Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:15, 11 March 2009

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Edmontosaurus

Hi, OM;

Any interest in having a look at Edmontosaurus? It's a refreshing, low-controversy alternative to the everyday Wiki experience, but on the other hand it's not exactly a stub, either. J. Spencer (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A low-controversy article????? NOOOOOOO. I read it over, and I'm not sure what I can add. I'm guessing it's ready for a nice FAC process! OrangeMarlin 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the read! If you think of anything later, I'm planning on waiting until after Deinosuchus has had its day at FAC before submitting. J. Spencer (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ALCAT

Thanks for stepping up, I was getting a bit fatigued with the topic.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Who put in all this cruft? Unpublished letters? Abstracts from meetings where it was clear the article was never published? HUH? OrangeMarlin 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea summa culpa. A lot of it started at this and this list of papers from what look like reliable sources though the copies are hosted on a COI site. Because the bibliographic data on those lists was spotty, I brought much of it in as a work-in-progress, while looking for more reliable published versions and refining the citations. Many of them on the list turned out to be in reliable journals indexed on Medline. Some of the other journals not on Medline are supposedly on EMBASE, but I don't have access to check.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. Some of the "letters" were unpublished correspondence between various individuals. I also ran across a letter that Pridgeon (is that his name?) wrote to the South African medical society or something. He quotes these things. OrangeMarlin 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Dr John Pridgeon has much the same list. He says he's behind ALCATSA.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

COI, I suppose! OrangeMarlin 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Hi, i see you are a very active user, and for that i ask you for help to support me in starting the task force as the cardiology articles needs allot of working, and many articles are missing, please if you are interested to support me or help, do that on the proposal page Maen. K. A. (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice

The continual sniping at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine is really boring and counterproductive to actually building an encyclopedia. There are enough editors there that it should be possible for the two of you mostly to shun interacting with each other without negatively impacting discussion. Would you be willing to try this? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm?????? HUH????? I haven't been uncivil to him. And you know I can be quite uncivil whenever I feel like it. How about someone blocking him for a week or so. OrangeMarlin 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not been unCIVIL, but neither have you been particularly collegial. While I argued for your interpretation of MEDRS over that of MCP, I doubt that offering to mentor them in the guideline will be taken well; I am no sort of sociologist, that is just my impression. I am not asking you to smile and kowtow to insufficient sourcing - that would be dumb (I also think that willful abuse of sources should be blockable, but that is my own bit of fringe). Look at it this way - if a drive-by admin sees those personal attacks and no response, they are much more likely not to write it off as a problem with both editors.

Then again, MCP already rejected my request, so big whatever. I wonder if there is anything interesting from those new personal comment redacted editors with whose interpretations of sourcing and weight I tend to disagree. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm collegial to those who don't try to push ideas that are bad for human health. You and I (and many others) edit for the long-term, and eventually the CAM-cruft pushers will disappear. And they'll be replaced by others, I know. MCP does not get or understand or even care about NPOV, RS, MEDRS, and/or anything else that makes a good article. I'm trying to help him, and it was in good faith. I'm hoping he's just misguided. OrangeMarlin 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyroluria

While I am here, if you get a chance could you check out my merge of Pyroluria to Orthomolecular psychiatry to make sure I covered all the salient points in proportion due to their prominence? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Troll food missing an ingredient

I guess it's missing a "no"... :-) Cacycle (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

answer

Most people say yes or no.Prussian725 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clear he doesn't want to talk to you, and I'd recommend you let it go. If you have something pertinent to say about an article, say it on the article's talk page. OM has a lot of pages that he has to deal with as a medical expert; he doesn't have the time or the inclination to debate with every creationist that desires it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read what Prussian says about science. You're right, if I debated every irrational creationist comment, I'd have to clone myself. OrangeMarlin 19:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you diluted yourself x100 thirty three times, each dose would be more powerful!!! . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended anybody, I really wasn't trying to pick a fight.Prussian725 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag_tag-2009-02-27T19:29:00.000Z">

In this edit you introduced an invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for a ref named "rejectedclaim". SD (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)_tag"> _tag">

