User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 10

Re: "good job" comment

1. Stop trying to create new disputes.
2. I don't think the message has sunk inside your head yet - so I'll try again:

• Wikipedia is all about consensus-based editing (with a collaborative attitude) and its users having mutual respect for each other. If you cannot (for any reason) maintain civility in your interaction with others, regardless of how 'right' or 'wrong' they might be in whatever content issues you have with them, then yes; it will come to the point that everybody's patience is exhausted and you will no longer be welcome to Wikipedia - the same goes for others with the same issues, who are unwilling or incapable of dealing with them. So, I'm not saying that you're the only one having these issues, but I am saying you need to acknowledge the problem and/or attempt to fix it on your side.

• You do not own Wikipedia, nor are you the only person using it and you need to show consideration for others (however unwillingly that might be). If someone has pissed you off for whatever reason, there are other ways of dealing with it than being incivil.

• If you're prevented from editing, it's unlikely to affect me - but it would be sad if you (or any other contributor, big or small) is blocked for something that is avoidable. You're (I think) capable of better which is why I spent the time making this message - but you, and only you, can take the next step. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'd pay you for being my shrink, but I haven't the foggiest idea why you think you have some insight into my brain. So, how about leaving me alone, because I don't appreciate amateur psychology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural Standard Acupuncture Flashcard

Hi orangemarlin, I recently tried to add a footnote for an efficacy table by natural standard at rvita.com, but it got deleted. Can you help me understand why? Natural standard is one of the most respected research organizations in iCAM and rvita is the only consumer site that makes the information available.

http://www.naturalstandard.com

Dr. andrew weil is on the medical board for example...

sorry, i'm new to the wikipedia thing and want to learn more from a poweruser like yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus777 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may step in here, rvita.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. Please see in particular Wikipedia's policy concerning self published sources. Additionally, Dr. Weil is an advocate for a particular brand of non-mainstream medicine, which must be considered when deciding how an article should weight his opinion. We also have a guideline on fringe theories which applies acupuncture in the context of medicine and may be of interest to you, particularly the Notability versus acceptance section. Happy editing. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Task Forces

How do I start a task force for the Ducks page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakrecord (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Task force? What's a task force? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

No matter how much you justify your actions, such as the section you recently archived in archive 9, you are incorrect. Wrong. Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen. There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly is fundamentally against the Five Key Pillars of Wikipedia and a violation of Wikipedia's rules of No personal attacks. I strongly suggest that you cut out the attacks in the future. You may disagree with their words, but you do NOT get to be incivil because you judge others to be incivl. An eye for an eye leaves Wikipedia blind. SirFozzie (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But very very sad that we tolerate such behavior on other's part. I doubt I'll see a smack about the side of the head of that person. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I have to stand up to what is right. You'll laugh at me, call me names, or threaten me with a block. But how do you think the Nazi's ended up killing Jews? Or the KKK lynch blacks? Do you think it came to them in a vision, one day they weren't doing it, the next they were? No, it came from words and ideas. Those words and ideas inspired others, and the next thing you know it's Kristallnacht. And I have no clue today where those ideas start, and I have no clue where they may end up. But words have power. DHMO has stated that he does not believe White Pride is racist or anti-semitic. That is his opinion. Mine is that White Pride is no different than any other racist group in the US. In fact, others back me up, specifically the Jewish Anti-defamation League. Yes, they're Jewish. Yes, they're sensitive to all attacks. But they know where words lead, and we've been down that path so many times, and it never ends up good for we Jews.

I have chosen in my life to resist all anti-semitism and racism wherever I see it, because I know my forefathers ignored it, and I don't have many forefathers left because they didn't stand up to it. You might be right that Wikipedia goes blind, but I'm going blind by reading how White Pride is completely acceptable, and that admins here can have that racist/anti-semitic background. So, I've had to read where I'm a member of some ridiculous cabal, that my feelings on anti-Semitism should be dismissed (you ask how this is related, it is because I was offended by someone using the term Jew Comedian, and the undertow said that that is not offensive, when it is, and DHMO supports that opinion).

Why should I ignore it? Why should I be the one who reads this offensive language and sit back and smile? Where does this lead? Words matter, because they hurt. I'm saying those words are highly offensive, and you chastise me. How fair is that? What would you like me to do? Pretend that the gas chamber is a shower? Because that's the logical conclusion from accepting hurtful ideas and words. So maybe instead of taking what appears to be a gleeful opportunity to slap me about side my head for expressing an opinion, you could think about those words and ideas expressed by individuals here can be so uncivil as to be hateful and emotionally painful. I cry every time I read of racism or anti-Semitism in words, because I know what they mean. They mean I'm less of of a person, for no other reason but that I was born as a Jew. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which particular incident are you referring to SirFozzie? I agree that insinuations which are polite may be hard to police, so a diff may be helpful here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] This statement, and his subsequent defense of that statement, such as [2] and [3]. There is not politeness in these, they are flat out attacks on another user. SirFozzie (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The first diff is a discussion of a highly controversial concept and does not mention an editor. Getting to the other two. And neither are the other two. They are conditional using the word if WRT DHMO. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They are flat-out calling DMHO that. That's an attack. (edit) He even admits to asking other editors for support in calling DMHO that.. it. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. [4] SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, do you know what a conditional is - it means the bit with the if. (i.e. if 'x' then 'y'). The whole moulton/white whatever saga is that Alex launched into was extremely controversial and led to a lot of acrimonious discussion. I am supporting Alex but am monitoring the situation myself as well.

OK, that bit should have had a few conditionals - everything else apart from the bolded bit which is clearly an abbreviation is fine by me - I think it was meant to have the 'if x then y' etc. .Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your analysis Casliber. Apparently Sir Fozzie chose to not read how emotional this is to me. Once again, let's be civil because that trumps racist ideology. I'm sticking with medical articles. If there is something I'm misunderstanding about DHMO's support of White Pride ideology, please email me. I'll be glad to read it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A different issue from the DHMO RfA

Orangemarlin, I would like you to consider one aspect of this particular post of yours - you have abbreviated SynergeticMaggot's username to "maggot". I will take a moment to refresh your memory on your !vote during my recent RfA[5], where you concurred with the opinions of QuackGuru and Guettarda; they had opined that I was (at least) insensitive by abbreviating QuackGuru's username to "Quack". I suggest to you that abbreviating SynergeticMaggot's username to "maggot" is also (at minimum) insensitive. I urge you to revisit your comment and insert SynergeticMaggot's full username into your comment in place of the insensitive abbreviation. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I should refactor that. BTW, though I concurred with their opinions on your RfA, it wasn't as a result of your using his name in pejorative manner. But I'm over that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemarlin, for your refactoring. I'm not sure exactly what caused you concern about my RfA, and I'd be happy to talk to you about it at any time, particularly if you still have any concerns. If it helps, I crossed paths with QuackGuru almost exclusively in the Essjay controversy article, and have no particular interest in working in any of the more "fringe theory" areas where I believe he edits quite a bit. Best, Risker (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am suspicious of candidates who might express an anti-science POV. Now, if I had known you had an interest in old Montreal Canadiens players, I would have voted strong support.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I should have put it in big bold letters - I grew up watching them too. One of the biggest thrills I ever had was being seated next to Ken Dryden at some fundraising dinner several years ago. Couldn't wipe the smile off my face for days. Risker (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My best friend is from Toronto (a Leaf fan, the biggest bunch of whiners in the sport world, and I don't care if you block me for a personal attack on Leaf fans)...I digress. His father is big supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada, and they invited me up to Toronto for a fundraiser of sorts. I got to meet him, and he told some story about Dave Dryden wearing a Gump Worsley jersey. I can't remember the details, but I remember laughing. Well, anyways, Toronto is on year 40 without a Cup. LOL. Yeah, and I blame you completely for failure to tell me about your hockey fascination. Of course, I accept no blame for not more closely analyzing your contributions. Of course, if you were a Leafs fan, I'd have voted 10 times and canvassed everyone to vote against you. Just a warning.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to ask (and I hate to even raise the issue because my biases are usually pro-Canadian), but what do you think of people who lean vaguely in the direction of the Red Wings? Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A little annoyed by that "Hockeytown, USA" moniker, but any team that had Steve Yzerman isn't bad. And fans of them aren't bad. So, I'm OK with it. Hopefully, this doesn't mean we're in a Red Wings cabal. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree, the Wings are okay by me too. No worries about me ever getting excited by the Leafs. For that matter, I doubt anyone can get excited by the Leafs. Maybe the Original Six cabal? Risker (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kings fan here. It'll have to be the Original Six plus Second Six Cabal!! Except, I will have to oppose any members of the cabal that are whiny Leafs fans. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having married a Michigander (and lived there for 7 years) I kinda feel obliged to support the Pistons and the Wings. As for "Hockeytown, USA", I think the important part there is USA. Without that qualifier it would be ridiculous. With it, it's just moderate arrogance. And if you've seen Detroit, you wouldn't begrudge them that. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that the masculine of a Michigoose? :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. I've never heard that before!!!!! LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

I apologize for inflicting this editor on you. For the background, I suggest taking a look at Talk:Da Costa's syndrome. I've got very little time right now, but this is the one article I'm trying to keep up with, since there's an ongoing dispute with this editor there. (The usual: all sources, even by known experts, are "unreliable" unless they line up with his quirky POV.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't worry about it. I've been battling this POV warrior for months. I just saw he was blocked, so your ANI was helpful. I wish you had mentioned it, I would have gotten involved. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lung cancer

We've got a tobacco apologist in action. For some reason, this doesn't appear on the obvious Junk science lists. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Hi OM, I have a free day tomorrow which I'll devote to the FAC. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Then let's get AIDS back to FA!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

... according to AIDS denialists?

"AIDS origins theories opposed to the scientific consensus" (or whatever it was exactly) was a lumbering and inelegant article name, but it appears you've swept some non-denialists into the category of denialists with your article name change. I'm not sure if Paul Farmer ever belonged in the article -- I'm currently researching that. However, I don't think he denies any consensus position about the ultimate origins of HIV, and I don't see where he denies that HIV causes AIDS. At worst, he seems to be opposed to the mainstream epidemiology saying that HIV originated in Africa, spread to Haiti, then spread from Haiti to the U.S. (He has said the direction was more likely Africa->U.S.->Haiti.) I believe the mainstream case (Africa->Haitia->U.S.) has been strengthened very recently, in which case it might be virtual consensus, but I don't know if Paul Farmer has responded to this more recent work; if he has, I don't know whether he rejected it or accepted it.

Likewise for the much-less-exemplary Leonard Horowitz, who apparently hews to the conspiracist line that HIV emerged in labs and is being used to kill off populations that the People Who Rule the World consider undesirable. He's a paranoid quack, to be sure. (I say, wearily; I'm his Wikipedia biographer for lack of anyone else who can stomach the topic.) Does that make him a "denialist"? He certainly doesn't deny that there's an epidemic, and that it's killing people, and that it's caused by HIV. And there are others mentioned who believe HIV is causing AIDS.

