the point that fixing dinosaur articles is substantially different than dealing with Alternative medicine cruft. Now let me go kick a vandal's ass who's stalking my edits. (If only Firs can see this.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What we have is a special circumstance here. We cannot promote admins unless they have no enemies, so the only admins that we get are from noncontroversial articles. And they are not aware of the problems on controversial articles, or willing to do much about them. And we are naturally selecting for admins who will do nothing (since those that will like Adam and Durova etc leave or are booted) and also that know nothing about the problems. And so the editors have to deal with this on their own. And they quit because it is impossible. So spread the editor/expert rebellion !! We need to send a strong signal that we have a problem here. Maybe, if we are really lucky, someone will pay attention.--Filll (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we get Wikidudeman, who nearly snuck through. Have you read his tirades and rants? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and alt-med

Re this edit, I don't think we can correctly say that all alt-meds are pseudosci (it's a diverse field)... granted some like Dawkins say so, but the IOM (see header at CAM) doesn't.... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the issue (Dawkins aside). If it's been shown to work in clinical trials and is backed by scientific method, then it's medicine. Alternative medicine is just magic, which is pseudoscience. NO alternative medicine works on human beings. But some may work, but then it just becomes medicine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like your take is identical to Dawkins': stuff that works ceases to be CAM and simply becomes medicine. Fair enough, but sig sources see it differently (and don't define CAM as "magic"). IOM is a sci-consensus source and has more weight than Dawkins' formulation. Ernst and Cochrane agree evidence-based CAM isn't an oxymoron. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like sophistry, and just a matter of definition, no offense intended. A investigation in a few dictionaries might solve a lot of this.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A matter of definition, yes; sophistry, guess that depends on where you stand. I think Dawkins' definition leans toward sophistry since it would label a good number of "unproven" (per EBM) surgical techniques as "alternative". Just read the lead section at Complementary and alternative medicine for a good overview of definitions; I think the Institute of Medicine carries a little more weight than a dicdef, though the latter are good indicators of popular understanding, and generally are closer to IOM than to Dawkins and Angell. From Edzard Ernst, read this; doesn't sound disingenuous to me. --Jim Butler^(talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a big supporter of trying things in a scientific manner to determine if they work or not. Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions testing various fungi and plants from the Amazon just to see what may or may not work. Aspirin and digitalis started as "alternative medicine." But what I don't buy is that people consider Homeopathy a medical treatment after thousands of articles dispute that. Accupuncture, Chinese medicine, etc. all do the same. So, you might be right, but we say evidence-based CAM is science, where it has been reviewed and studied, but someone else will then throw Homeopathy back in. Where's the line? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe in the scientific method too. Did pharmaceutical R&D for years before becoming an L.Ac. However, I think lumping all so-called-CAM's together is unwarranted. Which line are you concerned about homeopathy crossing on WP? Acu, unlike homeopathy, has some EBM (Cochrane, etc.) support, so we say that. I think EBM and CAM are overlapping sets, if only slightly. Agree with Richard McNally, cited at Pseudoscience: "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?" If evidence is lacking at the RCT, or better, meta-analysis level, it should not be OR (let alone "uncivil" -- pouring Filll a beer) for us to say so. I think for better or worse the terms "alt-med" and "comp-med" have entered into the popular lexicon, although I completely understand why many see them as oxymorons. --Jim Butler^(talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The fly in the ointment with the Dawkins argument, as applied to medicine, is that many "conventional" and widely-used treatments are actually not evidence-based. Many widely used and accepted interventions have never been proven effective in a Phase III or randomized, controlled trial, and some don't even have good Phase II data. Don't get me wrong; there's still a huge difference between, say, using bevacizumab for renal cell cancer and using an infinitesmally dilute solution of potassium dichromate... but even "conventional" medicine has always been as much an art (or religion) as a science. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Art or religion? I hope not. And yeah, there's a lot of stuff physicians do that should be done. About 15 years ago, someone got the bright idea of using a high speed drill (really, a high speed drill) to clean out calcified stenosis in coronary arteries. A company started up (Rotablator, I believe it's name), sold out to Medtronic for $1 billion or so, and it didn't work. Good idea, save for the perforated arteries, high rate of restenosis, etc. But, and the point is it this, it started as a strange idea, no different than Homeopathy in retrospect, but after clinical trials showed it was actually dangerous, it was dropped. Otherwise, it stopped.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dropping what doesn't work/does harm: you are quite right. Medicine (generally) does this, and CAMs that don't do this are not being scientific. Full stop.

Mmmmaybe add in a hedge (a nice one, and not too expensive): if something is at worst "mere" placebo, does no harm, and isn't used in place of what does work, then it's not that big a deal. It may even be a good thing. If the placebo response depends on ritual, and people aren't getting that at the doctor's office, then they gotta go someplace. What could be more ideal than little sugar pills? Better than freaking slicing their knees up if they don't need it! --Jim Butler^(talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadly Nightshade

In your revert of my edit, you state: "No verification that homeopathic remedies have any clinical effect." If you read what you reverted, the text clearly states this: ...no known experimental evidence.... Please come to the talk page and let's discuss more if need be. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then don't mention it period. You're giving undue weight by mentioning it. And I've read the discussion section. It essentially consists of SA saying, "NO" and your saying "YES." Boring and not very productive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please come and explain why you think WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT apply. At least give us the benefit of an explanation rather than a laundry list of policies. P.S. Call editors "POV Pushers" is alway considered uncivil. Please refrain from that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You think? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

