User talk:Orangemarlin

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Archives /Rules archives 1|/Amusing Vandalism|/Medical 1|/Miscellaneous 1|/Miscellaneous 2|/Miscellaneous 3|/Religion 1|/Religion 2|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 1|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 2|/Archives 1|/Archives 2|/Archives 3|/Archives 4|/Archives 5|/Archives 6|/Archives 7|/Archives 8|/Archives 9|/Archives 10|/Archives 11|/Archives 12|/Test page|/New user page|/Baseball ideas|/Dinosaur ideas|/Arbitration discussions|/SU Basketball|/Syracuse University|/RfA Review Recommend Phase|/Archived Election Commentary Important Items to Watch Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) FACs needing feedback view • MLS Cup 2022 Review it now Buangkok MRT station Review it now Starship Troopers (film) Review it now Fountain Fire Review it now Featured article removal candidates Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition Review now Helium Review now Martin Keamy Review now Pauline Fowler Review now Battle of Red Cliffs Review now Mariah Carey Review now Pokémon Channel Review now Concerto delle donne Review now The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now Geography of Ireland Review now Articles on Quackademic Medicine Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something. List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites barley 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell Talk 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) This one has been stable in reasonable shape for awhile now. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Working on this one. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites barley 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) This is pretty much fixed, at least until the next SPA... MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelantalk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I tried on this, & only very partially succeeded. DGG (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Magnet therapy and Alex Chiu. You've got to be kidding. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Prostate cancer#Ejaculation frequency I'm sorry, but this just cracked me up. I need to read the references, but my side hurts. Juvenile, I am. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Colon cleansing– After hearing radio commercials dozens of times for supplements, I had to do something. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) New Thought. Some New Age medicine/religion attempting to hide it's snake-oil medicine by using religion. Intelligent design used the same method, and it didn't work there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Medical Articles Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA: Alzheimer's Disease Rotavirus Helicobacter pylori Request for Arbitration If you are here to read about all of the Wiki-drama surrounding the secret hearings (so secret that no one on the ArbCom knew about them apparently), you can read it here. No editing allowed. One day this will be funny. I hope.

Elonka comments

Hi there, I've been mulling over your comments on Elonka's talkpage. I'd think that while you see her comments as supporting disruptive editors, Elonka sees it as trying to persuade and encourage people who do not follow our policies and guidelines into being more productive members of the community. Coaching "difficult" editors is indeed tricky, you need to both encourage their actions that are positive and discourage the negative. Elonka and yourself differ in how much encouragement you think is needed. This probably comes from the length of time you've spent dealing with some of the most acrimonious areas in the project - you'd prefer to simply see the back of these people as quickly as possible. Instead Elonka seems (to me) to be trying to treat all editors absolutely equally and to not give a free pass to either side in debates. This lack of content-driven decisions and absolute focus on the behavioral policies can either be seen as a strength (admins are not supposed to decide on content) or as a weakness that can be exploited by editors intent on violating the content policies. These two opposing points of view on the merits of this approach are the reason why Elonka's actions are surrounded by so much drama at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there's a limit to her approach. Her support of User:Jagz went on a bit too long for my taste, as the most apparent example of failure of an excessive-AGF policy. Yes, you are correct, I'd prefer that these individuals just let the door hit them in the rear end as they are tossed out of the project on their tush. But I just don't think there should be even handed treatment between the two POV's. One side should be shown the door if they can't use NPOV correctly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A difficult situation, well described by Tim. Keeping polite when dealing with persistent WP:Civil POV pushing is difficult and possibly even counter-productive, but always desirable. Elonka is right to draw it to your attention, and you're to be thanked for continuing to deal with persistent attempts to water down or evade core policies. Guess the struggle will continue. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that "she treats all editors absolutely equally." She often gives lots of leeway to abusive editors (e.g., Jagz) while coming down harder on constructive editors. I'm convinced she intends to work for the good of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean her approach does work for the good of Wikipedia. Her methods and logic often leave me totally puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a block of a science editor. Why should I give good faith to an admin that makes no sense? I reported her block here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

QED. Levine2112 gets friendly advice and pleasant conversation, as does Ludwigs2; NJGW gets a block with no warning. Technically the block is justified, but this is one of those cases where the intent of policy -- avoiding edit wars and creating a constructive environment -- is not served by applying the letter of the law. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think the problem is not just people having different "points of view on the merits of her approach;" it's that she's trying to transport an approach, which for all I know may have been very effective in areas of ethnic strife, into areas where it is not appropriate, not useful, and almost certainly guaranteed to erode the quality of the encyclopedia.

