User talk:Orangemarlin/Miscellaneous 3

Re: popups problem

Hi – No, I haven't seen it act like that. It's probably a JavaScript problem instead of a Mac problem, and I'm just beginning to learn about JavaScript. Other than tweaking the script to configure different options, I can't offer much except to ask Lupin, who originally wrote it, or one of the people working on it.

You might also try Twinkle. It was originally written on a Mac and is easier to configure than popups. I use both – popups to preview diffs and contribution histories, and Twinkle to help with deletion work and to leave warnings. There are parts of both scripts that I like and others I don't like, so just use what you can and ignore the rest. :-) -- KrakatoaKatie 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Something for a doctor

Here is something that I think we are missing: [1]--Filll 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant myoglobin. I don't think mycoglobin is actually anything, unless a mushroom has some sort of oxygen transport system. Orangemarlin 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was clearly confused. In my partial defense, if you do a google search on mycoglobin, you will see a lot of others that made the same mistake. Which is what had me puzzled, so I asked you. Thanks!--Filll 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Google picked up typos, because it's only a few hits. I believe that it's just a spelling error. In fact, when I read "mycoglobin" I immediately thought it was muscle globin. Funny. Orangemarlin 15:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Biology

A very worthy goal. Once I've got Evolution through to FA I will certainly try to help! TimVickers 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also a worthy goal. I've actually quit editing that article after you showed up. You've really improved it and ought to be commended. I figured I'd manipulate you over to Biology, get you started, then I'd go find another article. LOL. Orangemarlin 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! TimVickers 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Flood Geology

Thank you for the tip. I did not know where to get the citation template. Dan Watts 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. However, I looked up the citations, and I don't think they say what you think they do. I reverted your additions and put it on the talk page. Let's discuss it there. Orangemarlin 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Different interpretation

This is a good faith edit? Not sure I agree, unless we're assuming that he leaned on his keyboard?  :) Orangemarlin 00:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand what good faith edit means. I assumed that that edit was just some kid trying out this "wiki stuff". The IP had no priors and it was harmless (no profanity, no deliberate nonsense, no personal attacks). I dunno, I guess since that I'm still pretty new, I want to give the guy the benefit of a doubt. What do you think?  DangerousNerd  talk 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I look at those kind of edits as vandalism, pure and simple. A good faith edit to me is someone who, for example, is editing for the first time and doesn't understand the subtleties of NPOV (not like I really understand it anyways). It's a matter of interpretation, and I did get a chuckle out of your being one of the most kind editors I've seen around here. Maybe you haven't gotten cynical yet.  :) Orangemarlin 00:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yeah, maybe I'm not cynical enough yet. :-) Well, I'll keep it in mind next time I see something like that. If you take a look at my contribs, you'll see that I do revert a lot of stuff as vandalism and I'm getting better and better at identifying it. Thank you very much for the compliment, though! Happy wikiing!  DangerousNerd  talk 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Orangemarlin,

I've noticed that the talk page on homeopathy got a little heated over the weekend. Tony Mobily has shown himself to be cooperative and understanding when we assume good faith and respond in a civil manner. The question of homeopathy's effectiveness isn't really being disputed, simply the neutrality of the article. I think that he just doesn't understand that negative comments can be neutral. We need to help him understand the policy and why it makes sense which I very much believe is possible.Pdelongchamp 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you on Tony Mobily's ability to be civil. But I will assist in keeping the article neutral and helping Tony make sense of what is really a complex issue. Orangemarlin 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you reread the discussion you'll see that a productive discussion has been taking place which includes concessions from Tony's side. Please AGF. Pdelongchamp 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referencing the latest discussion from Tony which started with cooperative statements like "Shall I go ahead and edit the entry?" and "I am all ears." After the comments from yourself and Ornis which I felt were lacking in AGF, I can understand the taunting and lack of AGF on his side because he's still new to WP. He's also made the following comment "OK, point taken. both about the 50 million people, and about the disruption. I guess my nerves were getting out of hand." so i know that a civil discussion can be had when both sides AGF. This is a good chance to help someone who is willing to learn how to properly interpret NPOV. Pdelongchamp 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that was followed by this and this. I would suggest you assume some good faith with myself as an editor, someone who does have a ton of experience, who understands the subtleties of NPOV, and who has put up with a lot of POV warriors. Just look at the discussion right above? If you don't think I AGF in almost every case (and I admit to failure when I've had it with a troll), then you haven't read what I've done. Let's be blunt. Homeopathy will kill people. Since Wikipedia sits at the top of google searches, it would be immoral for us to allow people to die from this pseudoscientific junk. So, my good faith ends when I think someone is trying to have people killed. Yes, that's an aggressive POV, but whether Evolution is POV or not is not going to harm one person in the world (at least in the short term). If Homeopathy comes across as an acceptable therapy, then that's just not acceptable. Orangemarlin 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do trust that you're a good editor and taking note of the articles in discussion on your talk page, we probably have the same views on pretty much everything. So since you made a suggestion to me, (which i appreciated) I'll follow it up with my own suggestion. It would be easier for editors to assume good faith in your responses if you started them off with a concession before moving onto a new point. (e.g. "You have a point when you say blah blah, but consider yada yada." of course that's if there is a concession to be made) I find it's easier to keep discussions on track when I do this.

