User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a bit over the top

Just so you know, WP:NPA applies to edit summaries as well. Blueboy96 18:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It does, but where's the personal attack? Dorftrottel (ask) 03:13, April 13, 2008
Agreed. Where is it? I'd love to know. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
From the very opening, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." You've obviously been emotionally charged the last few days and have refused advice to keep your cool, and consequently have resorted to personal attacks, even against editors genuinely interested in both helping you and the project. So if you're not going to take the advice, and if you do continue to make personal attacks--toward anyone--and continue your rude behavior, it will be dealt in an appropriate fashion that neither you or anyone else really wants to go through. If you want my personal advice, I suggest you take a few days off from editing, cool off, and come back levelheaded. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So you're a psychiatrist too? Cool off? Levelheaded? Thanks, but you know what they say about free psychiatric advice, it's worth nothing. Come on. I'm not emotional. But I don't stand for racist attacks on Jews, and if you can stand for it, I'm all right with it because it's your choice, but don't ask me to make your choice. How fair is that? Also, don't threaten me. There are alot more people who think that GSTS should be blocked forever than don't. And never suggest I take time off from this project. I'll make that decision based on whatever. I never get that suggestion, because it's not like today I spent 90% of it with friends, children and watching a hockey game.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
One more thing. Please show me where civility is more important than standing up to racism, POV warriors and the such? It can't. Civility simply cannot be more important than stomping out racism. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I have only seen a very few comments of yours, and scanned through your talk page, but I really think you could do with re-reading WP:CIV Restepc (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to give a specific example instead of some vague threat? You know vague allusions to violation of WP:CIVIL are themselves a violation of WP:CIVIL.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably a supporter of GSTS. Never seen this guy nor do I edit the same articles. And usually, it's considered an attack by making a comment that I should read WP:CIV. Don't feed the troll Fill. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Vague yes, threat no. If you want an example, look no further than the comment above this one. If it considered bad form to recommend the reading of WP:CIV, what do you do if you come across someone you think should? (serious question, not meant as an attack) Restepc (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have no idea what GSTS is Restepc (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on talk page

This is a personal attack. But knowing your POV on this topic, I don't expect or demand much sympathy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any POV on the topic, nor have I edited that article. Asserting that I have one, or presuming to know my subjective thought process is both rude, and incivil, and I'd ask you retract the statement. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Ah just like stating I went to graduate school on that talk page means I am the same as Essjay? And of course, that is quite different than an admin who advertises on his user page that he graduated from law school and was in the military and has used that in discussions of edits of military-related articles. So reasonable, so rational, so unhypocritical. Try to relax and not walk around threatening established users so much, you know? It would be the WP:CIVIL thing to do. --Filll (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have no clue to what he's referencing. And secondly, he must forget that I observed his threats to you. So whatever I was discussing, it was obvious that I recalled that he treated you poorly with personal attacks, I figure I'd get the same level of treatment. And voila, I did. I guess OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, what exactly about "This statement is rude, please retract it" is a personal attack against you? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I was going to point out to him that editors here do read each other's talk pages.--Filll (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now that I found the quote, I was referring to A'li, and not Swatjester. Since he has come here in an attack mode, probably because I hit a sore point, given his rude, uncivil and inappropriate attacks on your background, I shouldn't have been surprised. At least, A'li had the maturity to apologize, which I appreciate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For one, I'm talking to OrangeMarlin here, not Filll, who was blatantly wrong in his talk page comment that I warned him about. It was a legitimate warning. Even still, your actions are your own OrangeMarlin, and as such incivility on your behalf is your own too, it's not excused by others behaviors. If you were referring to A'li, you should have put it under his section, not mine. Given that you've been blocked just a week ago for personal attacks, being less abrasive would not be unwarranted. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well SJ if you are so sure you are correct about my situation, why did you not respond? Tell me the difference between putting statements about being in the military and graduating from law school and using those facts in editing arguments on Wikipedia, and people here claiming to have PhDs etc, or me alluding to my time in graduate school in the heat of an argument with a 16 year old who was lecturing others. Come on. Show me.--Filll (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply Unacceptable Behavior

We disagree about the listing of Anze Kopitar's birthplace. Fair enough; I welcome such debates. However, I was shocked to read the following edit comment:

"He was born in Yugoslavia, because Slovenia did not exist at the time." (my bolding)