In short, you've made the title less accurate. Have you made it more NPOV, as you claim in your edit summary? Well, does everybody now implicitly lumped in as "denialist" in the article meet the definition in AIDS denialism? Clearly not. If anything, you've violated WP:BLP, at least in the case of Paul Farmer. In the case of Leonard Horowitz, if he were to complain about how grievously wounded and libeled he is by this article (which he could, especially since he was recently skewering Peter Duesberg as a denialist on a radio show on which they both appeared), I wouldn't feel sorry for him. However, that's irrelevant. He would have a point legally. And he's more likely to sue Wikipedia.org than Paul Farmer is. Yakushima (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to deny anything here, but a search doesn't show Paul Farmer or Leonard Horowitz as appearing in the denialism article. Presumably they could be mentioned briefly in the main Aids article if need be, or if there are several well documented instances a new Fringe theories about Aids article would be one possibility. . . dave souza, talk 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm not going to battle too much on this. However, I was pretty careful to read the cites for each person in the group, and I don't recall where any of them were not denialists. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Paul Farmer, the cite is a book, without a link. There is nothing in the book title per se to indicate that a denialist interpretation is in order. From most recent news about Paul Farmer

Jim Kim, professor at Harvard Medical School and a co-founder of Partners in Health, said that when Farmer "stared treating people in 1998 in Haiti, everyone said he was absolutely nuts," adding, "And here we are, you know, not even a decade later, where the goal is to treat every single human on the planet who needs HIV treatment with the right drugs."

According to "60 Minutes," Kim and Farmer also have worked to lower prices for drugs to treat multi-drug resistant TB by improving access to generics. In addition, the organization trains community health workers to visit HIV/AIDS and TB patients at home to ensure they adhere to their treatment regimens (Pitts, "60 Minutes," CBS, 5/4).

Just sample randomly from news about him over the years. Farmer: Believes there's a syndrome legitimately called AIDS. Believes it's caused by HIV. Believes that current drug regimens can be effective. Works to make those treatments available in Haiti. This doesn't fit any definition of "AIDS denialist" I can think of. Horowitz -- you know my feelings about him, but I just don't see how he's a denialist either. Nor can I see how you could have inferred this by looking at how he's cited. So in one quick stroke, you've created WP:BLP violation. Violation against one public figure who bids fair to be a living saint, and another who might a litigiously paranoid quack. If you're working from some sense of mission to make Wikipedia the go-to/first-stop source on ridiculous claims about HIV and AIDS, this isn't exactly the way to do it. Could you please revert the change? I've tried undo, and it doesn't seem to be taking. Yakushima (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't own these articles, and you apparently have done some research on it, so I suggest you be bold and make the changes. Excellent job on your part! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've "boldly" clicked on "undo" three times now. It doesn't change. Could you please either revert the change yourself or tell me what I'm doing wrong when I try to revert it? (Ideally, both.) Yakushima (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Which article? I'll see what I can do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AIDS origins according to denialists. Yakushima (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I figured out how to change it back to AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus on my own. (Never moved an article before, that's all.) It's a highly unsatisfactory title, but at least it doesn't libel anybody in any obvious way. Over the long run, I'd like to see if the material covered can be dispersed into other articles, and if so, I'd prefer to do that, then propose the article for deletion. For now, though, I'd prefer some stability while I look into the case of Paul Farmer and whether he really qualifies. If this sounds too WP:OWN to you, say so. Yakushima (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't quite grammatical, and I hate "scientific consensus", especially in an article title. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

my edit on kevin trudeau

i added the fact that a playboy playmate of the year, ms. underwood, appeared in trudeau's infomercial for debt cures. why did you undo this fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.52.116 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey, I think you've got a script gone wonky, I hope you don't mind the partial revert. SQL^{Query me!} 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I just posted on your page, so I guess that's an edit conflict across two talk pages, or something like that. I have no clue what causes it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

It may go without saying, but I am glad that you called my attention to the blog. I am frankly still not sure what to think - my bet is that the blogger in question is young and a little ignorant of the complex issues and politics but not ill-intentioned ... what I find interesting is the number of editors who viewed your concerns as well-intentioned (whether they considered them ultimately well-founded or not), and certain editors who reacted somewhat hysterically. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'm changing how I word my vote. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now East 718 has stated the kid wanted to release a personal name of someone. Wow. Now it's clearly a maturity issue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's more than a little disturbing. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, thanks for the clarification you've added to your vote, which is pretty much how I read your intentions. However, a lot of the misunderstandings may have arisen from your earlier words "that naively supporting racist code-words is still racist". Perhaps it would be a good idea to strike "still racist" and change it to something on the lines of "inadvertantly supporting racism". Hope that's a useful idea, dave souza, talk 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd failed to notice the "and has come under the influence of the cabal of racists" bit, and suggest striking that, as I've commented there. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents, for whatever it is worth: The problem with some of these "code words" is that they offend someone. I do not agree that people have any right to not be offended, but Wikipedia has become a very visible venue on the internet, and therefore Wikipedia cannot afford to cross certain lines (just like the BBC or CNN or the Wall Street Journal or Yahoo! cannot afford to cross similar lines). That is probably the best reason I can think of for tightening up on the WP:CIVIL policy. We shouldn't be going out of our way to offend people when we don't have to.

Now to some people, "white pride" might just seem like a brand of bread, and something that should not offend anyone, but a quick google search shows that, rightly or wrongly, it has acquired all kinds of incredibly negative connotations and is likely to be offensive to many. Just like the "c word" is not particularly offensive in Australia (and its counterpart in French is incredibly innocuous), but it is among the most offensive English words in some places, so it should be treated with sensitivity and care by Wikipedia. And the "n word" when used by young African Americans among themselves might be only somewhat offensive, but when others use it in other contexts, the US FCC can hand out multimillion dollar fines for its use during broadcasts. Therefore, Wikipedia should be exercise caution about how and where it uses the "n word".

Someone using "white pride" or the "c word" or the "n word" might not mean to use any of these words in a negative way, but some will inevitably take offense. And to not realize this shows a lack of maturity and a lack of judgement.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fishy, Filll, whoever: do you have links to where to ADL or other RS's state "white pride" is racist? I know they exist, but I don't have the specific URLs handy and cannot remember where they've been posted. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

El C. Somewhere. Maybe on Swat's user page but more likely on ANI. Guettarda (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is White Pride offensive to anyone and does any significant group claim that it has racist overtones ?

• Apparently the US PTO declines to register the trademark "White Pride Country Wide" as it is deemed to violate Section 2(a):

"Section 2(a) Refusal

"Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a) U.S.C. 1052(a); TMEP 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from a Lexis/Nexis database and a search of the Internet using the search engine www.google.com, the "WHITE PRIDE" element of the proposed mark is considered offensive and therefore scandalous."

/s/ by Barbara Rutland, USPTO Examining Attorney

When the applicant sought assistance from the ACLU, apparently the ACLU legal assistant agreed:

ACLU agrees "White Pride" is "offensive":

"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning, i.e., superiority of what he term[s] (sic) 'the [w]hite race' over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."

/s/ by Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for ACLU-MN

• The well known neonazi Group Storm Front has a website with the title "Stormfront White Pride World Wide" [6] and lists the related links as White Nationalist/ White Pride links

• Google reports that related searches for "white pride" are kkk, aryan nation, naawp, and skinheads [7]

• The Yahoo! White Pride and Racialism list [8] includes links to Stormfront and the Klu Klux Klan and David Duke and the National Socialist Movement (Nazi) [9] the Afrikaner Resistance Movement of South Africa [10] and similar websites

• The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has a lot of material on this. For example, Don Black: White Pride World Wide

• The website Naziwatch: Outing Nazi Scum has material on this such as The Problem With White Pride

• The Southern Poverty Law Center also has material on this such as White Pride Worldwide: The white power music industry is helping to drive the internationalization of neo-Nazism, Intelligence Report, Fall 2001

This is just a start. I can get a lot more with a little effort.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Laura

Having reviewed everything Laura's written, I've come to a number of conclusions:

1. She was (or is) ignorant of some things that you and I are not. It is undoubtable that some people believe that "white pride" isn't an inherrently racist phrase. That these people are ignorant and exist is fact, but it is not their fault that they are ignorant. They need to be informed, not mocked. I believe Lara has been adequately informed. Lara's section here is typical of individuals who were not aware that they had been indoctrinated with code words.
2. You went right over the top. It does not help to get up in the grill of your neighborhood racist. For all of my numerous failures in this area, it is imperitive that you remain calm, cool and collected. While it's wrong, the winner is not the one with the best argument, but the one with the best presentation. While facts help, sadly, demeanor helps more.

Some food for thought. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left this comment on the talk page of the mercifully deleted RFC just before it went red. I think it's marginally useful here. I am not going to endorse the statement on white pride in the RFC itself because I think it gives the wrong idea about what should be Wikipedia's appropriate reaction to racism. It is NOT ok to be a racist just as long as you don't have a userbox about it. White pride is about racism. Contrary to what our not-all-that-spectacular article on the subject says, you don't have to discriminate against someone in a tangible way to be a racist. Racism is the belief that one race is better than another; racial discrimination is acting on that belief. White pride - the belief that being white is something that is better than at least one alternative - is inherently racist and, while, we don't ban someone for ThoughtCrime, it's not a good attitude to have in life in general and it's certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia. --B (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Poupon, maybe you're right. But how does one stay civil in the face of these attitudes? Honestly, it is difficult to follow your advice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

B, this is what I've been saying for a few weeks, but certain editors (I don't have to mention them, just look at one of the crazy RfC's and RfAR's around here) insist that because I call a racist "a racist", I'm violating the principle of civility. Racism, even if it is a result of ignorance, is offensive to many people. Much of the argument around here has turned on whether I'm "civil" about attacking racism-it is being used as a method to shift the attention from the code-word racism that we both are observing. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but we do here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Since this is how you want it to go, I'm filing an RFC. I cannot be more clear about what I meant when I said white pride, how it is not racist for me, yet you continue with these comments. I'm not advocating the use of the term here. I'm fighting to get you to shut up with all the comments calling me a racist. How you people can't get that is so far beyond me. Maybe if I used a numbered list:

1. I am not a racist.
2. I was raised to believe white pride meant something else, perhaps more appropriately termed "early American colonization pride".
3. I admitted ignorance in regard to how the term is viewed elsewhere. As "white pride" is not something I've worn on my clothes, put on a bumper sticker, or otherwise advertised, it's not something that ever came up for debate for me.
4. I apologized for offending others by using the term.
5. I am not a racist, did I mention that?
6. I pretty much left the project after that, yet you've continued to run around here talking about how I and others are racists.
7. I've attempted more than once to discuss this with you so it could be resolved, yet you just keep running your mouth.

