User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives March-April 2011

Welcome Back!

It's really great to see you again, I was afraid we'd lost you. Plus, I really missed having someone around to blame my mistakes on  :) Doc Tropics 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll see if this place still makes me cranky. LOL.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks puppy. If you're still an admin, can you remove Keeper's protection? I haven't done enough lately to cause trolling! LOL OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let me join in on the welcome back. I hope you don't get cranky and leave us again. Again welcome back and have fun this time. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. Look who's back! Good to see you! It's become pretty crazy-making around here, but it's still possible to have some fun in spite of (or because of) the usual miscreants. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't paying close attention today. Welcome home, it's been a bit stark at times here without you. Hope you had a nice break. Now, then, there's work to be done. ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks guys. I have thousands of articles that I'm watching. I can't for the life of me remember why I'm watching some of them. And I think a few people have changed their names. Uh oh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

'nuff said. I have just discovered this, rather nice and maybe in some poncey boutique beer bottleshop nearby.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That smiley is wrong - should be two other colors :) Let the fun begin... Welcome back! Vsmith (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ack. That scared the crap out of me! I need coffee prior to seeing that! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!!!!!!!!!: It thought we were not going to see you around.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You were gone for even longer than I was. Very glad to see you're back. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are you guys? LOL OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to the crowd -- just spotted you at Parkinson's disease. Nice to see you around again. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to stick with the articles I enjoy. But then I run across an admin who has a hard-on about me, 2 years after my last edit, the same crowd getting excited about pseudoscience, and the same level of vandals. But it looks like fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Making your triumphant and very welcome return while I am taking a week or three off for work is not helping the sockpuppet hypothesis any, you know (formerly Eldereft, I do not remember if I made the switch before or after you disappeared on us). - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Hi Orangemarlin,

I agree that citing a particular study in the lede is not the best state of affairs. But we've been combating a concerted attempt by astrologers to water down the identification as pseudoscience with weasel wording such as "considered to be" or "some scientists believe it is" rather than simply "is", so I reverted your last edit to that effect. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your page. But "some scientists believe" is something I can't stand. Scientists don't "believe". Period. I can feel a coronary coming on!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Drama, drama, drama

And someone is already lying about me in some Arb thingy (completely forgot the names of these things). Lucky for me, the diff will be useful someday, somewhere.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And another personal attack from the same person. Add it to the list.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Observing the persecution complex and pseudo-martyr whining of a POV-pushing editor is most amusing. A few more blocks, he'll be editing with one of his socks. Why do we have such patience with the pseudoscience POV crowd? Yet WMC and SA are screwed over. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The whining, pathetic editor now thinks he's the only one who understands WP policy. I hope he gets permanently blocked. Or Short Brigade Harvester Boris puts him in his place. AGAIN. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Creationism

Actually, the "testable predictions" part is not my POV, but part of the definition of "science" used on science mystically stripped out in the definition used on Creationism... IMHO it therefore is appropriate for the page on Creationism, I'd consider it POV to remove it!

Think of gravity. We know that Newtons law of gravity is actually falsified (on atomic scale). But on "earth" scale, the error it makes is so tiny, it still allows for very precise predictions about how things move (and drop ...). In science, things can be falsified and still be scientific, if they at least allow predictions within a certain error. (Because when you actually denote the error, they are not longer false.)

Anyway, that last paragraph here was indeed POV. The definition of science is not my POV, but straight from the page linked in the comments for my change... --87.174.120.4 (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I reverted my reversion. But why don't you register, you obviously can make a good contribution to this place. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sagan

Why did you say not only that I had reverted the article when I didn't but threaten to have me banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceytrout (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Canada

Orangemarlin, the small change I made on this article was to reflect the fact that this march has happened every year for the past thirteen years, not just in May 2010, as it implies. If you read the Globe and Mail article (footnote 7) it verifies this. Any objections to changing it back? Mgunnarson (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if the citation is placed at the text. You should learn how to do that at WP:CITE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia always surprises me - I never knew there were conservatives there, I thought they were all liberal :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Canadian Conservatives are like our liberal Democrats. I was watching your recent election, when I realized that the state supports church sponsored schools. No wonder you guys send us so many creationists. And Mel Gibson.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mel sends you creationists? I thought Arnie's friends raised them locally using unsustainable practices from GMO rootstock. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We have our own cultivars of creationists. The Australian cultivars tend to drink more beer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, Mel Gibson was born over your side, so ye sow as ye shall reap. Oh yeah, the school thing, that is a lively topic here, I could wax lyrical about or weird policies at length, but I want to keep my halo on as a Pillar of the Community... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Born here, raised down under. And you sent us Crocodile Dundee too. Nicole Kidman makes up for it a bit.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the prince of darkness then eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You had to remind me of him. He probably brought several tons of vegemite.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to self

Don't watch policy pages like WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, etc. It's where the fringe editors hang out so that they can create articles that tell the world that Astrology is a real science. And of course, there are a few brave editors who try to make sure it doesn't happen, but those serious editors have more patience than I have. I forgot how people get so invested into policy.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You must be a scorpio with impatience like that then. I can tell. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You must be a psychic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See the cynic's guide to Wikipedia, point #5. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow MastCell. Your remote viewing skills added to your clairvoyance allowed you to write that before placing it here. I am seriously amazed. Of course, that's how I saw it last night. Now I remember what caused my near death experience last time I was here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no psychic or supernatural powers. I simply drew on a variety of personal observations to develop testable, general hypotheses with explanatory power. I'm old-fashioned like that. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what fun is that? How am I supposed to make money off of my homeopathy practice if I used such old-school ideas like the scientific method?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine's mother was a devotee of astrologer - it took her twelve guesses to guess my star sign. I wouldn't have beleived it if I hadn't seen it (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Twelve guesses is so statistically rare as to be almost impossible. It obviously has some meaning. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Occam says she knew the right answer and gave all the wrong ones first (for whatever reason). I always suspected that astrologers might be psycho. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That Occam is such a tool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Good reflexes

