→December 2007: agf |
Raymond arritt (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
:::I keep smelling a dirty sock. I wonder why? I've got to do some laundry over at RfCU soon. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
:::I keep smelling a dirty sock. I wonder why? I've got to do some laundry over at RfCU soon. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] when dealing with other editors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, which you did not on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-agf2 -->[[User:Ra2007|Ra2007]] ([[User talk:Ra2007|talk]]) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
::::{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] when dealing with other editors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, which you did not on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-agf2 -->[[User:Ra2007|Ra2007]] ([[User talk:Ra2007|talk]]) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::See [[WP:AAGF]]. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:53, 14 December 2007
|
|
-
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 Wikipedia. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
-
You are retentive and obsesive. Now have a cookie. Tim Vickers 23:12, 6 July 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)
-
The Original Dinosaur Barnstar
For all your work on Petey, Holly, Katie, and hundreds of other articles. Happy 10,000th edit! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) -
Thanks for being an ultraviolet ray of sunshine on Wikipedia, energetically fighting for encyclopedic standards while not letting yourself or your good humour be censored. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 14:19, December 5, 2007
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 barley 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 Talk 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 Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden talk 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; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In case you're bored...
Check out this edit. It's been fun!!!! :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi OM!
- Happy 10k! What a great milestone! :)
Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ]]
- Congratulations, and, uncharacteristically, it wasn't a vitriolic post to a Christian user on a user or talk page. Make No Name (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon? OM's pretty much an equal opportunity editor when it comes to vitriol -- if you deserve it, you get it. While we're at it though, since you singled out the Paulists, is it safe to assume that vitriol leveled at Muslims, Buddhists, Siks, Hindus and so on would be okey-dokey? •Jim62sch• 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interestingly, how could someone who registered their account on December 7, 2007, know anything about what I have or haven't done? I actually don't leave vitriol on any user talk page about Christians, unless they try to shove their mythology down my throat. Oops. That might be vitriolic. Does anyone else smell a sock? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's rather pungent and I detect the odor of Trichophyton rubrum: does that make it a sock? No doubt that is it is it's a holey one ... er, I mean holy one. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the interest of accuracy, let it be noted that our negative namemaker friend referred to "a vitriolic post to a Christian user". Though why there should be any objection to such posts to people who use Christians is beyond me. Wonder who they are – the DI certainly fit the description... Anyway, congrats to OM, relax and enjoy that bevvy. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon? OM's pretty much an equal opportunity editor when it comes to vitriol -- if you deserve it, you get it. While we're at it though, since you singled out the Paulists, is it safe to assume that vitriol leveled at Muslims, Buddhists, Siks, Hindus and so on would be okey-dokey? •Jim62sch• 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations, and, uncharacteristically, it wasn't a vitriolic post to a Christian user on a user or talk page. Make No Name (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is a very good article. I learnt something from it and I have been in the business a long time. I thought you might move History back. I put it at the top of Rotavirus and Hepatitis B virus and no-one has told me off yet. (Still time). In my humble opinion, I would get the various names of the wretched virus over and done with somewhere near the top and then just stick to virus from then on. It never changes - always the same virus. The article FA will get my support eventually because it has enlightened me, and, for me, that's more than enough. But I am not going to be first to show support because I am a known Newbie and the Wiki folk who evaluate the article know this. Best of luck to you--GrahamColmTalk 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, I just spotted your discussion on Sandy's talk page. As you may have noticed, I've gone through the refs, adding URLs to free online journals, fixing punctuation, ndashes, etc. I believe the convention is to not add URLs for paid-for journal articles (the DOI or PMID will do). Diberri's tool is great if you like the templates, but I suspect the finer points of URLs are beyond it (e.g., if there are two free sources, as is often the case if the article is also at PubMedCentral). As for DOI, I've always found it redundant if you have a PMID. Following a link to an abstract is more useful than a page demanding money. If I get time, I'll review the article text. I think it needs some work, but nothing you can't fix I'm sure. Colin°Talk 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- doi's usually just point to abstracts, not paid-for journals. PMID is a very poor tool for non-medical science journals, where I mostly spend my time. That's why I'm looking for a doi tool. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
et al
Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Citing medical sources. In keeping with WP's relaxed attitude to formatting citations, this doesn't force any particular convention. It mentions the two common medical styles (AMA/Vancouver), which both limit author lists to six before worrying about et al. I prefer the Vancouver style of six, then et al rather than hacking back to three. Currently, Herpes zoster appears a little undecided, with examples of both. If you really prefer the full list, I can't see any reason to object. A really long list of authors is distracting and hard to read IMO. Whatever you decide, the article should be consistent. Colin°Talk 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to admit a high level of anality (is that a word?) with regards to author lists. I like knowing if a critical author is involved with the article. In fact, the 9th or 10th author in one reference is a well-known individual in the study of Herpes zoster. But, seriously, I don't think I'd get worked up one way or another. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only shorten them to conserve space and follow convention; please revert me if you want them back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can I revert just to be mean and curmudgeonly? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. Reverts must be done with an edit summary that includes WP:Something, and we don't yet have WP:CURMUDGEON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then Wikipedia just isn't very useful. I quit. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. Reverts must be done with an edit summary that includes WP:Something, and we don't yet have WP:CURMUDGEON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can I revert just to be mean and curmudgeonly? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only shorten them to conserve space and follow convention; please revert me if you want them back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
lysine
No, you're not a "complete idiot" but I was surprised that you would use a such a lame and "peripherally related" study.
I've got a whole bunch of comments on the article, and I'm only 2/3 through. I'm unsure whether to add them to the FAC, the talk page or your talk page. I've every confidence that you'll be able to address or rationally ignore my queries/suggestions. Where would you like me to dump them? Can you let me know ASAP? Colin°Talk 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've dropped them on the HZ talk page. Don't feel you have to cross them all off. A suggestion may be misguided or your different opinion equally valid. Hope you find it useful. Colin°Talk 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrt your reputation on complementary medicine, I wondered if ref 2 (Weaver 2007) was a private joke? You only use it once and could have used any number of other sources for that sentence. My lay impression from skimming it is that it is actually quite a good and up-to-date review that could have been used more. It is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Colin°Talk 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit seems to have merged two refs and linked the wrong URL to the ref. JFW has since removed the URL, but I wonder now whether the text<-->source(s) match is correct. Colin°Talk 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- With regards to Weaver, Osteopathy, to me, is a perfectly respectable group. They attend a "medical school", are licensed to dispense medication (at least here in California), have to go through residency. I do not consider them "alternative", just plain old medicine. Definitely not a private joke, and actually the article is quite good. With regards to the edit, apparently I was trying to clean up the reference (once again, my anality does not like the vertical references). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:20, 13 December 2007 (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 Talk• Contributions 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 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)
December 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh come on, why would you do this Tim? You know I know this issue, and I have NEVER violated it, nor have I ever gamed the system. Moreover, I believe I have the right to revert edits that constitute vandalism. Which this was. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not a vandal, and none of my edits were vandalism. Please refrain from personal attacks. Curious Blue (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have been asked to stay off my page. Now do so. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I keep smelling a dirty sock. I wonder why? I've got to do some laundry over at RfCU soon. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.Ra2007 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:AAGF. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.Ra2007 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not a vandal, and none of my edits were vandalism. Please refrain from personal attacks. Curious Blue (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)