This initially appeared to me to be a pathetic, despicable lie, but since Wikipedia asks us to presume good faith, I acknowledge that it may just be a case of historical ignorance on your part. In any case, such blatant historical revisionism falls far outside the bounds of civilized discourse. People can disagree whether Slovenia's status as a constituent, semi-autonomous republic within Yugoslavia at the time justifies its inclusion in the birthplace citation, but your claim that Slovenia didn't even exist in the 1980s (not a claim that it didn't exist as an independent country, mind you, but that it didn't exist at all) is entirely unacceptable. In fact, it is comparable to a hypothetical present-day claim that Quebec, Scotland, and California do not exist because they are not independent countries. I cannot speculate whether your actions are driven by an anti-Slovenian political agenda, simple malice or ignorance -- as I do not know you or your motives, it would not be appropriate for me to guess -- but I can conclude that I have rarely seen such outrageous behavior on Wikipedia, let alone concerning an essentially uncontroversial sports article. --WorldWide Update (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the WP article about your favorite country: Slovenia. And here's a brief article about Slovenia within Yugoslavia: SR Slovenia. You might learn something. --WorldWide Update (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WorldWide Update, the heading Simply Unacceptable Behavior describes your approach accurately. Assume good faith and write in a civil manner. You could have made the same point without the aggression, and it would have been much more effective while also being less damaging to your reputation. .. dave souza, talk
First of all, I belive that such debates must be conducted in an honest, transparent manner. Therefore, if I encounter entirely unacceptable and offensive historical revisionism, I see no reason why I should not express my opnion in a frank manner, even if my tone is passionate. In other words, I consider historical truth to be more important than my reputation. If, for example, the user in question resorted to some other offensive historical revisionism (Holocaust denial, for instance), would I always automatically be obligated to assume good faith on his part? Where is the line? Why should I give him the benefit of good faith, when he clearly demonstrates ZERO good faith of his own, repeatedly engaging in attempts to remove all references to Slovenia's pre-1991 history? He recently referred to a respected Slovenian Wikipedia user as a "Slovenian nationalist" just because he disagreed with him about this issue. BTW, I toned down this article at the request of another user, yet you chose to chastize me for it anyway. Since you have decided not to take issue with OrangeMarlin's behavior, but attack me instead, I have no option but to doubt your sense of fairness regarding this issue. If this is another case of me not assuming good faith, so be it. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You should look and see that I said nothing about the issue, but only gave advice about your behaviour when presenting the issue. Believe me, that's not a successful strategy for achieving your aims here. ... dave souza, talk 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the most outrageous comments I have encountered on the internet are from those who live in or are associated with the Balkans. This confirms what has often been said about the Balkans, such as

"A gay peninsula filled with sprightly people who ate peppered food, drank strong liquors, wore flamboyant clothes, loved and murdered easily and had a splendid talent for starting wars".- A Long Row of Candles by C. J. Sulzberger--Filll (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Slovenia is not a part of that penninsula, as its WP article would tell you (Slovenia), it's a cool quote. --WorldWide Update (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WWU, give it a break. Properly speaking, the birthplace should be listed just as it is as of 5:20PM EDT. It's fine that way.
On the other hand, your comments to OM are uncalled for. Really, they are.
But wait: perhaps we could say that Kopitar was born in the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Republic of Venice, the Duchy of Carantania, the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Austrian Empire Austria-Hungary, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia now known as Slovenia. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about the birthplace issue at all (I've discussed that in Kopitar's talk section). This is about OM's statement that Slovenia did not even exist in the 1980s, which is both inaccurate and highly offensive (it effectively denies Slovenia's pre-1991 history). No, Slovenia wasn't an independent country back then, but neither is, say, Quebec nowadays. Would a Quebecois therefore accept the claim that "Quebec doesn't exist"? --WorldWide Update (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OM's talkpage is kinda like the comics section in a newspaper. This is where I go for light entertainment after a long, hard day of editing, and I always find something to amuse me. In this case I find that WorldWide Update has taken over-sensitivity to comic new heights. Thanks for the chuckle WWU : ) Doc Tropics 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Thule_Society

Have a look Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thule_Society LeadSongDog (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting the reason for deletion? It seems notable enough. Sure, it needs a complete NPOV workover, but I'm not sure it deserves deletion. But, drop a note here, maybe I'll see your point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the AFD self explanatory? The article has been there for six years without a single citation. There's no way of verifying where anything in it came from short of retracing every prior editor's steps. There's at least one large edit that looks very much like it was a copy-paste from somewhere unstated. It's full of unqualified extraordinary claims without evidence. However, it looks like I'm the only one troubled by this.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Introduction

Hi OrangeMarlin! It's great of you to make attempts to rid Wikipedia of anti-Semitism. I have not actually encountered any anti-Semitism from non-Arab Wikipedians, but that's probably because I don't really edit articles unrelated to Israel (except anime and hockey, sometimes). I will be glad to help you in fighting anti-Semitism, but take into account that I know very little on most subjects covered in Wikipedia, especially US-centric ones. I only focus on Israel-related entries - call me narrow minded; I prefer 'narrow specialist' :)

About the Canucks - As it says on my userpage, I have lived in Burnaby, British Columbia in the past, which made the Canucks my home team. They're a good team and I still follow their progress now, even though I live very far from Vancouver and the team isn't doing that well anyway. There's no opportunity to play hockey in central Israel either - mostly because people don't play, so it's hard to find enough people for a game who also have the necessary equipment - even if it's a street/roller hockey game. And I'm not going to move to the north anytime soon.

Glad to hear from a fellow soldier. Two of my friends currently serve in the Medical Corps. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic

Do you want to try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ? Bryan Hopping T 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually asked that you be permanently blocked. It's a better solution, because if it were only me, then it would work. But every editor disagrees with you except for CAM nutjobs. So, I've asked previously, and I'll ask again, stay off my page. I'm hoping you're indefinitely blocked soon. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This sure seems like a personal attack to me. Bryan Hopping T 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopping, I honestly think you and OrangeMarlin have gotten off on the wrong foot. The way I see it, you are a prolific writer of good D.O. content that Wikipedia needs. As far as I know, the only substantive issue that I've ever had with you is your usage of what I consider a tendentious term for MDs across article space. OM, if Hopping can restrain himself from inappropriately labeling MDs, and explain why he called us 'liars', you should take a tour of his work. Aside from the allopathic pushing, the balance is quite good - at least what I've seen. Antelantalk 12:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"you are a prolific writer of good D.O. content that Wikipedia needs." Thanks. I appreciate that. I know we have our disagreements, but I appreciate you taking the time to identify some positive contribution I've made. Bryan Hopping T 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to identify your good edits, which are plentiful. I believe that an RfC on your behavior is imminent, and in my statement, I will express both my appreciation for the work that you have done as well as my strong rejection of your refusal to cease, in the face of community input, what I see as tendentious editing across article-space with regards to "allopathic." Given the amount of feedback you have received and rejected with regards to this single term, I don't know what else to do besides bring this to the greater community for input. Antelantalk 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopping is certainly about 10,000,000,000X better of an editor than the racist, anti-Semitic neo-Nazis that I'm dealing with elsewhere. I'd rather Hopping just stop this Allopathy crap, and then maybe he can help out. I never knew about this Allopathic label until I was reviewing one of his GAC's (or maybe FAC's), and noticed the label. He has to stop however. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Antelantalk 16:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he's now moved on to doing this with images. Antelantalk 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think now we are approaching the definition of a true POV-warrior, who does not like to play nice. I think I'm going to place a rapid delete label on that. It's unsourced. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

