Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 10 April 2008

Archives

/Rules archives 1 /Amusing Vandalism /Medical 1 /Miscellaneous 1 /Miscellaneous 2 /Miscellaneous 3 /Religion 1 /Religion 2 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 1 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 2 /Archives 1 /Archives 2 /Archives 3 /Archives 4 /Archives 5 /Archives 6 /Test page

Watching Anti-Science POV admin candidates

• None for now.

Articles on Quackademic Medicine

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)

anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelan 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical articles

Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA:

• Alzheimer's Disease
• Rotavirus

Idea

I was going to suggest Night of the Living Dead as it is a critique of racism and a zombie movie all in one article, but someone's already got it to featured status.

You haven't got schizophrenia in yer list of good med articles. Vaughan and I have busted a gut balancing and watching it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your red link. Don't block me :) Dammit Calisber, I'm a doctor not a psychiatrist. :D OrangeMarlin 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaawwwwwww....we're real doctors too......Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Can you please explain your edit to Chiropractic that reverted my last edit using TW? You did not provide much of an explanation, nor did you contribute via the talk page about the relevant edit, where there is a section devoted to the issue. No consensus has been reached on adding that section into the article at this point in time. Thanks, DigitalC (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about I not? I do not get involved in talk pages, because of tendentious discussion that bore the shit out of me. Never ever again come to my talk page with a rude uncivil comment. Thank you for your participation. OrangeMarlin 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about my request for comment. DigitalC (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone on their talk page why they did not contribute to a discussion is, in fact, uncivil. I don't participate in discussions because of long-winded discussions that get nowhere. OrangeMarlin 06:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must really dislike you...

New, fresh report (already declined) at WP:AN3. seicer | talk | contribs 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. Malformed, incorrect, silly, vengeful...oh well. Thanks Seicer, but now he'll think another admin is protecting me. Sigh. OrangeMarlin 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still a lot of activity. Please continue to keep an eye. El_C 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just caught up with the astonishing un/blocking. I'm at a loss for words. El_C 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what I should do. I despise racism in any form, and I think those who allow it either actively or passively get stained by evil of it. There was a chain of events that was appalling. An racist editor was whitewashing the KKK article, and after several warnings was blocked for 48 hours. Hersfold came out of nowhere to unblock the racist, and gave this feel good warning to not edit the topic. That's when all hell broke loose. And Hersfold's reply was one of those excuse filled diatribes that doesn't smell right. He should be tossed out of the project, but we'll see. Then Firs, who's been battling me in the past by whining at Misplaced Pages Review gets his revenge by blocking me. Not sure how that helped the matter, since I, who was trying to keep racism out of the KKK article gets blocked, and useless racists, G_d Save the South (or some such nonsense) gets unblocked. Not quite sure how that made the project better, but I guess I'm not worth of such knowledge. The upshot is, Hersfold may or may not be a bad person, but he does believe that civility makes a person right, no matter how horrible that person is. Misplaced Pages sucks sometimes. But, I stand by my actions. Supporting racism is justified morally, especially here at Misplaced Pages. I have to put up with Creationists, Homeopathy potion promoters, holocaust deniers, global warming apologists, Alternative medicine nutjobs, and every freak who has a fringe theory to promote--but racism is just not going to be tolerated by me.OrangeMarlin 06:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the politically correct, CIVIL at all cost policy going awry. I am going to be shining a light on this. A bright light. There are lots of things wrong with this "CIVIL Trumps Everything Else" policy, and this is just one more example.

It is amazing to me how people just refuse to think for themselves. Someone at the top states "CIVIL is really important", which it is, now that we are a very prominent website and web destination. After all, who wants to read in the New York Times that admins are using the "f word" against poor newbies? Of course that will cause negative press and media fallout.

