User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions
Stevertigo (talk | contribs) m restore section - please dont delete comments just because you cant handle them - youve just communicated to me on my talk page did you not? |
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →Jesus: Deleted. Discuss at article's talk page. |
||
Line 481: | Line 481: | ||
If you would care to look at the conversation that I had with JP, I have brought ti from his talkpage to the article talkpage.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
If you would care to look at the conversation that I had with JP, I have brought ti from his talkpage to the article talkpage.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I did. I watch his page along with yours (of course). I'll discuss there. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
:I did. I watch his page along with yours (of course). I'll discuss there. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Jesus== |
|||
Could you please actually explain why you made the revert to the article, and not just rely on a terse and useless concept like NPOV. My edit was accurate and NPOV, and was a substantial improvement over the previous version. If you disagree, you can 1) actually read the edit and 2) comment on its specific points on the talk page. Thanks -Stevertigo 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:You still have not explained the substantive reasons for the revert. Did you read the diff? Do you understand that SLR left it on my version for a reason? You understand that by choosing a particular version, you are acting as an editor, and therefore need to actually deal with me on the talk. -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]][[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo]] 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 21 January 2009
|
Six degrees of Wikipedia
I don't know how many of you played Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon during the early days of the internet, but I did. While watching the 2009 NHL Winter Classic, I was too lazy to use anything but mouse clicks to get to an article on Wikipedia. Then I wondered how hard it would be to get from one article to another completely unrelated one, without typing one thing. So, here's what I tried to do—European Parliament election, 2004 (Slovakia) to Sports Night. So the rules are, get from the first article to the last one in the least number of clicks, while never leaving Wikipedia. You need to list out how you did it of course, since someone will figure out some sneaky way to do this. What do you win? My lasting admiration and true respect on Wikipedia. Well, maybe not.
- 8 clicks. I'll tell you how later. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- 6 clicks. I'll tell you if you buy me a barusaki. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- What the hell is a barusaki. Didn't even show up on a google search.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- 4 clicks. But I want coffee and a donut. (It's cold and foggy up here in Santa Barbara. Need a hot drink.) :) Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No good donuts in SB. But I'm trying to figure out 4 clicks.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI it's a legitimate solution (no side bar, no "what links here") Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No good donuts in SB. But I'm trying to figure out 4 clicks.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can I use what links here? Article 1 -> what links here -> user talk:Orangemarlin -> article 2. Problem solved. ;) --B (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, didn't think of that. Darn it, I was looking forward to a donut or barusaki.
- BTW there is a tool somewhere to calculate this automatically (I didn't use it -- now that would be cheating.) :) Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's sneaky. Not accepted as a real answer. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- One click: Random article. YMMV.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hate all of you. Just on principle. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- You don't have admin powers any more. Neener neener. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since I already have your lasting respect and admiration, which you propose as a reward, participation in this exercise seems a bit pointless. MastCell Talk 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm. I'd like you to point out the diff where I have ever expressed any lasting respect to anyone. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You mean besides Jim Boeheim? MastCell Talk 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, beside Boeheim, who is just this side of Einstein on my respect scale. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You mean besides Jim Boeheim? MastCell Talk 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm. I'd like you to point out the diff where I have ever expressed any lasting respect to anyone. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
4 clicks, all in the mainspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
New Year's Gift
Take your pick. This seemed like your sort of thing. Happy 2009! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- A gift that keeps on giving. Thanks you friggin' commie, pinko, tree-hugger. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why people associate communism with tree-hugging. The environmental records of the Soviet Union and Communist China make ExxonMobil look like Greenpeace. Of course, since communism and environmentalism are both deeply un-American threats to our way of life, I suppose there is some common ground... MastCell Talk 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Boris (nee' Ray Ray) IS a tree hugger. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, I'm thinking about converting to Druidism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Boris (nee' Ray Ray) IS a tree hugger. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why people associate communism with tree-hugging. The environmental records of the Soviet Union and Communist China make ExxonMobil look like Greenpeace. Of course, since communism and environmentalism are both deeply un-American threats to our way of life, I suppose there is some common ground... MastCell Talk 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Syracuse FAC