That's why I'll be putting together an RFC. It's not about you being uncivil, it's not about the use of the term on Wikipedia. It's about you being a dick and calling me a racist against all evidence, other than the use of this term a month ago that I apologized for. So we'll see. Lara❤Love 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LH, there are consequences for this kind of aggressive behavior. As User:Thatcher said, when you do this, your own actions will be also examined and subject to careful scrutiny and analysis. So feel free to file an RfC and we will see what happens. I personally would prefer that everyone just stop fighting and work on writing an encyclopedia instead, but it seems there are a lot of people who are not here to write an encyclopedia at all, but to mainly fight with other editors.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let her go on. As Poupon said above. There is a diverse group of individuals who don't buy these arguments excusing racism.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

She is of course free to do it. I am just pleading for sanity here, so that if there is trouble later, or unexpected consequences, no one can claim that they were not warned.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, things would be a lot better if you'd get to taking your own advice and write an encyclopedia and stay out of everyone else's business, because all you do is aggravate situations. And you of all people, are the last person to be telling someone else that their behavior is aggressive. In fact, I find that offensive that you've even said it. Strike it. I also find it offensive that you keep referring to me as LH, when it is obviously LL. Go correct that also. (I'm not LaraHate on WR anymore, like it's even relevant on WP what names I use elsewhere, but I set up my email on my new computer and retrieved my lost pw, so I'm LaraLove there again.) That aside, I don't need warnings from you. I'm completely aware of how these processes work. I mean, look at the RFC you and you bud filed, where you got handled as opposed to those it was filed against. Perhaps, though, it is something for me to consider, being there are so many bigots rallying together against me, and Orangemarlin is completely unwilling to discuss it with me. Lara❤Love 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What RfC? Who got handled? I'm so confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you take that attitude. What I think LL/LH seems to not quite understand is that when people are attacked and provoked etc repeatedly, they will have a tendency often to defend themselves. And that defense might very well not be welcomed by those doing the attacking, but so be it. Well I tried.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

←Filll, please disengage. Everyone seems to have their POV, anything further will be MAD. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

DHMO RFA

Talk about surreal endings [11] (his comment was in reference to [12]). This is kinda like watching a TV show when the writer obviously didn't know how to end it so they throw in a deus ex machina and roll the credits. --B (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually can comment on everything--I am speechless or wordless. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. I've seen some things spin out of control but that was....(substitute superlative adjective here). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone very clever predicted that this RfA might end up in another failure. I had my doubts, but I will admit now they were correct. Someone else very clever predicted that the candidate would leave Wikipedia, at least for a while, if they failed. Again I had my doubts, but I will admit now that they were correct. I have to learn to listen more to those here with better intuition than me, clearly. --Filll (talk | wpc) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note. According to most scholars, there is little difference between the terms, one simply being a euphemism for the other, much like "Holocaust revisionism" is a euphemism for "Holocaust denial". That said, there were far more serious issues with this candidate's RFA, which in any event, has now been withdrawn. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the drama left a lot of carnage in its wake. It contributed to at least one Admin walking away from WP. It has been partly responsible for a current RfAr, which might lead to a sequence of disruptive administrative actions. At least 3 or 4 who voted "oppose" felt sufficiently harassed that they withdrew their "oppose" votes. The candidate has indicated he is on a long wikibreak which might become permanent, so we will not have the benefit of his contributions. It definitely contributed to hard feelings among certain groups. And that is completely ignoring the undercurrent of racism and other problems. It frankly was an ugly affair. I wonder if we will be able to learn from the failings it revealed?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I'm not convinced that a move is in order at this moment, since there's a discussion going on, and I trust Will's judgment. So I would recommend waiting just a little bit. That said, there's no reason why the original (or previous, anyway) page should be an "admin-only" move, so I deleted the last three edits to the page (a redir left by a page move doesn't stop a non-admin move. Any other edits to the page do.)

You should be able to move the page, but I would advise waiting to let the discussion proceed a little further. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Who's Will? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah. Still think the consensus was the previous version, so making the change was actually going against consensus (being me and SA agreeing and patting each other on the back). I think it's important that we use "denialism" up front in these articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Philip E. Johnson

Hey, since you're involved with Biaswatchdog and friends at Philip E. Johnson, just a note to say that, shockingly, there was sockpuppetry afoot. In the good old days I'd just have handled it administratively, as an obvious case. But since it's open season at the moment, technical backup seemed essential. Anyhow, should be handled now; just a heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm so shocked that I pulled out my handy Automated external defibrillator to treat my cardiac arrhythmia. It's funny, the first time I met you here was dealing with a sockpuppet, where I identified some smelly sock, and you blocked him. Those days are gone I suppose. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I try to do the same things I've always done, but I know better than to go out wearing my yellow hat during duck season. Or do I? MastCell ^Talk 06:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually wabbit season.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

5 word test in Alzheimer

I eliminated your sentence on the test but you reverted it. I still think its neither the best reference nor the best comment. First of all I want to point that I am a neuropsychologist so the use of these kind of tests for the detection of cognitive impairment and dementia is my speciality. My doubts are: The ref is from a frech journal and is in french. It's a normalization of a test, therefore only controls are used. It does not talk about the sensitivity or specificity of the test in the early detection of AD (it could be useless). The sentence could therefore qualified as OR. As I said in the edition summary there are hundreds of screening tests for memory and other functions being the MMSE the most used, and different commonly used neuropsycholgy memory tests such as the rey word list, the CERAD list or the Rivermead Behavioural memory Test if a test is to be commented better to be a well-known, well validated one. I am not sure that memory should be specifically mentioned in the testing section since it is well known that it is not the only cognitive function to be impaired in the early moments of the disease. Information on global cognitive testing is from my point of view more appropiate. There are more than enough reasons to eliminate it. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I knew you knew this stuff!!! Can you help out by beefing up the Short-term memory loss information? I think we should include a couple of very useful diagnostic tests. I like the 5 word test, because it's easy to describe, but maybe I'm being lazy! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not written anything last few months becouse I'm really busy in real life. Anyway I'll try something next week. Maybe is better to say that what appears in AD is impaired learning capacities since working memory understood as a 30 second memory is not (very) impaired. It was probably me the one saying the thing on short term memory but I referred to the problem of having difficulties to remember new information. it is true that it can lead to terminological confusions. Regarding the FAC: I do think that most of the article is high quality, but the epidemiology section should be completely revised. I won't vote for the moment but if it is not rewritten I think I would have to oppose. --Garrondo (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Creationism template

Actually this is the more widely used one. Guettarda (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused, then you EC'ed me twice, and I couldn't get my thoughts right. Your fault. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well - you EC'd me when I was posting my initial opinion.  :) Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah blame me for your incompetence. You should be desysopped for uncivil ECing. Meh.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease

Epidemiology needs more than a copyedit, and I hope the mismatch between text and sources isn't indicative of the rest of the article. I'll see what I can do but (a) I'm dreadfully slow since I have such limited time, (b) I know next to nothing about Alzheimer's, (c) I don't have access to non-free sources on Alzheimer's and (d) I have no training in medicine or epidemiology. You know who I consider to be WP's expert on that subject. As you may tell from my comments on FAC, I'm a bit disappointed that nothing has progressed in that section since March, despite an acceptance that it did need work. I doubt that someone like me can write an FA quality section on the Epidemiology of Alzheimer's. I could try, but it might get shot down. What I can do, within time limitations, is help someone who is better qualified than me. I could also review other areas, if you want me to. Colin°^Talk 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

i personally do not believe that what is written in that article is correct, so i have corrected it. I do not think that the changes i made were vandalizing, or slanderous. I do not think it is beyond reason to simply suggest that the theory presented in the article is possibly incorrect. On the contrary, I think it is important to foster the element of discussion, so that when people read the article they are realizing that it is not fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.160.143 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't care what you believe in your mind. Brilliant scientists have figured this out, and I think I'll stand by them.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement to JimMiller the "Scientific theory is considered a fact" is in error. If it were a fact, it would not be a theory. The two terms are mutually exclusive. Evolution and creationism are both theories, and neither have been proven to be the absolute fact as of yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, I would ask that you don't post your POV on this talk page. I would suggest you find others on this project who share your anti-science POV, and post to their page.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is more a matter of the proper meaning of the word "theory," and not necessarily in relation to evolution or creationism. If something is a theory, be it scientific or otherwise, it is not yet proven to be a fact by definition, no matter what in field of study it may be. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Read Filll's reply below. You are utilizing a laymen's interpretation of theory and fact. You are now violating my request to not post to my page. Please take your anti-science POV to an editor who might feel comfortable with your POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a legitimate, civil conversation, and by trying to reject any feedback you are merely trying to stifle any opinion that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions. You are being just as close-minded about the issue as many of your opponents. The definition of "theory" is not a "layman's definition" - it is the definition, period. Scientific theory, like any other theory, is not fact until it is proven - by definition. Your accusation against JimMiller is unfounded. (By the way, despite my religious beliefs, I'm pretty much agnostic on evolution/creationism - I see valid points on each side.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a difference between the way scientists use the term "theory" and the way laypeople use it. The Wikipedia article on theory actually does a good job of explaining the differences, but suffice it to say that you are using the layperson's interpretation of the term. Antelan^talk 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, that's been explained about 25 different ways to Realkyhick. He's just trying to create a controversy, where is none, except amongst the anti-science crowd. I have now asked him three times to not post here, so I'm going to ask for a block. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I could request a block of you for your persistent disparaging remarks ("anti-science" — rather odd for someone who makes a living with computer science.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is actually confused. There are two things here: scientific facts, and scientific theories. A scientific fact is different from what is called a "fact" in conventional English, and a scientific theory is different from what is called a theory in conventional English. A scientific fact is a piece of data, like an observation or a measurement, and presumably one that has been checked repeatedly and often has error bars and other statistical information associated with it. A scientific theory is an explanation for a collection of scientific facts.

There are "scientific facts" which are called evolution; that is, observations of evolution, as well as other data that support evolution. There are explanations for these scientific facts, including observations of evolution, and one of these explanations is referred to as the Theory of Evolution (or more accurately the modern synthesis or the neoDarwinian theory of evolution).

Creationism (and for that matter, intelligent design) are explanations of these data, but they are not scientific theories because they do not satisfy the requirements of a scientific theory. For example, a scientific theory is a natural explanation for natural observations; it cannot include the supernatural or magic. A scientific theory is normally taken to be falsifiable. One can see more discussion of how to tell a scientific theory from another type of explanation at demarcation problem.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And, BTW, computer science is a misnomer -- I work in the field, and it's really more of an art. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into it with him, because he was obviously trying to bait an argument, but I wasn't sniffing. However, there is a significant difference between basic and applied sciences. Astrophysics is definitely a basic science. Computer science is definitely an applied science that utilizes "discoveries" from the basic sciences. It doesn't do scientific research. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely very debatable. Theoretical computer science is very much math, and not applied math, either. Think computational learning theory or complexity theory. And other fields, like my own automated reasoning do use the scientific method, because the complexity barrier keeps us from arguing everything from first principles. We have hypotheses, theories (both logic and scientific), and perform experiments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you use scientific method on occasion, but the fact is that you are trying to create technology. You aren't trying to figure out how humans learn, but you are trying to create a machine to learn. Moreover, you never falsify your theories.Because you assume that it will work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I falsify theories all the time! I have a large number of theories about the structure of the search space for many AI problems. I then perform experiments and find out that I'm all wrong ;-). I have theories about which operations in an inference engine are expensive. I perform an experiment, and are (less often, but still) wrong. I personally are primarily interested in the practical application, i.e. in building a very good logical reasoner. But there are may people in subfields of CS that are very far removed from that. Showing that P!=NP is not useful for applications at all (and showing the converse only if the proof is constructive - and even then the practical difference between O(2^X) and O(X^200) is not all the big...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You fungalist you...

You didn't proudly put the mouldy samwich on yer userpage, this fungalism has to stop....but seriously, if you ain't interested in Petey no more, this looks kinda cool...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still interested in Petey, but there's an editor there that's annoying, so I'm ignoring the article for now. I need to take a look at the article you mentioned above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Topical sorta global warming thingy. Maybe it won't be so bad, just sorta like Miami or New Orleans in Montreal...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate global warming. I like cool days and cold nights. I swear, I'm going to buy land in Greenland. It was a fascinating article. I have a bunch of books on global weather changes in geology and also tons of stuff on Petey. I might be able to help. I like these kind of articles, they usually lack POV warriors which causes my blood pressure to rise. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Goat trauma???

Really? :) --Ramdrake (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I saw that somewhere. Where was it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice article

The formation and evolution of the Solar System article was a nice read. Some of the subsidiary articles are a bit brief or disorganised though. Accretion (astrophysics) caught my attention. Any ideas on how to improve that? I also thought that the see alsos were a bit random, Tidal locking in particular. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not an astrophysicist.  :) I did not edit the article, just reverted vandalism after it became a featured article, especially YEC's who were trying to push their POV on the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. That's right. You are an orange marlin. :-) Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight! Because Purple marlins are evil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

You've been named as an involved party at this RfAR. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AIDS troll

He's already been blocked indefinitely. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that when I was leaving you the message. How can you tell if someone is indef blocked? The template on his page said he was, but a note from PhilKnight said it was only 12 hours. I looked at his block log, but I couldn't figure it out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Look on his userpage, or the block log. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was using the Logs system wrong. I was putting people's names in the User: section rather than the title section. That wasn't clear! Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

mind reading

And then I see people who boast having 28 barnstarts. How does Wikipedia work, anyway? Well, thanks - I hope you keep an eye on these articles and contribute as you see fit, we need more good contributers, even if we all are a bunch of old trolls ;-) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are you calling old?  :) I am not much an expert on some of these issues, but I try to help out where I can. What's starting to age me quickly is the the constant pushing of POV's that are so obviously fringe. And some of these fringe theories are pushing a racial ideology that makes no sense. And now this from one of the fine admins of the project. Tiresome. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

reply

I have registered but, because of the long contribution history on the IP, normally do not login before editing. (IMHO, the important thing in terms of privacy is for readers not to know both the IP address and the username of a user.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you ask an admin nicely, they can transfer your contribution history to a registered account. Since your IP address is out there, I don't think you need to worry about privacy. I have consciously kept my IP address private, so that stalkers can't find me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer

Its a pity that AD was not promoted, but I feel it was not ready yet. At least we have some ideas on where are our weakest points and next time I am sure it will pass if we work enough. I have revised, rewritten and fully referenced the genetics section. Would you take a look at it?. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick heads up

Since I listed you by name, I figured I'd alert you of my impending doom/request for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ali'i‎. I only thought it right to inform you. I know, I know... what in the world could I have possibly been thinking?!?! ;-) Mahalo, Orangemarlin. --Ali'i 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I thought you were an admin??? Seriously? Well, I am open to bribes. My Secret Swiss Bank Account is located in Geneva. Do you need the number? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Suuuure... I need the account number, the security code, and your social security number to take you to the clea... er, deposit, yeah that's it, your truckloads of cash, precious jewels, and parting gifts. That's the ticket. ;-) --Ali'i 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Hawaiin sunshine has damaged your thinking skills. You're taking my money AND expecting me to support you. Ummmmm. Apparently, you're missing the point of a bribe. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to being serious. I looked at your RfA, and I'm going to remain neutral, only because my emotional bank account with you is just moving on the positive side. What concerns me about your candidacy is that you're involved with several RfC's and RfAR's. I think you're balanced in your opinions, and I appreciate that. However, a lot of key people aren't going to be happy with your involvement, and it's probably going to have a negative effect. From my POV, I prefer a controversial person rather than a milquetoast personality, so I'm probably more positive. I have several other concerns--lack of recent activity in building articles, too much involvement in creationist articles (not in the sense of contributing on one side or another, but way too much involvement in the drama), and not enough work in the Wikiproject that you "advertise" on your user page. But these aren't opinions that are necessarily supportable, it's just what I see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What, not enough article building... harrumph! :-) Okay, tell ya what, you name an article, and I'll spend an hour or so copy-editing/fact-checking/building it. I can't promise much, but I'll do what I can. --Ali'i 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want one hour from you!!! I want bunches.  :) But, since you're volunteering....I'm evil, I know....I've been working to get Alzheimer's disease to FA. It failed recently, because there was lots to do, and there appears to be only 3 or 4 interested editors. It's quite medical, but I'll bet you can do some cleaning up. It's not controversial (unless you tell me that Hawaiian sea salt is the only known cure). But seriously, you need to be working on your Wikiproject lots more. I was working on an article about a volcano in Hawaii...maybe you can find it and clean it up.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll peek over at Alzheimer's and hunt around for that volcano. As to the Wikiproject... I am not really a member of it... I just think it could get highlighted more since it's something I care about. I don't want to sign up for any Wikiproject since then I might be accused of shirking some "duty" if I don't edit those articles (*cough cough*). :-) I want to have the liberty to edit where I please. And, sadly, I'd almost have to agree with you on the "creationist article" involvement. Very tiresome. Ta. --Ali'i 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Judaism an unnecessary religion?

I read your user page and noted that you posted the results of a worldview quiz where you state:

"Religion is unnecessary and any sort of spirituality halts progress"... this right next to the banner where you announce you are a member of the Judaism Wikiproject. That confused me. Why would you be a member of the Judaism Wikiproject when you feel that religion is unnecessary and halts progress? Forgive my curiosity, and ignore the question if you find it intrusive. Supertheman ^(talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into it too much, because it's complicated. I don't believe that religion has any place in government, science, research, or anything substantial. Morality, maybe a little bit, but my moral code is a lot different than say a fundamentalist christian. Based on nothing but my personal opinion, a Jew can either be a religion or ethnicity, though Jews who convert to Christianity or something else, are no longer Jewish in my opinion, but I might be harsh. The Nazi's certainly didn't accept my distinction, since Jews converted to Christianity were murdered too, but I'm definitely not going to utilize Nazi dogma to determine who is and who is not a Jew. I'm Jewish, somewhat religious, but religion is kept out of my business, science, and medical life. It has no business there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Supertheman ^(talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this

I just saw this on WT:AIV. I think it may be best if you either 1) Discuss the matter with the anonymous user, or 2)Post a thread to ANI. I don't think that just reverting another editors questions will help the situation go away. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's because the editor is vandalizing the article. And I don't care to engage with him. I read his message, I deleted it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• After reviewing the content here, and the source, I do think that the anonymous user is mistaken. However, I wouldn't class it as vandalism, more stubbornness. Stubborneess is not vandalism, I'd class it as content dispute. To the anonymous user, I'd advise you to start a discussion on the article talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (contact) 05:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I, too, looked briefly at it and, at a glance, it appears it isn't a direct quote by the subject but, rather, by Rob Boston (see for eg., Stephen G. Morris. "The Fundamentalist Attack on Science: A Problem That Won't Just Disappear," p. 13). Regards, El_C 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes, then I realized I smelled a sock. I should have known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No surprise there; still, the attribution should probably be better clarified (which doesn't mean the passage needs to be removed). El_C 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit the article very much, just watch for vandalism. I dropped a note on User:Hrafn's page, who spends a lot of time editing the article. He's a good guy, so I'm sure he'll use the information to improve the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a blp issue, so I'm gonna take care of it, rather than wait for someone else. El_C 06:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a paraphrase not a quote -- so shouldn't be misrepresented as such. It does however reasonably accurately represent Johnson's views. On the other (third?) hand, many of the articles that its used in a fairly quote-farmy anyway -- so probably don't really need another. See Talk:Phillip E. Johnson‎#Johnson quote for more details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of it in the three articles that attributed the quote directly to Johnson (^{1 2 3}), which eliminates any immediate living persons issues (though I should stress that these were relatively minor blproblems in nature). Regards, El_C 06:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And since Hrafn is around, I can leave the matter to his discretion. El_C 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs) and Phillip E. Johnson

Heyo. This user approached me after you reverted this edit of his and issued him a final warning for disruptive editing. The edit that you wholesale reverted was not vandalism, and since then a compromise position has been reached on the article that reflects a more neutral take on the paraphrase in question. I hope that in the future you will be more careful before warning editors against making constructive edits, as it tends to discourage participation in the project. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring my comments, but I still think he is a sock, but checkuser is inconclusive. Nevertheless, in a very controversial article an anonymous editor makes wholesale deletion of content without discussion. Notwithstanding "compromise language", and I beg to differ that it's compromise, it's more like make the attribution more clear, that action is vandalism, pure and simple. The editor has been blocked once, has several warnings, and my level of warning was in line with what was already on the editor's user page (progressive warnings are an important factor in establishing an editor's behavior). Taking me to task is fine, and I appreciate what you're writing, but I would suggest a bit more of a review of the whole matter. I personally don't care about anonymous editors who appear to be a single purpose account for biographies of individuals who push Intelligent design. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I apologize that what I wrote came off as taking you to task; in retrospect, linking to WP:BITE was a little over the top. I do appreciate what you're doing—it's obvious that many of anonymous users who pop up on these ID articles are POV-pushing SPAs, and I know that it takes a lot of patience and effort on the part of you and other editors to keep them from becoming a cesspool. Having spent so much time and effort fending off the crazies, I'm concerned that you are far too quick to call this edit vandalism, when it is clearly not. The section he removed from the article was presented in a list of quotations, with a cited reference that clearly does not present that as a quotation at all. It needed to be blanked. The compromise position on the page now is fine; it states clear, NPOV facts about who said what—but blanking the misquote altogether is better than leaving it in. But when you automatically reverted his removal without taking the time to evaluate his edit on it's merits, you just inserted a false statement about a living person into an article backed up by a bogus reference.

You reference his previous block for edit warring. Now I'm not one to defend the right version in an edit war, but he was attempting to remove a grossly inappropriate misquote about an organization from an article. The incumbent editors cried out that it was vandalism, but it isn't. You have to evaluate the edits on their merits.

Anyway, I'm rambling now anyway. Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I'm no friend to anybody's god, intelligent designer, the American Family Association, or Phillip E. Johnson. I just have a very strong dislike of people referring to good-faith edits as vandalism, and treating anonymous editors as second-class citizens. ➪HiDrNick! 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I know I don't particularly like anonymous SPA's. I only treat them as second class citizens after one chance. It maybe tough, but we have to do what we need to do.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kdbuffalo

Please reply to my questions there. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your questions are rude and insulting. Support the sock, or don't. I don't care. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah Flood

Strike-through text

Mind giving credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filll/Archive_3#Talk:Noah.27s_Ark

--Doctor X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.177 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it a few years ago and posted it under my user name. I am the one who has an Editor [He does.--Ed.] I have the original paper which was created in Early 2006. It was published in a forum--Skepticforum two years ago:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1535&p=39528

I know the administrator. I left it--and leaving ended up wiping my posts--but you can see the quotes and references to it. I have posted it on other forums. I normally would not make a "stink" about it, but a Creationist accused me of stealing it from HERE!

--J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.177 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And you're telling me this why? Because, honestly, I don't care. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm.....hi Dr X, it was a good read. I am not sure how you could get credit now but maybe you could make a userpage here and note it I guess. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no way to get credit, unless it was copyrighted, which it wasn't. Moreover, how do I know he didn't "borrow" it from someone else. And lastly, and this is the most critical, what do I have to do with it? I didn't write it. This is confoozling. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you do not care about being a plagiarist? You do not care about stealing the work of others? Fine. I have the originals including where it has been posted. Such makes it copyrighted, a little fact you will discover if you bother to read that little linkypoo called "copyright" at the bottom of this.

I have removed permission for you to host it, and I launched a formal complaint. Welcome to the world of adults.24.19.45.177 (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Doctor X

Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Let me repeat myself very clearly, because you apparently are not understanding me...I didn't write it. Are we clear? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to be this post some years ago, giving weird maths about ye fludde. Hardly worth restoring, I'd leave it deleted. Whether anyone can show they have the copyright appears moot, but the info would be copyright to someone so should stay deleted. In my opinion, dave souza, talk 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't used in an article. It was used as a discussion point. Who cares. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about."

Try reading. It seems your other commentators figured it out.

"Let me repeat myself very clearly, because you apparently are not understanding me"

Oh I understand you perfectly well: you felt free to steal material without giving credit. You posted it as your own work. The word you are looking for is "plagiarism." One could accept that as accident save you kept removing the citation after being alerted to it and behaved like a petulant babe caught with his hand in the cookie-jar in these comments.

"...I didn't write it. Are we clear?"

Oh I understand you now admit you committed plagiarism. You compounded that by removing all reference to the author when you pasted it, then when alerted to it you threw a tantrum as you are now. All you had to do was leave the citation. Instead you removed the citation not once, but twice to leave the impression that you wrote the material.

It is really not terribly complicated.

Doctor X24.19.45.177 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, stay off my page. You've now exceeded my annoyance quotient. Once again, I don't give a shit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The original post made it clear that Orangemarlin was not posting it as his own work, as recommended it has been deleted. Time to archive this, in my opinion. . dave souza, talk 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Forsooth - now where is one of those archive template thingies when you need one...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry intellectual honesty and integrity makes you cry. Relax.24.19.45.177 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dave souza, it was not clear he did not write it which is why I had a YEC accuse me of plagiarizing it. If you wish to engage in academic discussions with such, you have to play by the rules which includes not stealing the work of others and, especially, not having a temper-tantrum as this individual did when kindly asked to correct it.

24.19.45.177 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Doctor X

I just have one thing to say about all of this

Here. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean that the Marlins are 2nd place with a $12 million payroll????? Thank you for pointing that out. Hehehehehheheheheheheh. BTW, who IS your team???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I going to do with you? I already gave you an 86-year hint. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm old. But not so old to remember the last time the Cubs won it all. So, I'm going to assume that Steve Bartman (if there's a wikilink, I'm going to be shocked) is not so much a hero to you as he is to me. Did I mention that the Marlins have won 2 world series in the past 10 years? You can look that up.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And he's wikilinked. With a larger article than some important people. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange, you gotta study up on your baseball history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm lost. Cubs were 1908. It's not so much my baseball history as it is my math skills. Red Sox waited 86 years, but not any more. And I cannot believe the size of the Steve Bartman article. If you or Raul ever FA that, I'm gonna blow out an artery!!!!! LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend. First, what's this $12 million crap? [13] What do you have to say about Tampa Bay's standing? Second, 86 years, dude, everyone knows that number. Third hint: "Did I mention that the Marlins have won 2 world series in the past 10 years?" Bah .... scoff, scoff ... take 2 in 4. Ok, I gotta go get some work done now, reading 40 FACs. (PS, the person to FA a baseball article is Nishkid4 or Giants2008 ... go talk to them while I'm busy ... I have a hard time keeping my hands off whenever a baseball article appears at FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

$21. $12. I got the digits right (should've guessed high). See, you say 2 in 4. I say 2 in 88. Just saying.  :) Speaking of baseball articles, I loved the one on the main page, Moe Berg. What a wonderful person. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball? What's baseball....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cricket? What's cricket ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An insect? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably eats mushrooms, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Colin Cowherd - there are two seasons in American sports - football season and "waiting for football" season. --B (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a football fan. To me there's baseball season, then to hold me between the World Series and Spring training is Ice hockey. But once pitchers and catchers report, I could care less about hockey. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cas, baseball is a little like cricket...imagine a variant of chess where the winner was based on the person who could throw the most chess pieces across the table. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

2 in 88? Orange, we must work on your math skills. Is that all they taught you on the Hill? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Humph. The Hill????? Now there's a term I haven't heard in a long time, obscure enough that only an alumni or someone very close would know.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, 2 in 88, 3 in 88. It ain't 2 in 10. And that's math my dear. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

2007, 2004, 1918, 1916, 1915, 1912 and 1903; now do the kind of math that's taught at The Farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Geez, we are stretching here. 1916? 1915? Must have been before trading Babe Ruth. OK, out here in California, the Farm is Stanford. Not sure what you east coast types use. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are you calling an East Coast type? Ok, so the household vote is in your favor; I've been "instructed" to agree with you that the Marlins are doing fine on $21 million, but ... see you, in October ... it's a marathon, not a sprint. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, how's that marathon going for the Bosox this year. Wait a minute, let me check the standings. Hmmmm. First place, do I see the Rays? By 5 games? Looks like we're at mile 13, and the BoSox are watching the rear ends of a certain other team. Well, at least it's not the Yankees. Now that team I hate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Too soon to say :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bosox sounds too much like Botox - do they get paralysed at crucial times too? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

←The Bosox are at team that has rabid, irrational fans. Other than that, the people of Boston talk funny.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a fan is a fundamentally irrational act. It's not just the Sox. If your team wins The Big One, the only tangible effect on your life is that your municipality is that much more likely to divert your tax money from fixing potholes and paying teachers to building a brand-new stadium with $800 luxury-box seats. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And your point is what? Without potholes, gas-guzzling SUV's would have no purpose in life. Geez, MC, I thought you were much smarter than that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so pessimistic MastCell. Taxpayers build new stadiums regardless of how long it's been since a successful season...(and I just gave away my favorite team. Actually, I have two favorites: the Twins, and whoever is playing the Yankees...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with MC, although I need to give him grief. Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize billionaires and their play toys is fairly troubling. I don't care much about potholes (not much of a problem in Southern California), but I do care about better hospitals and medical care, which could use some of that taxpayer money. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, phooey, I thought we were having fun here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do want to talk about the Bosox' relief pitching corps, I'm game. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't fun? :) I have noticed a steady increase in my level of cynicism in the past month or two, so apologies for raining on the parade. I saw the Sox a little while back - Manny seemed to be having trouble pretending he cared about the game, but the team looked OK. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're an old-fart like me, you can be a cynical curmudgeon. LOL. I happen to agree with you on stadiums, but it did put a damper on the baseball commentary. Are you like that at a party? Everyone drinking beer, and you probably tell them that the organophosphates in the beer will cause some cancer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the organophosphates; it's the nitrosamines and the cobalt. I guess that's a "yes" in answer to your question. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cobalt in beer? MastCell, are you living in the 1960s? Probably worth it for the frothy head, though. Cardiomyopathy, here I come. Antelan^talk 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What, you believe the brewery-industrial complex propaganda that they've phased out cobalt? Why do you think they call it Pabst Blue Ribbon? Next you'll be believing what the IDSA or American Academy of Neurology have to say. Besides, I haven't cleaned out my fridge in a while - I have a few bottles of 1960's vintage Budweiser Blue in the back. It's Cobaltastic! MastCell ^Talk 00:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

First: poking at BoSox fans about losses doesn't work: they have 86 years of experience, and they aren't "win-entitled" Yankees jerks. Second: A. J. Burnett to The Dirt Dogs? Third: Manny being Manny; so what else is new? Fourth: how come I got called an East Coast type and tangled up with cosmetic "work done" in the same conversation? Reminder to go tell Cas off for making such insinuations about botox. Fifth: cancer? Sheesh, talk about a downer, and right after I got a good biopsy result. You should host talk page parties that are more fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, shifting blame in the time honored way, it's MC's fault. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that anyone who lives outside the New York metropolitan area and roots for the Yankees has a deep character flaw. I am old enough to remember Mookie Wilson's infield dribbler rolling through Bill Buckner's legs, and I thought that would always endear the Red Sox to me, but in recent years Bostonians have become win-entitled (across multiple sports) themselves. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a character flaw? Go Yankees. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice strikeout, A-Rod. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Madonna???? Man, that's pathetic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, there'll be no playoffs appearance this year for the boys in stripes. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The world will survive; I know the Yankees fans can, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Yankees fans can. In Boston and New York, baseball is nearly everything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll survive, though 2000 seems long ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

<--Ok, everyone STOP. Beer causes cancer? (that's where I stopped reading). Oh shit...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude. You didn't know that? That's why I eat steaks, drink beer, smoke cigars, and listen to rock and roll. I've given up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

--:-). Ok, I'll have summore beers please. And of all the vices you just listed, clearly, rock and roll is the quickest way to find yourself on a path towards Hell. Evil music I say. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, while I find Sympathy for the Devil on my iPod.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Simpletons with your rock music and/or beer! You should live better, like I do! I drink Cabernet Sauvignon, eat Lindt 70% cacao bars while listening to classic gangster rap. Now that's living! Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia starts paying us for our time, we just can't afford such luxuries. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikkid

Feel free to comment here. It's where the AIV boys sent me this morning, but I hadn't bothered filing anything until now because Wikkid got quiet for a while (sleeping?). I have to go now, but it'll turn out right eventually. NJGW (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no clue how I got involved at Petroleum, but this guy is over the top. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed his last edit war (a day before!) was over whether or not Arafat was gay. He was fighting tooth and nail (even got a 3rd opinion) to put this whole long quote in the article with details about a tryst. Seems a bit passionate about his view points ;) NJGW (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings

With Captain Rob Blake gone; alternate captains Lubomir Visnovsky & Mike Cammalleri gone & alternate captain Scott Thornton likely retiring? They'll be a whole new group of leaders to grasp the reins in 2008-09 season. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided to not renew my season tickets for the first time since 1999. I've endured 4 or 5 rebuilding seasons, and this one looks to be the worst of all. I do like Kopitar and Brown, but I think that Jack Johnson is highly overrated, and he's all that's left on defense. So, there's one line, no goalie, and one marginal blue-liner. I've decided to become an NHL-fan free agent. Maybe the Detroit Red Wings.  :) I think the LA Kings are like the Chicago Cubs. Fans keep coming. No wins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

advice?

