User talk:PalMD/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Friendly message from Project whitewash[edit]

You are receiving this message because you signed up to participate at project whitewash. If you no longer want to here from me about this then just remove your name or let me know. I want to create a push to get as thorough coverage as possible for two new categories the first is Category:Best of RationalWiki and the second is Category:Almost the best of RationalWiki. Both categories should tell you what belongs in each. If you could take some time to go through the article space and the essay space and label these with the corresponding categories it would be very helpful. Godspeed. tmtoulouse irritate 13:39, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree, so how about I cat your articles and you cat mine? :) tmtoulouse irritate 22:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Ok, i'll check your contribs?--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 22:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
There is a lot of crap to slog through in contribs, I don't know, I guess however is easiest, but I will just brows the main space and essay space and cat as i see them. tmtoulouse irritate 22:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
Sounds like a plan--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 22:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I'm sorry, gentlemen, but before you get all excited and start your engines, to better rev them across each others chest muscles, I do expect you to submit clear, concise, and constabulatory writing plans with me so I can stalk your contributions. Gawdspied, humanbe in 22:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Your deletion[edit]

Why was the article deleted? Please undelete it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:34, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

It depends on which article you're talking about. If it's the Nambla one, it was a simple definition, it seemed useless and perhaps created to waste time and resources. It should be simple to recreate as it had little content. If you are interested in the topic, how about looking for an "angle"--what's important about it? How is it's existence used by others? Why does it exist at all? First ammendment issues? I cant really find a good angle for covering pedophilia, so good luck and Goatspeed.--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 06:45, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I need backup![edit]

Help me out here! --transResident Transfanform! 16:07, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I missed it...wandalism?--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 17:42, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
The good news is that HG is back.--MountainTiger 18:02, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
Er, yes, well, uh...--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 18:08, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
I don't understand. Do you people want to be some uniform group of closed-minded liberals, always agreeing with each other, and never hearing the other side? Are you somewhat afraid of having a dissenting voice? Isn't this exactly what you lambast CP about supposedly doing? If you ask me you should welcome HG back. Bohdan 18:17, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
We lambaste CP for the way they got about their POV pushing, they way they claim not to have a POV and their particular POV, not that they have a POV. HG is welcome to participate here as anyone else. Doesn't mean we have to like their approach or what they have to say. tmtoulouse irritate 18:20, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
I like the "good HG", but the troll HG is very annoying. As I've said earlier, though, it's our own damn fault for feeding the troll. When he gets onto one of his paranoid riffs, we should let him be and wait for him to come back to his saner, bs-detecting self.--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 18:21, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Polar bears[edit]

I see they didn't get kosher this summer? Welcomen back.CЯacke® 22:11, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Mmmm, yummy polar bear steaks... Mmmmm humanbe in 23:12, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

New article you might like?[edit]

Could use your help writing the science part of the Evidence article :-) -αmεσ (!) 10:29, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

The call[edit]

*grumbles*. tmtoulouse irritate 23:39, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Water memory[edit]

So we have no article on Water memory can you believe it? tmtoulouse irritate 22:04, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Fuck...and the whole issue of Homeopathy devoted to it...including quantum bullshit. Hmm..--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 22:06, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
My favorite in that issue was the mathematical modeling of succession.....but yes we should probably plug this gaping hole at RW. tmtoulouse irritate 22:07, 19 August 2007 (CDT)


Why don't i rate a bio? Geo 14:43, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmm...i didn't do the bios, but maybe it's because you just aren't offensive enough.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 14:44, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
Not offensive enough? Geo 14:47, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

2 things[edit]

  1. Can you delete Octopus and Daniel Boone (and their talk pages). They're just redirects to their ACD counterparts.
  2. Does your most recent edit mean you're doing more with HIV denial? Or autism omnibus trial?

ThunderkatzHo! 15:07, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I've been bad lately...not enough uninterrupted time. Do you have suggestions re the above? I'm all ears (I really am...I have huge ears.)--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 15:12, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for number 1. As for number 2, RE:HIV denial, my only suggestion would be more about the African denial. RE:AOT, It looks pretty much done; I was wondering if you were ready to put it up as Best of RationalWiki (it's really, really good). In reality, I don't actually have any suggestions; I just wanted to nag you to write more awesomeness. ThunderkatzHo! 15:19, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, TMT did a great job on the autism one...feel free to cat is as "best of". I've been looking for someone to do my dirty work on the africa section of HIV denial, but I'm thinking I might be stuck.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 15:22, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
I'd help with the HIV denial, but I'm about to lose all my free time in less than a week (when school starts) and I don't want to commit to a promise I probably can't keep (especially as all I know about the subject I learned from Wikipedia). ThunderkatzHo! 15:32, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Enemies of reason[edit]

Just making sure you have the link here this one is on alternative medicine. tmtoulouse irritate 15:13, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Skinner box[edit]

I tried addressing your cat of needing rwifcation on said article, did I do what you think was needed? tmtoulouse irritate 00:23, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I like it a lot...thanks.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 21:20, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Disproving Creationism - title[edit]