Orangemarlin -- I couldn't help but notice a glaring omission in the Syracuse University article. The article currently omits the closing of the Manley Field House, when, for the final basketball game at the old arena, the mighty Georgetown Hoyas battled back from a 14 point halftime deficit to humiliate Syracuse, its stupid fruit of a mascot, and its pumpkin patch impersonating fan section, with a 52-50 victory, ruining a 57 game home winning streak for the Orange, and prompting the legendary John Thompson to shame the balding loser Boeheim by declaring "Manley Field House is officially closed!" This information is not even mentioned, but I feel it belongs in the lead and probably the infobox too. --JayHenry (t) 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- tehehehe ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- And just to make sure Orange doesn't miss the edit summary: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh-oh. This is going to be trouble. (Note to self: do not mention where I went to school.) Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was at that game in the spring of 1980. I'm still pissed about it. And wtf is a Hoya Saxa (guessing that Antandrus is a Georgetown grad). I refuse to put that in the article. I would rather iron Jimbo's shirts for a month. Blah. BTW, it's always nice to humor SG in her cocktail dresses. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Won't catch me ironing shirts, clean, dirty or otherwise. (PS: it's 1 am on a Monday night; what cocktail dress? I don't sleep in them, you know.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmmmm. Well, there are just too many ways to respond to that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was a thread-killing dud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't possibly write what I wanted to!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't you both too old for this kind of talk? (ducks) Only joking, and happy new year! I wasn't even alive in 1980 :s Verbal chat 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone needs to kick your butt. Insolent brat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have pity on the young'un; at least he has the good manners to wish us octagenarians a Happy New Year. A good spanking should suffice. (Had your fiber today, Orange?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- This morning's breakfast includes, two slices of dry double fiber wheat toast, one egg, a glass of V8, and two cups of coffee with cream and Splenda (with fiber). I will have an apple for a late morning snack. So, I'd say my fiber content is fine. Yum. :) Now hold on while I get into my walker. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you let someone who "wasn't even alive in 1980 :s" turn every good University/sports/cocktail dress thread into octagenarian jokes, you're going to need that walker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's Verbal's fault. I think he needs a spanking, with a 48 hour time-out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It depends a bit on when you define life as starting, but I don't really want to get into that... I just wanted to stop you talking about "football". Cocktail dresses are ok by me! Now, if you'd like to talk about cricket instead, I could tell you about the time I watched Marcus Trescothick make his International Test debut? Verbal chat 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cricket??????? You are really trying to hijack this thread. I can't take a sport where the game continues over a couple of days. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) @Orange. At least you could soundly rebuke him for making fun of a lady's Bedhead flannel pyjamas and calling her too old to be in a cocktail dress at 1 am. Back to basketball: I'm not sure which is a worse nickname, Hoyas or Orange, or which one of them ran down the court more times than the other, but basketball should never be allowed to interfere with baseball season. (Only three more months to go, and you still owe me a Yankees prediction.)
- (ec) @Verbal. So now it's cricket? You're on thin ice, bud; your next post better be funny, or you get spanked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- (double ec) Orange, I can't believe you said that you can't take a sport that continues for days to a kid who just called you old and insulted my fashion sense. This thread needs a quick recovery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cricket on ice? That could be fun!!!LeadSongDog (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- SG, I have no problem with you, or anyone, wearing cocktail dresses or otherwise at 1am. I'm sure they look great, but probably wouldn't suit me. I'm more of a David Tennant type (maybe a young Gary Oldman for those of you across the pond). I might try cricket in snow later this week, but wearing whites could be confusing - especially for the French. I'm sorry to hear that OM can't last the full 5 days just for a draw any more ;) Verbal chat 18:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange, I think the ball is squarely in your court. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Square balls? Sounds positively Sicilian! Of course for playing Ice Cricket they'll have to be made of rubber, but should they be vulcanized to slide or India rubber to bounce?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange, I think the ball is squarely in your court. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- SG, I have no problem with you, or anyone, wearing cocktail dresses or otherwise at 1am. I'm sure they look great, but probably wouldn't suit me. I'm more of a David Tennant type (maybe a young Gary Oldman for those of you across the pond). I might try cricket in snow later this week, but wearing whites could be confusing - especially for the French. I'm sorry to hear that OM can't last the full 5 days just for a draw any more ;) Verbal chat 18:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cricket on ice? That could be fun!!!LeadSongDog (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cricket??????? You are really trying to hijack this thread. I can't take a sport where the game continues over a couple of days. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It depends a bit on when you define life as starting, but I don't really want to get into that... I just wanted to stop you talking about "football". Cocktail dresses are ok by me! Now, if you'd like to talk about cricket instead, I could tell you about the time I watched Marcus Trescothick make his International Test debut? Verbal chat 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's Verbal's fault. I think he needs a spanking, with a 48 hour time-out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you let someone who "wasn't even alive in 1980 :s" turn every good University/sports/cocktail dress thread into octagenarian jokes, you're going to need that walker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- This morning's breakfast includes, two slices of dry double fiber wheat toast, one egg, a glass of V8, and two cups of coffee with cream and Splenda (with fiber). I will have an apple for a late morning snack. So, I'd say my fiber content is fine. Yum. :) Now hold on while I get into my walker. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have pity on the young'un; at least he has the good manners to wish us octagenarians a Happy New Year. A good spanking should suffice. (Had your fiber today, Orange?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone needs to kick your butt. Insolent brat. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't you both too old for this kind of talk? (ducks) Only joking, and happy new year! I wasn't even alive in 1980 :s Verbal chat 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't possibly write what I wanted to!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was a thread-killing dud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmmmm. Well, there are just too many ways to respond to that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Won't catch me ironing shirts, clean, dirty or otherwise. (PS: it's 1 am on a Monday night; what cocktail dress? I don't sleep in them, you know.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was at that game in the spring of 1980. I'm still pissed about it. And wtf is a Hoya Saxa (guessing that Antandrus is a Georgetown grad). I refuse to put that in the article. I would rather iron Jimbo's shirts for a month. Blah. BTW, it's always nice to humor SG in her cocktail dresses. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh-oh. This is going to be trouble. (Note to self: do not mention where I went to school.) Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Cocktail dress break
←Verbal. See I had a whole separate interpretation of the 1AM cocktail dress comment. Let's just say my imagination ran amok. :) And we're mixing metaphors here. it should be the ball is in my pitch. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange, I'm shocked; ironing some shirts for pennance may put your mind right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Me? Iron? I'd rather go with the wrinkled, rich preppy look. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- OM, did you arrange for the England Cricket team to completely explode as a punishment for me?? So cruel...Verbal chat 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now that RSA are down an opener, maybe the ex.captain should return home? :-) Shot info (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You two are speaking in some foreign language that is completely unfamiliar to me. Black cocktail dresses are familiar to me (ummmmm as an object of observation not as a personal wardrobe item). "Down an opener" sounds like a euphemism for drunkenness. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You should ban these youngsters (who don't appreciate baseball or cocktail dresses) from our conversations !! (Red, Orange, Red, as in Cardinal and Red Sox.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I happen to love cocktails, but baseball is just a dull, simplistic, form of cricket. We call it rounders over here, and it's a game for small girls... Twenty20 is the future. (For more info see opening batsman and cricinfo for the whole sorry tale of England cricket team resignations, sackings, and stupidity). As for red cocktail dresses, it depends on the shoes (converse? very chic) Verbal chat 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is progress (a youngster who knows it's all in the shoes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) When I'm tired of shopping, I sit down and try on shoes.
- Baseball is dull? At least most games are over in 3 hours give or take. You still haven't explained why I need several days to complete a test match? As for red cocktail dresses, I prefer them matched with 3" heels. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arf !! Why do you want a perfectly good ballgame to be over in 3 hours? (You need to see more classic Red Sox games.) As for heels, I prefer to keep a foot firmly on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Being a devout NL fan, I'm more used to 2.5 hour games. And as for your photo, I'm guessing that you're going to get a lot of offers here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) OM, you may find Cricket terminology helpful. No doubt questions will be asked, so study up. I too used to puzzle over the length of test matches until I realized that golf was just as bad, but without any defence to make it interesting. SG, if I may inquire, will you be returning to your previous identity anytime soon? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- First on Cricket. Comparing it to golf is not helping me get interested. The only time I've watched a golf tournament is when I turn on Sportscenter and get the 35 second review. But more importantly, you have destroyed my image of SG now. My mind's eye had her looking like this.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Playing cricket has a lot in common with ballroom dancing, if that helps (I'm not keen on golf either - or ballroom dancing, actually). Verbal chat 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ballroom dancing should not be done with converse. You're distracting me from completing my blog about Obama and healthcare insurance. I keep coming to Wikipedia for links, and I see the bright orange bar indicating I have a new message. Then I have to go find good Diane Lane links (yes, I'm infatuated with her).OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, now I'm supposed to live up to Diane Lane? Well, in that case, try keeping up with this. (I think all of your orange bar problems could be solved by putting a banner at the top of the page banning talk about cricket, basketball, golf, fiber, octagenarians, and don't forget bowling while we're on such exciting topics ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bowling is nice, and a lot of puffers came from there! . dave souza, talk 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just as long as you're not an octogenarian. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bowling is nice, and a lot of puffers came from there! . dave souza, talk 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- This damn page. Keeper | 76 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just so long as shuffleboard and tiddlywinks are still permitted... LeadSongDog (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- And Keeper76 shows up for some vandalism. If only Boris and MastCell come along, the day will be complete.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- So how do we get this on the main page? DYK? Or in the news section with photos? Verbal chat 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think SG has some superpowers with respect to the main page. But I could be misguided. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- In spite of your impeccable taste, you are misguided on that score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's what happens when one shoves a pencil up his nose. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I read your page at least a couple of times a week, for the chuckles. I don't usually contribute anymore. The jokes are either entirely too sophisticated and therefore intimidating, or they're just too stupid to bother with. I'll let you decide how this thread is going. :-) By the way, MLB Network is very promising if you can get it on your cable service. Of course, with such a small fan base (12 people) for baseball down there, they may not even bother with it. Keeper | 76 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I saw this edit summary and thought Keeper was trying to talk up the SEC to which I would have responded that if Syracuse defected to the SEC it would at least improve the IQ of both conferences. --JayHenry (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I read your page at least a couple of times a week, for the chuckles. I don't usually contribute anymore. The jokes are either entirely too sophisticated and therefore intimidating, or they're just too stupid to bother with. I'll let you decide how this thread is going. :-) By the way, MLB Network is very promising if you can get it on your cable service. Of course, with such a small fan base (12 people) for baseball down there, they may not even bother with it. Keeper | 76 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's what happens when one shoves a pencil up his nose. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- In spite of your impeccable taste, you are misguided on that score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think SG has some superpowers with respect to the main page. But I could be misguided. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- So how do we get this on the main page? DYK? Or in the news section with photos? Verbal chat 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, now I'm supposed to live up to Diane Lane? Well, in that case, try keeping up with this. (I think all of your orange bar problems could be solved by putting a banner at the top of the page banning talk about cricket, basketball, golf, fiber, octagenarians, and don't forget bowling while we're on such exciting topics ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ballroom dancing should not be done with converse. You're distracting me from completing my blog about Obama and healthcare insurance. I keep coming to Wikipedia for links, and I see the bright orange bar indicating I have a new message. Then I have to go find good Diane Lane links (yes, I'm infatuated with her).OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Playing cricket has a lot in common with ballroom dancing, if that helps (I'm not keen on golf either - or ballroom dancing, actually). Verbal chat 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- First on Cricket. Comparing it to golf is not helping me get interested. The only time I've watched a golf tournament is when I turn on Sportscenter and get the 35 second review. But more importantly, you have destroyed my image of SG now. My mind's eye had her looking like this.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arf !! Why do you want a perfectly good ballgame to be over in 3 hours? (You need to see more classic Red Sox games.) As for heels, I prefer to keep a foot firmly on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Baseball is dull? At least most games are over in 3 hours give or take. You still haven't explained why I need several days to complete a test match? As for red cocktail dresses, I prefer them matched with 3" heels. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is progress (a youngster who knows it's all in the shoes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) When I'm tired of shopping, I sit down and try on shoes.
- I happen to love cocktails, but baseball is just a dull, simplistic, form of cricket. We call it rounders over here, and it's a game for small girls... Twenty20 is the future. (For more info see opening batsman and cricinfo for the whole sorry tale of England cricket team resignations, sackings, and stupidity). As for red cocktail dresses, it depends on the shoes (converse? very chic) Verbal chat 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You should ban these youngsters (who don't appreciate baseball or cocktail dresses) from our conversations !! (Red, Orange, Red, as in Cardinal and Red Sox.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You two are speaking in some foreign language that is completely unfamiliar to me. Black cocktail dresses are familiar to me (ummmmm as an object of observation not as a personal wardrobe item). "Down an opener" sounds like a euphemism for drunkenness. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now that RSA are down an opener, maybe the ex.captain should return home? :-) Shot info (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- OM, did you arrange for the England Cricket team to completely explode as a punishment for me?? So cruel...Verbal chat 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Me? Iron? I'd rather go with the wrinkled, rich preppy look. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Blackadder thread
Tddlywinks? Cricket?