strategies for better editing

I'm sensitive to the fact that editors with a science or medical background can get frustrated. It can be argued that Wikipedia needs more tools to help editors find a path past science and medicine-related controversies towards good encyclopedia articles that describe all significant points of view in a balanced way. Alternatively, we can try to make better use of the tools we have. When we reach the point where our good faith is exhausted, it might be time for a wiki break. Another available option is to invite more editors to help on difficult articles, but that is a strategy that can be defeated if new editors are greeted with suspicion. "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in" <-- I interpret this to be a content guideline, but I think it is good advice that can also be applied as a behavioral guideline. Problems arise when discussion page content becomes a partisan debate rather than a critical evaluation of how to fairly convert the contents of reliable sources into an encyclopedia article. Many editors with a narrow range of past experiences (including many with a science or medical background) have no experience in how to "share the stage" with people who hold alternative points of view and this makes many of these editors unsuited for editing Wikipedia. I might hold the personal view that a particular religion is built upon "gobbledygook", but it would not really be constructive for me to say so at the discussion page for a Wikipedia article about that religion. Saying things that you know are going to inflame an article writing collaboration is not constructive behavior. If I had a good published source from an authoritative expert on religions that described the religion as "gobbledygook", then I could make the case for including mention of that in the article, but it still would not make sense for me to proclaim on the discussion page that my personal view is that the religion is "gobbledygook". This is really a matter of civility and knowing how to get along with people who hold different views. One way to clean up the discussion page for Homeopathy and other controversial articles would be to start enforcing penalties for incivility. The atmosphere of incivility at Wikipedia has been a growing concern at the level of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I suspect there is some "tipping point" beyond which this problem will finally be dealt with. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but I'd rather see immature and incivil editors placed under some form of restraint rather than see them continue to poison the atmosphere of the project. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one fallacy with your points: I don't believe in anything, I just look at what can be verified. The fact is I can verify, probably over 100,000 times, that Homeopathy does not work. It is nothing more than water, and since I don't "believe" in magic, spiritual powers, or other cruft, and there is no verification for that cruft, it begins to get tendentious when some POV-warrior keeps typing away that the Journal of Sedona Medicine is a reliable source that Homeopathy cures cancer. Many of us just run out of patience, and good "fuck you" to the editor is required. So, civility needs to be a lot more than being polite to trolls and POV-warriors, but it has to be that after 200KB of whining about how badly scientists are treating this woo, you've worn out the patience of the system. But, I've got to tell you, what's that going to prove? A bunch of people frustrated by not being able to express passion? We have worthless admins (and I can count on about 2 hands, maybe 1 foot, the number of admins actually know what they're doing) deciding what is or isn't civility? Civility cannot be defined, it is a "cultural norm." But I'm a cranky Jewish radical from California. My idea of civility may differ from the Preacher kid from Alabama. Who's to decide? You can't censor, that will be the death of Wikipedia. The tolerance of language and commentary should be broad. Personal attacks, such as "you are an asshole, and your mother wears combat boots", should be dealt with swiftly. Passive aggressive personal attacks are the worst, so they may take some thinking. So, I guess you might be right, but I think it will kill some of our involvement in the project, and then the POV-nutjobs will be ruling this place. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the dark side, Orange. But seriously, they will block you. They did it to me. They don't care about the double standard. They only care that their precious idealizations of civility are maintained. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I think you should take a wikibreak. This is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, not an encyclopedia for battle hardened editors. You understand and highly value policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. But newcomers probably do not. You may have come to wikipedia with pre-conceived high regard for WP:NPOV, but not everybody else has. Many people are coming to wikipedia after participating on other internet forums where debate, trolling, etc., are the norm. It takes time to convert editers from POV warriors to valued contributors. Sometimes I wonder if the goal here among certain established editors is to run off those who push a POV because it is easier than taking the time to train new contributors. TableManners^C·U·T 06:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not EVER presume to give me psychiatric advice. I am perfectly fine with editing, enjoying cleaning up a number of articles. Now, if you wish to stay on my good side, never do this again, even if you are a world-class shrink.. I don't give a hoot about little trolls who show up pushing their POV, along with numerous other editors. If we all took a break, it will be to protest this type of discussion. So stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd take an editor like OM over several dozen of these "anyone can edit" types. Progress might be made towards the goal of being better than Britannica. Baegis (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't beat up TableManners too much. He's getting to be a fairly neutral editor, despite his leanings towards the dark side.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i hope u dont go on strike LOL how is nemo these days?!!!!!!!!11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.89.174 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nemo? What the hell are you talking about? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nemo is a popular animated fish, which is presumably an allusion to your username. Of course, it's probably a good thing that you didn't follow such loose associations... MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about Jules Verne. I'm less culturally aware than I should be I suppose. Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at least the rumors of an impending "strike" are spreading.--Filll (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you wait until the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed before starting the strike? TableManners^C·U·T 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Acu

Kudos for adding this study on nausea at acupuncture. So, it is good form on WP to cite RCT's (of good quality) and not just meta-analyses? Some folks have objected to that. Anyway, good that article is on your radar. I'm fixin' to de-cruftify it. cheers - Jim Butler^(talk) 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my personal philosophy on references. Original sources are best, especially if you can at least read the whole abstract online. They give the data that I want to read, but it must be from a peer-reviewed journal, and I don't consider any CAM journal as peer reviewed. Second down is a really good review article, but it also has to be peer-reviewed, but I need to be able to read more of the article than the abstract. I have access to medline and other online pdf files, but I can't link to them, since I pay a huge subscription fee, and most readers won't. If there is an online pdf of the review then it actually moves up the list. Books are last on my list, because I can't read them online, so I have to trust the author, which is difficult on Wikipedia. I don't like websites, newspapers, videos, magazines, or anything else, if we're speaking about a medical article. Actually, I went to acupuncture with a stick up my ass about it. I'm the most negative reader of cruft ever. And when I did a pubmed search on certain kinds of pain and acupuncture, the number of real live articles from real peer-reviewed journals was overwhelming. I actually selected one of the probably 200 that have been published in the last couple of years. If there are those high quality type of double-blind studies going on, then use the best reference, not reviews or the such. Now, I still found some cruft in Acupuncture, but I ran out of time. I prefer other types of articles on disease rather than general articles like this. But, I'll help out. I love it when I'm proven wrong, because I'm such a skeptic that I really read the articles, I don't take one sentence and say "yes, Acupuncture cures cancer, erectile dysfunction, and male pattern baldness." Though if it did, I'd be an Acupuncturist, making a couple grand an hour!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm stoked that you are looking at this stuff, because as Carl Sagan said, valid criticism is doing you a favor. That is a good and pragmatic take on evidence; I like linking to the actual stuff and not getting too meta-meta. I'll retain the Cochrane but work some of the good recent studies in, and do it at Citizendium while I'm at it. (User:Gleng is there now; WP's loss was CZ's gain.)

