User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 3

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Look what I found!

I figured out why you can't see the pretty red and brown and green links – 'cause they don't come from Twinkle. I'm terribly embarrassed. :-/

But... I figured out what does make the pretty links – Voice of All's scripts.

Over the weekend I was fiddling with my monobook.js and monobook.css pages and started nosing around for improvements to Twinkle, stuff I sort of like but wish could be better, and found VoA's admin scripts. It turns out that I had VoA's admin script already in my monobook.js file, which is why I was seeing the pretty colored links and you weren't. I didn't realize I had it in there until I started to add VoA's admin script and found it buried in the middle of another script.

There's a non-admin version that I think will do exactly what you want. I even have Twinkle still enabled and the two work fine together. I used them yesterday to block and watch recent changes and I'm using them today to close AFDs.

Just go to the page, and put both the Add tabs js and the non-admin js (you'll see them) into your monobook.js, and also add the monobook.css script to your monobook.css file. You can leave Twinkle in or remove it, whichever you want – like I said, I have both because I wanted to keep Twinkle's 'csd' tab. For admins, clicking the button deletes the article, which is a big help for mind-addled people like me who can't always remember the difference between G7 and G8.

Let me know if you have questions or need help. Sorry I was so dimwitted, but I think this will make you very pleased. And don't let the pseudoscience guys get you down, either – we should get them all subscriptions to Skeptical Inquirer for Christmas. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, but Twinkle is working perfectly since you played around with my monobook. I'm almost scared to do anything else. Well, there's always the revert button. Thanks KK!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dammit Katie, I'm a doctor, not a computer programmer. LOL. This is too hard. I don't even know what monobook.css is!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I on Davkal

I've had enough of this user. Would you care to join in an AN/I on him for a community ban? I don't see him as adding anything of value to the project. ScienceApologist 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that movement and provide help. I already put him up for a 3RR. Not sure it that will happen. Baegis 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He's now begun to troll on my talk page and is accusing me of being a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist. Awesome! I don't know how to use the incident board very well, so I would feel uncomfortable posting on there. Baegis 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm there. He vandalized my page. Enough with these types of editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's begun. ScienceApologist 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Category

Have you heard? WLU 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious question

What is a GYFROOMFPOV if you don't mind my asking? Chris 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to like it, so I'll keep it to myself. Essentially, I don't like Christian POV, so I work hard to remove it from all science, especially Evolution, articles. Go Pro-Choice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what it stands for. When you google it, your user page is the first to pop up :) Do the last letters stand for Point of View, or something else? WLU 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be two user pages, but whatever. It was "invented" as point of humor. It doesn't stand for much other than "Point of View." Oh, and I believe there's a "fuck" or two in it.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Google turned up 9 hits total, I just happened to notice yours at the top. I believe I did see another user's page as well. Could you confirm if the second F is indeed 'fuck'? I love beating a good joke to death until it's just a pile of mush and cartilage. WLU 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it. I may not like what you think given that I am a Christian though I will respect your opinion on this. I guess there are some things better off not knowing. Chris 01:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The second F is face.  ;) •Jim62sch• 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First word is "Get" :-D spryde | talk 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Is this a contest? LOL. At least we all know what "POV" means! :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hangman with phrases :) spryde | talk 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But is it really that hard? ;-) --Ali'i 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at who has it on their pages, not a bit! spryde | talk 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this relevant to Katie or dud science?

Hi,

A url blaming us poor Indians for killing off the worlds dinos, using volcanos this time. Does it hold any water?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/10/31/volcano-dinosaurs.html?ref=rss

Regards, AshLin 10:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already one of the theories for the existence of the K-T event. I would want to read published, peer-reviewed papers first, before updating the article. In addition, the impact event may have caused the Deccan Traps (especially since there is controversial evidence that the impact event happened a bit before the actual extinction event). Keller proposes both theories, so I'm not sure what to think. Right now, I'd say her theories may be somewhat fringe, and anything more than what is said in the current articles, may violate WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The paper is here. It's been accepted to EPSL and will appear in print shortly (if it's not already). Obviously, Keller's work is controversial, and undue weight is always a concern with these types of studies.

BTW, OM, can you remove or rephrase the uncivil comment you made just below this section? It's not really appropriate on Wikipedia, and could result in a block. No one should be swearing at another user on WP. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually archived it. But the troll refactored my user page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, OM. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you sternly warn the troll that screwing with my page is highly unacceptable? Thanks. 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber and civility

Firs, since you and I edit a lot of articles together and got Katie to FA status (and I'm slowly working on Petey), and you are one of the most impartial admins out there (despite what Turtlescrubber said), I kept some comments to myself. However, now that a couple of days passed, I want to make several points:

1. My statement that "I owe you shit," to Turtlescrubber's inane request for an apology was perfectly written. It was not even close to a personal attack. I doubt it violated any rules of Wikipedia, since censorship is specifically not allowed. It might have been uncivil, but who makes that interpretation. I grew up in California, which is definitely laid back, but I lived a significant amount of time in New York and Paris, where civility barely exists. My point is that even partially threatening a block on civility is unacceptable in the real world or here. I have never once complained about civility, and rarely any other issues, except vandalizing.
2. Turtlescrubber is a troll. Coming to my user page repeatedly (after being asked to stay off, which is technically my right), and starting it with an immature and childish demand for an apology qualifies high on the troll scale. You might consider a personal attack, but 5 or 6 reversions of my talk page qualifies as a troll.
3. The 3RR warning was correct. Turtlescrubber was reverting consensus material, and unexplained deletion of material can be reverted. In fact, I believe I could justify 12RR on my part, to maintain a consensus. However, given that there are a few incompetent admins looking for a reason to block me, I watch that area carefully.
4. In the end, Turtlescrubber proved his worth to this project by what he wrote above about you. Why do we waste a nanosecond on these types is beyond me. He is now marked. Wait till the admins who actually care about that article focus on it. It might be interesting.

These are my points. I hope you give me credit that I actually help this project, but my tolerance of fools is nonexistent. We waste time with the Turtlescrubbers of this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi OM,

Of course you deserve credit for all your hard work on articles: the Featured work on Katie, the huge amount of time you've put on Petey... I won't even go into the rest, because to mention some but not the others is a slap in the face to all of your achievements (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Trust me when I say that your work on Wikipedia is valued and appreciated, and you often work in areas that are often the target of pseudoscience, POV insertions, and downright quackery. You clean up areas that most editors won't venture in: the slums and dark alleys of WP where folks get knifed for wandering through. You have my respect, and you have the respect of many other editors.