God Save the South

FYI - it looks as though not perma-banning this editor actually had some useful repercussions. I watchlisted his talkpage, and today noticed this. A quick look through that editor's contribs found this and this. I pointed this out on IRC, and voila. Black Kite 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


In this case, God Save the South's account functioned as what we call, a "honey pot". Then, it was ban hammer time. --Filll (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, this makes me feel better. Maybe putting up with editors, that say "Jew Comedian" is perfectly acceptable, is the cost for blocking the more notorious racists on this project. GSTS may have a purpose.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, another editor and I were already watching that one closely, but I didn't mind seeing things happen a bit sooner and more swiftly than they otherwise would have. Cheers. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Apologies

Hey Orange; sorry for the late reply. It wasn't the arbitrary break itself I was concerned about but the fact that removes piled in all of a sudden. It looked, as I said, like people had been rounded up. So I waited for further comments. In the end, I did ultimately agree with the substance of the removes.

"Can't we limit people to one sentence?" This is a Wiki, as you've heard before :). Certainly on some reviews I want to scream because of the massive comments, but what to do. People will say what they like. Marskell (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to read everyone's comments in certain articles. I run a large company, and I swear I'd fire the first person who made an argument that wasn't bullet pointed, succinct, and logical. The long-winded, dull commentary from certain editors just doesn't get far. They're arguing with themselves! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

E kala mai

Orangemarlin... I know you asked me to not post on your talk page, but I just wanted to sincerely apologize to you personally for my actions yesterday. It was never my intention to make you feel like you were being personally attacked. Personal attacks harm the community, and should not be permitted. I am also sorry for edit warring on the Expelled page. While I still do not understand how my edits were biased toward the film/Creationist point of view (especially since I too am an evilutionist... to dispute evolution occurs is madness), I am sorry for edit warring. Edit warring does not lead anywhere good. I hope we can move past this dispute. I understand we have had other disagreements in the past, but I am truly interested in working constructively with you in the future. I think you are a good editor... especially on medical/science articles. Again, e kala mai, my deepest apologies. I hope you will accept this and grant me your forgiveness. Mahalo nui, Orangemarlin. --Ali'i 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. I don't like being called a vandal, but apparently that's over. Now, you have to realize, you have a reputation, in my eyes (I speak for no one else) of supporting the Creationist POV. I don't care about that, but the neutral POV is not the Creationist one. And this movie is an attack on Evolution, which is scientifically not in dispute by anyone with a science or rationalist background. Anyways, let's put water under the bridge, and I withdraw your "ban" from my talk page.  ;) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Orangemarlin. I am a little unsure how I got pegged as supporting the creationist point of view, since I haven't really ever edited anything in that sphere of coverage (and whole-heartedly believe in evolution based on the overwhelming evidence), but I appreciate your forgiveness nonetheless. :-) See you around. --Ali'i 15:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
One favor. Can you please translate your Hawaiian sayings now and again?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
ʻAʻole pilikia. :-) Mahalo is fairly common... means "thank you". Mahalo nui loa means "thank you very much". E kala mai means "I'm sorry." And ʻAʻole pilikia means "no worries." I'll try to keep it to a minimum if I edit on your talk page. A hui hou (see you later). :-) --Ali'i 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I spent a few weeks in Hawaii while in the Navy. I learned no Hawaiian whatsoever. Ok, Aloha.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, this reminds me of my page a few months back.  :) One of these years I'll get around to checking out the Polynesian languages. A hui hou.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
At my advanced years, I have probably forgotten more English than I remember! Remember. Hmmm what does that mean again? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I shot you an email on a separate topic. Thought you'd like to know. --Ali'i 13:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Above, User:Hopping suggested dispute resolution. Looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I think we've already gone through all of the relevant steps leading up to RfC. Do you concur? If so, would you consider certifying an RfC if I began one? If there's another step before RfC that we can utilize, I'd be happy to try an alternate route first. Antelantalk 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's do the RfC. It's important to have the evidence in case we need to ask for a community ban. He's already been blocked, so I will certify it. I'm sure others will too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Man, I can't even keep up with all of this madness going on with this movie (or propaganda piece). I seriously, seriously wonder if some of the editors on that page have some underlying reasoning for their voracious editing on the article. Bet ole Ben Stein is slipping them a few bucks on the DL. I've never seen such traffic and article editing for such a awful, awful film. Now if only some of the great films actually got that attention. Baegis (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am barely able to keep up with it. I'm going to take the policy of reverting any edit that isn't done by the editors that I trust. Anonymous ones get no faith. And to think, I loved his role in Ferris Bueller. Damn. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have known that he was a bit sneaky. Clear Eyes might as well be renamed to "Burn (the living hell out of your) Eyes". Plus he was a writer for Tricky Dick. For shame! Baegis (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemarlin, if you take a view to the overview section, please consider commenting in the section here. I'd like to assure you that I've worked on improving a number of articles relating to secularism and the separation of church and state, and have no view to promoting the movie; in any case, I simply think all the traffic is a reason to go for quality now while people are here. I know you'd like to keep the article in good shape as well, so I'm just asking that we try to discuss what we can. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem like a nice guy, so I'll try to be nice in return. I despise long, tendentious discussion sections. People ought to make their point, but they don't, and it becomes a long thousand line boring discussion, with some people whining, some people bitching, and others accusing each other of bitching and whining. I don't need someone to tell me what is or is not NPOV. Use verified and reliable references, don't whitewash, and it's done. I'll make my reasons for changes known in the edit summary. If someone restricts commentary to 4 sentences TOTAL, I will join the discussion. I promise. But if I have to read a a small novel, and my mind isn't changed, why bother? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Orangemarlin. How are you? This is the first time I am talking to you. I noticed your name on the talk page of Filll and I have seen your contributions.

