Misplaced Pages

User talk:Orangemarlin

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dlabtot (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 15 February 2008 (Thuja occidentalis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:52, 15 February 2008 by Dlabtot (talk | contribs) (Thuja occidentalis)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
* Click here to leave me a new message
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
Archiving icon
Archives

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.

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)
  • 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)

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:

What? No more evolution??

Holy cow. You are kidding!--Filll (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking with medical articles only. That's my skill-set. I really don't understand the philosophy of creationism, I just think they're all psycho-nutjobs. Even the Quackademic medical articles are only going to get my attention with regards to RS and NOR. I'm not going to try to rewrite them. There are a lot of articles in Medicine that need attention. OrangeMarlin 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The end of evolution? On Darwin Day!! What doth this portend??? Of course the attention to medicine is most welcome, and I for one hope you can woo[REDACTED] off woo :) . . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Pill / Blue Pill

Greetings. I just stumbled across your profile and your responses in the post about "strategies for better editing" (on this page) have given me some hope. You look like an editor who knows how to effectively argue and hold a neutral position and so I am asking if you would like to be of assistance in a discussion. I consider this to be serious challenge (otherwise I wouldn't be approaching you), the outcome of which could fix one of the worst article's on the Misplaced Pages system.

I'll get straight to the point. I first wish to propose a few questions that are relevant to the discussion I seek your assistance on.

1) What is more important to you in deciding the outcome of a group discussion: Neutrality or Majority? (saying "both" is not an option)
2) Do you believe that all countries within the English-speaking world have different languages and cultures and that, while influenced by each other, are wholly independent?
3) Within the Misplaced Pages system. if you had to go against your countrymen's opinions, because evidence (or a lack thereof) indicates another more rational explanation, would you do so?

You will forgive the anonymous post, but I don't want to draw attention to the struggle until I know you wish to assist. There is a war going on and your help and expertise could be invaluable. If you want to help then please answer the questions. I shall check back here regularly until you have. If you don't want to help then please just say so and that will be the end of the matter.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.56.79 (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I love this place. MastCell  22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't responded, because honestly, this is the oddest post, of thousands of odd posts, I've ever read. I did a Whois, and I can't figure it out. Some University apparently. OrangeMarlin 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I particularly enjoy when people are clearly addressing a specific situation, but ask questions couched in leading generalities instead of asking direct questions. It's kind of like when people come to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask: "Is a newspaper known to publish the works of a plagiarist and compulsive liar a reliable source?" When you answer, "Er... sounds like no?" they say: "Aha! I've removed the New York Times citation per discussion at WP:RS/N!"
And the pedant in me cannot help but point out the incongruity of two items being both "influenced by each other" and "wholly independent". MastCell  22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's why I'm sticking with the science and medicine articles. Mostly, there's no problem there, although I dislike some editors who delete sections by saying "the source does not state that." Of course, a quick PubMed search finds 100 other sources, so I've got to spend time rewriting and re-adding. But that's a minor whine compared to "yes water has a memory of the compounds even after multiple dilutions." OrangeMarlin 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well boys, I'm hedging my bets and taking the purple pill. •Jim62sch• 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
:-) Shot info (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarification
Ok, maybe I was so vague in the original post that the questions I posed had no context in which they could be interpreted. It was an attempt at being concise (I have been accused too often of waffling) and it failed miserably. I apologise for wasting your time the first time and I shall have one more attempt.
Misplaced Pages's core policy of Concensus is a cornerstone of editing and is designed ensure that changes to articles are made with as much agreement from differing parties as possible before making the article. However, the policy relies on one crucial property which is not mentioned in any policy, and that is that the ideological, geographical, educational, cultural, linguistic, etc. breakdown of all the editors of an article should match that of the article's intended audience. In the case that the composition of editors of an international article (for example) does not roughly match the composition of that article's intended international audience, the consensus system can still succeed but only if the editors who are present can impartially represent, in addition to their own interests, the interests of other countries or cultures whose editors are not present and so ensure that the article is balanced with regard to its intended audience.
Many articles on English Misplaced Pages are only written by citizens of the United States. This is a fact, and it is visible in the almost exclusively American grammar and vocabulary that is used in most article's texts, the comments of the editors of those articles in the talk pages, as well as the mostly US locations of references and contextual links used to verify information in articles. All well and good for articles that actally pertain to the United States, but where there is a problem is where these editors are writing articles in their own culturally native style about, or including, other countries in the English-speaking world and are getting away with it due to the Consensus policy. In cases where a single person from outside of the US tries to fight this "consensus", the arguments become bitter and racially oriented, even where there is hard, tangible evidence that points to reasonable and rational conclusions just due to the fact that a large number of people equals "consensus". English Misplaced Pages is becoming a racist place where the cultures of other countries in the English-speaking world are being quashed within a system that gives off this aura of being completely harmonious and neutral.
Do you now understand the motive for asking those questions? The concensus system has failed the article in question as the editors are all from a geographically and culturally-select minority (when compared to the article's intended audience) and they are overruling a (seemingly) lone representative and the interests of the rest of the English-speaking world that they stand for. Tactics include racist slurs, intimidation on personal pages, and deliberately lethargic administrators who show partiality to a select few and condone the aforementioned behaviour. I don't know where you from or anything about you, and you don't know where I'm from or anything about me. And, to be honest, it bears absolutely no relevance at all to our ability to be able to work together to help fix an article that is seriously biased. All I know is that you have shown considerable ability to be neutral and apply logic, facts, Misplaced Pages policy, and common sense to help achieve a good level of neutrality in other articles, which are crucial attributes to have in an editor where national bias has become a problem.
The bottom line is, will you help? I'm sure my faith in you is not misplaced. I would be grateful if you would reconsider the three above questions exclusively within the context I have explained. I'm sorry to have taken up your time again, but if you don't wish to be of assistance then please say so.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.56.30 (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

It is more accurate and helpful to describe the Victoria Cross as being similar to the MOH, and also to point out that it is the highest award for valour not only of Commonwealth nations, but specifically of the United Kingdom. It seems like only one person is changing my edits; is this not the case? Also, HOW is the style unusual or difficult to understand. If you tell me, I can change it to be more easily understood.

Your heading on Matt Lewis' Talk page.

I'm not sure you have my Talk page on your watchlist?

Your highly-personal and grossly rude heading of "Are you just naturally rude?" seriously needs addressing. It was simply uncalled for - all I did was change your edit. My edit was regarding depression in the context of pre-dementia Alzheimer's, and was absolutely nothing to do with what you describe as "Alternative medicine nutjobs"! I simply corrected a mistake on the page. Please attend to my response to your comment, or I will report your behaviour. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tower Green

It was on Commons in the Tower of London cat - I didn't look long & there may be others, but that seemed to do the job - a nice rainy London day! Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on homeopathy

My edits were copy edits to improve readability of the article. I hope you weren't implying anything to the contrary? Let's take one example of your bulk revert which I think resulted in a worse article. My edit:

Homeopaths say that serial dilution in water, sugar or alcohol, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while retaining its qualities.

Your edit:

According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol).

Would you mind explaining to me why your edit is to be preferred? I'll copy this to the talkpage. So perhaps you'd like to explain there. Mccready (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this otherwise justified revert, did you really mean to restore the following bit of text which I had removed: "This last study in the words of a medical review has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61 Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo."? Whether the idea expressed in the paragraph belongs in the article is one thing, but either way, in its current form the quote needs attribution and citation, which is why I removed it. Yilloslime (t) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thuja occidentalis

It would be helpful if you would participate in the discussion of your contributions to this article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Orangemarlin Add topic