Erectile dysfunction... the Chinese believe acu can treat that, for sure. There is a famous point between the anus and the tip of the coccyx, whose Chinese name translates as "Long Strong" or "Long and Hard". One of my profs, from Shanghai, spent a portion of his internship needling just that point. Patients lined up out the door, hour after hour. God, I had it easy. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-NPOV claims

I disagree with your claim that my edits were non neutral point of view. The major thing is that the article in question is not about intelligent design but is instead about a movie on intelligent design. Therefore the edits i made which deleted parts attempting to discredit intelligent design (incidentally I'm not a big fan of ID myself) were not appropriately located and needed to be removed. Cryo921 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not remove sourced material that is there for NPOV and is the result of consensus. If you want to have more pro-ID material and pro-creationist material, we can try to restore some of the sections I wrote that were removed because people felt it was making the article too pro-ID and pro-creationist.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? All I see on the talk page is one big argument over whether it is NPOV or not. Furthermore quality wise it is a mess. One of the paragraphs i removed was just saying They present this claim in the movie and then several sentences about why ID is wrong. In 'An Inconvenient Truth' the criticism is confined to its own section, not sprinkled around the article introduction. Cryo921 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you researched this article, and the prior versions of this article that were deleted, and the discussions of this article on other talk pages that go back 8 months or more? All the history of discussion on this article? The current article is the result of that consensus, whether you like it or not.

Also we do not put criticism in a criticism ghetto section of our articles in most cases since this is frowned on. This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Wikipedia.

For example, from [5]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).--Filll (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Okay, forget the seperate criticism section then. However as far as i can tell the consensus was only about the first paragraph of the lead in. The parts that i deleted were after that. In fact looking through the article one of the things i deleted was mentioned in two other places already. Cryo921 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you even aware of what i deleted? and should we move this debate to the article talk page? Cryo921 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All right i brought up the changes i wish to make on the talk page. Sorry for any trouble i've caused. Cryo921 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a piece of advice. Most serious editors around here automatically discount it when someone states "I'm not a big fan of ID myself," or similar opinions. It has been resolved that we will have a critique of the film, much like what we see with An Inconvenient Truth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted

Wells

How does Twinkle determine whether something is pseudoscience? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is just an editing tool. The "pseudoscience" description is based on the sources which you removed in your edit. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, the sources were written by other scientists. Wells is himself a scientist, with a PH.D. in molecular and cell biology, or something like that. So it shouldn't be said that those things are pseudosciences. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kary Mullis has a Nobel prize. Does that mean everything he says about HIV makes any sense? David D. (Talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The fact that he has a Nobel doesn't make everything he says true. But the fact that there are people who disagree with him doesn't make what he says false or pseudoscience. People can disagree. But it doesn't need to be labelled pseudoscience. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Many would disagree with you. A hall mark of pseudo science is cherry picking the data. He does that. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you source that? Can anyone give me a reason why the statement that I removed should be included in the Wells article? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who for, Wells or Mullis? We could always just call it crap science. Is that what you mean, bad science is not the same as pseudoscience? David D. (Talk) 00:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I go for a trip up into the mountains, return, and there's this stuff on my page. And you all kept me from several good jokes about Twinkle. You didn't realize that version 2.5 now includes a Pseudoscience detector. Hasn't everyone upgraded? Well anyways, not much for me to add here. Wells is full of junk science.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn... the reason the claim should stay is that Academies of Sciences, which are reliable sources for sci consensue, say so. I improved the sourcing in this edit. Note also that I removed the claim that the sci community considers AIDS reappraisal a pseudoscience, because the source cited is from one guy and doesn't support the claim. So it's not a matter of my own opinion (I could argue AIDS reappraisal is far more life-threatening than ID), but of sources. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Theory vs Hypothesis

Yes, there is a very good reason for changing theory to hypothesis. One of the biggest points of confusion lies with the misunderstandings of the definition of hypothesis and theory, and by calling these hypotheses on the origin of life "theories", you are only increasing the confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.164.194 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2008

......all doing our bit then

Yep, I too have been guilty of sticking to 'fun' things but I felt I have guided schizophrenia into a nice neutral Featured Article after FAR...(talk page makes for humorous reading though), and had numerous edit wars on the various antipsychotic articles. I intend to work up bipolar disorder as well as psychiatry to FAC at some time, but suspect both will be a bun-fight and need lots of energy and spare time. Lucky there are a few medical chums around to revert silly stuff there though.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job!!!! That's what I'm trying to do with Alzheimer's disease. It had a bit of the Alternative Medicine cruft (you know Ginkgo, which proved to do nothing at all). The only edit war we had was the styling of citations. I can live with that! I actually went over to acupuncture to rip it apart, then I read the citations. Then I found more. Now it doesn't cure male pattern baldness or erectile dysfunction, but it does provide a mild analgesic effect. What you learn around here can be good. And homeopathy still is just water.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can cope with acupuncture, especially if I hypothesize it has something to do with stimulating peripheral nerves which somehow 'trick' different ones. I figure if one can get left arm pain from an AMI then maybe banging a pain receptor peripherally may tonk something else...plus when I was a smartass medical student visiting an alternative medical practitioner for a prac in med school this guy placed on in some Qi place in my hand and the sensation was freaky.....agree about 10 to the minus log 60 etc....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys need to read, not skim, the literature. Orange, pls provide me with one RS accepted by science community to show acu analgesic effect. Then perhaps you could join me in improving acu article instead of your silly reverts and refusal to use the talk page properly. Mccready (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic: Materialism

Sorry if I edit out any content, I only meant to rearrange a few paragraphs and add more content. Can you please quote the piece of information that was edited out in my edits[6]? --Ne0Freedom 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny Observation

Your grammar is wrong: "There is no mainstream science. There is science, and there is not science."