Orange, I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Please see the article. Your contributions will be helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may be permited a moment of levity...

Bensteinian Rhapsody HrafnTalkStalk 04:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. That was just too good. Thanks for some levity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the spelling of words

Wikipedia is an american site. Stop chaning things to british spelling.

Wikipedia is not an "American" site. We use the spelling that is commonly used in the subject matter of the article. Please see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Note: You've now violated the WP:3RR for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, on Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. If you continue to edit war on this article, you will be blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you spent a second reviewing my edits, I did not make the same reverts over 3 times. And if you spent a second reviewing my edits you would see that I was trying to prevent an edit war by keeping inflammatory, anti-ID comments from being added, which is being as fair as I can be. Lastly, these edits were done last night. Because I don't like you and you despise me, you choose to leave this uncivil comment? Great job SJ. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read the rule. Reverts do not need to be the same. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." (from WP:3RR). You do not prevent an edit war by inflamming it. You prevent an edit war by coming to WP:RFPP and requesting protection. Lastly, I don't have any feelings either way towards you. The warning stands. Do not continue to revert that article.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have treated me with disrespect on a number of occasions. If you want me to spend time digging it up, I shall. Because of your intense dislike of me, instead of a friendly piece of advice such as, "hey, I know you're an experience editor, so I'm giving you a pass on this one, but really, you should not have made that many edits." I might have responded, "but I was kind of reverting on both sides of the issue." You might have responded with the rule, and we would have been done. No, instead, you took about the most uncivil approach possible by throwing a canned warning on my talk page. This warning is disrespectful if not just plain uncivil. But I'll tow your line, because you have the power to block me, and you're looking for a reason to bait me and block me.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly not looking for a reason to block you, otherwise I would have just done it. I agree with the idea that you want to quell the edit war on that article, but you went about it wrong. It's not uncivil to tell you A: you violated the rule, and b) if you continue you'll be blocked. That's not uncivil: that's a statement of fact. Keep a thick skin please, especially if you're going to wade into controversial articles. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And that comment I can read. I have a thick skin. Note the Nazi vandalism to my page this morning. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As a jew, I'm glad to see that vandal blocked. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that although I don't find Intelligent design very useful, the background racism we see around here (not frequently, but just enough) just makes me want to scream. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, you're a Member of the tribe? I guess my mitzvah will be to follow your advice. But on the other hand, Ben Stein is technically an MoT too. What to do????? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How about, I just reverted the vandal that hit your user page. And I'm glad you'll take my advice this pesach. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a vandal? Grrrrrr. While you're here, because Uber is aiming to get me, can you take a look at Mannatech. I don't really care about the article, but there's an editor who's at 3RR, and he's pushing company sponsored research, that doesn't qualify as WP:RS as independent research. I'm kind of bored with that edit war, because it's clear that a company shill is editing the article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps add into that paragraph that he's including that the research was funded by Mannatech (if you have a source for that). That way, it's out there for people to decide on their own how much weight to give it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. He deleted it. I'm at 2RR, so I don't want to get into a 3RR situation, then Uber will run over here and tag me out of spite. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well first step is to not make assumptions about Uber's motives. It's really hard not to do sometimes (I'm guilty of it too). Remember, no edit is so critical that it can't stay up for a day or two so you're not in a 3RR situation. Just slow down, take a day of from that article, and then look at it again with a fresh eye. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Io io editor

Note this and this comment. Based on how it is received, I may start a post at AN/I. Figured you'd be interested. WLU (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This guy again. I'm interested in assisting, because he needs to get his ego under control. He's a intelligent, well-read editor, but it's his way or no way. Not really helpful to medical articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, looks like I'm going ahead. Will RFC/U instead, possibly tomorrow or Monday. In the meantime, I'll be building a case here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot (hic)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Cleanup

  • Eczema - looks like someone's been pretty rash here...
  • Whisky - hmmm....nice....(hic)...who put the article name in all dem headingz....

......SuggestBot so much liked the first suggestion it got a little...erm...tired and emotional so may have made some odd choices....