My concern, though, is that you end up like a bull in a china shop. Your post above is a great example: "Turtlescrubber is a troll", "I owe you shit", etc... These are uncivil, personal attacks that will never help the encyclopedia because they draw attention away from the original problem: the person who is attacked with this type of language can then focus on "he called me a name" instead of "I shouldn't have kept replacing the tag or doing whatever it was that started this". Calling someone a "troll" dehumanizes them (quite literally); they just become a non-human entity instead of a living, breathing person with feelings. Saying "I owe you shit" is uncivil on WP, just as it would be in a scholarly discussion (these aren't the streets of New York); peer reviewed papers and the subsequent discussions sometimes become acrimonious, but I've never seen "I owe you shit" in any of them.

When you call someone a name (any name) on WP, you're falling into a trap. Someone goads you, you get uncivil, and then any one of 1,300 admins (most of whom don't know you and don't know of your work) are shown that diff, and one of them ends up blocking you. It only takes one person looking at that diff and deciding that it is a disturbance... and then you are blocked. And given the fact that admins are not ever supposed to wheel war (use their tools to undo the work of another admin), no one is going to undo the block without some damn good just cause, because it's clear from the diff that you really did say that. OM, you're too smart for this. Don't fall for those traps. Don't allow yourself to be driven off the project slowly by editors who have less editing skill than yourself.

Those editors who truly have no intention of collaborating on a project like Wikipedia will burn themselves out: they will wear out their welcome quickly enough. Let them. Be the smart one. Protect the content of the encyclopedia while following the civility and NPA policies. There is no reason someone with your skills, your intelligence, and your ability to sniff out BS shouldn't have a long, happy shelf life on Wikipedia. But the number of instances where you end up insulting or attacking another editor (whether a good-faith editor or a "troll" (and I don't like that word at all)) means some admin (not me) is going to see those diffs and end up blocking you again. Don't let it happen. Don't be the bull in the china shop. Be the smooth editor who sails under the radar. Be zen, one with the WP. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

One point. I was never blocked, except by one admin who admitted to a gross error, and apologized, which I accepted. That block was erased from memory. And I'm too arrogant, my IQ is too high, and I'm too successful to be a diplomat to trolls. Sorry. I understand your advice, just vehemently disagree. "I owe you shit," was a direct response to a troll's request that I OWED him an apology. It was neither uncivil nor a personal attack. It was a commentary on a pathetic request.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and learning

I got a message from Wisdom89 that my addition about the possible connection between evolution and learning is "non-neutral", which is untrue. Did you revert it because of a similar objection? The reference given to support the statement is an article in an international peer-reviewed journal that is indexed by the ISI Web of Knowledge. Incidentally, I actually thought I had reverted it only once, but ended up reverting multiple times because I did not know the reversion had been received by wikipedia. This was because wikipedia displayed a page to me saying that there was technical problem with wikipedia's servers, and that I should attempt to access the page again in a few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyy (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

i dont care

i dont care i will continure —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruszian (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor do we, and Ruszian won't continue :) . ... dave souza, talk 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Dave. I don't even remember this character. I think I was vandal cleaning one evening, and ran across him. What a waste of time.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and learning, continued

Thanks for your messages on my talk page. I'm leaving you a message here because clicking talk next to your name on my page sent me here. Anyway, to refresh your memory this concerns an edit from me on the intelligent design article that evolution has been suggested to be a form of learning, which I supported by reference to an article by Nemenman in an internal peer-reviewed journal indexed by ISI Web of Knowledge. You reviewed the article and suggested that I had misinterpreted it because: 1) the article proposes evolution as learning only in the broadest sense, and not in a sense identical to "intelligence". 2) Nemenman did not intend to apply it to evolution.

I would agree that, strictly speaking, the first objection is true. However, the second objection is not true, as Nemenman explicitly mentions evolution in his introductory paragraph. In fact, he explicitly mentions the intelligent design debate in footnote 1. I argue that even though objection 1 is true, the fact that he explicitly addresses intelligent design makes his article relevant to that issue.

I reason using this analogy. Instead of an article on intelligent design, consider an article on the debate between Newton and Huygens as to whether light is a particle or a wave. Instead of considering whether the suggestion that evolution is a form of learning should be included in the wikipedia intelligent design article, let's consider whether the particle concept in quantum field theory should be included in the wikipedia particle-wave debate article. Your first objection would hold here because the particle concept in quantum field theory is not identical to the particle concept of Newton and Huygens (eg. particles in QFT are not necessarily localised in space), and strictly speaking the particle-wave debate is not even meaningful within the framework of quantum field theory. However, since many practitioners of quantum field theory explicitly address the particle-wave debate in their books and articles, their point of view deserves mention in a wikipedia article on the particle-wave debate. Therefore, although Nemenman's concept of learning is not strictly identical to any concept in the intelligent design debate, the fact that he addresses the intelligent design debate overrides that concern.--Atyy 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Although there is some merit in your position, the problem is that EVERY optimization scheme is a form of "learning" in this sense. Especially iterative optimization schemes. So neural nets are a type of learning. Variational principles are a form of learning. Code breaking is often a type of learning. And every numerical optimization scheme is a type of learning. Artifical intelligence is loaded with this kind of "learning". Adaptive DSP algorithms are all associated with this kind of "learning". And so one could make a whole bunch of vague claims and interconnections of this sort between all of them and even connect them with evolution. This is the whole core of William Dembski's arguments; he connects evolution with these forms of "learning" and then proceeds to make all kinds of spurious claims and draw all kinds of interconnections, and to try to "prove" evolution cannot do what the numerical simulations and the data apparently show that it can.

So we can clog up the main article with this stuff, but it really is not germane and we do not have room for it in the main article, to be honest. Better, you can write a separate daughter article drawing on ALL these fields and including a good 50-100 references in this area and address it properly. Make sure you show how the application of "no free lunch" theorems to evolution were shown to be completely inappropriate. And do a proper review of artificial intelligence and numerical analyses and its relation to evolution and the numerical simulations of evolution.

Also If you want to do some good, why don't you work on linking all the sources properly in the intelligent design article citations? That is a huge task and should be done.--Filll 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

If you are going to tag an article with the neutrality tag - you really ought to explain why on the talkpage. After all the tag itself says 'see talkpage'. As it is, I don't know whether you are saying its biased against or for attachment therapy, apart from your edit summary, or which bits in particlular you are complaining about. Fainites ^barley 21:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Martha Beck

Hi there, I am new to trying to help edit Wikipedia. I am trying to update Martha Beck's biography - and would like your advice on how I should do it, since you have reverted my changes.