PS. I think I see what the error was; a later edit attempted a fix, but it was not the right fix. Hopefully everything is OK now. SD (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)_tag"> _tag">

civility (2nd notice)

These two edits here and here seem to be personal attacks on me, contributing little or nothing to the discussion or the improvement of the policy. please refrain from such comments. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO indeed. Just how did someone with this block history get rollbacker anyhow?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just revenge, because I made sure he got blocked on a couple of occasions. I'll need to point out the harassment to admins. OrangeMarlin 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning that he's been blocked 5 times is a fact. Sorry Ludwigs2. You crack me up, you'll be blocked in a week, given your past history. OrangeMarlin 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

so just to clarify, your greater goal here is to get me blocked again? --Ludwigs2 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, you really don't understand Misplaced Pages. I have no power to block you. You retain that power yourself. OrangeMarlin 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

well, that's not what I asked, but I'll accept it as an answer. thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MSG comment

I'm sorry. That wasn't directed at you. I wasn't sure what Phil was getting at (and I agree with your reply to him—I assume he meant something else instead of "glutamate crystals"), so I unintended to reply to the original posts. It seemed to me that user was confused about a more basic point, so was replying to his theory that sodium might somehow turn good glutamate bad.

I had Ted myself; one of my favorite classes (I like the math in physical chemistry). Cool Hand Luke 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? Believe it or not, when I was at the U, Ted Eyring was teaching Freshman Chemistry. One quarter (the U was on quarters back then), Ted had to go on a sabbatical to NIH or something, and Henry Eyring taught the class. It was like a direct line from Einstein to Henry Eyring to me. I know I am far beneath those two in intellectual capacity, but it was one of the many highlights of my life! And of course, Ted is directly responsible for where I landed in life. That's a long and private conversation we might share someday. OrangeMarlin 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE complaint

Entirely peripherally, your name is mentioned in a thread I started at WP:AE, here. So it goes. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, actually it's not quite peripheral. ScienceApologist filed a report on Middle 8, asserting among other things that Middle 8 had been disrespectful of you in an edit summary. Middle 8 replied that you and s/he have the kind of bantering relationship where that's not a problem. I asked Middle 8 to seek your input to confirm that, since it appears to form part of Middle 8's claim that ScienceApologist's filing amounts to harassment and/or abuse of process. Middle 8 has now filed a second thread against ScienceApologist. I really don't know what your position on this matter would be, but matters are escalating and a word from you might help straighten things out and calm things down. Best regards, Durova 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Crap. Two people I like and respect are battling each other. Never good. OrangeMarlin 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in and attempting to sort things out. Things heat up easily in this area, and I appreciate your efforts. Durova 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are my edits POV?

You reverted my edits in AIDS denialism claiming that they are POV. I request an explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:AIDS_denialism#Two (if you please). I made three edits, all of which were NPOV, and you reverted all three of them. Why? -- leuce (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it at Talk:AIDS denialism. NEVER discuss edits with me here. OrangeMarlin 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. It was not my intention to discuss it here; only to draw your attention to it. -- leuce (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I have not made any edits but I received some type of warning that I messed up a wikipedia webpage. I don't use a shared computer so I'm really confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.23.18 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:199.20.23.18. Someone was acting out this morning, and their IP was reassigned to a new user, who was confused. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work

Someone that edits autism related articles and watches out for quackery in places like the MSG article is a good human in my books. Thanks for all of your hard work. (I don't think people hear positive stuff often enough). Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Just for the compliment, I'll be civil and nice for 24 hours to all POV pushing editors. Let me take several vicodin first. OrangeMarlin 04:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please don't go that far, though enjoy the voicodin...Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I watch too many crazy articles, and various good faith editors drop me messages here that this article or that article needs watching. Of course, they're rarely fun. Well, Edmontosaurus was fun to read. OrangeMarlin 05:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

civility (3rd notice)

from wp:civ: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." this edit you made - - certainly qualifies as incivility. please try to remain focused on the issues, and leave comments about the editors out of it. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This "3rd notice" is approaching the point where an uninvolved admin might consider sanctioning Ludwigs2 for badgering; viz. "placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page" as noted at WP:HUSH. See also WP:BAIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

