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
|
|
Archives |
Barnstars and related
- Please do not feed the trolls
- The Original Barnstar For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- The E=mc² Barnstar You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Undeniable Mechanism Award For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Original Barnstar For your dedicated work on scientific articles, keeping the pseudo out of science, I hereby award you, Orangemarlin, this Barnstar. Your work on Good and Featured articles like Evolution and Minoan eruption has greatly improved Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- To Orangemarlin for exceptional work on herpes zoster. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- For unbelievable efforts to bring Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to FA status. Filll 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC) For unbelievable efforts to bring Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to FA status. Filll 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have a squeaky rubber Tiktaalik for services to mass extinctions! Thanks for your persistence and hard work, .. dave souza, talk 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
- List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Good call. I'll have some Ardbeg when I get home. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)