Please let me know if there how to proceed.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.134.181 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Three things:

1. Get an account.
2. Read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.
3. Sign your name whenever you post things to my user talk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello OrangeMarlin, Thank you for your message. I am concerned, having spent a considerable amount of time and effort to edit the Martha Beck page for inaccuracies, to return and see the inaccuracies restored almost immediately. Are you aware of the inaccuracies? You make no acknowledgement of such. I am sorry that I did not add comments to the edit summary box, and will do so in future. I was trying to correct inaccuracies and add a more balaced tone to the article. It was actually after reading the section on biographies of living persons that I was motivated to make the changes that I did. The existing text sounds like it was written by someone disgruntled with Martha's work who is subtly trying to discredit her with inaccurate information and disproportionate emphasis. In terms of my efforts at balance, I would agree to remove the last sentence, and in terms of the commas, I actually reverted it to the original semi-colons that were there because I thought it made it slightly clearer. I have no issue with having comas if that is preferable. In terms of violating neutral point of view, could you please be much more specific? It is not obvious what you are referring to beyond your specific references which I have adressed here. I appreciate your concern about the formatting of references, but I believe I was able to correct any problems by the time I finished editing the article. Please let me know how to be sure not to interfere with reference formatting. Have you actually read Leaving the Saints? The description of the book is innacurate or misleading on a number of points. In addition, a couple of the footnotes are to pages that do not exist or "page cannot be found", and one references Marthe Beck who says the exact opposite of what is being asserted. Gentle1 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: I reverted all of your edits today to the article. Some were "OK", but really didn't help the article. This edit was unnecessary and, in fact, messed up the formatting of references. The reference template is already there (although I changed it to one of the more modern ones). This edit is a style change that is also unnecessary. Commas were perfectly appropriate per WP:MOS. This edit removed a fact about the book. This edit is [[WP:NPOV|pov]. This edit violates both NPOV and biographies about living persons. In addition, you should write an edit summary in the box below the edit, which states what you're trying to do. That helps make a point as to the usefulness of the edit, but also helps future editors understand your thinking. You really should review the relevant Wikipedia policies for neutral POV and biographies of living persons. It will help you. If you have any questions, please drop me a note. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me say something here: Gentle1 also made some changes to the Hugh Nibley article that I had to undo. The problem seems to be that Gentle1 thinks that "inaccurate" = "anything that might make Beck look bad" and "accurate" = "saying only good things about her." The articles should follow that "Neutral Point of View" and not take sides. But Gentle1 seems convinced that unless the article is written to lionize Beck and make her father look bad, it's "inaccurate." Whether the charges she makes against her father are true are not, I can't say. Her family disputes it, and I see no reason to remove discussion of their rebuttals (as Gentle1 did in the Nibley article). Gentle1 seems to have a particular axe to grind and isn't interested in keeping the articles balanced or accurate, really. Rabidwolfe 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I rarely good faith to editors, because they usually are doing precisely what they want to do, and usually have a POV to push. I gave this editor good faith, but I guess i should not have. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello You wrote:

Please do not add unreferenced or controversial information about living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Martha Beck. Thank you

Could you please be more specific? I am not trying to add unreferenced or controversial information. I am trying to correct such. Thank you Gentle1 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

In begining of article it is writen very clear: "Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II" so you are 100 % right. Because of similar reasons I have started discussion if Jasenovac has been Holocaust extermination camp. When discussion end I will have possibility to revert that sort of writing without looking to 3 RR rule. If you want to do something similar go her Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and problem will be solved. --Rjecina 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I noticed in this revision of your userpage you had expressed an interest in becoming an administrator on this project. Do you still have that interest? Mercury 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

At one time, I would have loved to be an admin. But I don't have your level of patience. My edit summaries can be anything from somewhat sarcastic to downright rude. I have no tolerance of fools. I don't like individuals who prefer magic over real science (Creationism and Alternative Medicine are my favorite targets). I'm rather direct. I assume someone is vandalizing before I assume he or she requires good faith. And since finding Twinkle, I can revert vandalism very easily. Now that being said, I'm pretty level-headed with power (I'm an MD and CEO of a company, so level-headedness is a required trait), which probably indicates I would never abuse the tools. But I think even my "friends" on here would be reluctant to support me as an admin--User:Firsfron, probably the nicest admin out there, has indicated a rather high-level of frustration with my attitude. Therefore, although I would be honored to be one, I think I have no shot at getting sufficient support. That doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to some sage comments about trying (and I've considered trying several times). But if those same sage cooments include I've got to be nice to every bozo who shows up around here, I'd need drugs to be that way. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Depressents or SSRI's? No, I think we can talk perhaps. Special:Emailuser/Mercury, or can I send you mail? Mercury 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a bottle of Scotch. Go ahead and email me. I don't mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ma ears are burnin'. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You want me to be nice, but I just can't be nice to fools. It's not in my nature. Speaking of nature and extinction events, I just read the book The World Without Us. Interesting take on extinction, of course, humans are the ones going extinct. It makes some points about the Hollie that make a lot of sense. Anyways, give it a read. Great book. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it on The Daily Show, and it looked really interesting. Thanks for the recommendation; I'm always looking for good reads. I have nothing to recommend in response, however: I haven't read an interesting book in a month. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot how I got to it. I think I was going from link to link on Wikipedia one evening, and I ran across the article about the book. I did the same another evening and read the rather entertaining novel Hell Creek. That was kind of fun. That's what got me interested in Katie. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, they're on my list to pick up. Thanks :) And thanks for the nice compliment above. I think you're an awesome editor, and I enjoy working with you. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

*slaps forehead* Firsfron of Ronchester 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

uh huh. See below. Though I don't think I deserved THAT kind of Warning for such a disruptive editor such as Ferrylodge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Mr. Ferrylodge, so I won't comment on the appropriateness of the warning. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I just don't think that Elinor should have done that, but I guess I will leave Ferrylodge alone. Of course, no one slaps Ferrylodge about side his head for the continued accusations that Odd Nature and Felonious Monk are sockpuppets, when they are not.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us Note

The lack of civility by the "Friends of Ferrylodge" is remarkable. Of course, I get attacked by admins. Amazing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You bring out the best in people. FYI, I probably would have voted for you just to see the fireworks and enormous nuclear explosion resulting if you passed :-D spryde | talk 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone could nominate me, and we could all watch from the side. But in fact, if I ever get nominated to be an admin, I would go through the process honorably, ethically and happily. I bet you just you just spit Pepsi all over your keyboard. And I'm not buying you another one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing WP this late at night requires something a bit harder than Pepsi (and I know how to hold my liquor). spryde | talk 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guess you don't mean warm milk! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAC#Poliomyelitis