don't worry, three is the last. if OM continues making edits like the one above, I'll take it up with an administrator myself. I just didn't want anyone to think I wasn't giving him an opportunity to stop of his own accord. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is attempting to get revenge since I was responsible for his last 2 week block. I'll just bring it up with admins who can deal with him directly. My comments to you were completely accurate and fair. I believe your disruptive attitude goes against all the good things that Misplaced Pages is attempting to do, and taking revenge on me, who did not block you, is inappropriate. I believe further harassment will not conducive to a harmonious editing environment. I suggest you apologize for your badgering and attempting to bait me. I think it will benefit you. OrangeMarlin 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Ludwigs2's behaviour at the moment seems unreasonable, disruptive and unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For myself, I don't see how expressing legitimate frustration at argumentum ad nauseam is being incivil. Such argumentation is against WP:TALK, so WP does not expect excessive tolerance of it. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although Orangemarlin is often unapologetically uncivil, I don't see it in the diff provided . II | (t - c) 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think???? OrangeMarlin 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

civility stuff

Hey OM, I know the pseudo-science thing can be highly, highly nettlesome but please try to tamp down these edit summaries, they only stir things up more. You know, comment on the content and sources, not on the editor. I've said the same thing to Ludwigs2. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His attempt to change basic Wiki-policy without consensus of a large number of Wikipedians is reprehensible. Sometimes the editor is responsible for the edits. OrangeMarlin 04:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but one must stay civil. If anything, it gives much less of a wedge with which to nettle you back. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Best and hardest working Misplaced Pages vandal ever

This took work. Two observations. First, creativity should count for something. And second, she moved at least 30 pages in less than 5 minutes. That was truly impressive. Well, she's blocked now. OrangeMarlin 06:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that have been OorangeMarlin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that creative! But I vandalize woo pages with real science! OrangeMarlin 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Meany :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Conventional/Mainstream and alternative medicine

I've noticed that lately you've been systematically removing "conventional" from before medicine in alternative medicine articles, on the basis that "conventional is pejorative" and "there is medicine and there is quackery" (other examples: ). I suppose conventional might sound pejorative because of the phrase conventional wisdom, but I think that distinguishing between the two is important in alt. med articles in order to reduce confusion. Perhaps mainstream would be a better? II | (t - c) 09:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these examples seem ok to me, but does look a little confusing, saying "Dosage is in general an outstanding issue for herbal treatments: while most medicines are heavily tested to determine the most effective and safest dosages (especially in relation to things like body weight, drug interactions, etc.), there are fewer varieties of dosages for various herbal treatments on the market." My uninformed suggestion would be "Dosage is in general an unresolved issue for herbal treatments: while medically approved medicines....", and it's time to get that sorted out! . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As is quoted near the top of this page, there is only medicine and the other stuff. If I had my way, CAM would stand for Complementary and Alternative Magic. Medicine is a science that is evidence based. There is no conventional or mainstream medicine, there is just medicine. Attempting to qualify something with an artificial modifier is always pejorative. CAM supporters use all of the techniques of creationists: invent names for the science base evidence, use the word "theory" as if it is someone weaker than the "truth", etc. That's why CAM is a pseudoscience, because it follows all of the precepts of pseudoscience. The US government has put in over $1 billion in NCCAM, the place where woo is studied. Do you know what? They haven't found a single thing that works. Even in Herbalism, which I think holds a lot of archeological and historical knowledge of plant compounds that help humans, it's not the plants themselves that help humans, it's one or two chemicals in the plants. And those chemicals have to be studied for efficacy, safety, drug interactions, and dosage before they become useful for medicine. The Herbalism article is actually a useful one, but it should never imply that you go pick up a few hundred leaves of digitalis, and magically you can cure your arrhythmias. St. John's wort may or may not help depression, but it certainly doesn't help in major depression, and people shouldn't be using it without a physician treating even minor depression. Plants studied and analyzed, determining how they can be used scientifically in medicine makes them a part of medicine. Individuals claiming that someone is blocking their use in medicine because "scientists don't understand how it's used in a tribal ceremony" is crap. So, yeah, conventional medicine is pejorative. It's just medicine. OrangeMarlin 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