This makes it look like you're saying that science exists, but that it also doesn't exist. Try 'There is science, and there is "not science" '. See how anal retentive I am. BETA 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You are so right. I'm glad someone is anal!!! Thanks.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

heh. though I disagree with Bentheadvocate. There is a mainstream of science, there are fringes of science, and there is an absence of science. And these all happen in what the outside observer would call "people doing science". --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "unscience". MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "unfettered crap."  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-science", to couple with "POV" and "pusher" :-) Shot info (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "unfettered crap from a POV-pusher" is so much more pointed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are alright BETA 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, nonscience is often a synonym for nonsense....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And if your really nice about your woo, you have a welcoming cadre of admins here in Wikipedia. Shot info (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Science is what humans understand about the Laws of nature. Mainstream is 'popular trend' whether it is right or wrong. Alternate or Pseudo is everything rejected by mainstream, i.e. a minority. --Ne0Freedom 06:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

the edit summary's max character limit is too short

i'd love to have a discussion about these reverts and the policies which you cite. thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no thanks. You have a history of causing trouble with editors that don't agree with you, so I'd rather not battle you. If you don't like my reverts, I'm fine with that, others will either support me or you. Works best that way, so I don't end up leaving the project because you've RfC'ed me or something more annoying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I just reverted you over at Pseudoscience. Sorry about that. Expressed as it is as three links on one line, the see also to conventional/"alternative"/EBMedicine invites the interested reader to make comparisons between the three, providing two positive examples and one (at least mostly, depending on the precise definition used; personally, I prefer medicine vs. bunk irrespective of origin and development, but apparently the common definition of AM includes therapies and techniques which have been at least somewhat validated but have not been recategorized; meh) negative example. Moreover, there appears to my eye to be a tenuous but valid consensus on the talk page. Regards, -Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. At first blush, it appeared that someone was placing evidence based medicine (which I hate as a term, it's medicine or it's woo) as a pseudoscience. But now I see what you're trying to do. I'm good for it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Did you even read the diffs?

Yes, I read the diffs and, as I have explained on WP:3RR I do not feel that they are sufficiently related to violate 3RR. Please feel free to review my previous decisions, and I will be happy to answer any questions on them. Regarding the edit war, I would point out to you that your actions are also verging on edit warring (three reverts in as many hours) and remind you that you do not need to make more than three edits to violate the policy. TigerShark (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm smart enough to stop and let others see the errors of the POV-pushers. So don't be accusing me of anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that you are smart enough to stop at three reverts, then please note the following from WP:3RR

"Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks."

Going up to three reverts and then letting somebody else revert four times, can still be considered edit warring. You should be trying to reach consensus with other editors rather than aiming to "let others see the errors of the POV-pushers". TigerShark (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're such a great admin that you A) recognize that I'm gaming the system, B) that I'm totally idiotic and don't know how to read the rules, and C) that in fact I'm reverting POV edits that are clearly wrong. I am so sorry that I am such a fool compared to your immense knowledge and ability to have insight into my behavior. Please accept my sincerest apologies for failing to see how perfect you are and how obviously imperfect I am. Thank you. I guess I should go edit a children's encyclopedia. Sorry to have bothered you in your drive to create a perfect Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiro research or criticism?

Check this out.... be careful what you wish for... ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Please see Talk:Vaccine controversy#A summary of the controversy is not a lie for comments on the recent changes to Vaccine controversy. Eubulides (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. People will read this article and actually think Autism is a real effect of the vaccination. If your ethics support that, I don't have the time to battle you. Good luck. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SS

Is it really necesarry to explain why I removed the novel "SS General" from the SS article's "Further reading" section? If you've read the novel, you'll know that it's not exactly a go-to for objective information on the SS. The "further reading" section is not a place where one is to recommend one's favorite airport novels that just so happen to be tangentially related to the matter at hand.

Your friend, Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.191.83 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then explain yourself. It takes 2 nanoseconds. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the fun in that? - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.161.98 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What? No more evolution??

Holy cow. You are kidding!--Filll (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking with medical articles only. That's my skill-set. I really don't understand the philosophy of creationism, I just think they're all psycho-nutjobs. Even the Quackademic medical articles are only going to get my attention with regards to RS and NOR. I'm not going to try to rewrite them. There are a lot of articles in Medicine that need attention. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The end of evolution? On Darwin Day!! What doth this portend??? Of course the attention to medicine is most welcome, and I for one hope you can woo wikipedia off woo :) . . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Pill / Blue Pill

Greetings. I just stumbled across your profile and your responses in the post about "strategies for better editing" (on this page) have given me some hope. You look like an editor who knows how to effectively argue and hold a neutral position and so I am asking if you would like to be of assistance in a discussion. I consider this to be serious challenge (otherwise I wouldn't be approaching you), the outcome of which could fix one of the worst article's on the Wikipedia system.

I'll get straight to the point. I first wish to propose a few questions that are relevant to the discussion I seek your assistance on.

1) What is more important to you in deciding the outcome of a group discussion: Neutrality or Majority? (saying "both" is not an option)

2) Do you believe that all countries within the English-speaking world have different languages and cultures and that, while influenced by each other, are wholly independent? [Yes/No]

3) Within the Wikipedia system. if you had to go against your countrymen's opinions, because evidence (or a lack thereof) indicates another more rational explanation, would you do so? [Yes/No]

You will forgive the anonymous post, but I don't want to draw attention to the struggle until I know you wish to assist. There is a war going on and your help and expertise could be invaluable. If you want to help then please answer the questions. I shall check back here regularly until you have. If you don't want to help then please just say so and that will be the end of the matter.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.56.79 (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I love this place. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't responded, because honestly, this is the oddest post, of thousands of odd posts, I've ever read. I did a Whois, and I can't figure it out. Some University apparently. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I particularly enjoy when people are clearly addressing a specific situation, but ask questions couched in leading generalities instead of asking direct questions. It's kind of like when people come to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask: "Is a newspaper known to publish the works of a plagiarist and compulsive liar a reliable source?" When you answer, "Er... sounds like no?" they say: "Aha! I've removed the New York Times citation per discussion at WP:RS/N!"