You beat me to this one. I was going to fix it and then report myself for vandalizing your comment  : ) Doc Tropics 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I never remember the exact name! But I got Kitzmiller and Dover right.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

God of the gaps now staying in a small cheap hotel in Texas

This article is just amazing. Researchers at Scripps discovered that Miller saved all of the samples that he created with his early primordial soup experiments. Given that it was done in the 50's, without computers, modern spectrographs, and whatever else we have in biochemistry analysis, it's amazing he found what he did. The reanalysis finds 23 amino acids and 5 amines, including, I believe, all 22 required to manufacture proteins in living things. Abiogenesis may now move from hypothesis to well established theory, or a fact. What does that leave the creationists? Not much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one of the problems is the 50/50 chirality of the amino acids. ^rossnixon 02:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So? Obviously one got selected out within the first few million years. Completely random. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've never really had any doubts about abiogenesis, but it's still a long way from amino acids to a self-replicator. Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but without the amino acids, you can't even get there. As most things in science, it's one small step for man...oh, wait.....it's just a bunch of small steps. That's what makes science so much better than the believers in the magical wizard in the sky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Now just hang on a second, there. Just where in the wizard's handbook does it say wizards can't take small steps? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done extensive scientific research and read a bunch of other sources on Wizards, Small Steps, and I've been able to prove conclusively that wizards can only take large steps but only with the appropriately sized wand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No wonder you've got a headache over at Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, try a suitable spell to produce a magic potion. Thanks for popping up again, glad to see you around. . . dave souza, talk 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll see how long I last before being tossed out of here. LOL. Nice to see you around too.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!! Good to see you back. You have a scathing, abusive reply to read on my talkpage. In case you forgot how to read your watchlist.  :-) Keeper | 76 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And good lord, OM. Just looked at your contribs. You've been busy, eh? To be honest, I'm quite petrified (honored?) that after 2 years of work avoidance on your part your first edit is to Intelligent Design, my freeking talkpage??. Glad to know I'm, er, remembered.... Keeper | 76 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Occam's Razor edit

You have incurred one (1) Cathartic Rant:

• "Please discuss before arbitrarily remove template." Reason for edit was given; thus, 'arbitrarily' is purely pejorative.
• "And atheism is not "anti-god"." Shorthand.
• "Sheesh."
• Content of your form letter response to edit is obviously inappropriate in this case.
• "'Please discuss on talk page before removing information'": No information was removed, and see next.
• History note for the comment, and the reason I bother to respond: "'Page blanking'". Patently and potentially damagingly false.

--174.102.192.97 (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rants mean nothing to me. You removed a template without discussion. Case closed. You warned not do it. Case closed. Move on.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vaccines for Children Program

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back! It's been a while. I hope you're doing well. --B (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm back. However, I see that some people lack a sense of humor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoo boy

Sigh. Sometimes it's fun to go through contribs and try to guess which policy pages have been merely skimmed, and which have been ignored. --King Öomie 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it cracked me up. I swear when I saw edit summary, I thought he must be joking. I appreciate your comments to him, but anyone who has a vendetta about pornography on Wikipedia...well, they might not be listening. Or reading. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Particularly when he's taking the argument to WT:Content disclaimer. Clearly he hasn't actually read that page. Or if he has, he's unable to discern his internal definitions from the ones everyone else is using. "No, it IS hardcore pornography (according to me, despite pornography having the distinction of being specifically referenced among concepts notoriously difficult to define and identify)". --King Öomie 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some return from the dead observations

And when I say "return from the dead", you have no clue how literal that is.

• I'm watching several thousand articles. It surprising how little editing I'm seeing on these controversial articles. Is it because there are fewer editors? It feels that way, but I'm not sure.
• A lot of old-time admins seem burnt out. That's sad.
• AN/I and ArbCom seem to have the same drama. It just seems to be a location for people to get mad at each other.
• Pseudoskeptic has become a meme around these places. From my standpoint, it's just a method for POV-pushing pseudoscience types to create a word to empower them. I just read someone who says only pseudoskeptics claim there is no scientific evidence supporting homeopathy. Well there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting homeopathy's effects (well, there is one, but it was poorly designed, and just showed a placebo effect). That's not pseudoskepticism. That's just plain science.
• People still think NPOV means that all sides need to be presented in pseudoscience articles. I guess that's just how it goes around here.
• There is definitely a lack of a sense of humor on Wikipedia. Other than some of those old-time admins I've mentioned.
• One thing that hasn't changed: anonymous IP vandals.

Just what I'm observing. Nothing profound, just is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely been a decline in editing - both in the number of edits, and in their substance. I don't think this place is a ghost town, yet, but it's definitely clearing out compared to the good/bad old days. There's been a lot of hand-wringing about the declining level of participation on Wikipedia - although as you might expect, everyone has their own preferred egosyntonic explanation, and nobody can agree long enough to actually address the problem.