In regards to Tony, don't worry. I won't allow the article to be anything but NPOV and respect all significant view points and not give undue weight to any view, etc. I'm hoping he posts a suggested version in the talk page and then we can all collaborate. (i'm very much expecting that the current intro will be left in tact but if we can get anything from this, it's worth it) Pdelongchamp 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Orangemartin, I noticed your saying this: "Let's be blunt. Homeopathy will kill people. Since Wikipedia sits at the top of google searches, it would be immoral for us to allow people to die from this pseudoscientific junk". I also noticed that you are a physician. There is another dangerous 'pseudotherapy' called 'attachment therapy' Children HAVE died from it and it is a popular, state sponsered unvalidated therapy. Can you look at the article and see what you think of it? FatherTree 11:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I try not to edit medical articles, because I don't know much beyond a couple of very specialized fields. However, I know a lot about attachment therapy, and I'll give it a look. Orangemarlin 16:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the look over there. FatherTree 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge list of creationist organizations

Look [2] and [3]--Filll 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

We might succeed with Intelligent design, but all of the alternative medicine articles keep getting filled with woo... Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome and Postherpetic neuralgia

No worries, they're on my watchlist now. ornis 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

By the way Orange, would you like me to e-mail you any sources that I have? You presumably have access to an academic data base, but if it helps I can e-mail you the Taskforce report, the ensuing open correspondance and the supplemental report, Speltz on the history and development of attachment therapy, Craven & Lee on their graded scheme of support for therapies, Mercer/Pignotti's reply and Craven and Lees reply to that and Prior and Glasers chapter on non-evidence based treatments for supposed attachment disorders. Fainites 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you Orange but you can't attach things to a wiki e-mail so you have to e-mail me back so I can send you the sources. Fainites 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnome week

I hope you are taking part. I have done a few as noted on my talk page.--Filll 20:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on Creationism edit

I liked your edit on the Intelligent Design court ruling today. I've come to appreciate that a lot of times in these contentious edit skirmishes, all it really takes is a step back and the crafting of a sentence or two to explain the reality of the situation, rather than fighting over competing notions of how to summarize it.

There's probably a lesson in there somewhere. Anyway, thanks again. --John Callender 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

I actually have been watching that, but have been deeply reluctant to stick my hand into that lovely little nest of scorpions. Looking at the talk, the angry POV is coming from both sides. ornis 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Hey OM!

Welcome officially to the team. I'm really glad to have you aboard. We could certainly use another set of eyes. Feel free to expand any of the shorter, crappier articles on WP:DABS; in fact, I'm pretty sure new WP:DINO editors are forced to work on lovely articles like Succinodon and Aachenosaurus as a form of painful, ritual hazing.