Expand

Wikify

Suggezzbot...goin' sleep now...zzzzzzzzzzz.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 April 2008

Empty freakin' nose syndrome???????? You've got to be freaking kidding me. Casliber, this drive by annoying me is going to require an RfC. I'm now going to have to take drugs. Empty nose syndrome. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
PMID 17875850. You know, I almost became an ENT... MastCell Talk 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
ENT? I guess slightly better than a proctologist. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit, claiming they were "POV". I moved the Box Office information (which I did not add myself, and actually trimmed it down for relevance) because box office performance is part of "reaction" to a film, and a valid part of any movie article, as I've seen on many other such articles. I changed the "f" in "fascism" to lowercase because it's not a proper noun, and shortened some section titles because succinct ones that are more to the point are more appropriate, so long as they accurately summarize a section. Can you explain why you feel that these constitute POV edits? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with your change in section titles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack by GSTS removed. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Puppy, how can I have fun with the KKK-trash if you revert it. I'm now going to pout in the corner. And eat some steak. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you check whether your revert on the talk page actually achieved what you intended. Look at the diff, the software might have messed something up. The summary states it is a revert, but the diff looks like different, what's going on? This certainly doesn't look like what you intended, am I wrong? --Merzul (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I misread the edit summary, you probably did intend that. I reverted to your version. (Not because I care whether you were right to revert Nightscream's deletion, it's about 5 lines of off-topic discussion, but because that was the version before I started to assume bad software.) --Merzul (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's inappropriate for someone to delete discussion, except for very specific reasons like personal attacks. To delete the discussion of someone like Dave Souza, an admin, and a prolific editor is completely inappropriate. I guess when I reverted, there was some ancillary damage. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your accusation about my edits in the "Obvious Bias" section of the Expelled Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like you to respond to my reasoning regarding the edits you and Guettarda and I dispute here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Awwww...someone appreciates it

the beings of this fungal verson (i.e. Mouldy Sandwich award) of Whoville salute you protecting their article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sports chiro AfD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_Chiropractic Mccready (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I voted for delete of course. The problem with all of the forks from the main article is that we don't have enough bodies to keep the quack cruft from showing up. When I was editing Homeopathy, I decided to check the contributions of a few main editors. What I found was that nearly every plant ever mentioned in a Homeopathy Book of Potions was edited to make it sound like eye of newt cured everything but male pattern baldness. Of course, if it did, I'm there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

smile!


Here's some rainbow obsidian for you! Obsidian somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kings Colours

Yeah for some reason Dr. Jerry Buss decided that purple was not unique enough, so they used a colour that is not true purple and called it Forum Blue. Its kind of like how the San Francisco 49ers call their gold 49er gold. I realize its slightly misleading as its essentially purple, but officially called Forum Blue. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The things you learn on Wikipedia. Thanks!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A question for the Doc

Hey, I've always wanted to ask a doctor this question. Since I gather you work in a hospital (could be wrong) you may have run into this one. When these, um, homeopaths come in with a serious condition, do they actually accept medication? Like if they were diagnosed with a very treatable form of cancer, would they instead ask for a bit of the biopsied tumor and put that into a homeopathic solution and take that as a treatment? Or, even more mundane, strep throat. I know that won't just go away with magic water. Or, from your field (I think), if they have congestive heart failure, do they refuse ACE inhibitors and diuretics in favor of, pieces of a frogs heart or something? Just curious on that one. Hopefully you have an answer. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't work in a hospital. But I did. But your question does bring up something I've always found hypocritical about the CAMmies. When they have heart attacks, cancer or other diseases, they usually come see us after their magic crystals, potions, and herbs don't do anything. But this is OR. I'm not sure Peter morrel will ever see a real doctor. Maybe he's very healthy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oy vey. I suspected as much. It would require quite a mental state to rail against conventional medicine and then seek it after your "treatment" doesn't work. Which makes me wonder why more politicians aren't homeopaths. Baegis (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I could discuss loads of humorous tales here (especially in psych too) but there is a little problem of this being a written document, so I just have to adjust my halo and keep on being a pillar of the community....maybe if there is a meetup over several beers or so...verbal communication and alcohol always facilitates candour :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It better be good beer. None of our American Swill. One of my favorite stories, since my only reputation to uphold is standing up to the CAMmies, is my best friend, who was diagnosed with hypertension. For a thin, fit guy, I was kind of shocked at the level of his disease. His wife, who's into the homeopathic potions and lotions, wanted him to cut back on this, take these vitamins, etc. I told him listen to his doctor (not me), take the real medicine, and get it under control. And I also told him that he's stuck on the medication for the rest of his life probably. So, I was at a party with his wife and him, and another Cardiologist and I said, "he's going to listen to a real doctor." Her reply was, "it's my husband, definitely." It's the same with chiropractors. They treat individuals, and some percentage get better, because the body has an amazing ability to heal itself. So those individuals claim the chiropractor cured them, when in fact, they did nothing, but take money from the patient. But a big percentage of those patients end up with real surgery done by real surgeons using real medicine. Oh, but I digress. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My experience is that most reasonable people who use alternative medicine (and most are reasonable) are of the belief that "conventional" medicine is very good at dealing with major health crises - that is, appendicitis, heart attacks, HIV/AIDS, operable cancer, and so forth. Conventional medicine is less successful - and less concerned - with health maintenance, preventive care, and in dealing with non-life-threatening annoyances like back pain, allergies, "functional" bowel disorders, etc. I think many users of alternative medicine would accept surgery or pharmaceuticals as treatment for a major health crisis like a heart attack or serious infection, while they tend to be suspicious of the pill-for-every-problem approach to treating less serious health issues. The whole reason for the word "complementary" in CAM is that these methods are often used as adjuncts to proven mainstream medical care, not as replacements for it.

That's not necessarily contradictory. I'm not saying this is my personal belief - though I do think there is a significant element of truth here - but it is a reasonable worldview which I see fairly often in patients and people in general. Of course, there are extremists like Harry Hoxsey, who spent his life selling snake oil and railing against the AMA - only to develop prostate cancer, use his own remedy unsuccessfully, and then have surgery/radiation with good results - but they're a minority, albeit a sometimes vocal one. MastCell Talk 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to butt in, but I would agree that this is a sentiment that is quite common. It's disappointing because most doctors I have known have been extremely concerned with long term health and wellbeing of their patients. The stereotype of the doctor only concerned with the immediate illness is one which all to often goes unchallenged. Jefffire (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
MC, physicians today are beginning to take a more aggressive tactic with long-term health. For example, not too long ago, a blood glucose an hour after eating of less than 120 was considered adequate. Now that's considered pre-diabetic. and of course, preventing Type II diabetes is critical to reducing risk factors for everything from cardiovascular disease to eyesight. Quack medicine has no impact on blood glucose. Diet, medications, and exercise have a defined positive benefit. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

New information has come forward since you commented, in that JoshuaZ has used abusively sockpuppets to affect Brandt DRVs in the past. [1]. You may wish to review. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even look into this? Josh did not use socks. Why don't you ask him? This is a spurious accusation, one which you should not dignify. I actually give you more AGF than I do to most editors and admins because you are an MoT, and you're not a troll. You're pretty smart, so why don't you perform some due-diligence and determine if these allegations are true or not. I know they aren't. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, Majorly withdraws his false allegation. This is clearly the wrong way to go. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The accusation comes from Wikipedia Review - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878 . If the alleged leak from the arbcom mailing list is forged, it's a heckuva good forgery. But I trust WR about as far as I can throw it, so take it FWIW - that post and a couple of quarters will buy you a coke. But whether it's true, false, or somewhere in between, Majorly wasn't the one making the accusation. --B (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but where in this country can you buy a Coke for $0.50????  :) But, as a point of order, Majorly was the one who made the accusation in the AN/I, even if he was just transmitting the data. So, either the accusation is a bogus one established by WR. Or it's real, but we haven't heard all of the evidence, and it's just batted around arbcom. Either way, it's just an accusation, without the normal public discussion that we use around here. I guess my sense of due-process is being pushed around. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess this seems to confirm that the leak was real, just incomplete. That makes me rather curious what the rest of it is. Although it really doesn't matter that much - he's desysopped and will forever have checkusers watching over him, so there's a limit to how much it could possibly matter. --B (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We'll see what happens. I don't like Arbcomm, because they are so tendentious. I'd rather edit articles than search down every diff I can find. Honestly, I think there are people around here who are more interested in wiki-drama than in building a project. I have reason to believe that JoshuaZ is not a sockpuppet. I think this stinks of a lack of due-process, and in some respects, a vendetta of some sort. JoshuaZ should bring everything public, and let us read it. Let him defend himself. And if the community thinks he used a sock, abusively or not, let it be proven. If he didn't, then let's move on. BTW, the Arbcomm member who leaked anything to WR should be run off the project. I have my suspicions, upon reading the WR articles last week, as to the leaking party. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> What is this? We're so concerned about BLP that we're demanding disclosure of personal details (ie the BLP) of an editor who's tangled with an obsessive nutter trying to damage Wikipedia? This really looks ridiculous. .. dave souza, talk 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. JoshuaZ was "desysopped" because of secret evidence. What is this place? Nazi Germany? Stalinist Russia? Joshua should fight this crap. And if it's public he can fight it. If it's some secret ruling of the Star Chamber of Wikipedia, then he gets defamed without the benefit of a defense. If it should stay private, then no one should ever mention it again, and he should be an admin. I agree with privacy. I just don't agree with how JoshuaZ is being treated. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
IP evidence is private and can't be made public outside of the checkusers without his permission. I'm assuming (maybe a bad assumption) that there could have been / would have been a public case. In any event, according to [2], JoshuaZ made the request to be desysopped himself (as opposed to an arbcom desysopping) so whatever happened, he didn't feel it worth fighting. --B (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the IP evidence shouldn't be made public, per se. But we do checkusers on all kinds of socks which simply states yes, no or maybe. However, my point isn't to violate any privacy of Joshua's. I'm just saying if he's been convicted in a secret tribunal, and it's really not that secret, maybe he should let the case be public, and he should state his case. What if the evidence is weak? What if Joshua stepped down because he was asked to step aside while things got cleared up? What if there were other issues on which we can only speculate?OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

About evolution = science

"Evolution is science"

No problem there

"Therefore, if Evolution is atheistic, then all science is atheistic"

Now here's a problem. This implies that science is evolution which is logically false; even though evolution is indeed science, science isn't evolution. Such statement places science itself in a dangerous position in which the integrity itself is dependent on the integrity of evolution and other theories and laws. For example, what if you said that science is true because Newton's Laws are true? In modern physics, people do not use Newton's Laws as it has been proven to wrong by quantum and relativistic physics, people like engineers still use them since they provide amazing accurate approximation. Nevertheless, Newton's Laws are wrong, so what does that say about science itself?

My point is don't try to use that argument since it puts science on a wrong level.

