| Revision as of 20:17, 27 February 2009 editDave souza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators48,760 edits →answer: +++← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:31, 27 February 2009 edit undoPrussian725 (talk | contribs)410 edits →answerNext edit → | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
| ::You should read what Prussian says about science. You're right, if I debated every irrational creationist comment, I'd have to clone myself. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:05, 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. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::If you diluted yourself x100 thirty three times, each dose would be more powerful!!! . . ], ] 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | :::If you diluted yourself x100 thirty three times, each dose would be more powerful!!! . . ], ] 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I'm sorry if I offended anybody, I really wasn't trying to pick a fight.] (]) 20:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag == | == Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag == | ||
Revision as of 20:31, 27 February 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 Unpublished letters?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)
- Yeah, User:Dr John Pridgeon has much the same list. He says he's behind ALCATSA.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:02, 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)
- 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)
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)
- If you diluted yourself x100 thirty three times, each dose would be more powerful!!! . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 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)
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">