However, you do not think that blocking someone for calling someone else a racist in these circumstances will cause a problem in the media? You do not think that some of the other aspects of Wikiculture might not look strange from the outside? I could make a long list, and believe me, in the court of public opinion we would end up in a LOT of trouble. A lot more trouble than an admin using the "f bomb".--Filll (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that policy requires compliance with Florida law in order to protect WP servers.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means. They cheat Democrats of being elected President?  :) OrangeMarlin 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I'd very much like to support you in this matter, but your post above makes it very difficult for me to do that. I'm not sure how to express this concern. From what I'm seeing here, blocking you didn't make much sense, and something does need to be done about someone whitewashing the KKK article. Would you be open to making it easier for admins such as myself to take up your case? I look forward to being your ally. We can communicate by email, if you prefer; mine is enabled. -GTBacchus 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your email. If the post is about my joke regarding Florida and elections, then I hope you understand it's a joke. If it's my rant about racists and admins who think it's appropriate to unblock racists, I'm not sure what to say. Is there a case "against" me? If there is, no one has mentioned it to me. I would hope that we were allies just being on the same side of these things. If you want me to be civil to racists, to admins who unblocked racists, or to admins who block me in revenge, I'm not sure I'm willing to be that kind of editor. OrangeMarlin 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My email? Did I email you? I'm not posting about your Florida joke, and I'm not aware of a "case against you". I would like to see Misplaced Pages deal effectively with people pushing racist agendas. If we can be effective by being civil, then I support civility. If we can be effective by being uncivil, then I support incivility.

Your longer post above makes it very difficult for me to stand up and say, "OM is right," because you've included, along with your very good points, extraneous stuff that I can't agree with. Fortunately, that stuff is extraneous, and the baby won't suffer from losing the bathwater. I think it's worthwhile to pitch a position in such a way that people can sign on to the substantive point without getting distracted.

Maybe, this being your talk page, you aren't trying to advance a position that you would want people to support, I don't know. -GTBacchus 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My poor brain. I read "email" in your post, and starting to think email, then wrote email, when I meant "post." I suck at multi-tasking (reading Misplaced Pages, posting changes, reading corporate email, arguing with my CFO about salaries, calling our sales reps to get stories right, dealing with an employee who sexually harassed another employee, smoking pot, replying to GTBacchus). LOL. Sorry, I'm whining! Well, I could redact the bathwater above, but I think there's a logical chain of events from the blocking of a racist to the blocking of me, albeit for 8.754 nanoseconds. My point, and I'm in violation of WP:POINT, is that civility should not trump anything, including racism, POV-pushing, fringe theories, tendentious editing, etc. I agree that being civil to newbies (but only until they violate any of those other items), being civil to 90.3% of admins, being civil to other editors, etc. But I'll sign up with a position that makes what I say nicer! OrangeMarlin 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard put to find anyone who actually thinks that civility should trump any of our content policies. There's simply no conflict between them, so there's no question of "trumping". At what point does one have to make a choice between being neutral and being civil? I've never seen such a thing. Maybe I'm missing something, but I want to make NPOV, RS, V, etc, stronger, by taking away the ability of tendentious editors to trip us up with our own policies. I think you can remain true to what you believe, get good work done more effectively, and enable others to support you more easily.

Would you be civil to a racist if it made them go away more quickly than being uncivil? Is it more important to win, or to see that people are correctly identified as "racist"? What if there's a conflict between the two? -GTBacchus 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that I was not uncivil to racists. I agree with your position. I only got uncivil to the admin who decided to unblock the racist. So, my point was that Hersfold chose to unblock the racist nutjob because the racist nutjob said he'd be civil. And if anything, said racist nutjob wasn't blocked for uncivil commentary, but for being a racist nutjob. (Yes, I'm being uncivil now, but it's all out in the open). Sooooo, I guess I'm really on board with you. OrangeMarlin 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, largely. I would note that being a racist nutjob is not grounds for blocking. The day we block someone for being a racist, Misplaced Pages is over. If someone should be blocked, it's not because they're racist, but because their editing constitutes disruption. It sucks to be the guy standing there calling him a racist when it doesn't help to do so, and it does rob you of the moral high ground. On the other hand, if you stick to talking about his disruptive editing, then you'll stay spotless, and you'll bring more attention to the real problem, which is the bad edits.