Blackadder: Well, for God's sake, George, how long have you been in the army?
George: Oh, me? Oh, I joined up straight away, sir! August the 4th, 1914. God, what a day that was! Myself and the rest of the fellows, leapfrogging down to the Cambridge recruiting office and then, playing tiddlywinks in the queue. We'd hammered Oxford's tiddlywinkers only the week before and there we were, off to hammer the Boche! Crushingly superb bunch of blokes. Fine, clean-limbed… even their acne had a strange nobility about it.
Blackadder: Yes, and how are all the boys now?
George: Oh, uh, well… Jacko and the Badger bought it at the first Ypres, unfortunately. What a shock, there. I remember Bumfluff's house-master wrote and told me that Sticky'd been out for a duck, and the Gubber had snitched a parcel sausage-end and gone goose-over-stump frogside.
Blackadder: Meaning?
George: I don't know, sir, but I read in the Times that they'd both been killed.
SG: You left cocktail dresses off... Verbal chat 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that last ought to get OM's imagination restarted.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was forced to watch Blackadder when I lived in the Netherlands. Everyone in the office loved it, and it was in English (of some form that was totally unfamiliar to me). Of English humor TV, I'm more of a Monty Python fan. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Try sticking pencils up your nose. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's how I stimulate my brain.[citation needed] OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great: I get this from Orange sticking pencils up his nose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- See that's what I hate about Wikipedia. It perfectly remembers drunk editing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Next time, hide the pencils before you drink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good advice. Or hide the drink before using pencils? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Next time, hide the pencils before you drink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here you go, just add BoSox cap. Don't say I never gave you anything.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still picturing Diane Lane = SG. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You'd never catch me wearing this, this, this, this, or this. (She seems to go for the exaggerated shiny fabrics.) Nice earrings, though. Someone should introduce your Diane to the First Lady of Gowns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I personally wouldn't complain about Diane Lane in any of your this's. Oh, wait a minute, that was Diane Lane in each this. However the purple dress with long slit would be my fav. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- You'd never catch me wearing this, this, this, this, or this. (She seems to go for the exaggerated shiny fabrics.) Nice earrings, though. Someone should introduce your Diane to the First Lady of Gowns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still picturing Diane Lane = SG. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- See that's what I hate about Wikipedia. It perfectly remembers drunk editing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great: I get this from Orange sticking pencils up his nose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's how I stimulate my brain.[citation needed] OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Try sticking pencils up your nose. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was forced to watch Blackadder when I lived in the Netherlands. Everyone in the office loved it, and it was in English (of some form that was totally unfamiliar to me). Of English humor TV, I'm more of a Monty Python fan. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
ACC in the national title
There's an ACC team in the national title game! Sadly, it's the officiating crew. ;) --B (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, what's the prediction. I still have time to call the non-existent bookie. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My prediction is at least 5 more horribly bad mistakes by the Fox crew calling the game. Here's what I have so far:
- "Tebow in trouble and he'll scramble for a gain of one. (a pause for about 5 seconds - I'm thinking, he sure looked like he got more than one) And he will get five more after that for a gain of six."
- When Oklahoma was on the goalline, they called 2nd down 3rd down, 3rd down 4th down, then when they still had the ball, they realized they were a down off. The commentator apologizes for not helping the play-by-play guy out there.
- On UF's TD, the receiver's rear end looked like it was down on the ground. They showed us 4 angles and paused it with the ball breaking the plane and still in his hand. Ok, fine, I believe you, it's not a fumble, but how about pausing it where his rear end hits the ground and seeing if the ball is over the line yet.
- I sure don't remember Fox being this bad last year - they have just been awful this bowl season. --B (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My prediction is at least 5 more horribly bad mistakes by the Fox crew calling the game. Here's what I have so far:
Video
I thought with the work you've done with free energy and cold fusion recently you'd appreciate this video. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- ROFLMAO! But does the Turbo Encabulator also dice tomatoes? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's like the laws of cricket. It's obviously a fake because they mispronounced Zeitschrift für Physik. But does it blend? Verbal chat 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Smokey_Bear_Only_You_campaign_hat.jpg/200px-Smokey_Bear_Only_You_campaign_hat.jpg)
FYI in case you wanted to grab some popcorn. --B (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- This appears a multiple-bucket popcorn show. I'll also need to have a couple of sodas too. If only the Fox sports broadcasters would join in, then it would be perfect. I'm amused the one or two admins that are showing support for FT2. I saw my name showed up, thanks to MastCell. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey did the project go in to the Twilight Zone while I was sleeping?! Wikipolitics at its best, past the popcorn, no wait, can't eat that, anyone have some chocolate? :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure the snack counter will have anything you need. I'm hoping that they provide real butter for the popcorn. I hate that fake grease stuff. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I commented at all. I completely ignored both of my Notes to Self.