Burnout is a major problem, but then it always has been, as long as I've been here. We've always treated good editors and good admins as if they're an endlessly renewable resource, and we're starting to find out that they're not. And the lack of a sense of humor is pretty much terminal at this point - it's just not much fun here anymore. Anyhow... welcome back. MastCell ^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: You appear to have been gone so long that you've forgotten how a cabal works. You should enable your email. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? I need to turn on my email for the cabal? Didn't you get the super secret decoder ring and subspace transmitter? It also makes coffee. Yeah there's something different about this place, less fun. But the drama level is the same, I note. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a decoder ring. You can use the Caesar cipher and shift by the number of times per minute that Stephen Meyer mentions the flagellum. That's IDcab-standard cryptography. Of course, it's vulnerable to frequency analysis, but anyone who understands frequency analysis probably understands evolution. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that number hit an asymptote around 50? It's so random. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not random. Just irreducibly complex. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you just need to reverse the polarity...but seriously, I have noticed that many many articles would barely change despite large numbers of edits ever since I got here in 2006. I think the 'instant reward' of seeing your edits in print evaporating as unsourced edits are reversed might have driven off a few potential new editors...and inline referencing might make the whole shebang of editing less attractive as it requires more tweaking...but I dunno. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I need to fire up the flux capacitor to understand all of this. The Wikipedia inline citation system is really cumbersome. I like cleaning them up, but it take a few minutes for each one, even using all of the tools available. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The big new thing in citations while you've been away is wp:LDR, which might actually have some utility if we can get people to use them. Martin's been big on moving cites to template space, e.g. {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}. I still think its a mistake, but it does have its attractions, particularly simplicity. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of arsing around with inline cites, why help out at wikiproject medicine love-in, where pneumonia is the current front runner. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Arsing around? Must be some Aussie-ism. I'm sure Australian Royalty uses it! I'll look at it. I'm sure it will be fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, just a habit of getting any old anglosaxon naughty word (four letter noun) and turning it into a verb for the hell of it, to mean..just..I dunno...arsing around really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Paper remedies

I wonder if these can be generalized? If one writes "Swedish identical twins" on that piece of paper, what happens? Just askin'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)

Templates

Yeah, right. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have did it to be funny. And half to see if some psycho-admin would use it against me to cause trouble. Irony gets lost on those with no wit or intellect.  :) You pass. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pass? No, I'm actually like this! LeadSongDog come howl! 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Orangemarlin for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for your majestic contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Neglected

I have been so neglected-- no one to pick on about lousy baseball teams, and what about my collection of red cocktail dresses? I'm no Nicole Kidman fan, but I want that red dress. (Shoes are awesome, too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I was feeling ignored. And I thought it was black cocktail dresses???? Not that I'm all THAT picky.  :) I see that it's snowing in Boston....they can't be happy about that. But it's like 80º here, so we have baseball! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You failed to mention that California had a miserable winter, with boatloads of rain, rain, rain ... and that it dominates the top 15 list ... http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/cities-where-things-are-getting-worse.html ... it's red !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... and that it's full of Californians... :P MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of us were smart enough to move before the economy tanked (which was shortly after Prop 13 passed)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us remember that on the list of educated states, California ranks at the top. Beautiful weather. Top. Facebook and Apple. And NO ONE wants to live in Bakersfield, Stockton and Riverside. NO ONE!  :) And one more point Ms. Sandy Georgia......without rain and snow in the winter, I can't shower in the summer. But I'm sure I can come to your house and clean up. :P I know the rest of the country is just envious of California. And wish they lived here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Top of what, the US?  :) And you folks who should be spun off to the 51st state (that is, everyone south of Carmel) should stop taking our water from the farmers!! And I did live in Stockton-- got a better education there than at Stanford, btw. More importantly, I notice how quickly you forgot about my red leather dress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this reliable source, the smartest states in the U.S. are actually concentrated in New England, about as far away from California as one can manage to get. California is the 3rd dumbest, doing worse than Alaska and the Deep South. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that CT is above MN, but don't tell Keeper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec X 4)If California were an independent country, we would be like the 6th largest economy in the world. And the US would become a fascist Republican dictatorship with a third world economy, but that's another story. And we would charge you for Facebook. And Wikipedia. :P Pacific? Good school. Not Syracuse of course, but then again what is? You flirt. How could I forget any of this? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell Keeper? Keeper sees all.....As far as I can tell, Mr. Master Cell, five of the top ten are midwest or mountain, and five are east coast. How exactly does that lead you to believe that smartness is "concentrated in New England"? And of course, the one thing this article has wrong is equating education with smartness, when any educated man or woman would surely know that more education does not lead to more smartness. It only leads to more things to hang on one's wall. Keeper | 76 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, there are 6 states in New England (more or less), covering a relatively tiny geographical area, and three were on the list. (While New Hampshire wasn't on this list, it's on a number of other such lists). But yeah, I shouldn't overlook the Midwest, even if you do try to claim Montana, which is Mountain West 4 Life. To be fair, they didn't look at education per se, but at a bunch of other things like reading/math proficiency and SAT scores. But your point is taken, in that all of these ranking efforts are idiotic from a reality-based point of view. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said MT was midwest? ...five of the top ten are midwest or mountain..., he re-reads his own words quietly to himself, glibly. :-) Keeper | 76 17:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you must have just added that... and then messed with the database to make it look like it was in your original comment. OK, you're right - I missed that. But then, I don't come from a top-10 smarty-pants state like Minnesota, so your expectations for my reading comprehension should be adjusted downward accordingly. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request granted. From here forward, I now think much much less of you. I mean, your reading comprehension. Keeper | 76 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. If there's one thing I've learned in my life, it's that one should always strive to set expectations low and then surpass them. Or at least live up to them. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the kind greeting Orangemarlin! I'm sure I'll have some questions as I go along but like to try to figure it out first before asking. Best regards, Cagney3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I like doing by experimenting too. I particularly like that you're doing the citations in proper format! I'm OCD about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on your Profile page is good stuff . . . funny, and insightful.

Yo Dude - Just had to drop by your profile to get to know ya a bit. You gave me some feedback and encouragement on the "Cambrian Explosion" page that I found very helpful. So thank you.

Many of the "Quote's" you had on your Profile I can identify with. Interestingly, I think much the same way you do (It seems to me although I really know very little about you so this is my best guess, ha ha).