With ethnic strife, there are different points of view that have to be accommodated somehow, and probably reliable sources backing up those different points of view, and the task of editors is to reach a compromise that presents all points of view in a neutral fashion. But in areas where science and fringe theories intersect, to treat the editors who are trying to accurately represent expert opinion as given in reliable sources as just another viewpoint, just another vested interest, just another political group that needs to be forced to compromise in the interest of harmony, is to disregard the fundamental goal of the project: to produce a serious, high-quality reference work. I've been watching fringe-type articles for several months, and wherever I'm familiar with the literature on the topic, it's very easy to tell who is accurately representing reliable third party sources and who is bent on introducing dubious material into the encyclopedia, or keeping criticism of fringe theories out, by citing unreliable sources or by misrepresenting reliable sources. The latter group are the people Elonka invariably champions and encourages, and who rush to her defense whenever questions are raised about her actions. I don't doubt that Elonka means to help the encyclopedia, and that she may actually be "trying to treat all editors positively equally" but people who are following core policies and people who are not, should not be treated equally. Content does matter. Woonpton (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Health care

← See, only in the U.S. would the idea of a national health plan be considered "liberal" or "ultra-liberal". I can't generalize about how physicians feel, but I have noticed a significant generational difference. Older physicians, around retirement age, are much more likely to be opposed to "national" health insurance for a variety of reasons. Medical students and recent graduates tend to be much more sympathetic to the idea. I think an earlier concern was that the government would constrain the autonomy of physicians and their ability to exercise their hard-earned judgement. However, anyone who's ever spent an hour arguing with an 18-year-old insurance company frontperson about medical necessity realizes that this problem is not unique to the public sector.

On some level, it's a matter of economic competitiveness. Our big employers, like GM, are burdened with massive expenditures on health plans for their employees. Businesses actually bear part of the burden - they can either cripple their competitiveness by spending on a good health plan, or go the Wal-Mart route and deny those benefits entirely, socializing the cost of caring for their uninsured employees. Companies in other countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their workers, and they're more competitive as a result.

Rationing is an ugly word, but it's time for some reality. We cannot afford to extend the sort of healthcare which the privileged enjoy to every U.S. citizen. It just isn't economically feasible. On some level, tough decisions have to be made. What's being ignored is that we already ration care - we just do it in haphazard, unplanned, non-systematic, and grossly unfair fashion. Look at the use of advanced treatment modalities among various ethnic or socioeconomic groups. These therapies are being rationed. Them's the facts. We need to figure out to ration them more fairly and thoughtfully.

Incidentally, we already have a system of government-sponsored national healthcare in the US, though you have to be a veteran to access it. The VA does some things very well and others very poorly. I think we can learn a lot from that system's successes and failures. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the first clue to the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit the opposition. Next step will be an endorsement of Obama by Rice, then Cheney, and finally by W himself. It'll be the kiss of death.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MC just called me old. Can someone desysop him? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not old, just older. It's a sad commentary on our society's lack of respect for its elders that we consider "old" a de-sysop-worthy insult. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When I look at my graying beard and receding hairline I reflect on the fact that I'm getting old, so as punishment for thinking that I de-sysoped myself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You did say "I've been watching elections for some 40 years". Self-outing is no offence.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was a genius...I started watching elections prior to birth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're also an elitist you McCainaanite. Ha! •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, "elitist" (in our current political code) means someone smarter or more talented than you. So say what you will about Orangemarlin, but he is no elitist. :P MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Tampa Rays. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

←Back on topic regarding health care. I still have a capitalist bent. I want physicians and insurance companies to have high HEDIS and PAS scores. I want to be able to attract employees by offering them better benefits. I want to work for a company with the best benefits. GM isn't going under because of massive health care plans, they're going under because they are poorly run with bad products. Every American deserves the right to basic medical care. Every child should get free vaccinations before entering school. Emergency rooms should accept all traumas, regardless of insured status, and do it for free if the patient cannot afford it. However, I deserve the right to be able to buy the best possible health care for myself. If I want to pay to fly to the Mayo Clinic to try a new cancer therapy on myself or my children, then that's my right. I'm all right with rationing health care, as long as the basics are available to everyone. So, I want a system where the unemployed or the chronically poor have access to medications to treat Type II diabetes. But I want a system that allows me the opportunity to seek out an endocrinologist that has advanced therapies available to treat the same. I'm willing to ration care, just as long as I'm not rationing away my ability to have the best care, because I don't self-medicate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Australia's medicare system is pretty good in that regard (mixing capitalism and universal healthcare, except that the rebates payable to doctors (from the gov't for services) are not indexed to the CPI and have fallen ~20% in 20 years in real terms (i.e. bracket creep)... :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Back when I went to school, becoming a doctor was a ticket to a Ferrari and the good life. Right now, only Trauma surgeons make really good money. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, situation similar here, it's the proceduralists who can make money, everyone else gets by, unless they get involved in some business aspect or other. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But of course we have the aussie tabloids to keep us honest from todays newspapers here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make money in medicine, it's still remarkably easy. You are basically guaranteed lifetime employment, and your skills are marketable in any number of ways. Incomes may be down somewhat from the mythical "golden age", but I haven't seen anyone going hungry (maybe temporarily Ferrari-less at most). Anyway, you have the best job there is.

Besides, trauma surgery isn't the way to go - you have to work hard, take frequent call, and distressingly often you have to tell families that someone young has died suddenly, violently, and unexpectedly. Plus, the temperature in the trauma OR's is always cranked up to sauna level - what kind of work environment is that? For easy money, the way to go is radiology, anesthesia, dermatology, or ophtho. Right now, people are flocking to those specialities and away from anything that involves patient care, like internal medicine or family practice - 'cause who wants ten times the work and 100x the headaches for 10% the pay? The financial incentives are definitely perverse.

Plus, you have the ultimate fallback plan - you can always become a quack, promote some pseudoscientific nonsense diet or therapy using your credentials, cite the massive Pharma-Industrial Conspiracy to Suppress Natural Cures®, and watch the money roll in. I'm keeping that one in my back pocket, and taking notes here on Wikipedia about how it's done. MastCell ^Talk 03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Money's better shilling for Big Pharm. And I don't know what trauma center you've visited lately, but the one's I've been in have been kept at a blustery 65 or so. And I tell you why, if I was given the opportunity to do it all over again, I'd want to be the Chief of Surgery in a decent Level 1 trauma center--practicing medicine that you just don't get to do very often. How many times do you get to save a life because you think fast on your feet? How many times do you get to try an innovative technique because the M&M geeks aren't going to eat you alive--your patient wasn't going to survive, so you may as well try for the home run? And I wouldn't have to worry about giving flu shots or actually being nice to a patient (don't want to surprise you here, but my beside manner consisted of "would you fucking lose weight and quit the fucking smoking you fat ass lazy sonofabitch"--I'm not a big fan of patients or patience). Oh, so I don't mind the hard work for the $1.5 million annual salary, and a big bonus would be that I wouldn't have any real patients! YESSSSSSSSS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Awww...I like talking to patients...and you can see some pretty dramatic recoveries in psych...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without a good patient interaction, you probably couldn't effect any therapy. Once again, I'm back to Trauma surgery.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think the patient population in trauma surgery is like, but I can tell you that the interactions were not particularly rewarding. Not only that, but the overall mentality is depressing and cynical, rather than uplifting as you suggest. I will never forget one patient I cared for - this gentleman had shot and killed another man in some dispute, and had himself been shot in the head. After an extensive neurosurgical procedure, he was left awake, conscious, but mute, hemiparetic, and ventilator-dependent. As a murder suspect, he was attended at all times by two police officers and handcuffed to the bed. I spoke to one of the officers on rounds one morning - he told me that they were preparing to ship him out to the trache/PEG unit of the local jail, the existence of which is depressing enough in its own right. I asked the officer what would happen to this patient, whom we'd spent an extensive amount of effort and resources attempting to save. He told me that the DA was likely to seek the death penalty.

But yes, I participated in thinking fast and saving other lives on trauma surgery. Aside from the above upstanding citizen, we worked hard and managed to save a man who'd tried to inject heroin and drive at the same time, in the process running down and killing two children. That felt great. I also remember a 14-year-old kid who'd been sitting in a restaurant and asked some local youths to leave his sister alone. He was shot and left paralyzed from the waist down, permanently, at age 14. The shooter was never apprehended. I mean, those cases stick out, but there were plenty more along those lines. I didn't sleep well while I was on that service, even when I wasn't on call. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I get your point. Mostly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Score one for verbosity. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, the stars will align (I know a fringe theory), and you will understand why I was succinct.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a debrief MC, crystallizes well most of us who worry about US gun laws...heavy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you do it. I mean, I really can't see how the hell someone can take stuff like that on a day to day basis, or even less dramatic things like having to treat children knowing they have an incurable illness and there's not a thing you can do about it. I could never be a doctor. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, despite what MC said about the negatives, there's balance to those negatives, or no one would do it. I always assume that the world nets out positive because there are physicians willing to try to save a life. I hope that's not some sort of psychological denial. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I've focused on some of the negatives, but actually it's the best job in the world. While I have other interests, I never seriously considered doing anything else, and I've never regretted it. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. You really wanted to play first base for the Phillies, but you couldn't hit a curve ball out of the infield. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't hit a curveball, period. And growing up, I wanted to play for the Yankees. It took awhile to come to my senses. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. Yankees? I'd rather be a proctologist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ud)Yet another doc who wants to do eighteen holes a day?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uggggggghhhh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bowser and Blue's The Colorectal Surgeon on youtube.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Twinkle

You said on talk:Twinkle, that none of your buttons are showing up. You should download Mozilla FireFox. I think it will work on a Mac and your buttons are sure to show up there. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After much work, I figured it out. I had one small error in my monobook. I kind of rebuilt it from bottom up, and there we go, it worked. I don't mind Firefox, but with Mobile Me, I can sync my Safari bookmarks across 4 different Macs. I just can't do that with Firefox. Safari usually works perfectly for me with Wikipedia, but I was trying some new Twinkle scripts, and I messed them up. Damn comma!!!!! Thanks anyways. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic?

? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Got distracted. I'll focus.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Right Half of the Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I hereby award thee, Orangemarlin, the Right Half of the Half Barnstar, for willingness to compromise and for nice messages, by thee and by Martinphi, demonstrating co-opero-bridge-ification of a type likely to assist significantly in constructing this encyclopedia. Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For compromise with Martinphi at Talk:Orgone, and for nice messages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I believe I heard a weather report that it's snowing in hell. LOL. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Hi Orange! It's been a while since we've talked, and thank you for the support !vote :) I would actually like to work a bit more on ice hockey, but there are just so many Wikipedians who know more about this than I do, so it seems a bit weird really delving into the field. I have very little info on the Israeli hockey teams, and will perhaps look for some in the coming weeks. However, I do have the 'Total Hockey Encyclopedia' from 1999, which should contain some information missing from Wikipedia so far. Not much though, because most Wiki articles on ice hockey are better than what I'd write. Tell me what you have in mind and we can start collaborating. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Just in case you thought the days of midwestern Congresspeople calling for investigations of "un-American" activity were over... [2]. Thankfully, after 8 years or so people have gotten wise, and the call to investigate "liberal, leftist, possibly anti-American" members of Congress led to $1 million in donations... for the other candidate. It's almost like people are finally realizing that a simple willingness to stoop to any level to defame a political opponent is not a sufficient qualification for office... but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

Actually, the fascinating thing I learned from our bio of Michele Bachmann is that she was converted to conservatism by reading Gore Vidal's Burr, because she felt Vidal was "mocking the Founding Fathers". That's a curious comprehension of the book, since Vidal is deeply respectful and impressed by the Foundig Fathers achievement, though admittedly it's a mature and critical respect rather than an unquestioning idolization. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain?

Hi,

Can you explain what I did wrong? You left a message on my talk page. I just did that because someone deleted racist off of a black supremecist group so I decided to do it on a white supremacist group. It should be okay, unless wikipedia has a "whites are racist blacks are not" policy.

Thanks. Ryan1159 (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The KKK is a racist organization by any reliable source. If you want to push a POV agenda, don't even consider bringing it to this page, you will not go far. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt about that. It's just that when I put that the New Black Panther Party was racist, I was given a warning. It even says on the new black panther party's page that it was a black supremecist organisation, so that means it is racist. Maybe you can help me out with that, It would make wikipedia look not so biased. Thanks.

Ryan1159 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Without comment as to the correctness of your claim, please see WP:POINT. It is inappropriate on Wikipedia to prove your point by making an edit that you know to be contrary to building a good encyclopedia. --B (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (13 days to go edition)

According to pollster.com we have a slight, very slight, tightening:

• Obama/Biden: 286 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 157 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 95 Electoral Votes

RealClearPolitics has McCain at 160 (giving him Montana, which Pollster.com has as a toss-up). If all of the toss-up states are portioned out to each candidate based on who is leading today, Obama/Biden would win 364 to 174. Obama would win traditional red states such as Nevada, Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, and Indiana. The various national polls of likely voters is staying solidly with Obama, including recent polls showing Obama up by 11 and 13 points. As of right now, an average of nonpartisan polls shows Obama up, 50.1% to 43.1%.

According to pollster.com, the Senate Breakdown (remember, only about 1/3 of seats are up for election every year) should be:

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 38
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 5

Republicans are starting to get into trouble on a number of races. Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Alaska, and Georgia are all toss-ups. And even Texas is getting tighter. No matter what, Republicans need 44 seats in the Senate to filibuster which is the one method that the Republicans can use to defeat legislation.

According to pollster.com, the House of Representatives should fall as follows:

• Democrats: 246
• Republicans: 166
• Undecided: 23

According to this, the Republicans think they're in for a whipping, much worse than what is estimated in these polls. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the above - 41 seats, not 44 are needed to filibuster. 60 seats allow for debate to be stopped. 41 votes can keep it going. As for the House, those races or so wildly unpredictable because of the ability of the relatively small sizes of districts. With only 200K or fewer votes involved, if bad weather keeps 10K people home, that's 5% of the vote right there. My gut says the GOP numbers you gave are way on the high side, but there's a huge margin of error there. What will really be interesting is in two years - just from which seats are up for reelection, the Democrats probably pick up another seat or two (I can't even think off hand of a Democrat that isn't in a safe seat in the Senate next time around). That would mean that the Democrats might get close to filibuster-proof in the Senate for the last two years of Obama's term. --B (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I took that 44 right from the Republican memo (or at least the paraphrasing). I think the 44 got repeated in a lot of news sources. Go figure. Anyways, 41 is probably within striking distance of the Republicans, but it's interesting to see how many races are now in play. Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska and Georgia (all deep Red States) are all toss-ups. If the Democrats take any two plus hold the lead in Minnesota, then it will be only 40 for the Republicans. Depending on Lieberman, who seems to have quieted down with his pro-McCain comments. As for the House, you might be right about the volatility, but I'll bet only 15-20 seats would be affected by that kind of issue, so it would be hard to believe that all 15-20 would have weather problems. And, the problem for the Republicans is that some seats that were safe are moving to non-safe, and very very very few Democratic seats are moving in that direction. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republican memo says that they expect to get 44 seats. I think that the wording was fuzzy, but all that they were saying was that 44 (as with all numbers >= 41) will be sufficient for a filibuster. --B (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The wording was fuzzy, but I think I understand your interpretation. I think that this part of the election may be the only thing that might be interesting on November 4. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Orangemarlin, I am somehow under the impression that you are an admin (is it true?). I have a request (hope you don't mind). Yesterday I made the redirect Grampian phase to Grampian, somehow I recalled reading an article of the sort. It turned out to be a disamb. page and I can't find the article anymore. I want the redirect to be deleted, but I don't know which template to use (speedy deletion?). Can you help me out? Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want it deleted? Grampian phase is now a perfectly respectable redirect to Caledonian orogeny, as you'll see if you click on the link, just below the article title. I've noted it on Grampian (disambiguation) and since it is also called the Scandian phase, it could be redirected there if an article is created on this specific subject. . . dave souza, talk 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't redirecting there until Hardyplants changed the redirect. That is also a good solution, I have nothing against it. Btw Grampian and Scandian are not the same, the first is about Scotland, the second about Scandinavia. They were just caused by the same thing. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My misreading of the section heading. Ideally, then, brief articles could be put together as stubs on each, giving a bit more detail than the Caledonian orogeny#Scandian/Grampian phase section and with both linked from that section. Thanks, dave souza, talk 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this got fixed. And your impressions is so wrong, I'm shocked that no one is laughing. I am not an admin. They don't pay enough.  :) Oh, and the fact that McCain has a better chance of winning New York than I do of becoming an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Orangemarlin, this is an appalling personal attack, and a clear violation of WP:NPA.[3] Please review Wikipedia policies, and adopt a better standard of behavior in the future. If you make any other attacks, your account access may be blocked. --Elonka 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OM, stay cool, man... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated this for all to see and I am cool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I strongly disagree that this is a personal attack, since an analysis of WP:NPA does not prohibit a characterization of the behavior of certain editors as uncivil. For example, it states "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse"--many of Jagz comments fit this particular description. Jagz' comments found in this discussion or this edit can only lead someone to reasonably conclude that there is evidence of such a characterization. Numerous other editors and admins, many with years of experience have concluded the same about Jagz here, here, here and here. I find racism to be the highest form of uncivil discourse, since it chills the air of a collegial atmosphere. To characterize someone's agenda as being "racist," or "anti-semitic" (which in common discourse can be synonymous with Neo-Nazi) is important to the project, because it is necessary for the project to identify those individuals who bring discredit to articles or to the project. You may disagree with my characterization of Jagz's edits or behavior, but there is sufficient evidence to back that up. If a reasonable person thinks that some of his edits and comments are innocent, which his community ban does not indicate, then I would be more than happy to strike my comments here and elsewhere.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the two links to Jagz' comments. Nothing there merits calling Jagz a neo-Nazi, or even a "racist". Believing that race affects intelligence does not make one a racist. Just because Jagz believes that race affects intelligence doesn't mean he believes in discrimination based on race. Could you produce diffs showing that he believes the latter? All I see is Jagz placidly saying that genetics and race have an impact on intelligence. 23andMe states that 80% of adult intelligence is genetic.[4] Ashkenazi intelligence is not that controversial. Anyway, pointing out that other people call him racist makes it seem as if you don't understand the weakness of opinion as evidence. What are they basing their opinions on? You should know how weak opinions are, since I'm sure if I looked I could find plenty of people calling you ugly names. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . II | (t - c) 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is not shared by a fairly large number of editors. BTW, race is an invention, it has nothing to do with genetics, so even if I believed that 80% of intelligence is genetic (and I don't), it's still racist to contend that race has anything to do with genetics. Let me end this before it goes any further, I have a fairly firm policy of not discussing any article on my user talk page. I respect you, so please take this statement for precisely what I mean it to say--please do not discuss those articles with me here, I'll delete it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Ashkenazi intelligence is pseudoscientific crap. And the article seems to state the same. And I'm done with that discussion too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)