Misplaced Pages

User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:20, 30 November 2007 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,336 edits Reverting on template:dominionism: yup← Previous edit Revision as of 05:07, 30 November 2007 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits Reverting on template:dominionismNext edit →
Line 132: Line 132:


::::::: Ahhh, the refined art of subtle sarcasm....;-) We ought to have a list (in user or project space) of scientific journals and rank them according to reliability, from top to fringe - oops!, I mean bottom: Lancet, NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Science....to....JAPandS, JSE, JVSR, etc.. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC) ::::::: Ahhh, the refined art of subtle sarcasm....;-) We ought to have a list (in user or project space) of scientific journals and rank them according to reliability, from top to fringe - oops!, I mean bottom: Lancet, NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Science....to....JAPandS, JSE, JVSR, etc.. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::One of my pet ideas, which I've never actually worked on, is to create a Misplaced Pages-specific journal ] table. This should be simple - just count up the number of times a given journal is cited across Misplaced Pages. My hypothesis is that the results would be horrifying (assuming you believe Misplaced Pages should aspire to be a serious reference work). It would be interesting to match up the Misplaced Pages-specific impact factor with the real-world impact factor and generate an "impact gap" statistic as well. In fact, I think the results would be publishable in the ''actual'' scientific literature, as Misplaced Pages is of some interest... but I just don't have the time to do it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


==Deep breath== ==Deep breath==

Revision as of 05:07, 30 November 2007

* Click here to leave me a new message
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Archiving icon
Archives

Barnstars and related

Scary articles

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

It's just not on...

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

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

Reverting on template:dominionism

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

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

Deep breath

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

The English skills of the editor reminds me of someone :) I know the editor wasn't completely irrational, but the ranting on the Talk page was a bit troublesome. I'm drinking a glass of very old scotch whiskey right now. OrangeMarlin 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call. I'll have some Ardbeg when I get home. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't you live in the land of well-made Scotch whiskey? OrangeMarlin 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, I'm in the land of drive-through restaurants and sickly-sweet bourbon at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But you WERE there. That's the most important thing. And haven't we Americans invaded all countries with our drive-through restaurants and pathetic tasteless beer? OrangeMarlin 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)