Need some assistance at Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

This looks like a bit of controversy.--Filll 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like lots of people are helping out! I think I need a break from these wars, so I thought I'd work on a few noncontroversial articles. Please see Herpes zoster where a whole new kind of junk science is causing me stress. Orangemarlin 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this

Your talk page seems like a pretty happening place, and since we've talked before about the whole Chemistry in relation to Biology thing, I thought you might be interested in this article from Discover maganize: (Err, that's one of those super authoritative sciency ones, right?) Map: Science’s Family Tree. See, what interested me about this, and what might interest you, is that i'm looking at the Chemistry section, and I don't really see many links between it an Biology, in fact, it looks like the only uninterrupted link between some Biology field and a Chemistry field is one thing connecting Biology with Organic Chemistry. But don't take my unworthy creationist word for it, go see for yourself :D Homestarmy 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting picture, but I am not sure I buy it too much. It appears that organic chemistry is not really good for much, but my impression is that this is wrong, or at least should be wrong. I have never studied it, but I know that potentially it is vitally important in biology and medecine.--Filll 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. First, no Discover is not a magazine I ever read. I find it too popular, meaning they play to their advertisers and audience, rather than delivering science. But I guess it's better than nothing. I actually liked the picture, but I happen to dislike Organic Chemistry. LOL. Anyways, all of biology is fundamentally chemistry, so maybe it only needs one line :) Orangemarlin 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event

OK, my favorite dinosaur expert, I've put in a lot of edits to begin cleaning up this POS article. I've reworked the sections into something resembling an encyclopedic article. The writing is atrocious. In addition, I think I found an article from which much of the writing was plagiarized, which is a major no no. So, I'm beat. It's your turn. I'll clean up and add references, but I've struggled with the lead, and maybe you can rework it. Despite my obsession with post-KT dinosaurs (and Noah's Ark), I think that we gave undue weight to those animals, so I've cut a lot of the writing on it, and moved the best referenced parts to the bottom. It also appears that a couple of POV editors (with or without good intentions) added a lot about the Shiva crater, which from what I read probably isn't a crater. Anyways, I know you have made a lot of GA and FA articles. If you can spend an hour cleaning up some of it, I'll put in a few hours, and maybe we'll have something. Orangemarlin 07:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey OM!

The article is looking much better, thanks to your extensive efforts. However, if your plan is to eventually send this to WP:FAC, I must make an important observation about the bulleted text: FAC reviewers hate bulleted text, and no article which uses them extensively, as this article does, will pass FAC, I guarantee. We must replace lists with delightful, polished prose.

Lately, I have been having great difficulty writing, OM. I'm not sure the term "writer's block" applies, as I'm basically just regurgitating what someone else has already written, but I've noticed I've had some difficulty stringing together coherent non-wooden sentences. I had planned to expand Herrerasaurus, Scipionyx, and Protoceratops, and help you with this article, as well as offering writing "back-up" on articles the WP:DINO team was working on. Scipionyx remains quite short, Arthur did all the expansion on Herrerasaurus, and Protoceratops needs a lot of work. Please don't think my lack of assistance so far with this article is because I haven't wanted to help rewrite this article. I'm off to edit it right now, but bear all this in mind as I begin reworking the material. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Roight. I put in a few edits on the article, converting lists to prose, removing two "facts" I couldn't support with references (Ammonites eating zooplankton, and crocodilians being able to live a year without eating), adding a bit to the lead, and trying to de-clutter when possible. I'll work on the article some more later today. Cheers, Firsfron of Ronchester 12:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Post-KT Dinosaurs from Noah's Ark have asked me to pass along special thanks. They're a little hungry these days hiding from humans and eating cat food for dinner. Anyways, I too hate bullet points (unless someone is sending me a business email). From what I can tell, the article was plagiarized from an online lecture on the KT event. Of course, that's written in bullet point style. I'm going to work on it too this weekend, but tomorrow is father's day. Orangemarlin 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see those articles every now and again, when people add them to Category:Dinosaurs. Then we have to go and revert, and explain why those aren't dinosaurs (aside from not being described as dinosaurs in peer-reviewed papers, there's the obvious problem of them being aquatic animals, and also highly unlikely). Good stuff. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Herpes Zoster

Hello! Thank you for your efforts on improving the article. There are plenty of things to do before a possible FAC, but I think I can make it pass. First, I was shocked by seeing the Tai-Chi link in the article, but it's well-referenced so it should stay. Our only weapon against POV editors are references. Great job, mate! NCurse _work 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, to be honest I'd resolved to ignore him till he tried to edit the page again. ornis 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)