I was interested in the "Quiz" you mentioned in your Profile so I went to that page and took the quiz too. This was the results: Cultural Creative 81% Postmodernist 56% Fundamentalist 44% Existentialist 38% Idealist 31% Romanticist 19% Modernist 13% Materialist 6% Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

I'm not sure what this means but will do some research on it.

If I'm not mistaken what it seems to me is that both of us are critical thinkers, and try and be objective in evaluating arguments. You also seem to be rather skeptical if I can read between the lines of your Profile. I too am skeptical . . . rather extremely skeptical.

I too tend strongly to side with the "experts" and give weight to their opinions. I am just not "that" smart although I have a lot of college education . . . about 12 years worth . . . mostly in the sciences and social sciences.

In the case of the argument about Evolution I consider it a special case in that Evolutionary Biology is a science than could learn much from the study of History. In the case of Evolutionary Biology I smell a rat. Put another way my BS detectors start going off. As Historians have found reconstructing what happened just a thousand years ago in the middle ages is extremely difficult. How Evolutionary Biology can reconstruct with any degree of certainty what happened millions of years ago is . . . well I am skeptical. Even more surprising to me is how confident Evolutionary Biologist are about what they suppose happened. It is this smug, it seems to me, attitude that makes me even more skeptical.

What is most discouraging to me is that many who espouse Evolutionary Biologist refuse to consider any and all attempts to explain the diversity of life. This is what really bugs me. The scientific method works only if all explanations are heard and considered with the utmost impartiality. And the scientific method will only work if even the most accepted theory's are open to challenge.

I welcome any comments and observations you may wish to make.

Best regards, Doug Johnson TDurden1937 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Aw, so you're the guy at the Cambrian article. I would suggest that you don't use your real name, unless it's your registered user name. I'm just going to call you Durden. Second, when you hit the four tilde's ~~~ it signs for you. You don't have to add anything else, which you're doing. You'll get the hang of it. I wish education mattered on Wikipedia, but what I've found is that it's an anarchy of the anti-intellectuals. Be polite (which I'm not, but I try to be), and use references (which I always do), and you can edit easily.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about recurrent references

Hi Orangemarlin, There is a question for which I cannot seem to find an answer. If the same reference is used more than once in the same article, is there some way to refer to the initially cited reference, rather than re-entering the same one again and cluttering up the reference section? Thanks so much! Cagney3 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, an easy question. You name the first instance of a citation with <ref name="Name this citation">. A lot of people use the name of the author, or the PMID number. There is no standard. When you want to use it again, then you add <ref name="Name this citation"/> I think the citations are case sensitive, so make sure you are exact. I hope this helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reguarding the stormfront page.

I don't appreciate you demonizing the stormfront community. I changed the word "racists" to "white supremacists" because racist is the wrong word. I would appreciate that you keep your politically correct bias out of your pages and keep a neutral view on the subject like you claim to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.163.15 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Demonizing Stormfront? Sorry they are racist, and they did that themselves.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You're so brainwashed it's not even funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.163.15 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And that my anonymous racist is considered a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Be nice, IP. Or, if you are going to choose to be insulting, at the very least be good at it. You need much deeper barbs to hook a fish like Orange Marlin. He doesn't take the bait when offered so poorly. Keeper | 76 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He's going to be violating 3RR soon, which will get him blocked. I'm not too worried.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just like the good old days of Ought-Eight. Glad I logged in today, :-) Keeper | 76 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You just came here because Joe Nathan gave you a stroke this weekend. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And in other "news"....

Glenn Beck's show was dropped by FoxNews. Cue the crying.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Who? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he's some sort of substitute for silent Sky News updates [see the last line]. The curse of the Murdoch, one presumes. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad ratings? Hm, I think I want to catch Stewart and Colbert tonight. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting times. . . . dave souza, talk 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Calisber...Glenn Beck was a right wing employee of the Australian Satan. He used charts to prove that Obama was the child of Nazis who grew up in Kenya and Malaysia, then, at the behest of Queen Elizabeth II, moved to the US to take over our country. Or something like that.  :) And Dave....yup, we're watching that. But it leads to a point that most Americans don't like the message of the Democrats. Sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Tomasky's viewpoint is largely shared by the wild-eyed Trotskyist fellow travellers at the New England Journal of Medicine:

The amounts of money saved by these cuts [to Title X, WIC, and Planned Parenthood] would be trivial, but the damage to the health of low-income women and children — especially from the loss of direct federal funding for food and preventive health care — could be devastating. The proposed cuts are simply cruel. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood makes little health or fiscal sense, because the organization’s services are necessary for the health of millions of women who have little access to health care... The other cuts, such as those to Title X clinics, are primarily designed to reduce funding for contraception counseling and reproductive health aspects of primary care.

Two years ago, before the current debate over ACA funding, a Guttmacher Institute study concluded that eliminating Title X clinics (and Medicaid funding for contraception counseling) would result in an additional 860,000 unintended pregnancies and 810,000 abortions per year among low-income women. The study also found that from a strictly budgetary perspective, helping low-income women prevent pregnancies saved almost $4 for every $1 spent. Rational policymakers who oppose abortion and support fiscal restraint should thus also support current federal efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies. [1]