And the pedant in me cannot help but point out the incongruity of two items being both "influenced by each other" and "wholly independent". MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm sticking with the science and medicine articles. Mostly, there's no problem there, although I dislike some editors who delete sections by saying "the source does not state that." Of course, a quick PubMed search finds 100 other sources, so I've got to spend time rewriting and re-adding. But that's a minor whine compared to "yes water has a memory of the compounds even after multiple dilutions." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well boys, I'm hedging my bets and taking the purple pill. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) Shot info (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Ok, maybe I was so vague in the original post that the questions I posed had no context in which they could be interpreted. It was an attempt at being concise (I have been accused too often of waffling) and it failed miserably. I apologise for wasting your time the first time and I shall have one more attempt.

Wikipedia's core policy of Concensus is a cornerstone of editing and is designed ensure that changes to articles are made with as much agreement from differing parties as possible before making the article. However, the policy relies on one crucial property which is not mentioned in any policy, and that is that the ideological, geographical, educational, cultural, linguistic, etc. breakdown of all the editors of an article should match that of the article's intended audience. In the case that the composition of editors of an international article (for example) does not roughly match the composition of that article's intended international audience, the consensus system can still succeed but only if the editors who are present can impartially represent, in addition to their own interests, the interests of other countries or cultures whose editors are not present and so ensure that the article is balanced with regard to its intended audience.

Many articles on English Wikipedia are only written by citizens of the United States. This is a fact, and it is visible in the almost exclusively American grammar and vocabulary that is used in most article's texts, the comments of the editors of those articles in the talk pages, as well as the mostly US locations of references and contextual links used to verify information in articles. All well and good for articles that actally pertain to the United States, but where there is a problem is where these editors are writing articles in their own culturally native style about, or including, other countries in the English-speaking world and are getting away with it due to the Consensus policy. In cases where a single person from outside of the US tries to fight this "consensus", the arguments become bitter and racially oriented, even where there is hard, tangible evidence that points to reasonable and rational conclusions just due to the fact that a large number of people equals "consensus". English Wikipedia is becoming a racist place where the cultures of other countries in the English-speaking world are being quashed within a system that gives off this aura of being completely harmonious and neutral.

Do you now understand the motive for asking those questions? The concensus system has failed the article in question as the editors are all from a geographically and culturally-select minority (when compared to the article's intended audience) and they are overruling a (seemingly) lone representative and the interests of the rest of the English-speaking world that they stand for. Tactics include racist slurs, intimidation on personal pages, and deliberately lethargic administrators who show partiality to a select few and condone the aforementioned behaviour. I don't know where you from or anything about you, and you don't know where I'm from or anything about me. And, to be honest, it bears absolutely no relevance at all to our ability to be able to work together to help fix an article that is seriously biased. All I know is that you have shown considerable ability to be neutral and apply logic, facts, Wikipedia policy, and common sense to help achieve a good level of neutrality in other articles, which are crucial attributes to have in an editor where national bias has become a problem.

The bottom line is, will you help? I'm sure my faith in you is not misplaced. I would be grateful if you would reconsider the three above questions exclusively within the context I have explained. I'm sorry to have taken up your time again, but if you don't wish to be of assistance then please say so.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.56.30 (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

It is more accurate and helpful to describe the Victoria Cross as being similar to the MOH, and also to point out that it is the highest award for valour not only of Commonwealth nations, but specifically of the United Kingdom. It seems like only one person is changing my edits; is this not the case? Also, HOW is the style unusual or difficult to understand. If you tell me, I can change it to be more easily understood.

Your heading on Matt Lewis' Talk page.

I'm not sure you have my Talk page on your watchlist?

Your highly-personal and grossly rude heading of "Are you just naturally rude?" seriously needs addressing. It was simply uncalled for - all I did was change your edit. My edit was regarding depression in the context of pre-dementia Alzheimer's, and was absolutely nothing to do with what you describe as "Alternative medicine nutjobs"! I simply corrected a mistake on the page. Please attend to my response to your comment, or I will report your behaviour. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You can comment, delete or strike it - I don't mind which, I'm not happy with it just staying there though!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tower Green

It was on Commons in the Tower of London cat - I didn't look long & there may be others, but that seemed to do the job - a nice rainy London day! Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on homeopathy

My edits were copy edits to improve readability of the article. I hope you weren't implying anything to the contrary? Let's take one example of your bulk revert which I think resulted in a worse article. My edit:

Homeopaths say that serial dilution in water, sugar or alcohol, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while retaining its qualities.

Your edit:

According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol).

Would you mind explaining to me why your edit is to be preferred? I'll copy this to the talkpage. So perhaps you'd like to explain there. Mccready (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this otherwise justified revert, did you really mean to restore the following bit of text which I had removed: "This last study in the words of a medical review has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61 Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo."? Whether the idea expressed in the paragraph belongs in the article is one thing, but either way, in its current form the quote needs attribution and citation, which is why I removed it. Yilloslime (t) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thuja occidentalis

It would be helpful if you would participate in the discussion of your contributions to this article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't participate in discussions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi I've just joined - I am compiling a list of 'good guys' based around the trail from ScienceA's page - I put you on. Do drop by. User:The Rationalist —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on homeopathy

Hi OM, you archived this apparently without response. I'd be grateful if you would respond.

My edits were copy edits to improve readability of the article. I hope you weren't implying anything to the contrary? Let's take one example of your bulk revert which I think resulted in a worse article. My edit:

Homeopaths say that serial dilution in water, sugar or alcohol, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while retaining its qualities.

Your edit:

According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol).

