Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 17 January 2008 (→Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution: warn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 /Test page

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)
• 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)

tools for checking refs?

Hi, I think i saw some back 'n forth between you 'n Sandy 'n Colin about tools for checking references... I would be very interested in learning anything you've learned (both now & in the future). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here. There are two great tools for checking references. The first, older one, is user:Gimmetrow's Reference Fixer, located here. The talk page has instructions on how to install and use it. It is a wonderful tool for fixing the punctuation so that it precedes the footnote. It also moves citation needed and other such tags to the end of a sentence, all automated. The second, brand-new tool is Dispenser's Linkchecker, which is causing quite a stir on FAC. It uses spider software to search for dead links and references in FACs. It can also be used manually to check individual articles. The link to the spider version for FAC is here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't know you had a sense of humor?????  :) OrangeMarlin 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Process

The instructions for "Wikiquette alerts" say I should inform you that I've posted there about you. Hope it helps. Gnixon (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Already responded to your personal attack and uncivil behavior, and long ago I asked you to keep your comments off of my page. OrangeMarlin 19:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as the POV and content dispute stuff is difficult to wade through, and frustration probably set in long ago, the best way to mess up your side of the argument is to stoop to graphic sexual allusions like this. All you had to do was phrase that without the vulgarity and you would have made a good point. Instead, you're turning the tables on yourself. Try to keep civil, it will help smooth the process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

O.M,

I just saw the Wikiquette alert on you. I'm going to say my peace: don't give in on this! I see the work that folks like you and User:ScienceApologist do, and its important work. I sympathize with the frustration level. But every time someone says something uncivil, it feeds the very people you are working against. That's the simple truth. I wish it weren't. Stuff like that has to stop. They never seem to be frustrated because in the end, they know there is a mechanism on their side to keep you and similar editors at bay over something like civility. People like S.A. gets blocked, andthey go right back to editing based on their own concensus. Please read what Cheeser1 wrote.

Cheeser1 also alludes to another big problem: admins are not consistently knowledgeable enough about science to know when a supporting source is valid or not. Like so much of the rest of the population, they see good peer reviewed references as being "just as good" as some editorial. I'm no admin, but if there is something I can do to help, please drop me a line ...... whether it is weighing on something, or someone to help with any frustration.

Your work is important ...... never forget that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon has a long history of attacking me personally. He had run away, and I was happy with that, but he seems to be back. I have no other way to describe his activity but in a very guttural level. I shall endeavor to stand up to his attacks more professionally. OrangeMarlin 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify Cheeser and LB, I will not shy away from standing up to Gnixons's consitently harsh and condescending personal attacks. But I do agree to be a bit more circumspect in my language with respect to him and his attacks. OrangeMarlin 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Fibromyalgia is getting out of hand. Despite the RFC consensus, Guido continues to stonewall on the issue. Would you mind lending your opinion again to the RFC? Djma12 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Generally speaking, contributing to an existing edit war is inadvisable. First, constant reversion is disruptive, even if an individual editor is responsible only for few of those reverts. Second, please take note of the fact that Djma12 reverted three times and then alerted you and only you -- see Special:Contributions/Djma12. Votestacking is considered disruptive, and responding positively to votestacking is inadvisable.

I encourage all involved to find a resolution to this dispute which does not involve edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido is an edit warrior that's been blocked several times. He gets no AGF from me, and his edits were patently wrong. I did not consider whether Djma12 was canvassing or not, nor do I care. I care that articles aren't destroyed by editors. So, I guess in conclusion, I'm in strong disagreement with your assessment. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lecturing you rudely

What are you talking about? There was nothing rude in my edit summary. Yours however... Evercat (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your response. Have a wonderful day :) OrangeMarlin 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you, and what have you done with OrangeMarlin? MastCell 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Drugs. Drinking. Sex. Rock & Roll. Cures for what ails anyone.  :) OrangeMarlin 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Unless what's ailing you is cirrhosis, chlamydia, tinnitus, or amotivational syndrome... MastCell 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are no fun at all. But luckily for me, I'm so drunk, high, and deaf along with being ravaged by neurosyphilis that I don't care.  :) OrangeMarlin 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you felt I was being rude - however, I merely felt that I was giving a rationale for my edit, in the same way that you yourself made an edit summary giving your rationale for your edit. Evercat (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. These articles are contentious. OrangeMarlin 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knew?

Gee, three kids and no one ever told me to have sex right before delivery because it would make the cervix "riper". Like putting an apple in a bag with unripe tomatoes, presumably. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Who knew? And how do you test it for ripeness? I think there is an article here. Cervical ripeness. Do you think I can get it to GA status quickly? OrangeMarlin 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ripening" is a somewhat medically meaningful, if perhaps overdescriptive, term in this context. In fact, the Cochrane Library, which is sort of the guiding light (or golden calf, depending on your viewpoint) of evidence-based medicine, has a monograph on the subject of intercourse and semen as a "ripening" agent (PMID 11406072, reviewed in AFP at PMID 12776961). I have heard this advice given during my time, long ago, as an impressionable medical student on OB/Gyn. Perhaps those were the sources being sought for the pregnancy article, though the bottom line is that it requires confirmation in a randomized, controlled trial... er... MastCell 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my favorite quote from the Cochrane Library reference: "However, it may prove difficult to standardise sexual intercourse as an intervention." That should go in an article, somewhere. MastCell 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. The things you learn on Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh... my... Yes, I can see how it would "prove difficult" to "standardize" sexual intercourse. Wow. I wonder how many times they copy-edited that before giving up and deciding there was no way to to write it that isn't funny? KillerChihuahua 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Great. Now your little stalker is adding single source fringe theories to Pregnancy, without discussion or acknowledgment that these are challenged edits. Loverly. I expected it from a newbie, and left a friendly little note, but this is POINT-y from an established editor. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm being stalked?  :( OrangeMarlin 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a dense little fishy sometimes, aren't you? :-P KillerChihuahua 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a freaking fish. We have an IQ of about 0.000001. :P OrangeMarlin 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cervical ripening is the correct medical term, used by Obstets and Gynaes the world over. Doesn't matter if you don't like it. It happens to be a proper medical term and has a precise meaning (as in softening, effacement and dilation of the cervix). Thank you. from drrem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page as I have already asked. While it may indeed be the correct term, without a source that is original research. I look forward to your participation on the article talk page, Drrem. KillerChihuahua 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, don't remember it while in Medical School, internship, residency, etc. Of course, there's a joke here. I just am not sure anyone will appreciate it :) OrangeMarlin 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Everything you remember you learned in residency, and that wasn't OB? No idea. What happened to SA? 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology is my knowledge base. Don't smoke. Don't eat bad foods. Exercise. I guess eat ripe apples. That's about it.  :) As for SA, do you mean ScienceApologist? No clue. Maybe the POV warriors wore him down. OrangeMarlin 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

change to evolution page

pls see my discussion on the evolution talk page

Mjharrison (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

As a note, Guido's been reported for 3RR again. Based on his assumptions on my talk page that I have been "bandwagoning," I highly doubt he'll correct his actions even after another block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Hi, Just wondered if your oppose still stands. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

Calling those you disagree with "nutjobs" is hardly appropriate or civil, , don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)