The key word in that last sentence is, of course, "rational". MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn MastCell, you're a freaking liberal. But you're forgetting that these abortions kill babies who, at two weeks in utero, are viable, sentient beings. </end sarcasm> That was my argument for a single payer system for health care in the US. We have the 38th (or whatever) rated health care system in the world. However, for the wealthy, it's probably in the top 5. So here we go with making abortion moved to the back alleys, where the resultant health care costs will be tremendous. And also, some states will continue to fund them, which means California and New York will have healthier citizens. Wait a minute, that means, through Darwinian evolution, that New York and California will rule the world. Cool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About abortion, that was exactly the article's point. It's clear that Title X is a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions performed. So the more anti-abortion you are, the more strongly you should support Title X funding. On top of that, it's a good investment from a purely budgetary perspective, since every dollar spent on Title X programs generates $4 in savings. So then the question becomes: why are these programs such high-priority targets for pro-life fiscal conservatives? MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I might put this information in the abortion article, because it's got to be a noncontroversial addition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-controversial? Hah. You're funny. Or else you just haven't spent much time at the abortion article. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Or a certain admin is missing the sarcasm translator. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Do you know what you call an admin without a sarcasm detector? Nothing, or you'll end up blocked for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm always impressed if an admin knows their ass from an ass. I'm counting on you to mess up the curve.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the kind greeting Orangemarlin! I'm sure I'll have some questions as I go along but like to try to figure it out first before asking. Best regards, Cagney3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I like doing by experimenting too. I particularly like that you're doing the citations in proper format! I'm OCD about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on your Profile page is good stuff . . . funny, and insightful.

Yo Dude - Just had to drop by your profile to get to know ya a bit. You gave me some feedback and encouragement on the "Cambrian Explosion" page that I found very helpful. So thank you.

Many of the "Quote's" you had on your Profile I can identify with. Interestingly, I think much the same way you do (It seems to me although I really know very little about you so this is my best guess, ha ha).

I was interested in the "Quiz" you mentioned in your Profile so I went to that page and took the quiz too. This was the results: Cultural Creative 81% Postmodernist 56% Fundamentalist 44% Existentialist 38% Idealist 31% Romanticist 19% Modernist 13% Materialist 6% Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

I'm not sure what this means but will do some research on it.

If I'm not mistaken what it seems to me is that both of us are critical thinkers, and try and be objective in evaluating arguments. You also seem to be rather skeptical if I can read between the lines of your Profile. I too am skeptical . . . rather extremely skeptical.

I too tend strongly to side with the "experts" and give weight to their opinions. I am just not "that" smart although I have a lot of college education . . . about 12 years worth . . . mostly in the sciences and social sciences.

In the case of the argument about Evolution I consider it a special case in that Evolutionary Biology is a science than could learn much from the study of History. In the case of Evolutionary Biology I smell a rat. Put another way my BS detectors start going off. As Historians have found reconstructing what happened just a thousand years ago in the middle ages is extremely difficult. How Evolutionary Biology can reconstruct with any degree of certainty what happened millions of years ago is . . . well I am skeptical. Even more surprising to me is how confident Evolutionary Biologist are about what they suppose happened. It is this smug, it seems to me, attitude that makes me even more skeptical.

What is most discouraging to me is that many who espouse Evolutionary Biologist refuse to consider any and all attempts to explain the diversity of life. This is what really bugs me. The scientific method works only if all explanations are heard and considered with the utmost impartiality. And the scientific method will only work if even the most accepted theory's are open to challenge.

I welcome any comments and observations you may wish to make.

Best regards, Doug Johnson TDurden1937 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Aw, so you're the guy at the Cambrian article. I would suggest that you don't use your real name, unless it's your registered user name. I'm just going to call you Durden. Second, when you hit the four tilde's ~~~ it signs for you. You don't have to add anything else, which you're doing. You'll get the hang of it. I wish education mattered on Wikipedia, but what I've found is that it's an anarchy of the anti-intellectuals. Be polite (which I'm not, but I try to be), and use references (which I always do), and you can edit easily.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about recurrent references

Hi Orangemarlin, There is a question for which I cannot seem to find an answer. If the same reference is used more than once in the same article, is there some way to refer to the initially cited reference, rather than re-entering the same one again and cluttering up the reference section? Thanks so much! Cagney3 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, an easy question. You name the first instance of a citation with <ref name="Name this citation">. A lot of people use the name of the author, or the PMID number. There is no standard. When you want to use it again, then you add <ref name="Name this citation"/> I think the citations are case sensitive, so make sure you are exact. I hope this helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reguarding the stormfront page.

I don't appreciate you demonizing the stormfront community. I changed the word "racists" to "white supremacists" because racist is the wrong word. I would appreciate that you keep your politically correct bias out of your pages and keep a neutral view on the subject like you claim to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.163.15 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Demonizing Stormfront? Sorry they are racist, and they did that themselves.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You're so brainwashed it's not even funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.163.15 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And that my anonymous racist is considered a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Be nice, IP. Or, if you are going to choose to be insulting, at the very least be good at it. You need much deeper barbs to hook a fish like Orange Marlin. He doesn't take the bait when offered so poorly. Keeper | 76 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He's going to be violating 3RR soon, which will get him blocked. I'm not too worried.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just like the good old days of Ought-Eight. Glad I logged in today, :-) Keeper | 76 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You just came here because Joe Nathan gave you a stroke this weekend. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And in other "news"....

Glenn Beck's show was dropped by FoxNews. Cue the crying.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Who? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he's some sort of substitute for silent Sky News updates [see the last line]. The curse of the Murdoch, one presumes. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad ratings? Hm, I think I want to catch Stewart and Colbert tonight. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting times. . . . dave souza, talk 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Calisber...Glenn Beck was a right wing employee of the Australian Satan. He used charts to prove that Obama was the child of Nazis who grew up in Kenya and Malaysia, then, at the behest of Queen Elizabeth II, moved to the US to take over our country. Or something like that.  :) And Dave....yup, we're watching that. But it leads to a point that most Americans don't like the message of the Democrats. Sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Tomasky's viewpoint is largely shared by the wild-eyed Trotskyist fellow travellers at the New England Journal of Medicine:

The amounts of money saved by these cuts [to Title X, WIC, and Planned Parenthood] would be trivial, but the damage to the health of low-income women and children — especially from the loss of direct federal funding for food and preventive health care — could be devastating. The proposed cuts are simply cruel. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood makes little health or fiscal sense, because the organization’s services are necessary for the health of millions of women who have little access to health care... The other cuts, such as those to Title X clinics, are primarily designed to reduce funding for contraception counseling and reproductive health aspects of primary care.