Would you mind explaining to me why your edit is to be preferred? I'll copy this to the talkpage. So perhaps you'd like to explain there. Mccready (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although noone is welcome to make unconstructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appears to be constructive and has been smiled about or lauded. Please use every article for any great edits you would like to make, and take a look at the page for cool editors to learn more about contributing awesomely to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tower Green

On 19 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tower Green, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi Orangemarlin, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on the use of "questionable sources" such as self-published websites in the verifiability policy. Since you spend a lot of time dealing with these fringe subjects, and the editors who advocate them, I thought you might be interested in commenting. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

et al

Please see MOSMED Citing medical sources. Six authors max. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think consistent citations trumps that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further review of the MOSMED, leads me to these conclusions: first, they refer to a submission guides for a couple of journals, but not all, and there is inconsistency between 3 or 6 names. But no where does it states it's a requirement. One reviewer has already stated that she liked no et als. And full names of articles is only recommended too. But honestly, I don't care, I just think we should be consistent, utilizing the Diberri tool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but please get WP:MEDMOS#Citing medical sources changed then so that all the articles will be consistent ;/) The problem is keeping the article length sensible when you get papers by committee. Another alternative is hovertext on the et al. if that could be coded into the template... LeadSongDog (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that the default on diberi's tool is to leave the "don't use et al." checkbox unchecked, so the double-negative means "use et al."LeadSongDog (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the agita regarding et al. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Diberri's talk on the subject It's not clear to me how to get a consistent set of options on his tool, but there's probably a simple way. I'll ask there. For Jim62sch: no agita, just trying to get consistency. It's only style, not substance, but if we can get the tool to do it the same way all the time, it'd help.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No agita here. Just a lot of anality (my invented word) with respect to style. And frankly, Medical articles deserve very high quality referencing. I guess my standard is that a physician like me, who is not familiar with this topic, would be able to get information that may be of use. That's probably a stretch goal. I know a lot of people don't care about references, but it appears that a LOT of people do with respect to medical articles. That's fine. I actually don't care one way or another, but let's be consistent!!!! There are reviewers who care and those who don't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rue

Why, thank you! I'd like to stay out of these debates (usu. involving SA) because too much is placed on the tactics of the editors, but this snippet caught my attention. I just want it all to be fairly laid out (is that so much to ask???). Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

10,000th Edit

I love your 10,000th edit (adding the hyperlink). It' pretty much the classic Wikipedia edit. Chances are you 9,999th edit and your 10,001st edit were article creations, or some other huge project like that. Great work anyway. I think I've only made like 10 edits myself... --Will James (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seicer again

OM, comments like this[7] don't help our common cause. It would have been entirely appropriate to ask "How about recusing yourself from your Mediator role, and answer this question, since the Admin role carries greater authority and has the potential for greater consequences." Instead, the remark about POV pushing turned sympathy toward the candidate and let him off the hook from answering the question. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because nothing good happens from being nice about all of this. That's why I try to stick with the articles that don't have these Anti-Science types running about. Although I saw Wikidudeman's RfA implode, I don't think this one will. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is Seicer "an anti-science POV pusher" or just a non-science, civil editor? My only experience with him has been non-science. It's ok with me if non-scientists promote civility even in technical debates (although there is very little technical debate at the homeopath battlegrounds). Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent to the semantics. If he doesn't understand science, let him edit the History of Creationism, since that's where an anti-science editor belongs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the difference is merely semantics, but maybe I should state it better. "Anti-science POV pusher" vs "an editor who is not a scientist" is not just semantics, right? Pete St.John (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. But here's the problem that's becoming endemic to Wikipedia: non-science admins (who may be anti-science out of ignorance or out of desire) are getting involved in places where they shouldn't be. There are POV pushers who are destroying this project, and we get uninformed, and frankly unintelligent, admins blocking editors and getting involved in things that are outside of their limited knowledge base. I am not going to listen to an admin who thinks that homeopathy has anything going for it except that it is a lot of fresh water. Admins and editors think WP:WEIGHT means that if there are bunch of bogus articles on some pseudoscientific concept, then that means it's right. Seicer appears to be anti-science (and may in fact be so) because his "arbitrating" Cold Fusion is ridiculous. He wouldn't know real science if it came up to him and gave him an antibiotic to treat his or her bacterial infection. Cold Fusion's first words in the article should say, "what a bunch of crock." He thinks it might actually work. And you're not letting him answer the question if he's anti-science or not. But whatever, he's going to be an admin, and Wikipedia is going to be worse for it. But he's going to pat himself on the back for being such a wonderful person for the project. He should resign and go away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But, the first words should not be "what a bunch of crock". Quantuum Mechanics is confusing. Really. Einstein famously disliked it at first (and Hilbert disliked the work of Godel, at first). The first words should be "A misunderstanding of quantuum mechanics. Here, we'll try to explain it for you, because we all love each other as brothers". OK, not exactly those words. But it's misunderstanding (on the part of some, as well as outright fraud on the part of others, who eternally seek proofs of the existence of God, but we should address the misunderstanding as clearly the purpose of an encyclopedia; the fraud if the fraud itself can be documented as such). Pete St.John (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My post concerning The Night of The Long Knives

Marlin......

I was actually quite dissappointed to be edited so quickly.....

I am on a World War 2 site, and have been reading military history since I could pick up a book.... The wikipedia posting concerning the Waffen SS is not exactly what I would call comprehensive. It glosses over many things, especially concerning the ORIGINS and DEVELOPMENT of the Waffen SS..Declared a criminal organisation at Nuremburg, it's veterans still suffer from a very one sided view of their organisation. It is not my intent to be seen as some sort of neo-fascist hero worshiper, but a little research for me revealed a few things that were very suprising....

My source for the SS post was none other than SS GENERAL KARL WOLF, as told by a BBC television documentary I saw many years ago called "NIGHT OF THE HUMMINGBIRD". The journalist that made this documentary was present on the morning of July 1st, 1934, when none other than HERMANN GOERING bounced into the conference room where this assembled group of journalists had gathered in Berlin. Goering was "expansive", andbeaming at the assembled group, he spoke to them thus.....

"I know you boys like a story", he said using the English word for story with emphasis, "Well, Ive got a STORY for you, alright!". His press conference told of a plot against the National government by the Sturmabtielung leadership. Goering told of Adolf hitler arresting the S.A. chief, ERNST ROHM, at a mountain holiday retreat hotel that a fleet of mercedes cars had driven up to at dawn, with Hitler arresting Rohm personally. Goering claimed to have cleaned up in Berlin, and went on to condemn the S.A. for their treachery.