Anyway, did you find that being uncivil with the admin who unblocked the racist was helpful? Would you recommend it, to someone in a similar situation? (This is not a loaded question - I'll accept "yes" as an answer, if that's your feeling about it.) -GTBacchus 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. What is a "global warming apologist"? Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"It's the sun! It's the urban heat island! No, it's natural fluctuations! No, maybe it's cosmic rays! It's a liberal conspiracy to blow hair dryers on all the world's thermometers! It's the oceans! Oh please dear God, let it be anything but CO2!" Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's Florida cheating Gore out of the Presidency. But it's possible I'm still in denial.  :) OrangeMarlin 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey OM

Just to be prudent, I recently voted at R. Baley's RfA and I mentioned a situation you were involved with. I probably wasn't happy with your edits there, but not to the extent to involve myself and I'm glad the situation has blown over. The vote has to do with my thoughts of Baley and are not meant to be insinuatory to you or anyone else. I have spoke with you in the past via talk page, and believe you are accepting of things that may mention some of your edits in a critical sense. Mostly I am just letting you know I mentioned you. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely get worried about someone commenting on me. Although B thought I was a woman. That freaked me out. OrangeMarlin 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. I insinuated that you were a Witch... I'll change that to Warlock. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You all are sending me to the shrink. My sexuality is confusing apparently. Grrrrrr. OrangeMarlin 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, after a bit of thought, I believe it prudent to reply to you, because you should understand all of the underlying facts before passing judgement on me. First, I can't remember how I got dragged over to KKK (because frankly I stay away from articles that sicken me). I believe it was because there was an editor, now indefinitely blocked, who made a blatant anti-Semitic comment in the talkspace. I put an AN/I up about it, not expecting anything to happen, and I guess the comments were so sickening that there appeared to be a rush to block him. I started watching the page, which of course is an FA, and I reverted anything that appeared to be an NPOV violation or whitewashing. Another editor GordonUS (talk · contribs) ended up being blocked a couple of times for edit-warring. Then God Save the South (talk · contribs) joined in the fray, reverting edits. GSTS's edits appeared to me that he was a member of the KKK, if not closely affiliated. At the time he went crazy in his edits, I was sleeping, and I woke up to see he was blocked. Excellent job. Then Hersfold (talk · contribs) unblocked him without consulting the original blocking admin, without, from my perspective, reading the edits of GSTS or without asking other editors what was going on. So, he unblocked him with some crap that GSTS was civil and deserved a second chance. But he needed to not edit KKK for a while. I was appalled at the idea, so I left a semi-civil response to Hersfold about his choice. Hersfold, instead of owning up to a huge mistake, chose to attack me for: 1) not reading carefully, 2) not giving him good faith, 3) some other crap that doesn't mean much to me. What I saw was that Civility trumped racism in the moral code of Misplaced Pages, at least from hersfold's POV. I did not call Hersfold a racist until such time he pushed me too far. I stated that giving comfort to a racist was no different than being a racist, so I guess you could assume some sort of logical progression, but it was not direct. Hersfold was absolutely mistaken in what he did, and in a perfect world, he would have admitted to it. I would say that Hersfold's maturity in this matter is suspect given the fact that he did not own up to the list of mistakes he made, especially unblocking a racist of the ilk of GSTS. GSTS should be blocked for COI (being a member of the KKK), for personal attacks, for tendentious editing, etc. etc. Hersfold was very wrong.

With respect to my block, Firsfron of Ronchester (talk · contribs) aka Firs, decided to block me as I decided to leave Hersfold to his own conscience, and quit bothering him. I used to be tight with Firs, but in late January, he posted a rather rude and critical remark about me on a Misplaced Pages attack site, Misplaced Pages Review. He stated that he would not support an RfA for me, but given that I don't want to be an admin, especially since controversy and maturity aren't a requirement for admins these days, it was rather a silly remark on his part. Moreover, he had his facts wrong on WR (which is why he posted there, so a diff can't be used against him). A number of editors, including other admins, were disappointed in his behavior. I believe his block of me was merely a revenge block, and had no basis in fact. And he had to realize any block of me wouldn't stand very long, considering the whole point of the controversy was the unblocking of a known racist who was destroying the KKK article.

I personally believe that WP:CIVIL is being used by the fringe nutjobs on Misplaced Pages to further their agenda. Therefore, I take a personal standpoint that as long as the morally corrupt (say GSTS) or admins who lack moral fortitude prefer Civility over scholarship, Civility over racism or anti-Semitism, or Civility over NPOV, then I have no use for civility. You ought to know I will not attack anyone who is willing to engage in a logical discussion. But if there is an agenda, I have no use for it. It's a game that others can play. OrangeMarlin 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a thoughtful response. It's certainly a lot to think about. I think, at the core levels, I agree with just about everything you state. I probably have more faith in civility than you do, but that's not to imply that you haven't had struggles with overzealous, incorrect enforcement of it. I see you as having some sort of an agenda here in the project, of course never to POV edit articles, but unfortunately it comes with dramatic protection and debate against those who disagree -- racists and the like. Your rigorous defense of what you believe to be right is often admirable -- although in the end I'm not sure of the overall good of going into the trenches for vicious debate with people as such. In terms of the KKK issue, I just don't see it handled well anywhere. Once GSTS was unblocked, the civil, semi-civil, or uncivil comments you made to Hersfold weren't really going to help the issue. In terms of games, the whole thing turned into a game, a charade, a war, when some civility early on may have just lead to Hersfold looking bad, the KKK page staying protected and GSTS left to do as he will. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, you're missing a few key points about civility of this block/unblock that should allow you to see it a bit more from my perspective:

• My first comment, though not necessarily nice and was necessarily sarcastic, called him on the carpet about GSTS.
• Blocking admin weighs in.
• Uncivil reply from Hersfold, which, unless he meant that I accused GSTS of racism, he should have seen I did not explicitly or implicitly accuse Hersfold of racism. I did accuse him of not knowing what he was doing.
• Uncivil attack which set me over the edge.
• Others weighing in.

Don't blame me for all of the problem. Hersfold made a huge error. Instead of being mature about it, he escalated the situation. OrangeMarlin 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that, if one positive comes out of this whole thing, people are made much more aware of Save the South's editing pattern (among other, more seedy, aspects of his presence here) and the overall recent attempt to whitewash the KKK article. The more eyes on that article, the better. After all, it is an FA and is supposed to be the best work of our editors. Not protecting it is simply comical. Hersfold's unblock was abhorrent as was the kneejerk response by an admin who frankly has personal beef with OM. Baegis (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First "you're missing a few key points" -- I rather dislike these first-sentence-of-replies from editors. I followed the situation in it's entirety. I don't think anything in my comments indicate I missed or don't understand something. Secondly, and more importantly, you wrote "Don't blame me for all of the problem." -- I didn't. In fact I explicitly said "In terms of the KKK issue, I just don't see it handled well anywhere." I thought Hersfold was more or less horrible, as well as Firs, as well as a few of the side-commenting editors. I think I've implied that I agree with your intentions but thought your incivility -- in addition to others -- just turned it into a "game" that you state you don't want to play in. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I'm rather defensive about this situation, because the point continues to be Hersfold unblocked a well-known racist and KKK-apologist (I mean well-known to Misplaced Pages), and this isn't about me. How it became about me is Firs insisted on a revenge block, and now Badgerpatrol, who has warred with me in the past, has felt it necessary to chime in (in a constructive way, so I have no complaint), which, again, makes it about me, not about Hersfold, GSTS and racism. OrangeMarlin 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, because I have neither interest nor knowledge of this particular incident. Racist editors obviously have no place on Misplaced Pages and I suppose regular editors acing in good faith can rightly expect a certain leeway in dealing with them. But as to your specific points above; (Misplaced Pages Review link redacted for privacy) this is the post on Misplaced Pages review by Firsfron that OM refers to, subsequently replied to and discussed e.g. here. In fact, I barely know Firsfron, and he has annoyed me a little bit in the past as well to be quite honest. However, he has never struck me as the sort of individual to block someone as an act of revenge, and indeed has always been courteous and polite- sometimes to the point of inaction in fact, and particularly to Orangemarlin. I've never seen any evidence that he has any kind of "beef" with OM- in fact quite the opposite. Again, I take no sides here except to assert the facts and perhaps stick up for the reputation of Firs, who seems to be a decent admin. OM, please feel free to delete this post if you feel it's unconstructive. Badgerpatrol (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Save for the point that Badgerpatrol has "battled" me (through an AN/I and some strong editing disagreements) in the past, I guess this is fair. I am deleting his links to Misplaced Pages Review, since they track IP addresses, and will, whenever possible, out Misplaced Pages editors. Otherwise, I will not edit your post, although I strongly disagree with your assessment of Firs' motives. OrangeMarlin 20:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back since you are all completely correct. The first thing I would do is site ban anyone who frequents WR. Anyone. These are not people who are interested in rational discourse or building an encyclopedia. And there is no reason to keep that sort of person here. And I stand by what I wrote on Firs' page. I am disgusted. I remain disgusted. And now, more than ever. Pure revenge block, as near as I can tell. Just bull. Shameful. He should be desysopped and given a nice long vacation from the site to think about it.--Filll (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my problem with Misplaced Pages Review. Firs thought he could come here and take out a revenge block, because what's said on WR doesn't count. The problem with the discussion on WR is that he and his anti-Misplaced Pages crowd were plainly and flatly wrong. Some editor, who claimed to be a physician was making edits to Pregnancy that were neither good nor bad. However, they were messing up the WP:MEDMOS layout to write it in a manner that they wanted. No matter how many times we asked them to look over MEDMOS, they refused. And the nutjobs at WR claimed that how dare we run off a physician editing the article. What the fuck am I? A auto mechanic? Firs failed to point out these facts, and just proceeded to attack me there. It was a revenge block, plain and simple. OrangeMarlin 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maternity clothing