Two years ago, before the current debate over ACA funding, a Guttmacher Institute study concluded that eliminating Title X clinics (and Medicaid funding for contraception counseling) would result in an additional 860,000 unintended pregnancies and 810,000 abortions per year among low-income women. The study also found that from a strictly budgetary perspective, helping low-income women prevent pregnancies saved almost $4 for every $1 spent. Rational policymakers who oppose abortion and support fiscal restraint should thus also support current federal efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies. [2]

The key word in that last sentence is, of course, "rational". MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn MastCell, you're a freaking liberal. But you're forgetting that these abortions kill babies who, at two weeks in utero, are viable, sentient beings. </end sarcasm> That was my argument for a single payer system for health care in the US. We have the 38th (or whatever) rated health care system in the world. However, for the wealthy, it's probably in the top 5. So here we go with making abortion moved to the back alleys, where the resultant health care costs will be tremendous. And also, some states will continue to fund them, which means California and New York will have healthier citizens. Wait a minute, that means, through Darwinian evolution, that New York and California will rule the world. Cool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About abortion, that was exactly the article's point. It's clear that Title X is a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions performed. So the more anti-abortion you are, the more strongly you should support Title X funding. On top of that, it's a good investment from a purely budgetary perspective, since every dollar spent on Title X programs generates $4 in savings. So then the question becomes: why are these programs such high-priority targets for pro-life fiscal conservatives? MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I might put this information in the abortion article, because it's got to be a noncontroversial addition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-controversial? Hah. You're funny. Or else you just haven't spent much time at the abortion article. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Or a certain admin is missing the sarcasm translator. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Do you know what you call an admin without a sarcasm detector? Nothing, or you'll end up blocked for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm always impressed if an admin knows their ass from an ass. I'm counting on you to mess up the curve.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Harassment will not be tolerated.

Hello, Orangemarlin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2011

You have been schooled. You really need to take a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss, and denial is not a river in Egypt

wow, that's a lot of ignorance on your part, coupled with a troubling amount of confidence. As a nurse who has benefitted personally from the wonders of homeopathy,and whose patients have benefitted greatly, allow me to educate you. Homeopathy works on an energetic level, one that is referred to in modern physics as "cellular imprinting." We cannot measure it at this time, because of what is referred to as the "limit of the assay." That is to say, that we have not developed measuring devices that can allow us to "see" the active medicine. Just because our impotent and as-of-yet crude measuring devices cannot detect active medicine, does not mean that it is not there. Allopathy cannot even adequately explain the workings of aspirin, attributing it's ability to cure headaches to one of two biochemical processes including prostaglandin inhibition - we do not know which. Yet, despite our inability to measure and prove the chemical processes by which aspirin works, it is a commonly accepted therapy. Consider furthermore that if homeopathy were a placebo, it would not work on children and animals, and yet it does. If you yourself have not seen this work, please do not be so ignorant as to unilaterally dismiss those of us who have. When properly applied on an individual by individual basis, homeopathy has been proven to work much better than placebo. The journals you are reading are testing homeopathy as if it were a chemical therapy, as if the same remedy should work the same on every person to whom that one remedy is applied - which goes against the basis by which homeopathy works. When homoepathic principles are applied to a group of individuals, representing a different appropriate remedy for each person, it is proven to work much better than placebo. Or haven't you actually looked up the evidence? Clearly, you have not personally experienced the curative effects of this medicine, and limit yourself to those curative principles that are supported by the popular scientific opinion of your time. I beleive it was Galileo who told us that the world was round and whom, when "scientific evidence" failed to prove this, was put under house arrest for heresy. How dare you feign confidence over a subject about which you know so very little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.41.246 (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't read a screed like that in a few weeks. Because I'm bored, and I think you need to be schooled, I will discount each of your claims. However, since you're an anonymous IP, I doubt you'll read this, but I doubt more than you have an open mind, so this is really for me.

• First, your anecdotes have no meaning and are not relevant to the discourse. Anecdotes rely upon everything from selection bias to post hoc ergo propter hoc, all logical fallacies. By the way, I could list out all the logical issues of anecdotes, but it takes an open mind to understand them.
• There is no such thing in modern physics as "cellular imprinting." Like all alternative medicine types, you just invent stuff. However, there is something called molecular imprinting, but that's for building enzymes and proteins, and it cannot happen in water. Again, typical of pseudoscience, you make some vague claim about imprinting, but make no explanation on how it works.
• Our "measuring devices" are quite sophisticated.
• Allopathy is a pejorative term used by alternative medicine types to make it appear scientific medicine is equivalent to the pseudoscientific alt med types. It has no meaning to real medicine.
• Science can explain the mechanism of aspirin. I believe that a Nobel Prize was given to a British scientist who uncovered the mechanism. YHou can't even get your facts right.
• Galileo wasn't imprisoned by other scientists but by the church. But a great thing about science is we question everything and revise our understanding with new information. There hasn't been a single study that has shown efficacy of homeopathy, not one. Of course, you have some secret studies. I guess that's what people do when they really don't have anything.
• Homeopathy isn't a science, because it cannot be falsified, and it relies upon confirmation rather than refutation. You see, every single piece of medical science is tested not to prove that it works, but to disprove that it works. That's how science works.
• I don't feign confidence over anything. But you feign knowledge of science. I have an open mind. I don't completely dismiss homeopathy, but I won't recommend it, and replace real medical knowledge with it, until there's real science that supports it. But until you explain how it might work with real science, then show that it does work, you're using rhetoric than science.