The journalist who interviewed Goerings adjudant at the time, SS General Karl Wolf, managed to get Karl to reveal exactly what this purge was for, how it was planned, and why it was in fact necessary for it to be done with the FULL BACKING of the Army (Heer), AND Krupp Armaments industrialists, who were quoted as stating,

"Re-armament is too serious an issue to be left in the hands of drunkards and homosexuals."

Rohm wanted a Second National Socialist revolution, and the million strong SA was, in his mind, to be the recruitment base for the expansion of the Reichswher. But general Hans von Seekt ("The Sphinx") had already planned for the 100,000 man Army to be trained as OFFICERS....EVERY ONE OF THEM....so that when expansion came, they would have a nucleus of hardened professional to form unit cadres, and an Army that would be the most highly trained in Europe.

The Sturmabteilung, and particularly Ernst Rohm, just did not fit into this picture at all. The Army called the S.A. "The brown trash", and shuddered at these uniformed bullys diluting their soon to be re-armed and excellently trained force of PROFESSIONALS.

This documentary was known as "Night of the Hummingbird", and it's principle sources were interviews with the principle protagonists that were still alive to BE interviewed....specifically....SS GENERAL KARL WOLF, watching the entire operation (code named HUMMINGBIRD) unfold from Goerings office, as he made one telephone call after another to co-ordinate the activities of REINHARDT HEYDRICH, the EXECUTIONER of HUMMINGBIRD.

These sources are now, OR SHOULD BE, SO WELL KNOWN that I was genuinely suprised to see my perfectly good EDIT pulled so unceremoniously off the site in minute FLAT......whoever is writing this "history" of the Waffen SS needs to read around and gather more information. Come to my website....World War 2 Talk for a not too comprehensive look at the development of the Waffen SS, and other MILITARY posts by myself, gothard and Higge.

If you honestly think that KARL WOLF and NIGHT of the HUMMINGBIRD is not a good source....read around. Find out, like I did from a small amount of digging through printed as well as other media sources, that the Waffen SS were MUCH different than the simplistic and erronious entry in WIKIPEDIA. You guys are not don't seem to realise that the Waffen SS record on human right was PATCHY, and that your chances of committing atrocities varied with the unit and the area your division happened to be operating in.

World War Two, generally has a history that has been written by WINNERS. As a wargamer, I have read articles and sources from extremely picky people, concerned only with telling the truth. What we have found is that World War 2 has been written from a one sided viewpoint for many years now. Just looking at your edit for the Rohm Putsch told me many things about Wikipedia itself, and that history here really is through Rose tinted glasses.

Just to give you a small look.....have a look at loss figures for the U.S submarine service for the entire period of it's involvement in WW2, then have a look at what the Germans achieved and how many U-boats they lost. When you come up with the figures, that have been available for many years, you will see a WINDOW into an allied codebraking effort that was MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE than we have all been led to believe....IJN Code JN-25 was decrypted and fully READ as early as MAY 1940....what does that tell you about Allied operations in the Pacific....or Pearl Harbour.....or the political machinations of WINSTON CHURCHILL....

British intelligence codebreaking has remained a very shadowy affair....most of their files were BURNT....so prooving this is a matter of somebody opening their mouth....and it's already happened.....

Your post on the Waffen SS is VERY out of date......I want no part of an encyclopedia that relys exclusively on DOCUMENTATION for PROOF...PEOPLE are sometimes a valuable resource for the TRUTH.....

I think the outcome of World War 2 was a favour for all of us that are GRATEFUL to the Unitied States, and the Western Alliance, for the outcome that benifitted us all.

Veterans are hiding the manner in which they won the Great Crusade against European Fascism, and JAPAN was a PUSH IN....Posts like yours on the Waffen SS have the same wartime propaganda going perpetually round and round.....

WINNERS WRITE HISTORY....I am a child of the winners. I am grateful for the result.....

But I still want to see TRUTH......tell it the way it happened.

Our decendents deserve it....

WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE.......Orwell (Eric Blair)....From the novel 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurry (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

World War Two History Forum Website

Just to direct you. go to Google, type in World War Two Talk, and go to one of two site at the top of the page.....when you see a sit with a BLUE BACKGROUND run by an administrator called HIGGE, then you will be at my home site.....Higge is from FINLAND, and he can tell you all sorts of things about the RUSSIANS, Lend Lease, and other issues...

My name on that site is B5N2Kate......and our reaearch involves World War two from a mainly Axis perspective, although we will talk about Allied issues to.....My articles are all sourced, and I am proud of the work we have put in....there is a long way to go with a NEW site, and its one of two with a similar name at the top of the page...

Again....look for me on a BLUE BACKGROUND site run by HIGGE....I am listed as a moderator, but I don't moderate, prefering to simply contribute articles I've had in the bag for over twenty years.......My article called "Waffen SS: Divisional history" uses as it's it's base an article that appeared by published historian ALFRED A NOFI, and the research we have done to track the combat and human rights records of the different Waffen SS formations will suprise you......

TRUTH is important to me....and Allied veterans can't write a history of WW2 for ever....at some stage of the game, the Axis point of view will merge with the allied to make an entirely new history of WW2 that does not glorify organisations like the Waffen SS.....

It will simply tell the story AS IT HAPPENED.....regardless of reputations and wartime propaganda still revolving around....

I challenge you all to look at BOTH SIDES.....Wikipedia is REVISIONISM PERSONIFIED......and so are articles on my home website.... Let us work together to finally get a coherent picture of the Great Crusade....and it won't be called World War Two for much longer.....something truly DIFFERENT is going to emerge in my lifetime....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurry (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my unsigned posts

there are many things i dont know how to do on Wiki, and frankly I find computers to be a little bit messy when it comes to doing supposedly simple stuff. So me not signing my posts HERE is symptomatic of unfamiliarity with computers in general, and the machinations of sites like this one and my own in aprticular....sorry bout that!

Regards.....Christofurry a.k.a. B5N2Kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurry (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No more editing without citation

I apologize for editing without following the proper citations, I thought it was sufficient to say it was unproven.24.65.87.238 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Diatribe?