Hey OM,

Polio is up for FAC. The review could probably use a doctor's expertise to weigh in. Will you consider reviewing it? (I don't know the nominator, and don't know anything about the article or the subject, but I figured you would). Firsfron of Ronchester 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be fun. As long as I don't see any BS that drinking water from Lourdes is going to cure it, I'll be happy to review. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lourdes water has medicinal properties beyond our mere understanding, OM. It comes from Unicorn pee, instilled with Powers we cannot imagine, by the Lord Himself. It is Wrong of you to doubt the Lord and His miraculous Decisions, which come from on High. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew it. You're a Creationist spy. You probably ratted us out when we were planting fake fossils so that we can prove what Darwin said was right. I'm never going to trust you again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust is earned through repentance to the Lord, OM. I only ratted you out to the Creationists because you're going against God by not believing in His wondrous and holy Creations: Leviathan, Behemoth, and Noah's Ark. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Please read my reply.[1] Sbowers3 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

LA Kings Jerseys

I've added a topic on the jerseys on the Kings discussion page. I would like to discuss the inclusion of the jerseys. See you there! Alaney2k —Preceding comment was added at 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

I'm going to be nice, because you appear to be a good editor. But you have violated WP:3RR. You really should revert your last edit, and we'll come to a conclusion, I'm sure. I think Alternative medicine is the biggest bunch of hogwash ever (short of Creationism and Republicans); however, your edit is highly pejorative. BTW, I won't revert your last edit, because it would be 4RR. I think you should show the same consideration and revert. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be really clear with you (as experienced as you are, you deserve at least that): three reverts is too many -- you cite the rule yourself. And, since you did 3 before I did, I'm going to let this one go and revert it first thing tomorrow morning, eh?

And what in the world do you mean by pejorative edits? Ummm.... I think my reasoning is pretty clear: I put reasons in my edit summaries, and then a section on the article's talk page, which you STILL haven't replied to (ie, build consensus?) I'm sure you have something to say about it. I just don't get it. Mine is a point of style that effects POV.

But for tonight, let's just sleep on it, what do you say? Friarslantern 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

this edit was not vandalism. this appendix needs to be added to the ammended sentence as it is useful to what this situation means, in terms of the biblical account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.112.136.11 (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to the Holocaust article.

I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. I have been watching the Holocaust page for around 6 months now. I like what I see. The problem with redirecting is an emotional one for me and I think this may be the case for all of us. Please do not take my decision to oppose the redirect personally . It just didn't feel right. Your point of view is very valid and you have done more good work on that article than I will ever do. But it just didn't feel right. So be well my brother and thank you for your participation thus far. I do appreciate it.: Danny Weintraub Albion moonlight 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then. I will watch and help if I can I am still pretty new to all of this. I too am sympathetic to the non Jewish editors of the holocaust. Especially those who had family members who were killed raped or incarcerated by the Nazis and or Stalinist's. Separate articles may be the answer. : Danny W. : Albion moonlight 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked...

... that you would say "I could go with either word". ;(

Uniformitarianism is not even close to being a theory. Theories are what science produces, using facts and principles (like uniformitarianism) which help interpret these facts. "Doctrine" is close, I will admit, but has unfortunate religious overtones. Anyway, the articles on Geology and Uniformitarianism anchor this point rather nicely, so hopefully we won't see any more equivocation inserted on this point. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Woogie10w

I will back him too. For a while he seemed like a closet revisionist to me but if he agrees with what you asked of him on the Jpgordon page. I have no real problem. I don't think the others will either. : Danny W : Albion moonlight 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ducks - Kings Rivalry

I admire your dedication in reverting the (mis?)naming of the rivalry. I've left a not on the talk page of that article asking for a citation or justification, but I'm not hopeful because it seems to be mostly new or unregistered user(s) doing this. Was there recently a newspaper article or something with this title? Random89 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience list (you reverted)

These topics have only been sourced as having entries in an encyclopedia, not as having been termed pseudoscientific. They should either be sourced, removed completely from the list, or the wording that you reverted changed. Note that repeated requests for verification have gone unanswered. -- Hgilbert (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also would love for you, Orangemarlin, to participate on the discussion page. Users such as Hgilbert are doing an excellent job of striving for consensus there and it seems, given you interest in editing the actual article, that you should be part of such discussion. Thanks and happy editing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I rarely participate on talk pages of contentious articles. Make your point in the edit summary, or revert. I don't care that much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User page image

I had to remove the image on your user page. Non-free images are not allowed to be used like this. E kala mai. A hui hou. --Ali'i (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you do not have my respect, you have attacked individuals whom I do respect, you have supported individuals who will ruin this project, you are NOT an administrator and you are not welcome here, please do not make changes to my user page. Please stay off my pages. I will revert your actions on my page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is a fucking English encyclopedia. No other languages are appreciated here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just not on...

I think the best comment (I forget where I got this from) is "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a role-playing game." Just keep having fun! Snalwibma (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not having fun tonight here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am probably going to have to unwatch the Holocaust article after this. I can't even track other articles because of the huge amount of edits (and subsequent reverts) to that article. Good luck with it and the trolls it attracts. Creationism and ID is plenty for me. Knock off and have a much deserved beer. Or a scotch. Baegis (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. So I just unwatched the article, because of the subtle anti-semitism that is going on there in the guise of "let's add every ethnic group". AGF id down the tubes there for me. **** it, as they say! BTW, Glenlivet? If I'm going to get bombed trying to knock off, it's the cheap stuff. LOL.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheap stuff? Never! Baegis (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on template:dominionism

You have reverted this template two time in the last two days, but it appears you haven't discussed your changes with the other editors either on the template talk page or on user talk pages. Reverting without discussion is an unproductive editing strategy, and I hope you'll reconsider your methods. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like that helps. Discussions on the talk page are about as useless as my appendix. I'm hoping others who have reverted will come back and participate. I guess not, so I'll wait to see if others care. So, you and your ilk win temporarily. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care what the template says; I'm not a part of the discussions. I'm only involved in the sense that I'm watching the template to discourage the unproductive edit warring that seems to happen there so often. If you think the discussions on the talk page have stalled, perhaps it's time to look to mediation. I asked the last person to revert to contact you, as well. The only way to resolve the disagreements will be via discussion of one form or another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Waste the project's time with mediation? NO way! We've got more important things to do. What has happened is that two or three POV-warriors have ownership of the article. It is a waste of time to discuss, because their behavior is reprehensible. OK, so you're not part of the group? I'm sorry for making the accusation, but it still stands that those individuals who own the article will continue to own it, and whine about "edit warring". Really, it's not worth the time. Their right-wing christian POV is either obvious or not. Discussing it is a waste of time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this changes anything, but your appendix is perhaps not as useless as your initial simile would imply: PMID 17936308. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? LOL. Well, I still have my appendix and tonsils, so I guess I'm safe!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... it wasn't published in any of the high-Wikipedia-impact journals like Medical Hypotheses or the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. It's probably in the second tier of journals in Wikipedia citation rank - you know, down around Science or NEJM... MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, the refined art of subtle sarcasm....;-) We ought to have a list (in user or project space) of scientific journals and rank them according to reliability, from top to fringe - oops!, I mean bottom: Lancet, NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Science....to....JAPandS, JSE, JVSR, etc.. -- Fyslee / talk 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One of my pet ideas, which I've never actually worked on, is to create a Wikipedia-specific journal impact factor table. This should be simple - just count up the number of times a given journal is cited across Wikipedia. My hypothesis is that the results would be horrifying (assuming you believe Wikipedia should aspire to be a serious reference work). It would be interesting to match up the Wikipedia-specific impact factor with the real-world impact factor and generate an "impact gap" statistic as well. In fact, I think the results would be publishable in the actual scientific literature, as Wikipedia is of some interest... but I just don't have the time to do it. MastCell ^Talk 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A fascinating idea! You should share the idea with some others who might have the know how and time to do it. It's too important an idea to let it lie dormant. -- Fyslee / talk 06:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

<RI>I agree with this idea. Can it be done automatically? I know that the bullshit...I mean Alternative Medicine articles use journal references that are only slightly better than say Mad Magazine. Wait a minute, I take that back, since Mad Magazine actually doesn't take itself seriously. But the worst problem is that we have amateurs grabbing a sentence or two out of an abstract of a peer-reviewed article and try to prove that say drinking monkey urine cures cancer. The SPOV matters in these articles, since we don't want someone hitting a Wikipedia article and thinking monkey urine does anything more than smell up the place. Yeah, my sarcasm just isn't as refined as MC's :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As a long-time fan of Mad Magazine, I am deeply offended by that remark. Alfred E. Neuman (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey I thought you died of some homeopathic procedure during an accupuncture treatment? I'm confused? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deep breath

The IP might be a new editor, and their edits were not completely irrational, just not in line with what is needed in a lead section. Take a deep breath and watch your blood pressure. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The English skills of the editor reminds me of someone :) I know the editor wasn't completely irrational, but the ranting on the Talk page was a bit troublesome. I'm drinking a glass of very old scotch whiskey right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I'll have some Ardbeg when I get home. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you live in the land of well-made Scotch whiskey? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, I'm in the land of drive-through restaurants and sickly-sweet bourbon at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But you WERE there. That's the most important thing. And haven't we Americans invaded all countries with our drive-through restaurants and pathetic tasteless beer? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of one of my favourite Monty Python jokes. Q - Why is American beer like making love in a canoe? A - It's f*@#ing close to water. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you insulting our beer?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he is insulting water... :) spryde | talk 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I snorted my coffee because of that comment!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Orangemarlin, please refrain from editwarring on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Your viewpoint is against the prevailing consensus; the section that you keep deleting is sourced. If you question the sources, try to argue your case on the talk page. Guido den Broeder 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you're likely to get yourself into trouble. If you can't get yourself to be constructive, you might consider staying away from this article. Guido den Broeder 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're threatening me? ROFLMAO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I didn't read the announcement where you were appointed the most knowledgeable and intelligent Wikipedia editor. I must have fucking missed it. Damn, I have to read my emails more often. Can someone point me in the right direction. Fuck me, I'm an idiot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Very few people are articles. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Hi, OrangeMarlin; can you please read and engage in the talk page on Vaccine controversy? You are edit warring over productive dialogue and consensus among four knowledgeable editors, and you don't seem to be engaging the talk page. It would be helpful if you would take more careful aim with your reverts and language in edit summaries; using words like "fringe theories" and "original research" to describe the edits of a productive, neutral editor who has authored three featured articles runs the risk of killing one of the good guys with "friendly fire". Your first revert may have been understandable; your second was edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I get accused of the same, and I've done the same (with your help I might add). But if the reference is not accurate, it's not accurate. I call 'em as I see 'em. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Just Call Me Einstein

Let me clear up my "incoherent crap". What I was tryin to say was the edit I made didn't even show up. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=174946065 It probably couldve been worded better, but how do you make your words appear on that page so I can rephrase the situation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Call Me Einstein (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 November 2007

OK, I'll respond:

1. Always sign with 4 "~"'s. OK?
2. The edit was reverted by me, so of course it doesn't show up. I deleted it before anyone could read it.d
3. I'm not sure what you're asking. Still a bit incoherent. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Institute

You did not address my valid NPOV rationale on the talk page for removing the cite at all, and I consider your characterization in the edit summary of my edit as POV to be a form of personal attack. I have justifiably reverted you. I would recommend that you conduct yourself strictly within Wikipedia's core content and behavior policies and guidelines. I am a well-established editor with a long track record of NPOV, who really has no dog in the ID fight. Dismissing me as a POV troll would be a very serious mistake. - Crockspot 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you're retired, I guess I don't give a shit about your lame-ass threats.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Our old friend

I was poking around some of the deeper caverns of Wikipedia and found that our old buddy Moulton is planning on staging a comeback with an ArbCom appealing of his ban with the help of Mercury. Get ready for some fun. I reckon his blog will probably liven up with the details. Baegis 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury has a valid point with Moulton. If he wants play here, then so be it, he needs to follow the rules. But his off-Wikipedia BS indicates to me that he just wants to play a game. I think Mercury is well aware of it. But if we do this and Moulton does as expected, then we get a permanent ban. That's the best result ever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that his habit of wiki-linking every diagnosis he makes about the community is still in full force. I missed having everything spelled out to me. Due to his off Wikipedia ranting, it will be interesting to see how he defends his actions. Baegis 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some conjectures about M:

• he is academically interested in online communities, and this is his way to explore Wikipedia and its mechanisms, so he can collect data and write about Wikipedia
• he still wants badly to change our articles on intelligent design
• he believes he can "win" by getting us to stop using the New York Times as a reliable source and therefore "correct" the article on his friend Rosalind Picard
• he believes he can single-handledly reform all of Wikipedia policies and all 10 million articles and 9 million users and get us to start admitting WP:OR and ignoring the statements in reliable sources in the name of "truthful" reporting. --Filll (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

you too!!!1!

Sorry for encouraging you :D Seriously though, people should begin to realise how utterly over-rated civility is compared to encyclopedic standards, that's my basic contention too. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 05:31, December 5, 2007

• Here, I created an all-new award for you. That's how I spent the last 40 minutes of my life, so show some damned appreciation for once!!

		The Ultraviolet Ray of Sunshine Award
		Thanks for being an ultraviolet ray of sunshine on Wikipedia, energetically fighting for encyclopedic standards while not letting yourself or your good humour be censored. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 14:19, December 5, 2007

Macroevolution

Thanks for the heads up but I believe what I wrote was held by a general consensus of those who oppose macroevolution. In any case the edit standing now is much better regardless, I'm happy what I originally edited over is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris82179 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually respond to this type of comment, but I'm energetic today. First, the article has been edited back to the state it was when I edited it. Second, "oppose macroeveolution?" Not sure what that's about. Thanks for your consideration. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Orangemarlin, I see you feel that you have the last word on homeopathy and it is decidedly in the camp that it is all placebo and that is the end of it. No further discussion.

Are you willing to permit a more balanced article, fully expressing your point of view but also allowing proponents of homeopathy to fully express their point of view?

That way the public gets a balanced view and can then make up their mind?

Btw, I edited out some outright mistakes in the article, which you then replaced with:

Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that, in undiluted

<< NO - provings now days are on diluted remedies. The diluted remedies CAUSE symptoms which is a point that skeptics miss. In dbl-blind provings the provers experience a similar set of symptoms, symptoms they have _never_ experienced before.>> >form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat.[5] >These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, >with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes << NOT NECESSARILY - remedies do not have to be diluted to be homeopathic. Originally Hahnemann did not dilute the remedies. Usually they are since they are much more effective that way>>> >side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where >no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[6] >Hahnemann proposed that this process aroused and enhanced "spirit- >like medicinal powers held within a drug".[7] Sets of remedies used >in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, with >practitioners selecting treatments according to consultations that >try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological

>state of the patient.

If we cant agree to disagree politely in this article, we will have to contact a higher level in the Wikipedia organization to come to some agreement.

Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcoolzip (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't deal with threats from an obvious troll. I do not have the last word. Why don't you be a good troll and read how many people edited it. Besides, there IS no scientific basis for this crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen how many edited it. I also saw how you immediately undid my edits without discussing them as though you have the final word on homeopathy. I would prefer that you respond to my specific changes rather than ad hominum attacks. Even if there were no scientific basis, the way the article states the case presuposes the conclusion. I think in an article on a topic such as this there are such polarized views that it may be impossible to have a neutral viewpoint. The very language used gives a point of view. Nonetheless it would be better to let what science there is to support homeopathy be stated and then let the reader make his own conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcoolzip (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the NPOV statement.

NPOV policy: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

This homeopathy article does not represent the homeopathic community's viewpoint, only the "quackbuster" viewpoint. Saying there "IS no scientific basis" and arbitrarilty undoing somebody elses edits is not following NPOV, in my opinion. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude. You need to read the NPOV policy, not just the 0.01% that might help you out, which in fact it doesn't. You need to read WP:WEIGHT, which reads in part:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

In other words, support of homeopathy lacks a lot of reliable sources. So, please do not lecture me further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So the views of the people who actually use and practice homeopathy, say 15% of the population of India (as stated in the article) or about 15 million people plus the rest of the people around the world are such a minority that their viewpoint doesnt count? Isnt an article on homeopathy "devoted to those views?" I would say that to understand a viewpoint you have to express the views of those who hold the viewpoint, no matter how "minority" you might consider them to be. All I am asking for is balance and not a viewpoint that is obviously prejudging the issue. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

45% of Americans believe in Alien abductions. 60% of Americans believe that some magical being created the earth. Homeopathy=Creationism. No science there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention..

That the sentence below is not quite accurate:

"substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers"

Hahnemann started dilution because he was concerned about giving toxic medicines (most medicines are toxic at some level) to sick people. He then discovered that substances that are not very medicinal or toxic like sea salt or lycopodium, developed medicinal powers when they are diluted. And medicinal substances developed stronger medicinal powers.

A question of semantics maybe but semantics can be important.

So I think this article could be improved by both of our inputs.

Thanks for your consideration,

Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcoolzip (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger, some friendly advice. Learn to sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end of your posts, or else a bot or someone else has to sign for you. Also, the article homeopathy you are so upset about is the result of hundreds of editors working on it for years, and compromise and consensus of supporters and detractors of homeopathy.

Once an article has been through multiple layers of review and thousands upon thousands of edits as homeopathy, to make big changes requires consensus and reliable sources. This means peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific journal studies like in the Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine or Nature magazine. You cannot just expect to capriciously and gratuitously make changes and expect others to accept them on your say-so. Bring any suggestions for changes up on the article talk page at Talk:Homeopathy and try to build a case for your edits. If others agree, then they will be implemented. You cannot just change these well-established articles by fiat and fatwa and expect them to stay that way. If we allowed this, very quickly this project would degenerate into nonsense. --Filll (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all worried about losing money and suckers...errrr customers. Why should these homeopaths be worried about declining income? Wouldn't diluting their income make it stronger, according to homeopathic principles? Love that comment. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw three mistakes in the second paragraph (see above) so there is plenty of room for improvement. Another great ad hominum attack by Orange. I dont know too many homeopaths making much money, not like doctors... but anyway your point is taken, Filll. But you will have to expand the range of acceptable sources. NEJM, Natr, Lancet and JAMA dont publish a lot of articles on homeopathy, except hit pieces. Lancet did one positive meta-study a few years back and they have been doing penance ever since. Most articles on homeopathy come from peer-reviewed NON-mainstream journals. Why not allow the reader to examine the sources and make up their minds whether they accept them? They have a brain. The sources for how homeopathy is actually practiced will have to come from homeopathic literature. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-mainstream science gets written up in non-mainstream journals. That is often why it remains non-mainstream. Randomcoolzip (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to me. This is Wikipedia policy. Bring it up on the talk page of the article.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done with this troll. Just POV-pushing for a fringe theory that is backed up by nothing. BTW, there is science and there is not science. There is nothing called mainstream science, except by people trying to create things out of the air. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that these non-mainstream journal writers might be interested in purchasing. Can you put me in touch with them Mr. Zip? Helluva deal. Baegis (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In his defense, I like his username. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, that's a rather weak defense. Have you been drinking?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

homeopathy scales

OM, I have taken the material we worked out before and distilled some of it into a draft at User:Filll/homeopathyscales. Please take a look at this admittedly very rough text and let me know where I have made some mistakes. I probably should have some more references as well I guess. I want this to explain the potency scales as clearly as we can. Any other material that should be included? Other scales? Even if obscure?--Filll (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Swarm Internationale's talk page

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Swarm Internationale. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Swarm Internationale (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored your warnings to his talk page, Orange. Is the cluestick in order? Marskell (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this amusing. Just one more piece of evidence for the RfCU.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, do see his talk page. I think this may be a happy outcome. Marskell (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy outcome? He keeps reverting the warnings. I have a suspicion that we're dealing with something that will come to light soon. I get so tired of this behavior from certain editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What's truly weird is that User:Jayvdb‎ is reverting for him. If you go back in the revision history to my last typo correction you'll see that we had fairly amicably settled things. You might drop Jayvb a note. Marskell (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

Hi Orangemarlin. No problem whatsoever. I actually had that article in my watchlist but hadn't really contributed to it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy edits

I'm entirely unsure of what is going on here. Your previous summary hinted at some suspicion that I was inserting POV into the article, but I can't really figure out what the last one was. Could you please explain why you're reverting my edits in detail? Vague wholesale reverts unaccompanied by full justification are a great way of dissuading editors from editing articles entirely, especially when the summaries hint at policy violation. The article in question needs much more focus on copyediting than ideology right now, as it's a 90k train-wreck. Chris Cunningham (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. If you want to copyedit, change a word if you so wish. Correct some spelling. I don't care. Don't put in Homeopathy POV, please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith, and you're utterly out of line for doing so (I'm pro-science and I have no problem at all with denouncing homeopathy as quackery). There's a siege mentality on that article right now where editors are taking innocuous copy-edits and reverting them out of some perceived POV on the behalf of the contributor, and it's harmful. Review my edit history if you want proof that I'm not some pro-homeopathy POV warrior. For now, I'm going to restore these edits, because they clean up the introduction without removing a single reference. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A 90K train wreck? It was rated as GA status. A few problems here and there remain, but ...wow.--Filll (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am literally amazed it passed GA's stability requirements. I personally think it needs a lot of improvement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion

Re-reverting does not "stop" revert wars, it escalates them. When two editors agree and one opposes, the one opposing should take it to the talk page while waiting to see if a fourth editor reverts. Curious Blue (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way my friend. It is what is supported by verified references. And one editor doesn't oppose. About 20 do, when the article was tuned up. It's night here in the US. Keep reverting away, and someone will block you for 3RR, and it will go back to the most stable form. Let me point you to a few resources in Wikipedia: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you again, but if you want to be more convincing, you'd let somebody else do it. Surely with 20 other editors behind you it would not take long. I believe that the article is currently biased against homeopathy, as discussed recently on the talk page. I have no desire to unbalance it in the other direction, but I cannot fail to notice that you omitted WP:NPOV from your list of things to read, and that your not even veiled threats violate WP:AGF. You've never spoken to me before, why reply is such a harsh manner? BTW, are you an admin? Curious Blue (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was rude too

Archiving without replying. Cat got your tongue? or was my pointed enquiry too accurate for you? Curious Blue (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness

Dude, it is not a personal attack to point out that you acted in a rude mannner toward me. In my opinion, you need to chill and read WP:AGF, WP:TPG and WP:DTTR. Or would you prefer for me to template you over them? Thanks and good day. Curious Blue (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take your commentary elsewhere. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You made me feel bad with your harsh response. And that's that, huh, go away. Lovely. Ciao! Curious Blue (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, why would you do this Tim? You know I know this issue, and I have NEVER violated it, nor have I ever gamed the system. Moreover, I believe I have the right to revert edits that constitute vandalism. Which this was. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a vandal, and none of my edits were vandalism. Please refrain from personal attacks. Curious Blue (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to stay off my page. Now do so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep smelling a dirty sock. I wonder why? I've got to do some laundry over at RfCU soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.Ra2007 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AAGF. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"I keep smelling a dirty sock. I wonder why? I've got to do some laundry over at RfCU soon.". That doesn't seem like good faith to me. Just my opinion though. Elhector (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting attacked here by an obvious sock who started up about 5 weeks ago with really good knowledge of Wikipedia rules and regulations. I appreciate the support. I don't get AGF'ed I see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your comment on my talk page. I just wanted to reiterate something though. Might I suggest that instead of making rude accusations that could easily be interpreted as personal attacks you take your suspicion of sock puppetry through the proper channels. I dislike socks as much as you I'm sure but I don't think that makes it ok to just throw accusation out like "dirty sock". Elhector (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I asked you previously to stay away. If not, then here I am telling you so. I'm not sure that I've accused anyone of anything. I was merely remarking that I left a pair of very smelly socks around my computer. I need to get them cleaned up. Sorry if you so misinterpreted my statements. Sad that you continue to attack me. I think I might have to whine at an RfC. Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. Whine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Frankly, I am outraged. Some of these editors attacking OM have horrendous records of editing here on WP. You should all be embarassed of yourselves for attacking someone who actually contributes in a productive way, instead of spewing some of the nonsense I have seen out of some of these editors. Good heavens.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

I am simply trying to balance the secular and liberal bias from Wikipedia. Do you disagree with information being as unbiased as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildfirejmj (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. That was good one. I nearly wet myself. So, you want to put YOUR bias in the article without any support whatsoever. Might I suggest Conservapedia where you and your ilk can masturbate each other into glory. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR tag

Patronizing and threatening are not very becoming, OM. Furthermore, your charge is laughable as you are ahead of me in the 3RR race and I have no intention of continuing. My first edit in this exchange was to (in my opinion) improve rather than revert, which is what you're supposed to do. You then started the war with a revert, in violation of WP:Revert#Do not. Perhaps unwisely, I briefly played along, with you as my partner (umm...), committing a total of two re-reverts. Then a friend of yours happened along and did your dirty work with a third revert. I now have no choice but to "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Sorry to make you resort to talk instead of action, but those are your words. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, I ask you to clarify your accusation of a personal attack. "Civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This qualifies as a personal attack: Then a friend of yours happened along and did your dirty work with a third revert. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is bad, and deserves to be labeled as such. However, as you object to the phrase, I will strike it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Olive Branch

Extending the olive branch

You and I have had some conflict in the past, we got off to a horrible start. I understand you have asked me to stay off your talk page but I thought it might be ok to contact you if it was in a friendly manner and in an effort to settle our differences in a civil and mutually agreeable way.

I've noticed that you and I share some interest in pseudo-science and quackery related articles. I thought maybe if you and I were to work on something together we might be able to overcome our differences and have a more civil and productive relationship here.

I've done a little work on the quackery article in the past and was really quite surprised by the recent AfD on it. I found it completely baseless and without merit. I do think the article has 1 glaring issue though. I'd like to work on paring down the Notable historical persons accused of quackery section down to just 3 or 4 really good examples. I think if this were done it would head off a lot of the POV arguments made against the article before they start. I've made some comments regarding this on the talk page if you'd care to take a look at them. Also I'd like to work to reach a quick consensus to get that cleaup tag off the article. Let me know if you agree and if you think you and I could work together to improve this article and get stuff cleaned up. If you still have personal issues with me and feel that we can't work together please feel free to delete this message and I will take that as a sign not to contact you anymore for any reason. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, I would like you to explain why you identify my recent edit on Evolution as vandalism? The text was

some people believe that the origin of humans involved supernatural intervention

I thought, for starters, that "some people" is a great understatement, and second, gives very little info on what those people believe and why it conflicts with evolution, so I changed the text to:

most creation myths describe the creation of life as involving supernatural intervention

That page explains a lot more. I'm not saying anything about evolution being wrong or right. I don't see what POV you think I am trying to push. Hmpxrii (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You're pushing Christian bullshit POV. Stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion gone wrong

Is it my browser or did your recent reversion of Evolution truncate the end of the article? i.e. unintended foreclosure. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted some edits. Unless the previous revision was wrong, I used a bot to revert, so I made no fundamental changes to the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it now - yes you simply reverted but I think the mechanism went wrong. Thanks. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I was missing a whole bunch of stuff. You fixed it, but now I need to figure out what happened. I don't want THAT to happen again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

your second revert - homeopathy

I have the same question Orangemarlin: I'm puzzled by the non NPOV analysis here orangemarlin. The IP seemed to add a clarification of what the papers conclude. Why is that non neutral? Given this IP has made the same addition again, maybe you should explain the reasoning for your revert on the talk page, it does not appear to be blatant NPOV to me. What am I missing? David D. (Talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

please justify. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit edits are bullshit. If you want to POV warrior go someplace else, not my page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Actually, my reason for editing that paragraph is that "some people believe" felt too much like a weasel word. I just insert rephrased the sentence to be more informative with a relevant wikilink, and I have not mentioned Christianity at all except in my edit summary.

That most creation myths involve "supernatural intervention" has nothing to do with if you believe it or not, "supernatural intervention" is more or less the definition of religion.

Seriously, if that sentence should read "some people believe", then it begs to be appropriately sourced (How many are "some"? 1%? 99%?). I think it's better to just link to an article on what people believe about creation, and let that speak for itself. If you think I don't believe in evolution, you are wrong. How do you think I should phrase the sentence instead? Hmpxrii (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take your Christian POV off of my page. I don't like, don't believe in the myth, and I don't frankly care that you "believe in Evolution", because most people who say that don't know about what they're talking. Because one does not "believe" in any scientific fact. You either accept the fact, or you deny science. Do NOT post here any further. I will consider it vandalizing my page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

not all POV is vandalism

Orangemarlin, You might disagree with edits but to dismiss those that are not obvious vandalism without a more full explanation than "revert: this is your POV" is not that helpful. You, Fill and Adam all seem to be pulling the trigger too fast on these battlezone pages, do you all really think it is going to help them become more stable this way? David D. (Talk) 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not engage in discussion with POV warriors. Never does me any good, and frankly, just a plain "fuck you" works for me. So, I'm actually being nice in my edit summary. Otherwise, I refuse to discuss it any further. Usually, someone else follows up and we 3RR some asshole. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand you position but i only see the problem getting worse with an emotional response. You just become bait once they know they've got your goat. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we allowed to write the "f" word in here? hmmm.Kidding orangemarlin please think that if you decide to discuss logically before you revert at least, you might convert the editors you disagree with to... agnosticism --70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with David D on this. Since you state that "I don't like, don't believe in the myth", you are clearly having a strong POV yourself, and saying that "just a plain fuck you" works better for you than conversation, does not fit in very well with Wikipedia's policies on civility either. I think it's time you apologize and let us do some constructive editing. Hmpxrii (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, you are vandalizing my page. Stay away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I don't think the revert you made on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was appropriate. See Help:Reverting: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate." The case cited had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and I am going to delete it again unless someone finds a source linking them. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

response

I do not see any non-neutrality in providing relevant links to the discussion. I did not make them up. The fact that you removed them show me that you are the non-neutral one. I don't find that very scientific. I think the next relevant link should be dogmatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriansrfr (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to write on someone's page

If you are going to write on someone's page, type in what exactly it was you deleted (for others benefit) and give a brief argument of why you were against it as opposed to your accusatory threat. I'm sure everyone will be appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriansrfr (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Would you please stop trying to systematically entangle users in editwars to get them blocked? This is considered abuse. Wikipedia does not need enemies of reason such as you who are trying to deny even the validity of the use of a disputed tag on a section that spreads lies that are known to be lies, and have been clearly identified as lies in the classic literature on the topic. If you have arguments, you may take part in the discussion on the talk page, but your method of trying to get people blocked by provoking completely unnecessary editwars is not appreciated. --rtc (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Added Orangemarlin to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I think we've seen quite enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm scared!!!! Watch me wet myself. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Behe

The claim that the scientific community, as a whole, has rejected all of Michael Behe's work is not only ridiculous, it is completely unsupported by the citations given. Those are citations to individual opinions, not claims of scientific consensus. It may be true, but it is not verifiable. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design‎ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement is that consensus agrees that Behe's work is wrong. You are inferring that, because Behe supports ID, and ID is rejected by scientific consensus, then Behe's work is rejected by scientific consensus. It's not supported by the sources. And please stop assuming that anyone who makes an edit to an ID page to make it more neutral is a creationist on a mission to destroy wikipedia. I'm well aware of the majority opinion on the subject. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently we disagree with you. Good luck with your POV-attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What could you possibly disagree with? Are you saying that there have been polls conducted of scientists, asking them what they think of Michael Behe? And do you know that I believe in evolution? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What?????? You can't "believe" in evolution. And now that you've said that, everyone now knows you're a creationist attack dog. I smell dirty socks again. Does anyone else? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wowzers. I'm a creationist attack dog because I believe in evolution instead of... well what verb does one ascribe to evolution if they are not a creationist attack dog? I affirm evolution? I know evolution is a fact? I'm quite confused at this point. What language should I use to tell you that I don't believe God created the earth in seven days, I believe in the scientific method, and I'm not an "attack dog" for creationism? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't. Your Creationist editing, your whiny comments to Guido, etc. indicate you are a Creationist. And since you are acting like a troll, you are hereby and officially banned from this page. Go try to convince someone else that you're not a Creationist lapdog. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, have a nice life. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)