You are filled with close-minded beliefs as opposed to logical science. You rely upon woeful science rather than sound knowledge of science and the scientific method. You rely upon a personalization of this issue rather than providing evidence, published in real journals. Homeopathy is just water. Drinking water is a good thing. Of course, water flows through a toilet and if it does have a memory, it is obvious that homeopathy is full of shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed that, too, especially the last bit. Here's what I always think about homeopathy. There are billions of people on the planet taking thousands of different substances and also drinking/urinating. That water gets recycled repeatedly, so every glass of water we drink contains the "memory" of, say, hundreds of substances. Not to underestimate the level of idiocy out there, but why would anyone pay for something they're already getting for free? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's violate Occam's razor, and attempt to find a memory mechanism for water. Even a liter of water has a finite number of particles that could be arranged to "remember" something. Since water has been on earth for around 4 billion years, it's had to see an infinite number of other molecules. It couldn't hold all that memory. The homeopaths will respond that it remembers the last thing it sees. By what process does it rearrange itself? And how does it now? And wouldn't that "memory" change on the way down the esophagus? There's a lot of stuff growing in the esophagus, so what next? Suddenly your water thinks it's mucus? Or what happens when it hits the stomach? Does it change to HCl? They'll invent a rule that prevents it I assume. I am a very openminded person, but I expect that two standards are met before I'm willing to jump on board:

• First, I want to see lots of evidence that it happens. I tell this story a lot, but when I started graduate school, there were no solid theories on what killed the dinosaurs. None. Then I went to some science meeting (I'm forgetting more than I remember these days), and they were debating whether a meteor killed them off, based on the iridium layers proposed by Alvarez. Everyone thought he was clueless. But science works in a curious way. People found more evidence. Then more evidence. Then the evidence was repeated by other labs. Ten years later, we have a solid theory on the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. After 100 or so years of clinical trials, there has not been one repeatable clinical trial that shows any efficacy beyond placebo.

  Second, I want a scientifically viable mechanism. Creationism, most alternative medicine, Psychics, Alien abductions, Sasquatch, and just about everything else in the pseudoscience requires a suspension of scientific principles to make them work. Magical water with an undiscovered memory power, or some great wizard in the sky creating the earth, just have no known science behind it. I am open that there might be something out there that we don't understand. Maybe water has a magical memory feature that is based on some heretofore unknown intelligent particle of energy that exists in all molecules. It has never been found, and based on our knowledge of physics, I doubt it could exist. I know that some people will say "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In fact, if you look and look and look, and evidence is absent, then that is, in itself, evidence of absence. The close-minded refuse to examine the contrary evidence. Or they give equal weight to the poorly designed study that has never been repeated, as opposed to the 50,000 well-designed studies that have been repeated and published.

Homeopathy does not work. Unless there's something we're all missing, and that's a lot of cumulative IQ in the sciences, homeopathy will never be shown to work. Of course, we fail to mention that people who go to these quacks oftentimes harm themselves or the ones they love. The anti-vaccinations are particularly offensive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

GMOs

I don't want to continue the discussion on a talk page where it is not relevant, but I'd like to point out that a blanket dismissal of risks of GMOs is not really right. There are lots of plants that produce toxins -- if you engineer genes that produce toxins into a food plant, it may end up producing toxins. This is especially a concern when plants are being modified to be more pest-resistant -- one must make sure that the pest resistance does not depend on toxins that may be harmful to humans. In short, it is not a good idea to simply assert that all genetic modifications are harmless, period, end of story. There really does have to be some sort of systematic evaluation of safety. Of course the general public completely misunderstands the situation, but the appropriate response to that is not just to wave our hands and say la-dee-da: if we do that, eventually some modified plant will slip through that really does have harmful effects, and the situation will get a whole lot worse. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So, we're supposed to be afraid of everything? Can you show me where your prediction has happened? Right now, all evidence is that GMO's are perfectly safe. I'm willing to argue that GMO's are bad for a lot of reasons, but food safety isn't one of them. I knew where the OP was coming from on that thread. I wasn't going to let him push a nonsense POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making a prediction. There is, in fact, a formal safety evaluation for GMO foods, and so far it has worked, and I see no reason why it would stop working. But there is a need to have those evaluations. Let me just give an example of the sort of thing that could happen in a completely unregulated environment. Almonds contain cyanide, but in levels too low to be toxic. Their wild ancestors, however, contained considerably higher levels, and it would have been dangerous to eat them in large quantities. It would probably be a straightforward matter to create a GM almond with dangerous levels of cyanide. Nobody would do that on purpose, of course, but with no regulation, how could you be sure that it would never happen by accident? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume I wouldn't want regulations? In fact, I want strict regulations of anything we consume, whether food, water, drugs, or air! I'm just saying that GMO's, as they stand, are perfectly safe. We aren't going to pick up a miscreant gene in our intestine from eating GMO wheat. And they better not be touching my almonds!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert, but it seems hard to imagine genetically modified Bt corn not leading to a sooner resistance (see Transgenic_maize#Preventing_Bt_resistance_in_pests). Considering how important Bt has been in controlling pests in agriculture, that will be an interesting day. II | (t - c) 06:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, these are tough choices. We've got 7.5 billion people on this planet, and we have to feed them. Crappy choices with bad consequences are probably what we're going to see. But, GMO's are not dangerous as foods. BTW, nice to see you around II! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could say that the feeling is totally mutual, but I am glad to see that you are alive - and amused that your irascible personality has not changed. This place has seemed a bit meek lately. As far as Bt corn, I certainly don't think the regulators were thinking about the poor children in Africa when they approved it, but I could be wrong. I think there's adequate agricultural capacity right now without even cutting down trees to feed another few billion. We might have to eat a little less salad and meat, though. And in 50 years we'll probably be feeding 10 billion at least (I would budget conservatively for 12 billion), so pest resistance could an issue, assuming that the innovative strategies don't appear as economists expect. Of course, the increased carbon in the air should improve yields, and we might see some arable land open up in Canada and Alaska to balance other land going underwater or drying up. All in all, us Americans will be OK. II | (t - c) 07:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Orangemarlin, influenza article.

I will welcome a different and/or better picture. Previous, we had a picture of a person sneezing (!)(!) which is way inaccurate.

I have been a wiki contributor for about four years. However, I am inexperienced with photographs. I was concerned about doing it right regarding copyright issues. I wanted to be on the safe side, so I just pulled the same picture we use on the 'Cough' article. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was much more concerned about an infobox for a "symptom", coughing. The photo was of someone with pertussis...for accuracy sake, we could do better. Of all the things in an article I find photos to be the most problematic. If I had my way, we'd delete them all and be done with it. :) Seriously, whether we pull up a sneeze, cough, or whatever photo, to me, it adds nothing. So, anyways, put in any photo you want, but try to keep it disease specific. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange associations...

Checking the links to Elasmotherium one day ....one from Tahash (which I thought must be an archaological site or something...but ...erm.......wow...that's just....so...out there....reminds me of the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'm missing the connection to an animal extinct a good 45000 years before the Hebrews decided to write the Bronze Age Book of Fairytales, Myths, and Folktales. Tahash needs to be cleaned up, but I know squat about it. However, the link from Elasmotherium should be removed...unless like sasquatch and nessie, they're still around.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Praagh edits

Why does this article have to contain criticism? That doesn't seem very neutral to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BooRadley08 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-annual denialist booksale and clam bake

I thought we were done, too, but our fair-minded friend seems to be readying a mediation request. It had been so quiet around here. Must be the pollen in the air. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he think people are going to be supportive of denialism around here? Where is The Anti-Denialist Supreme Leader and Adored Human when you need him?????OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

All hail the Diligent Degranulator. I'll have to pick up something nice for MC at the book sale. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotta look in the shadows!

It seems that there's a vast conspiracy in industry that has been covertly causing PD! LeadSongDog come howl! 00:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The damn milk industry. I knew it! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I never trusted those cows, they're so black-and-white. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WAR!?

Edit war!? I don't believe I'm right, I actually am right!!! Quit trying to be smarter than me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Praagh article

Hello, I need your advice. If I want to add some content to counter the criticism portion of this article, what are my best options? Should I a)include the content under the Criticism heading; or b)make a new heading using an antonym for criticism. Plus, I didn't want to attempt to add this content without your approval for fear of being banned. I also realize you have final editing over what I contribute so I hope you offer constructive criticism (there's that word again!)about my addition. I would cite sources. I totally understand your policy regarding fringe theories and pseudo-science; but since this is an article about a human being, I'd like to see it become more well-balanced. If there is going to be negative content, I'd like to see positive content; or no negative content at all. Put the "cold-reading" content into the article about mediumship in general and have the Van Praagh article be about the man and his life. Thanks for your help. BooRadley08 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Amusing. First, I cannot ban you. There are only two editors that, if I had the power, I would ban, and you aren't in that group. LOL. Second, I don't have final say over anything around here. No one does, it's supposed to be about consensus and the such. Since, Van Praagh is a living person, you need to read the rules and regulations about living persons. We cannot say anything about him/her/it without very reliable sources. How are you going to counter criticism? That he has some magical power that doesn't exist? You'd have to have some very substantial citations to support that. Remember, WP:NPOV isn't about balance between criticism and approval. We cannot give undue weight to fringe ideas, so the article isn't going to read that his abilities to speak with the dead (or whatever he does) actually works, without any critique at all. Retitle the section "Skepticism"...that's a better word. Hope this helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

About origin of hidrocarbons, please, it's time to wake up! And you have an excellent opportunity. We're in the 21st century and not the Middle Ages or in times of spontaneous generation. Learn a little about the Cassini-Huygens and read the book The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold...is a good start to change paradigms and thinking of nonsense as well said Sir Fred Hoyle. He was an astrophysicist who contributed significantly about stelar evolution and surely he and Gold understand what are in fact natural hydrocarbons and its origin. Of course, Hoyle is a reliable source. Unfortunately geologists...well... geologists...(at least the most part)

“Geology is the prisoner of several dogmas that have had widespread influence on the development of scientific thought.” — William R. Corliss, 1975

“It is a singular and notable fact that, while most other branches of science have emancipated themselves from the trammels of metaphysical reasoning, the science of geology still remains imprisoned in ‘a priori’ theories.” — Sir Henry H. Howorth, 1895189.32.132.90 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bring science, and then I'll spend time discussing it. But using rhetoric and quote mining as your method of science...well, go away, it's kind of boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you follow my suggestions surely you will find true science and not junk science...go on!164.85.67.52 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

I've started an ANI regarding a discussion you're involved in. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Orangemarlin. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied! NickCT (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

The most amusing WP site ever. I just wasted a good hour reading over some of the edit wars. All because of an em-dash in Mexican-American. Seriously. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fish takes bait

Saul & Hoffer, as RS? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Only in the sense that they use orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin interchangeably. I washed my hands after posting the citation. I found bunches of others, but I thought the pro-Alt Med crowd would respect a citation from one of their own. Maybe faulty logic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Chummed a little? . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Curry chum sounds like anti-chumming. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yum! Curry!LeadSongDog come howl! 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)