Dear Mr Marlin.....

NEUTRALITY is my purpose entire......

I repeat, purely for your benefit....

Your page on the Waffen SS is out of date.... Your information on this page is from sources that have no neutrality... Not one German source is quoted, and this page purports to be an encyclopedia! It's as if I tried to sit down and write a capsule history of the British Army using French Russian texts, and ignoring the British point of view....

If you wish to see my comments as a diatribe,and must point to Wiki's neutrlity as your defense, then that puts you in the catgory of the ill-informed, much as the person/people who wrote this non-sense....

The truth of World War 2 will probably have to wait for a time when distance has been achieved, all the veterans and sons of veterans are dead, and we can take a cold, hard look at that which is left over.....

End of sermon........You have offered nothing in reply, prooving my view that Wiki is another source in English that wishes to simply gloss over the facts to please veterans and governments for their own cause...

Thankyou..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurry (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Omaha beach edit "not constructive"????

Look pal...........

If you simply want to read military history that goes through the motions and is simply a rehash of "official" histories, then I sugesst you make it plain for the contributors....

Not constructive?....Charles Corlett was ignored, and Omar Bradley made a hash of it, costing american lives at the expense of shoddy planning...PERIOD. What is "not constructive" about that/....Perfectly esay to understand....Mind you, you certainly won't find this in ol'Omar's memoirs.... I think the attitiude of wiki to changes is appalling.....So, if we all don't follow the "official" line, we are incorrect?.....Williamson Murray is a contributing source that makes sence....Wiki is just a bunch of people mouthing the official histories!!!!

Looks like my assumption of history as was correct after all....we will have to wait for all the priciple protagonists, and their sons and daughters, to dissappear from this mortal coil before we get anything approaching the truth...having worked on this change and given you a more than reputable source, you tag it as NON CONSTRUCTIVE....

I certainly won't be consulting Wiki for military matters in the furture. I don't think reputable historians will either...thanks for wasting my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christofurry (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The memory of water proof

The thermoluminescence study of ultra-high dilutions of lithium and sodium chloride which shows that water does indeed have a memory is published in Physica A, a reputable scientific journal. You have deleted it and maintained that memory effects of water claimed by Rustum Roy is unsupported by experimental evidence. That is simply not true, and an encyclopedia should not lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Komelbar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, OM has repeatedly removed references about how pigs fly and are currently colonizing the troposphere. Careful they don't poo on you! Baegis (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the references about how pigs fly and are currently colonizing the atmosphere are from, but the reference about the memory of water is definitely reliable because it is published in a reputable scientific journal.Komelbar (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reputable??? LMFAO!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Physica A, a journal published in the Netherlands (I am really starting to question Europe's commitment to good science, since it seems all homeopathic support comes from the continent) has an impact factor of 1.311 giving it the prestigious place of 27^th best journal in its field. In comparison, the top three in the field have impact factors of 33.508, 12.040, and 10.438. Hmm, makes you wonder... Baegis (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What's this impact factor thing? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't know what impact factor is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact factor. It's the newfangled, objective way to say that Nature is an important publication. Antelan ^talk 03:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact factor is all about the journal and say nothing about any particular paper. David D. (Talk) 04:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Antelan ^talk 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The results of the thermoluminescence study in Physica A have been featured in an article in NewScientist. Are you saying that NewScientist is a proponent of quackery and bad science?Is it your advice that every individual and organisation who currently have subscription to NewScientist stop their subscription because NewScientist is full of sh*t?

The statement "unsupported by experimental evidence" is plain wrong. If you are not happy with Physica A and NewScientist, then you would say something like this:

"There is experimental evidence on the memory of water published in Physica A and featured in New Scientist, but they are full of sh*t, so whatever they say do no count as evidence."

or

"There are preliminary evidence supporting the memory of water hypothesis, but this has not been accepted by the mainstream scientific community."

Definitely not "unsupported by experimental evidence". That is a lie and should not be included in an encyclopedia.Komelbar (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can project all you wish but I suggest you don't seem to understand how the scientific process works. See what i wrote above about Nature, that is what I think. And more unsolicitated aggression, as in your post above, will cause everyone to ignore you as a crank, so you should probably calm down. David D. (Talk) 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about my previous aggressive post. I just think that the statement "unsupported by experimental evidence" needs to be reworded a bit to reflect the fact that there are scientific research which supports the memory of water hypothesis.Komelbar (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. "Statisticians are people who expect to be wrong 5% of the time". We can't take one study about emission spectra and say that it supports anything. If it were anything real, the study would be cited by physicists or physical chemists. This study is cited over and over in homeopathy and CAM pubs. If this were real, it would be huge. And it would be cited by other workers in the field, it would be cited in review articles... Instead, it's only cited by homeopaths. Guettarda (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Benveniste's results have been replicated

In 2004, four independent labs in Europe have replicated Benveniste's result in a double-blind manner. The TV program BBC claimed to have repeated this experiment and failed to replicate it, but they clearly did not follow the original experiments' protocol.

I can give you the reference for the 2004 replication of Benveniste's result. I am sure another user, Dana Ullman will gladly provide you with the statement from Professor Madeleine Ennis which says that their experiment's protocol have not been followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Komelbar (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Boring. Trying to avoid WP:VERIFY. Water does not retain memory, so give it a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to us. We just report what the mainstream says. And what does the mainstream say? They say "hogwash".--Filll (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I take these drive-by shootings from CAM woo-pushers with a grain of salt (which is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000X the amount that is left in a homeopathic potion). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 replication experiment is published in the inflammation research journal, obtainable from Springer-Verlag. The reference is Inflamm. res. 53 (2004) 181-188. This is definitely verifiable by anyone who has a subscription to Springer-Verlag. Are you saying that the Inflammation Research Journal and/or Springer-Verlag is not a reliable source?Komelbar (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this fascination with his results. I thought that even Benveniste could not reproduce the results? David D. (Talk) 04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey...welcome to the discussion at Pseudoscience!

Appreciate your contribution. Looking forward to hearing your objections to the changes I made. WNDL42 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC