No edit summary |
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →Grammar and etc.: Did you read the fucking top of this page? Take it to the article talk page. |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
I'd appreciate it if you responded to my comment, to make sue the thread gains traction. thanks, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
I'd appreciate it if you responded to my comment, to make sue the thread gains traction. thanks, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Me modest? Yeah right! I responded. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
:Me modest? Yeah right! I responded. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Grammar and etc.== |
|||
There was not at any time any grammatical mistake in the first paragraph of the Otto von Habsburg death and funeral article (here is a comparison between the article before your first edit and your last edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_and_funeral_of_Otto_von_Habsburg&action=historysubmit&diff=438275706&oldid=438192488]). As I explained on the article talk page, "etc. etc." is a standard phrase in royal titles, and specifically in the title of the Austro-Hungarian emperor. There is no need for a citation or clarification of this in the ''introduction'' of the death and funeral article, because this is all dealt with in detail in the main biographical article in the relevant section on titles, and with sources. [[User:Mocctur|Mocctur]] ([[User talk:Mocctur|talk]]) 22:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:14, 7 July 2011
|
Reincarnation Research
Statements like "there is no reincarnation" or "NO scientist believes in reincarnation" are just too confrontational, because either unknowable or wrong. Just wish that you would hold back a bit: you used to be such a great editor. Peace. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still a good editor. Just don't give a shit about the pseudoscientific pushing crowd. And NO scientists believes in reincarnation. Find one real one. Well, of course, Lynn Margulis discovered endosymbiosis and is an AIDS denialist. Oh crap. You might be right. But still, reincarnation is full on bullshit. It's intellectual dishonesty and/or a logical fallacy to say that something is unknowable so therefore it might be possible. No. Absence of evidence (where you look for that evidence) is absolutely evidence of absence. We've looked for reincarnation. Doesn't exist. So, you might be right, there might be some douchebag scientist who thinks reincarnation exists, and they would be douchebags. But reincarnation does not exist, because there simply no evidence. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are scientists in India who are reputable in non-biological areas but believe in reincarnation, just as there are western scientists who believe in an immaterial soul. The two doctrines are essentially equal in implausibility -- it's only cultural predispositions that make one seem a lot more fringey than the other. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Valid points. I will admit that I downgrade the quality of a scientist once he babbles about religion or anything pseudoscientific. Once you believe in that magic, you become Dr. Oz who promotes alt-med, despite being a world class surgeon. I wish I could explain the depth of my personal my hatred of alt-med/religion/pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are scientists in India who are reputable in non-biological areas but believe in reincarnation, just as there are western scientists who believe in an immaterial soul. The two doctrines are essentially equal in implausibility -- it's only cultural predispositions that make one seem a lot more fringey than the other. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Question
There are a lot of articles on pseudoscientific alternative "medicinal" practices on WP. Some obscure, like the Marshal Protocol, some less obscure, like acupuncture. Most of the articles open up like this: "X is an alternative medicine..." Why do they not say "X is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine?" Acupuncture I get; I don't buy it, but at the very least it's studied scientifically by some major journals (not that they've found much, but they're at least following protocol). Is this something that was decided upon previously? If not, I think it's time to make some adjustments. Actually, even if so I think it's time to make some adjustments, consensus being able to change and all. Thoughts? Noformation Talk 04:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Part of the reason is that sometimes you can't find a reliable source to support that they are pseudoscience. Like my answer to the person above, who spends time debunking reincarnation? Since when a human dies, he becomes nothing but a puddle of inorganic salts and organic molecules, we know there is no scientific/physical process that leads one body to go to another one. Same with the alt med world. So, unless there is a specific MEDRS that supports calling some alt med therapy "pseudoscience" we have to go with the phrase "the scientific community states that XXXX is unsupported by scientific principles and there is no evidence that it works." Or something like that. The alt med nutjobs think that if there is no science debunking it, then, by default, it must support it. That's the belief of some of the pseudo-skeptics around here. However, that's the old Argumentum ad ignorantiam, one of the top logical fallacies. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, obviously it is just you and me at this article. What do you want to see here? If you think it would be faster to talk then email me your number and I will call you, otherwise you can tell me here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to answer some of your issues on the talk page. My rules are never to discuss anything on my own talk page, mainly because editors shouldn't have to run from one location to another. Also, my real life stays out of Wikipedia life. You should never request personal information from an editor, that's probably against some rule or another. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:REALNAME. People who look for topics on the minutiae of vaccine issues are likely to be odd, but I would have no problem sharing info with them by email. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of science/medical editors keep their names anonymous, although a lot don't. When I first started editing I was told of a physician who edited the abortion article. He was threatened and hounded by anti-abortion types because they had his real name. He was accused of a bunch of horrible things by the abortion terrorists, and lost his patients then his job. Now, I have no idea if this is one of those mythical stories or if it's true, but that's why I don't share my name or any information with almost anyone. So, don't take it personally. I think asking questions at the article talk page and on user pages will get you TONS of help. If you know how to add wikiprojects to the article, do so. Virology would be one. And one more thing. Lots of science editors stalk my user page. I'm going to link the section title, and I'm sure you'll have tons of help soon. :) But I'm still concerned about the notability of the article. I need to do some investigation.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:REALNAME. People who look for topics on the minutiae of vaccine issues are likely to be odd, but I would have no problem sharing info with them by email. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
economic antisemitism
I respect your modesty. Still, I lft a new comment here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economic_antisemitism
I'd appreciate it if you responded to my comment, to make sue the thread gains traction. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Me modest? Yeah right! I responded. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)