Hi Palm. There has been a bit of a debate about renaming the "Disproving" articles and the challenge article on homeopathy. In the past you have commented on both of these and I thought you might want to contribute at Talk:Disproving Creationism. Cheers. (Ps, I can't think of a way of getting "Goat" into the heading, but you never know.)--Bob_M (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I couldn't find debate on the Talk:Homeopathy page, but I left a comment on the other...thanks much.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 15:47, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, we're trying to keep the whole discussion in one place, but also trying to make sure everyone who might have an opinion knows about it. Mebbe we should short pointers at the other talk pages so their "watchers" are alerted... humanbe in 18:20, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
I've added notes on a few of the appropriate ones.--Bob_M (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2007 (CDT)


Sorry to bother you again Palm, but I was idly tapping around the system and came upon this one Lupus. It's obviously about something medical but HG very obviously wrote something on it but the whole thing is beyond me. As our Medical Director I thought you might be the man. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Palm. Lupus seems to have disappeared. Could you have a look at this one. Psychobiology it's one of HG's creations which he's marked as pseudoscience. I don't know enough about it - but I'm a tad suspicious.--Bob_M (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Haven't been around[edit]

But, hey, I saw this and thought of you -- (sorry, forgotten all my formatting. Hey, I've got a new boyfriend (hence not around), cut me some slack.) MyaR 12:18, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks mya, that's something I can get behind, sink my teeth into find interesting.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 17:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Medical Tests[edit]

Hey doc, kind of random question here, but that's what you get for being the resident MD. I've been exposed to a lot of stuff about medical decision-making--sensitivity, specificity, ROC analysis, etc. of screening and diagnostic tests. I think this is an area that most people are seriously misinformed about. I would bet that the majority of the public thinks that false positive rates and false negative rates are a lot lower than they actually are, and my impression is that even a significant percentage of doctors don't fully appreciate how, for example, the prevalence of prostate cancer plays a role in the meaning of a positive PSA (not trying to knock docs here, I know you guys pay attention to a lot of different indicators of disease to diagnose it, but it's still interesting to me).

Anyway, my feeling is that a better general understanding about this would benefit people, but then it was pointed out to me that if people got the impression that the tests were "bad", they'd be less inclined to believe their doctors, or think "well, if mammograms are worthless, why should I get one?" Sort of a combination of the "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" and "doctors never know, but they're always certain" cliches. Any thoughts on this? In your experience, is this something doctors worry about?--Bayesupdate 21:48, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

The whole area is a pain in the ass, but in a good way. For instance, we don't know what to do with PSAs. However, we can be sued for not checking them. That screws up the science.
Whenever one of my residents wants to order a comprehensive metabolic panel (about 20 different measures) I remind them that about 5% of patients will have an abnormal result despite having no disease and that applies to EACH INDIVIDUAL TEST, so that the chances of getting "abnormal" results that require possibly useless follow up is high.
Residents and med students do get educated in these issues, but the human element comes into play quite a bit, the whole legal thing throws a wrench in it.
One of my residents was studying for the boards and there was a practice question about the effect of prevalence. It's out there, but it's always a balance putting EBM into practice.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 23:03, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Hey Doc[edit]

Anything you could add to Retinoblastoma? Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 22:31, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Arstechnica Homeopathy article[edit]

You might be interested in an Arstechnica overview of Homeopathy. But then again you might not. DogP 12:40, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

hmm..sounds promising.--PalMD-Berate Me 20:00, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

skeptic's circle link[edit]

Any chance of getting them to change the IP link to RW (which is now pointing here to the new IP)? If Trent gets us on a new dedicated server, that IP won't work any more. Probably. humanbe in 13:53, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Technobabble! Arghh! What link do you want them to use? User:PalMD
" neuroscience" ought to work long term. There is no rush, however, since the "wiki" part in the middle isn't set up yet. Leave this note here, and when Non-materialist neuroscience reads "correctly", like I typed it above, let them know. I just don't want the link to get stranded someday, is all. Change is good; change is a pain. humanbe in 14:08, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
OK, the link above should now work forever, and the one they have probably doesn't. Any chance of getting it fixed? humanbe in 19:29, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Message sent.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 20:48, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Awesome, thanks, Doc! humanbe in 20:49, 16 September 2007 (EDT)


I should block myself just to teach me a lesson.
Oh wait, I just did, didn't I?CЯacke® 17:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Your essay: CP on Deceit[edit]

contains a number of links on the CP side that are obviously intended to link to CP articles. Some of these are redlinks which we are trying to eliminate. I want to go through that article and delink all the CP links whether red or blue, as even the blue links point to our articles not theirs, and so may convey something far more rational than what they intended. I will wait a reasonalbe time and just go ahead, but would prefer your input before I do that.:--Remarcsd 18:44, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Why not just make em cp wikilinks instead?nSJGsjg 18:58, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Using interwiki links will bump google rankings, I would reserve those for only those articles that really need to be front and center. tmtoulouse irritate 19:03, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Why should we be directing traffic to an unreliable source is the reasoning I was using:--Remarcsd 19:13, 18 September 2007 (EDT).
I've done this to one or two pieces already - I delete the red links and leave the blue. So what if our article doesn't support CPs POV? Hehe. I'd say just barge in, do it in one easily revertable edit, and leave a nice edit comment with some fresh goat chunks attached. humanbe in 19:24, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I've gone through and delinked the CP references in the CP part of the essay:--Remarcsd 19:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Bicycle Repair Man[edit]

acupuncture - geddit?
Placebo effect? [1] Susantalk to me 10:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I am SO far ahead of you, SuzieQ. --PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 15:16, 26 September 2007 (EDT)