From the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Magic: Complementary and Alternative Magic comprises a group of diverse occult and spiritual systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of reality. Reality is a system of experience validated by agreed-upon standards of evidence by physicists and mathematicians, and by scientists and rational sentient beings in general. Some warlocks, witches, and wizards practice both CAM and rational conjecture. While some scientific evidence exists regarding some CAM rituals, for most there are key questions that are yet to be answered through well-designed scientific studies—questions such as whether these rituals are safe and whether they have any effect on the real world.

In other news, I am now glad that I opted against studying pharmacognosy - we need more researchers combing molecule-space for useful configurations, but it would sure be a headache at cocktail parties. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. Can you please place a warning before writing this stuff? I snorted my hot coffee laughing so hard. OrangeMarlin 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blah - 5 hic) points for every type of alcohol made from barley - top importance this...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Double hic score if it's green? LeadSongDog (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Green?? Hmmm...I s'pose it is St Patricks Day comin' up soon, so green beers all round ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aww, crap! That made me look up Food color, wherein I found Food color#Natural food dyes listed (under green) chlorella algae which redirected to Chlorella pyrenoidosa. There, I followed a link to find {{PMID|11347287}. If I'm to believe what I read, green beer may turn out to be good for you. I'd better stick to what comes through St James' Gate in its unaltered form.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

poke

hey OM, didn't know if you'd be interested in this — Ched ~ 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you're going to be accused of that huge canard, wait for it, ..........canvasing. GASP. OrangeMarlin 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. yea, but I thought you guys got along fairly well, so I was hoping to sneak one in ;) — Ched ~ 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

FYI, see the comments for oppose #1. Baseball Bugs isn't really 13-years-old and says that he is over 18. Apparently, Bugs Bunny (the cartoon character) is 13-and-a-half-years-old and that's the source of the joke. --B (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrrggggggghhhhh. OrangeMarlin 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to rub it in ;-) LeadSongDog (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Would you like salt in that wound sir? LeadSongDog (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny quotes are simply the most useful things in life. Duck season!!!!! OrangeMarlin 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thwee and a half years old" is also Tweety Bird's catch phrase.---I'm Spartacus! 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometime try putting your Google user prefs to use a language setting of Elmer Fudd for a while. Save this for a time when you need to laugh.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, I went ahead and restored, struck and indented your !vote. There is a long standing convention at RfA that when a vote changes, that we do not delete it. We don't even delete pointy !votes made by vandals. The only time I've seen an !vote deleted was when it was a blatant personal attack and the person who made it did the deleting, but only after several 'crats and admins commented on it---and I've only seen that once. A struck !vote, shifting to support, is actually a positive and more profound by leaving your original oppose. It shows that A) you were listening to the discussion and that B) others might have made the same logical mistake. Thus, it is very helpful in reviewing the RfA to have the entire history present and not hidden by deleting comments.---I'm Spartacus! 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just an idiot in not reading carefully enough. If I thought it was worthwhile, I'd delete the contribution and hide it from anyone every seeing it.  :) Anyways, I was just a bit frustrated with the whole thing, and thanks for helping out. OrangeMarlin 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I've already walked away from ANI. It's off my watch list. The useful criticism in the No votes (as opposed to the vindictive stuff) has a recurrent theme that I spend too much time there. Ironically, as an admin I would probably spend very little time there, as my offline advisor has pointed out the constant backlog of work that's needed. No matter. Someone will do it, it just won't be me. :) Baseball Bugs 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

my edits are not advertising or disruptive but simpy a counter argument

Unless you believe that wikepedia is a fascist endeavor to control information my recent edits are not advertising. It is clear that you only want to block counter view points. This makes wikepedia look terrible and without any purpose except to force a specific viewpoint down the reader's throat.

Aloemps (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

your presentation is pure bullshit

A buch of atheist fascist asses sitting around forcing their opinions on the public regardless of science, clarity and real objectivity. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Aloemps (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)