I put up a page about maternity clothing which went through the history of maternity clothing and then I placed a reference of where I got the information. I imagined that pregnant patients would like to read about maternity clothing so I added a link from the pregnancy site. My link kept disappearing so I replaced it. I am new to[REDACTED] I didn't realize this was upsetting you, whoever you are. In any case I receive a message that maternity clothing is not relevant to pregnancy which is bizarre. If you think that my page had something wrong with it then edit it and remove what you don't like. Instead you send me a warning that it will be deleted soon and 10 seconds later its gone. I am new to[REDACTED] and I assure you when I spend an hour of my time researching a topic and writing up a page which is a lot better than the one line they had on the maternity page and you just delete it, you are creating an environment which does not make members want to contribute. Now if you tell me what is wrong with my page and give me a chance to edit it or defend it I would be happy to do that for you.

thank you for you time,
Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmasri (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Please weigh in here if you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the edits you have made on Talk:Doctor of Medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It is not usual to template regulars, but your insistence on removing a censor tag is getting ridiculous. Don't go further.

Bryan Hopping 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move! OrangeMarlin 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he feels that the osteopathic doctors are being censored. As for actual instances where this has happened.... none has been forthcoming. - Nunh-huh 07:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel so much better. So there might be some instance where there might be some censoring? I'm convinced. Maybe not. OrangeMarlin 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI

The use of the word "controversial" to describe Haeckel's drawings has been an unchallenged part of his article since Oct 28, 2006. 67.135.49.254 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't watch Haeckel's article and I've never edited it. OrangeMarlin 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is in reference to your edit here and your warning. 67.135.49.254 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dude, I call them as I see them. The word "controversial" can be used to push a POV. I'm not a historian, so I don't check links, I just check what seems right. As for the "warning", if you're going to make changes put it in the edit summary, so people like me, who scan medical articles for vandalism, POV-pushing and the such, know what's being attempted. I also would suggest that given your knowledge here, get an account, and become a regular editor. No need to be anonymous (I mean you can be anonymous with an account, just not using an IP address). What say you? OrangeMarlin 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I need a second opinion

Hello, I was wondering if you could just give a quick look over User:Zero g's contributions and tell me whether I'm off my rocker, or if his/her edits seem to push a rather racist POV. I've been trying to revert some of them, but I'd appreciate a sanity check, and you come across as a very level-headed, no-nonsense editor. If you don't have the time, I'll understand too. If you do look at his edits and find that I'm just too easily offended, please also be honest and tell me.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. The last time I fought a racist, my talk page was clogged with posts. But we can't allow them around. I'll check it out. OrangeMarlin 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• This edit alone makes me think that Zero g has racist leanings. Shockley, who was completely discredited as a racist when I was in Medical school and graduate school, 30 years ago, was a racist pure and simple. Zero g's edits here seems to neutralize the implied criticism. He makes Shockley out to be a fine scholar who's just worried about the world.
• This edit removes the scientific basis of the refutation of Gillhallen's theories. That's pushing a racist-POV.
• Here's another edit that pushes a POV.
• He has a fascination with right wing Dutch politicians as seen here who have racist attitudes. And calling people out who have "inferior English skills"? Oh come on.

I think there is evidence that Zero S' edits support a racist POV. Now I have to watch his edits. Sigh. OrangeMarlin 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the sanity check. :) I'm keeping an eye on him myself.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman and Homeopathy

You think you hate it, try actually dealing with that kind of discussion every bloody day =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article's lead stay relatively neutral (meaning that it states that Homeopathy is not scientific even slightly), I try to stay away. OrangeMarlin 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I mostly avoid it. Ugh.--Filll (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)