concerning this? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You and I both know the meaning of his edits. I'm supposed to be nice, and I'm ready to blow an artery. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin. But I became an admin at a time when there was plenty of disucssion in the community about our not wanting hierarchies or admins to lord it over people and I have never made a big deal about it. For example, I will block or unblock people unilaterally if I feel I have an unimpeachable case. In situations where someone could accuse me of bias or over-zealousness I seek the advice of others. I know you would know the meaning of his edits, but is it clear enough to others, and part of a clear enough pattern, to justify a community ban? Others have questioned my judgment which is why I left a message for you and a few others. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fish

I agree. I'm getting tired of trying to disuade them with speedy reverts. I sought page protection but was denied. JzGuy protected for 2 weeks once, but they started up immediately again. Good to have an ally. Do you think another page protect, maybe for a month instead of two weeks, is in order? I do. David in DC (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to suggest it. It's edit warring and gaming the system by the IP user. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected for a month (last time was two weeks). Bigger "fish" to fry than this article. Let me know personally if post-Aug3 if IP (s) continue to cause headaches here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I just did this. Maybe you could drop a note there that you dealt with it. Or can I delete the request. Probably a Coors beer executive mad because of our beer and cancer comments.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fish to fry?????? Oh groooooaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnn. Oh you should definitely have a 1 hour block for such bad humor. That was so bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd block myself, but I'd end up wheel warring with my other half...I closed your post at ANI. Onward and upward. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to protect things, I think it is underutilised and generally for too short a time. Life's too short to dick around endlessly with vandalism on certain pages. Incidentally, how many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb...(was the first thing I thought of when I saw the section heading...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Three, one to mind the giraffes, the other to fill the bathtub full of florescent powertools. Shot info (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, am I missing some obscure humor? Possibly a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? (Don't know why I thought of it, but I did.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

how many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? Shot info (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional answer to this witty artistic take on the old chestnut being fish. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your back on those hallucinogenic shrooms aren't you? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I confess I am a little preoccupied with one at the moment, though not one I fancy eating... :P Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason why I won't eat them. Disgusting.!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for dealing with this. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?David in DC (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change. Oh, that never gets old... MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's so 70s though, these days it'd just be medicated with Prozac and that was sooo late 80s --> Ef(f)exor (we spell it with one f in Oz) :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch it. Tom Cruise may be watching this page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but with the huge volume of anti-psychiatry zealotry on Wikipedia, how could you tell which account was his? MastCell ^Talk 06:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection expired. I'll be keeping an eye out. Please join in. (By the way, do you know what an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac does?) David in DC (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pace around the kitchen at 3 am wondering if there really is a Dog? Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a joke I've never seen before. Spit up some Diet Pepsi. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my moderate dementia, but exactly what article is this section all about???????? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind. It's the fish. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Early Conditions: Miller reference.

(→Early conditions: Reverting section. Please do not change references per WP:CITET) (undo)

Why not? The Discover Magazine citation is rather garbled in referring only to Miller and your edit also created a double citation (refs 19 and 20).

Scepticus2 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

When I receive these kind of messages, I get confused. I edit so many articles, and make so many changes, I can't remember what I've done. You'll have to give me more information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CIITA

Could be more accessible, but seems perfectly accurate. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology

Hi Organemarlin,

As you are a science-orientated editor, I was wondering if your interests project as far as palaeontology? If so, you would be most welcome to join the project. Best wishes, Mark t young (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved?

Apparently it means uninformed as well :-( Shot info (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm. Where? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The current pro civil pov push going on (ie/ SA latest ban.... for "editwarring" regardless of the minor annoying fact he was following policy and the editor inserting the info...aka a civil pov pusher, once again is allowed to push their pov). I had assumed the Community sanctions on the issue of homeopathy had fixed the problem, but apparently there's a new sheriff in town... Shot info (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It drives me nuts. SA gets blocked and Ludwigs2, who invented a template to do the same thing gets nothing. Not sure where the fairness is, but I think Elonka is going to be fair.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge anti-science push going on right now. Hmmm...--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I decided I better strike this. It is far too dangerous. I will probably be blocked anyway. I apologize to anyone offended.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To OM: The faith based side of me says that the new sheriff will be fair, the evidence based side of me says - sorry no evidence yet.

To Filll: Yep, again (or is that still). Some things seem doomed to repeat themselves - anybody would think that some admins need to (re)read the Homeopathy issues and the need for them to go easy on the unCIVIL button :-(. Shot info (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

don't forget then to smile till it hurts (ouch..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna

I thought the refs you provided for the Recreational drug section were a big improvement. I do have a couple of suggestions and a question concerning some material you edited. I posted them on the talk page and would appreciate your comments when you get time. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'll take a look a bit later. Teamwork. Gotta love it! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you patrol, or troll, or what?

Hi, Orangemarlin! Nice page you have. Very impressive. I just wonder how you choose the stories to edit — do you ever use the "Random article" link? I do; and I find plenty of existing articles that need work that way. In short, do you have a system? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the "troll" thing. I revert trollish vandalism when I see it. I patrol for the same. And I edit whenever I can. I stick with medical articles, but I'll wander off into a few other areas as my heart desires. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant trolling as trolling for fish. I used it to mean moving back and forth casually from one topic to another. Interesting how the same word can have different connotations. See Troll_(disambiguation). Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

George, no offense, but don't be snarky. say what you mean and mean what you say. I'd rather see a quick and ugly fight or a quick reversion to pleasantry, than a long, drawn-out bout of innuendo. ok? --Ludwigs2 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess 'troll' and 'trawl' could sound the same if pronounced with a Bronx or Brooklyn accent, or maybe a Texas one too....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Troll (angling). Guettarda (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I clicked on Orangemarlin's personal page because I saw something about him in the Community Portal and then was fascinated by how much work he did for Wikipedia, and I just wondered how he decides what articles to edit. I don't mind engaging in chat with others here (it serves to pass the time), but I think I asked the question I meant to ask. I didn't realize that the verb troll was offensive (it is not to a fisherman), and I shan't use it again in Wikipedia.

By the way, snarky is also an interesting word (one of my favorites, and quite popular these days — I wonder why?). From http://www.thefreedictionary.com: [From dialectal snark, to nag, from snark, snork, to snore, snort, from Dutch and Low German snorken, of imitative origin.] I thought it came from Lewis Carroll, but, no, it is one of the several loan words we have from Dutch, like dock, and deck, and stock (I think). Anyway, some of our sailing terms come from that venerable sailing language, Dutch. Yours sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One more aside: I was reading a French newspaper opinion column several years ago: The author was complaining about the massive infusion of foreign words into the sublime French language, and he wrote Il y a toujours un grand stock des mots français . . . — of course stock not being a French word at all. Dommage! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hnh, I have been misusing, or at least misconstruing the connotations of, snarky - thanks! - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So to answer the question, yes, I edit whatever strikes my fancy. I like learning, and I will look at articles on the main page, click on a link or two, head to something else, see a misspelling or improper reference, fix it, then get involved with it. I love Wikipedia for that. It's fun. Mostly. And to think I thought "snarky" was one of those invented words. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I often snark trolls. I even trolled a shark once, too. Amerique^dialectics 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But I suppose the former thing is what gets people in trouble around here! Amerique^dialectics 01:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No one cares if you snark a troll, but if it's not troll season, there's a $50 fine taken out of the salary Wikipedia pays. Also, you have to be careful of which trolls you snark. Underage trolls have to thrown back into the wild, unless they have been snarked 3 times or more. The rare Trollus sockpupetus may grow from a single cell if left out in the wild. And they carry the "POV" virus. To hunt down these very secretive trolls, it requires the new RfCU bait which can only be handled by sysop guides, whom you don't have to tip, because they are paid so well.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, snark does not mean snag, so if you snark a troll, there is nothing to throw back. To snark, in its original sense, meant "to nag," not "snag." That's why snarky means cranky or irritable. I think if you snark, or nag, a Trollus sockpupetus you may be heading for an edit war. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm GeorgeLouis, I think you're missing the humor from me. I truly meant "snark a troll." It was supposed to be funny, if not knee-slapping hysterical. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Orangemarlin

Could you send me an e-mail? I need to get in touch with you off Wikipedia. Go to Frozen Royalty for the address (didn't want to post it here). Thanks! Oh..be sure to mention "Orangemarlin" in your e-mail. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Using CTRL-F, the find function

Hi, I noticed your edit on alt. med. where you couldn't find the Vickers paper.[14] Straight from that diff I went into the edit window and typed "CTRL-F", then typed "Vickers", and it immediately hit me with a citation named "vickers". I'm not sure if you looked at that one. It doesn't appear to back up the claim that I saw in your article, although I haven't read it closely -- I just used the find function to look for key words. ;) II | (t - c) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My, that was a while ago! "CTRL-F" doesn't work, you should use -F. :) If you look at the previous version, you'll see that the link didn't work. Probably because of capitalisation in the ref name. Trust it's all sorted now. . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... eh, sorry, was browsing the article's history, guess I got distracted and thought I was looking at the recent edits. Tend to have way too many things going on at once. II | (t - c) 10:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I use Google Toolbar to find things. It will search the internet, deep into a whole website, or just a single page. -- Fyslee / talk 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I remember every edit I make (especially one from 8 months ago), but in general cmd-F doesn't work within the editing window, at least on Mac-based browsers. I have to manually scan the edits to find words, or to find where a particular reference tag is located. I'm not sure now to take this discussion, since I'm fairly adept at search functions, on how to find references (PubMed is my friend), and how to use things like Lexis/Nexis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In windows, the find function works fine. Too bad about Macs, I guess... II | (t - c) 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Orangemarlin, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AD talk

Take a look at the image I have created and the comment with it in the AD talk page. --Garrondo (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply Posted

I have replied on my talk page to your post, in case you don't get a notification. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I always watch pages where I comment on. I hate back and forth discussions across pages, mainly because the reader will get a sore finger clicking on links in the browser!!!!! Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I don't feel any real need to continue the discussion; but I did want to ask that in the future you please be more careful in reading my posts before you make a comment on my intentions. Your pointing me to WP:AGF and reiterating it when I specifically stated I was doing so in the post you replied to made me feel insulted (specifically, what I read as an implication that you were accusing me of lying when I stated I was assuming good intentions). I've had a chance to cool down now, and would like to drop the issue however, now that I've said my piece. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuse you of lying? You must be reading something I didn't intend to write. I was a bit concerned that you were implying that I was trying to trick Ludwigs or something. I really think he's trying to be a good editor, but his tendentious editing is getting to the point, at least for me, of WP:TLDR. I wanted to help him out. But again, if I want to accuse you of something, I'll do it very directly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* I was stating how your posting made me feel, not accusing you of bad faith or being uncivil. It was intended to inform so that when we are working together on the wiki you can be more sensitive to the effects your language will have towards me and we can be more productive together. That's all. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to this, so I guess I'm going to move along. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse Orange basketball

Hey there -- thought you might be interested in helping out with individual seasons for Syracuse basketball. Go Orange. Chengwes (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm there for anything to do with Hal Cohen. I doubt that will link however. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the template as it stands is that I'm using the college football season template, since I don't think a template exists for college basketball. And, I, like you, am not good at templates, so I can't just reinvent the wheel. But I can certainly make the template for 78-79 in my sandbox and you can just copy and paste it. Does that work for you? Chengwes (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: When I started at Syracuse, they were still the Orangemen, too. :)

The filled out template is sitting in my sandbox. Feel free to edit away. Chengwes (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is

Someone posting for you?--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin v2.0

You know, I had the new, improved Orangemarlin v2.0 in mind when I created this userbox... MastCell ^Talk 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. You're letting out my secret. Ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify

I didn't really care about the whole ABC link edits, though I fail to see how they substantially changed the POV of the article other than making the writing clearer. I was primarily concerned that your comments on the talk page sounded a little overzealous. SDY (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They weren't overzealous. They were a statement of my interpretation of his edits. That's why I brought it up on the discussion page for further clarification, because it was merely my opinion. I'm sure we can fine-tune the language.OrangeMarlin^{Talk• Contributions} 07:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me be plain. Your "statement of interpretation" was an accusation of bad faith. My impression so far with the primary editor for this article is that he(?) is more interested in the science than the sound bites, which is a good thing for an article that will otherwise be "we say it's bollocks" "we say you are hiding the truth, since you kill babies and are evil people", et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. SDY (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something, because of the vehemence of your points, and I am not sure why I deserve it. Therefore, I will disengage from this conversation. I appreciate your taking the time to critique my editing style and comments, but I think further discussions of the article belong on the discussion page of that article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get your MD degree? Toped (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me blunt. If you knew me in person, you would know those details.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Hi Toped. Interesting question to ask, can we inquire why you are asking? and welcome to wikipedia by the way :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I received my MD from the Bill's Correspondence School for Medicine, Culinary Arts, and Auto Mechanics. Fine school. I only had to take 2 classes, pass a final exam, and they sent me this nice MD diploma. It only cost $1999.99 plus another $199.99 for the diploma. I think it was worth it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as prestigious as Harvard or Yale. I'm sure getting your medical degree didn't activate your A delta-fibers. However, being a physician, you should know how to treat this. Toped (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's something you'd like to discuss about an article, please do so at the article's discussion page. This discussion page is more of a coffee shop--we sit around here, trade jokes, discuss baseball and hockey, bitch about life, and occasionally discuss drama. If you'd like a cup of coffee, and chat, please do. If there's an agenda that you have, I'm not all that interested in participating. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Touchy. Toped (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So will these be your only contributions? seicer | talk | contribs 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Which indicates why he's asking the questions. Shall we move on? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"This discussion page is more of a coffee shop" What's wrong with trying to get to know the people with whom you're having coffee? Toped (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm the CIA agent sitting over in the corner taking photographs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I look good in photos. Toped (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of photographs are we talking about here??? seicer | talk | contribs 18:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess he was responding to my remark that I'm a CIA agent. I wasn't going to get involved with his requests for personal information, so I tried to deflect it with humor. Keep up Seicer.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about porn. seicer | talk | contribs 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Porn??? Where? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We studied this in our Japanese culture course: Tentacle rape. Even noted numerous historical depictions of that, of all things. seicer | talk | contribs 20:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's strange. I'll bet there's some social-psychological reasons. Not sure I want to know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<unwind> Speaking of tentacle rape, there's a fun talk show with PZ on Catholic Radio International, link cited here . . dave souza, talk 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this I have to hear. Tentacle rape and PZ Meyers? This ought to be interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. NO link. Dave fooled me. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

download, commentary here. The best bits are near the end :-/ Of course they're hypothetical tentacles. . dave souza, talk 00:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a wiki that does not pull any punches

Take a look at this article.--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting moves

Hi Orangemarlin! Regarding your question on ANI (the NPOV page was moved by a page-move vandal). To revert a move, the easiest way is to 1) bring up the move log; 2) click on the "revert" button for the page you want to revert (note that often the talk page was moved as well: choose the mainspace, not the talk page); 3) on the move page which comes up, it should default to reason "revert" and the correct title: click "move page". Make sure also to click "move associated talk page" -- it saves a step, so you don't have to do this one separately. After that is done, some further cleanup requires admin tools -- e.g. deleting the vandal redirect. In general we've got a pretty robust system for reverting page move vandals now; if only people like "Grawp" realize how much they've helped us develop it. Ironies everywhere. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your help here, but in the past when I've tried to do that I lack the rights to move a page to write over one currently in existence. I always thought admins could do it, but I'm just a plain old regular underpaid editor.  :) Maybe I'm not doing it right. I'll test out a sandbox to see if I can make it work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on how many edits there are on the page you're moving to. Any editor can move over a redirect, which is how it will be if it's a simple one-off vandalism; the complication arises if someone else edits the redirect (e.g. adds a db- tag) since then it officially has a "page history". In that case an admin has to delete it first. As an admin, when I try to move over an edited redirect, I get a red warning box "delete and move?" Before I was an admin, during a spate of page-move vandalism, I just moved the ones I could and let an admin clean up the rest. Best, Antandrus (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as your discussion page has been quiet for two days...

...which strikes me as odd, I thought I'd resurrect it. "When silence strikes, you're probably not doing enough to stir up shyte" (me) BMW(drive) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead quiet. Obviously, I need to go to several controversial articles and do some reverting.  :) I was kind of disappointed that BMW didn't refer to the motorcycle. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry! If you want controversy, try Historical pederastic couples, or the related DRV from July 20 :-P BMW(drive) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I heart ironicalness

Heh, even though I'd retorted back to you on my talkpage, I just now clicked on the comment that you found to be most hilarious. It's now even funnier to me because it was, in fact, added by a 12 year old former (reformed) sockpuppet master, who probably has no idea who SlimVirgin is. Even better! Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how to respond to this, other than I'm glad you thought it was hilarious too. I'm still upset I didn't get a chance to vote. Given my past history on RfA's, I might have caused another secret tribunal to meet!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This one is more better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sucker! (that's my six quid's worth) . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Darwinism

With regard to your perception that use of this term is now confined to creationists using it misleadingly and pejoratively, this rather splendid essay puts woo in its place even though it uses the D word. Its author has been using that word recently, but as of late he seems to be more cautious.[15] . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that some very bright scientists use Darwinism, but it's clear that it's an anachronism when used to describe Evolution, since the evolution that Darwin described is only one part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. It's also been co-opted by the religious groups. I guess Dawkins has figure this out! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the message is getting through to him! . . dave souza, talk 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing...

Fuck I hate tax-time...I really should be balancing books but this is a more pleasant diversion...I cheered myself up by listening to a CD of Bill Hicks - Rant in E minor driving to and from work today..jeez, there were some great quotes that would go well on some articles..I come here to relax and end up arguing...I mean...huh?? :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. Don't they have accountants down there in Oz? Physicians make awful accountants, and I certainly wouldn't want my accountant doing surgery.  :) Vampire? Hmmmmm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aah, accounting...long and boring story there..but more importantly, no fish have taken the bait...I mean, I got a cool award made an' all :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You seriously have too much time on your hands. But very nice!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You are invited...

to join the Volcanoes Wiki! Questions can be directed to my main user page. MeldshalP (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude - what's the rush?

Hey OM - why rv and redirect a list when there's discussion going on, a mere two minutes after I restored? From the talk page, 3 editors want to redirect, 2 against, 1 not sure. I'm not tremendously attached to the list, and agree it may be dicey, but I found it served as an interesting jumping-off place to various offbeat but not wholly bogus ideas (Multiregional hypothesis, etc.). --Jim Butler (t) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion?

I just declined a speedy deletion tag on the article CheckOrphan. A non-profit website that reports on rare, neglected and orphaned diseases. Do you know of it? Claim lots of site-hits/popularity, claim to be non-prof/free (so not advertising anything, really). Is it legit? Seems legit, perhaps not notable though. Anyone reading this with a med background, feel free to advise what I should do with the article. Keeper ǀ 76 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very strange...has an odd feel to it, lots of promotion...and also bioenergy too. I can't see the 'people' page and all the references do not discuss checkorphan specifically. My guess it is some form of PR middle-man outfit which acts as coordination between fundraising, awareness raising and (hopefully) some research on tropical diseases...oh well, time to hit google. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my "sniff test" on these type of websites. If I see "google ads" (or any type of advertisement), I get suspicious. The website looks like a collection of links, which is useful, but I'd make it an external link in an article about Orphan drugs, which is a very notable area of research. I reviewed the advisory board, and I'm not sure any of them are notable in this area. There are charities that specialize in individual orphan drugs, and, of course, most governments support research in orphan drugs, such as the FDA office for those drugs. Honestly, this is a commercial website that has value for the article on Orphan drugs, but not much else. Maybe you could get opinions from some other medical researchers who write here, including Tim Vickers and MastCell; their opinions might be valuable.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. My next two edits will be to link them both here to this convo. And thanks for going all Google on this Casliber. cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I read it, the more I think they're trying to start a company--getting something on Wikipedia is becoming the "go to" website to become notable. One day, we're going to create notability, which means Wikipedia will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

All the google hits are self-published - every one. I have tagged it for notabilty Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of them, the main organization in this area is the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DNDI has a website without advertising, publishes an annual report, and actually has articles that it publishes with top researchers. It's the standard of what we should have for these type of websites. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) reply to OM)Oh believe me, I've seen articles started about websites that were "founded today". This one said "April 07" with 700,000 hits monthly (of course, not cited or verified). Keeper ǀ 76 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It was weird, in google that there were no hits at all - newpapers and TV are often looking for these type of stories on a slow day, so if it was launched 15 months ago I would have figured there'd be some of those floating around. Anyway, I left a note on the article creators page too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)After poking around google, and the checkorphan site itself, I'm dangerously close to simply deleting the thing as first requested by speedy tagger (as non-notable) website. It seems it's primarily here, from a WP:SPA account no less, to "get the word out". Any strong objections to me going ahead and deleting it? Keeper ǀ 76 19:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I bet that eventually some entrepreneur is going to set up a service to create articles about their clients on Wikipedia. Free advertising of a very high quality. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "eventually"? I've personally blocked users that were adding BIOs for their non-notable "clients". PR Firms everywhere here, admins can't keep up. I had one guy that added one of the most preposturously (I can't spell that) fluffy bios, and was in serious trouble when the subject "googled" his name, only to find that the only occurence of the name was the AfD for it, being flamed out of wikipedia...heh. Keeper ǀ 76 19:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. So how do we stop the self-published author from writing an article about themselves and their new book that isn't very notable? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't. The best you can do is achieve a state of detachment about it. As Lao Tzu wrote in the 6th century BC (give or take): "He who is attached to notability criteria and NPOV will suffer much. The man who expects only self-promotion and POV-pushing will never be disappointed." Try dropping some wu wei. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

← It's a good cause, but it just doesn't meet WP:ORG. Whether it could be speedied under G11 is a judgement call, but failing that it should be PRODDED or sent to AfD. If they're successful and attract some independent notice, then of course the article could be recreated. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards a speedy A7 (or G11). And, I'm thinking this little discussion can easily serve as the AfD, already done. We've done the googling, we've found no notability, we have a single purpose article creator. Why wonk it through process at this point? It was tagged speedy, I declined it, got several good opinions on it, and shoulda deleted it in the first place. Of course, I'll gladly undelete it if a shred of evidence of notability ever turns up. Keeper ǀ 76 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call, stick it to The Man and damn the rules. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, given i left them a note and all...gives em 5 days...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the signpost to here from Talk:CheckOrphan. From what I said there, you can probably guess I am wholly in favour an instant delete. GNUSMAS : TALK 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Have a look at this old diff. Sure looks like (s)he went away for a while, then registered as User:Rare diseases and came back as a SPA.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My nicer side just showed through. I prodded it instead of speedy. Five days...Keeper ǀ 76 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My sniff test, as a Johnny-come-lately here & not a doctor. I checked 2 topics I've some experience with. First osteogenesis imperfecta - it says "Published on Wednesday, October 15, 2008"! Oh, really? Then sleep disorders, but not the rare ones, in an article purported to be from the Guardian, spelled Guradian! And they want me to trust them? Looks like a hastily thrown together sham, to me. --Hordaland (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hordaland, welcome. And don't worry about not being a doctor, we all have broad interests. For example, I edit geology articles, and dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a geologist (hope you get the reference). The Sniff Test is important. I think around here, there's a policy called WP:DUCK...you know if it looks like a duck, walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. In this case, this article isn't notable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear All,

My name is Robert Derham, co-founder of the www.checkorphan.org. You can contact me at robert.derham (at)checkorphan.org. We are a legally recognized non-profit organization originally founded in Basel, Switzerland. In the US, we have established our articles of incorporation in California as a charitable corporation while we wait for 501(3)c approval.

The current website was hacked pretty bad about 3 months ago which left much of the website "paralyzed". Unfortunately the programmer who did the website no longer works on independent contracts and did not give us the source code, so the website is stuck as it is for right now. A web development company from Switzerland will be launching the new version for us at the end of the first week of September (Nextron).

We are not connected to any company or corporation. In Switzerland, we operate under the ACCESS! Association which is associated with the University of Basel. We have also chosen an advisory board who are all experts in different aspects of rare diseases. Some have research expertise, others have experience with rare diseases in developing countries and others have expertise in the developed world.

We are not looking for promotion. The resources we have and will be adding over the course of the next 6 months will change the way the world looks at rare diseases. Thus, we are looking to help direct people with rare diseases to the website so that they can benefit.

I would cordially invite you to re-open the account so that one of our volunteers, Sabrina Kammerer, can work with you to bring the page to a more proper fit for Wikipedia. We tried to model our page after other non-profit associations, that is why we were a bit confused as to why our account had been completely deleted.

Best regards,

Robert

Robert Derham CheckOrphan Peterplatz 1 CH-4003 Basel T: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.218.71 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Robert, what you need to do is to provide some examples of notability. Wikipedia has guidelines on notability at WP:N - thus what needs to be provided are some independent sources, such as newspapers or journals discussing checkorphan. If some can be verified then the article's removal may be reviewed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well.....

I would worry if a reader required a see also link to find stomach at the end of it.."Gee, was that the organ this article was all about? How do I spell it?" Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I was doing this editing around 2AM, and I was getting punch drunk on some of the stuff. We'll get it improved. But you do realize that H pylori is NOT a 'shroom? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer

Have you seen my last editions in the AD article and my comment in the talk page? I really feel that now content has been fully verified and could pass the FA proccess. However if we are goint to present it we should review the lead, you could do some general writting style review and we should decide something on the references style. After that if we decide to present it we should do it in a moment where both of us and some others can work hard to address all comments. If we work the present week I believe we could present it as a candidate next week and probably have it as a FA by the end of the summer. What do you think? --Garrondo (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look, and I think it needs a lot of copyediting. I'll start doing that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I will help as much as I can.--Garrondo (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten a few sentences of your editions since they had led to minor neuropsychological incorrect facts.

• In patients with AD, the increasing impairment of learning and memory will lead to a definitive diagnosis. In a small proportion of these patients, difficulties with language, executive functions, recognition of perceptions (agnosia) or execution of movements (apraxia) will be more prominent than memory problems.

It is not redundant since the important fact is that even if in most cases memory is the main problem exceptionally other deficits might be more prominent.

• Eight cognitive domains are most commonly impaired in AD—memory, language, perceptual skills, attention, constructive abilities, orientation, problem solving and functional abilities.

There are other domains that can be impaired and not all of them are always impaired

On the other hand I could help formatting references if somebody tells me what have we decided to do with them. (Remove all urls?)

--Garrondo (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulcer

Ironically, I went there because I was wondering if I had an ulcer and if it was related to stress. Then I see all the fact tags on a FA article and felt a need to remove a couple. Citation formats and stress kind of go together! I didn't realize it was on your list for clean-up... from evolution to bacteria, you are diverse ...did you stumble across it for the same reason?! I'll try to tackle a couple of the fact tags... if you don't mind tweaking them as needed. So many of the quality references are behind subscriptions --- very ... irritating... damn it there is that stabbing pain again. --JimmyButler (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would never use Wikipedia as a medical source, as long as it's an open encyclopedia. Too much cruft enters the article, except in well-watched medical articles. About 25% of my edits are simple vandal-fighting. I watch all Wikiproject Medicine articles, and this one was included. I was reviewing an edit a few days ago, then I noticed how bad this article had become. I believe it was made FA early in the history of Wikipedia, when standards weren't as tough as they are now. Also, many of the major contributors to the article in its early stages either dropped out of the project or quit watching it. Whatever the case, the article slipped in quality. There are several devoted editors who will help clean it up. Right now, I think that the citations need to be reviewed, changed to a consistent format, additional information needs to be added, and, most importantly, a thorough copyediting is required. This will take time, so I'm not sure we can save it from being defrocked as an FA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So what are you saying. Burying a live cat in the cemetery during a full moon then spinning around three times while howling like a wolf will not cure an ulcer. Damn those Wiki vandals. What a waste of a perfectly good cat. I've been chewing on a project with my students for the upcoming year. Rather than the traditional plagerized and pointless research paper... having them elevate a stub or create an article. Perhaps something akin to Filll's work on drunk bees. Have you stumbled across anything of the nature by others on Wikipedia?--JimmyButler (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See, you got the wrong information. It's spinning around 4 times during a harvest moon. I'm disappointed in your patent inability to read an article. You should be prohibited from editing on Wikipedia ever again. You disgust me. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the best thing for an ulcer is loadsa chilies, beer and aspirin in large doses...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While spinning around 4 times during a harvest moon? I can tell you precisely what gastric effect that combination would have on me.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Perfectly good cat?" No such creature exists. :D Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

outdent - after a crappy day at work, I realised I hadn't checked this out in a while - always good for a chuckle. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you know... that Ben Goldacre is being sued for libel by Matthias Rath? MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Matthias Rath some vitamin nutjob? Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll cross my fingers and not walk under any ladders and get out a wicca book to cast somne spells for Ben's safety...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what libel laws are in the UK, though I understand they're quite stringent. In the US, at least, one disincentive to sue for libel is that the plaintiff can be questioned under oath about matters related to the libel claim. Morris Fishbein famously pioneered this stratagem to take down the seemingly untouchable goat-testicle quack John R. Brinkley. Brinkley had laughed at the efforts of various medical boards to restrict him and moved south of the border, raking in millions of dollars a year and leaving a trail of maimed and dead goat-testicle recipients behind him. Fishbein's strategy was ingenious: he printed increasingly insulting descriptions of Brinkley in JAMA until Brinkley took the bait and sued him for libel. With Brinkley under oath, Fishbein's attorney questioned him relentlessly about his goat-testicle operations, clearly documenting that Brinkley was a charlatan. On the basis of Brinkley's testimony, a number of his maimed patients were finally able to successfully sue him, demand for goat testicles dried up, and goats and impotent men alike were spared a ghastly fate. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to assume - what became of the libel case? Antelan 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Interesting case. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Brinkley lost the libel suit. It didn't help when he was forced to admit, under oath, that his proprietary Special Formula 1020 was water mixed with food coloring.

Incidentally, like much of the alternative-medical culture of the era (cf. Harry Hoxsey), he was entrenched with the right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and pro-Nazi forces in the US. The use of good old American home remedies was conflated with God, country, and the Red Menace. Particularly in the 1930's (much less so after World War II), organized medicine was often subtly or not-so-subtly depicted as a Jewish endeavor. Brinkley himself was a big fan of Father Coughlin and Gerald Winrod, a Kansas reverend charmingly nicknamed "The Prairie Pogromist" for his enthusiastic anti-Semitism. Brinkley was also a financial supporter of the Silver Shirt Legion. Nice guy. You can imagine how he felt about Morris Fishbein.

When the Kansas Medical Board revoked Brinkley's license, he responded by running for governor, which would have allowed him to replace the state medical board with his henchmen. Amazingly, Brinkley actually received the most votes (probably), though vote-counting fraud was employed and he was not elected governor. If you haven't, you really need to pick up the book Charlatan, by Pope Brock. You guys would find it fascinating. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the alternative medicine gang is everything that I'm not. Interesting. I wonder if it's changed that much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of those aspects were tied to the era: Great Depression, apparent economic success of Nazi Germany, etc. If one could generalize, the alt-med world today seems much more about questioning authority, traditionally a left-wing trait. Of course, there are interesting bedfellows. To go back to my favorite example, AIDS denialism has certainly had documented links to the extreme right wing in the US, for a variety of reasons, but it also get airtime in Harper's, an stalwart of the Left. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

<--To JimmyButler, who asked "have there been other projects where students work on articles as part of school?" or somesuch, the best example I've seen of this is User:Jbmurray, and his WikiProject of students at WP:MMM (you'll love what MMM stands for...) Oh, and everyone knows the way to get rid of an ulcer is invasive surgery with a butterknife. I bought a "do-it-yourself" kit off a website that I was linked to from the Wikipedia article. Easy as slicing a pie. In your chest. Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Herpes zoster

Hi Orangemarlin. I saw your edits at herpes zoster. Care to throw your two cents in here?[16] Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

The user on this shared IP was merely reverting vandalism to Chiropractic. You cautioned the wrong person... 192.75.88.231 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And one would know that to be the case how? There's a reason why accounts are encouraged. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Referent

Hey, when you say "you" on my talk page, do you mean Coppertwig? If so, do you mind if I unindent so it's more clear that you're talking to him? If not *gasp* does this mean I'm getting booted off of the rational skepticism meatpuppet team? Antelan 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant Coppertwig. He's a very good editor, but his lack of understand of NPOV is not acceptable. I lead the charge to make sure his RfA was unsuccessful, and based on his comments, I will do it again. And difference in fringe theory inclusion bar height between MC and Coppertwig is substantial, not just a little bit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer's RFA

I see you found that. Was hoping you would after the Ezra Wax debacle. I would have pointed it out to you, but didn't want to be accused of canvassing. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I watch all the RfA's with the link at the top of this talk page. TPH needs some significant maturing before becoming an admin, but when I read his comment about the RfD, and telling EzraWax that there is a POV issue..well that convinced me. And yeah, there are some not so nice individuals around here who whine if anyone gets together to oppose editors who shouldn't be admins. Or start secret ArbCom hearings by themselves. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should stick that coloured box thingy - I completely missed that RfA and have had simialr concerns. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea...adds a bit of color to the talk page.... Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks pretty. Now I just have to remember to watch the thing :-/ . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)