--BirdKr (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Blargity blargity, blah blah. Could you try to use any more twisted logic there? I might still have a braincell left after reading that. Baegis (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is why I ignore Creationist bullshit. It uses twisted logic to keep itself alive. To stay away from it, I moved on to Ice hockey articles. I got the response below. ROFLMAO. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Try knitting ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is one of the most tortuous displays of convoluted logic I have seen in a long time. Good heavens. What nonsense. --Filll (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'm a passive atheist studying in math and physics :) Basically my point is: even though evolution is science, science isn't evolution if you go by the relation: if A = B and A has C, then B must have C where A = evolution and B = science. I showed my initial response to my peers and they understood it well. By the way, I suggest you do listen and respond to their bullshit else they'll keep preaching them uncontested (after all, if no one's responding, then it must be right! /sarcasm) --BirdKr (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your problem, apart from claiming to be an atheist which is a trick used by many creationists, is that ID doesn't confine itself to evolution. Read the wedge document and other articles about intelligent design. .. dave souza, talk 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, to echo Dave, I've always found those that openly say they are atheists, evolutionists (or any variety of the "believe in evolution" phrase), skeptics, or scientists usually are so far from these things that they can't see each other on a map. Baegis (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How did you get this into ID? Read my statement again, never did I say evolution is wrong or anything like it. Don't try to label me as a Creationist/ID just because I disagreed with another anti-Creationist/ID fellow --BirdKr (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you've another argument going on elsewhere, this came up when discussing a heading in the Expelled article. Which promotes ID. As for labels, it's just a word of advice. Saying you're an atheist isn't a good way to convince anyone, thanks to too many others trying that trick. It doesn't mean you are or aren't anything. .. dave souza, talk 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it came up from that article, but the statement I was concerned about had nothing to do about ID/Creationism/Expelled, merely Orange's statement "You're missing the point. Evolution = science. Therefore, if Evolution is atheistic, then all science is atheistic". To be frank, I would've replied the same had the statement replaced Evolution with other scientific laws, theories, or observations. --BirdKr (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BirdKr, time for you to learn about materialistic and metaphysical naturalism and so on. And that astronomy is not part of evolution, or even biology. Good grief.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person, I didn't say a thing about astronomy --BirdKr (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BirdKr, do you realize we are all laughing at you because you do not get it? Wow. Incredible. --Filll (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Laughing at that typo I made? I meant to say "didn't". I kinda brushed off on the remark about naturalism --BirdKr (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naw keep guessing. Maybe you will figure it out. Or not.--Filll (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If only I had known

"I am Elizabeth II, By the Grace of G-d, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. User:Orangemarlin"

I wish I had known earlier. I'd have been one hell of a lot more polite. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I sort of remember writing that. I know it had to do with an editor that demanded the full name, rank and serial number of each editor that posted to his page. Sarcasm of course. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit summaries

Orangemarlin, I know you're currently involved in several different disputes, but please try to keep your edit summaries a little less provocative. Things like this [3] only serve to goad people who are already edit warring, and comments like this [4] could be seen as making attacks on other editors. Even if you're trying to be sarcastic, please be reminded that sarcasm doesn't go over too well in text, and can often lead to confusion, especially in heated situations. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and happy editing as always. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Baegis (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
An admin that unblocked an little shit editor that was eventually indef'ed block. I've been watching Hersfold's personal attacks against me on his talk page. Go away. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemarlin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, --Rjd0060 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Marlin, hi. You could considerably strengthen your position by moderating your language. I would hate to see your ability to fight actual racism compromised by your being sanctioned for totally unnecessary flights of language. Stay clean, so you can stay in the game, eh? I've seen too many people blocked for letting people hear what they richly deserve, no doubt. Biting your tongue and maintaining the decorum of a Royal Guard can save you huge headaches down the line. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Orangemarlin. Please cool it a bit, would you? You are not serving your cause by using that type of language. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You do realize Hersford has been quite uncivil to me along with unblocking a well-known anti-Semitic editor. Hersford needs to disengage from having any discussion with me. I asked him to go away. That's about as civil as I choose to be to someone who supported a racist editor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I know it's easy to disregard the message when you're not crazy about the messenger at the top of this thread. Jossi and GTBacchus are right, though, in that you're not serving your cause here. Calling other editors "little shits", regardless of their personal qualities, just gives ammunition to people who are looking for it. I'd recommend letting this go and going back to editing. MastCell Talk 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what else to call User:God Save the South. A fine upstanding editor whose a bit misunderstood? Come on please. I do not forgive or forget anti-Semitism in any form. If Hersford had come here after GSTS was permanently blocked and stated that he had erred, I'm fairly quick to forgive. But instead, Hersford engaged in this round of personal attacks here. He needs to disengage. But I will listen to Raymond, you, Bacchus and even Jossi ;) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to call GSTS anything. He's gone - banned. If you must, call him an editor who was banned for disruptive and racist/anti-Semitic behavior. MastCell Talk 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as always don't take the bait. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a freaking fish dude. What do you want me to do? Ignore the bait right in front of my eyes? And I'm hungry. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here ya go. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a dumb fish, but I can tell those are fake. I want real bait. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am generally outraged by Hersfold's actions in this instance and others (surely those two edit summaries he lists are not some sort of capital crime?), making the simplest possible edit summaries can reduce a lot of potential trouble. I say, who needs the hassle? --Filll (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not the person you want to hear from at the moment, but this will be my last post to your talk page so far as I can help it per your request. I would point out that I am in support of GSTS's currently standing block, as I indicated four days ago here. I tried to assume good faith to begin with, and now admit that that faith was misplaced. Mistakes happen. I'm only human, and I'm relatively new at being an admin as well. I will, most gladly, leave you alone now as you ask, and likewise request you do the same, but please don't continue to harbor bad feelings about this. We're both trying to help the project, we both have made mistakes in the past, some more severe than others. However you choose to feel about me is, of course, your decision, and obviously nothing I can do will change that. With that, I remind you that my name is Hersfold, with an L, and not Hersford, with an R, and bid you happy editing from here on. Goodbye. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I accept this. I did not agree with your unblock, because it was clear that GSTS did not deserve good faith. Moreover, you should have been the first one to reblock him once he said the "Jew Comedian" anti-semitic verbiage, since you were the one that paroled him. Mistakes do happen, but racism should have the narrowest tolerance level. A lot of blocks I see, especially for things like tendentious editing, deserve paroles for good faith. But racism just doesn't. None of us should enable it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh by the way, this is definitely water under the bridge, and I hope we can work together. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR revisit

Wikipedia:Featured article review/AIDS has been up for over a month now; would you mind revisiting concerns to discuss whether issues have been addressed, and to enter a Remove or Keep declaration as appropriate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Creation and evolution in public education

Some discussion here lately, some of it regarding an edit you made in '06. Richard001 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't spend much time with the Creationist articles. I let others deal with it. They're talking about stuff I wrote nearly 1.5 years ago. Not sure I have much to add to NCDave's POV commentary. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

advice or help

I am not sure if this commentis a joke I should ignore, or something that requires serious (Jimbo? AN? RfC?) response. I do not feel like I can act as I have been involved in a conflict over content with this user. I'd appreciate an independent person looking and deciding what if any action is called for. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Zero g is a racist. Look at his Shockley edits. However, it reads like a sarcastic comment. Kind of like when I write, "we made that decision at the Society of Darwinists meeting." Jagz and Zero g have to be watched. They're not sociopaths like some of the other racists we've removed from the project, they're much more subtle. But in this one case, I think he's trying to be very sarcastic. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, mate

The article is in the category:Documentary films. We call it a documentary. It is one. I think it's a disgusting, stupid propaganda polemic full of lies, but it's still considered a documentary film, just as Fahrenheit 9/11 is and should be. It makes absolutely no sense to have the article in Category:Documentary films and not call it one in the first line. FCYTravis (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes from the underground

OM, when you have a minute would you read my comments here? I think I've managed to make sense. I'm very open to your ideas and suggestions on how to resolve this. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Veterinary chiropractic

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Veterinary chiropractic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DigitalC (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I only see 2 edits from OrangeMarlin... What's this warning for? Oh, retribution? Antelantalk 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Retribution is so much fun and so transparent. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OWN much?

He really thinks he owns these articles, and that no change can be made without his approval: [5]. I think I should be ready to start the RfC on Wednesday. Antelantalk 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait. Hopping's tendentious edits are out of hand. He learned nothing from his block. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reported him for making 5 reverts to the same article within a 24-hour span. This does not include the reversion of my renaming of the article. (I consider Comparison of MDs and DOs in the United States superior to Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic physicians in the United States, because DO and MD are in common usage, while "allopathic" certainly is not. However, I'll go ahead and build consensus before renaming the article again.) Antelantalk 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
He lumped us together to accuse us of both adding up to 3RR. Is that not the perfect definition of WP:DICK. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, he did discover that I'm just your sockpuppet. Antelantalk 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

FYI the refs are all messed up. I don't want to edit conflict. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What did I do??? I noticed you were editing, so I stayed away from the sections you were working on. I was trying to clean up the whole sex-education section.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You've fixed it, I think it was an unclosed ref tag. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit on vitamins. The reference clearly states that maybe one vitamin, A, may have an effect. Again, I find time and time again with medical articles, someone makes a big case out of an article that clearly doesn't agree with the POV of the editor. Unless you disagree, I'm going to revert to my language. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that vitamin A might have an effect in children, but everything in adults refers to poor nutrition. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I let some other editors know you two were at work on it. I didn't update WP:MED because ... well ... best notify the editors who actually help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SG. TV, ok, I made a slight change (trying to avoid edit conflicts). Maybe it works? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This textbook seems to treat it as describing how the virus infects and replicates in cells and how this replication of HIV causes the symptoms of AIDS Tim Vickers (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate virology. There is no way I'm going to rewrite that!!!!! But then again, aren't you?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Science writing is easy, see this helpful guide. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I clicked on the link in the hope that you were giving sage advice. Imagine my shock.  :)OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Grad students

Is it permissible to use grad students for landscaping chores? If so, could I possibly borrow one? My back is killing me and I've yet to finish the fieldstone path through my wife's garden... Doc Tropics 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was in grad school, the University used us as indentured servants to teach undergrad biology. Of course, I was also in med school, where the local Emergency Department used me as an indentured servant to treat low income patients. Then I joined the Navy, where the United States used me as an indentured servant to treat Admirals and their spoiled family members. Oh, you want landscaping? You might want to contact a few stumpies to help you out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh heh, thanks for the advice, but I'm afraid the shipping costs to get them here would be prohibitive. I wonder if there's some way I could claim it's a summer internship? BTW - I should have known you were a Navy squid in your youth: I'm an Air Force brat myself, which explains our natural enmity. Doc Tropics 05:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem: Petrified Forest (California)

Petrified Forest (California) has been noted here as a possible copyvio of http://www.beachcalifornia.com/landmkso.html. If someone has time to rewrite it, that'd be good, it's only two sentences, but it needs some additional cleanup as well. --Underpants (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_8&oldid=1142480561"