I actually feel bad for FT2 - I sometimes forget how vicious this place can be. He doesn't get enough credit for the good work he's done - specifically, the Poetlister thing comes to mind. I can't get too worked up about the oversight thing, because at bottom I think he was just concerned about his privacy, and I could see myself acting similarly if I were in his position. But all he had to say was that he asked for help with privacy issues and then misspoke later because he'd forgotten the specifics. I think he Plaxicoed himself with the verbose stonewalling and buck-shifting. The problem is that Wikipedians tend to eschew a statement like "I lack confidence in FT2's judgement as an Arbitrator" in favor of statements like "FT2 is a disgrace and should be ashamed of himself." I've subscribed to the former at least since a certain eponymous ArbCom case, while I think the latter is cruelly overblown.
By the way, did you notice that "tag team" is now defined as... no, I'm not going there. Nevermind. MastCell Talk 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tried not to pick on you about that, but..... I just think you care about this place. I have a different opinion of FT2, of course. I laughed at Elonka's comments all around, but others have replied appropriately. Bish's response was perfect. And as for Elonka's definition of tag team...has she looked at the crowd who are adding comments? Many of them dislike each other. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right (looks like I'm aligned with Slim and Geogre, two people who dislike me :-) I agree with just about everything MastCell wrote: my reasons for losing confidence in FT2 are different than everything else raised. IMO, the community wants arbs who are responsive to the community, aware that they "serve", and in touch, in the style of NYB or Kirill: FT2 is not any of that, and the arrogance isn't working. He should just step aside. I'm sporadically keeping up with the Elonka, Bish exchanges: even if Elonka argues (unconvincingly) that Bish was wrong and Elonka has not abused tools,[3] Bish has done as much to help Wiki as Elonka has done to harm it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read Shot Info's response to Elonka? One of the better comments in this drama. Why did Elonka's RfA succeed? Oh, yeah, I remember. Something about voluntarily stepping down if good faith editors requested it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- He isn't arrogant, it's just that His modesty knows no bounds, He is supremley modest, His modesty is noble even... Elonka would be funny if she wasn't an administrator. Verbal chat 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Elonka would be ignored if she wasn't an admin. Wait a minute, most of us ignore her now. The anti-Science crowd fete her constantly, so she thinks she's popular. Weird. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Elonka was controversial even before she became an admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3. (By the way, this was one of the rare occasions I was right about something, see oppose #44.) Who didn't see problems coming here? Anyone ... anyone ... Bueller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 18:64, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- She actually placed a warning that she would block me for using Twinkle to revert some edit warring at some article today. I promptly deleted it, mainly because she hasn't a clue about anything that really matters at Wikipedia. She must have read our thread here, and decided that being the wimp that I am, I would quickly end this conversation, because she's the all-powerful admin. Yeah right. Anyways, she once sent me an email making some spurious and ridiculous comments about another editor, an email that was right on the verge of being slander. I noticed that she has done this before. Wow. Just wow. And when I forwarded the email to ArbCom, who should reply to me about it? FT2. No wonder she's supporting him--without FT2, maybe Elonka's comeuppance will be at hand.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Elonka was controversial even before she became an admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3. (By the way, this was one of the rare occasions I was right about something, see oppose #44.) Who didn't see problems coming here? Anyone ... anyone ... Bueller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 18:64, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Elonka would be ignored if she wasn't an admin. Wait a minute, most of us ignore her now. The anti-Science crowd fete her constantly, so she thinks she's popular. Weird. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- (triple ec) Not sure I saw Shot Info's response (where? my interest wanes). In addition to the AOR claim, it succeeded because Tim Vickers nommed her, when he was nomming lots of editors because a change to allow IPs to create articles was in the works. Without Tim's name, I doubt the candidacy would have succeeded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- This was a classic from Shot Info. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I liked Bishonen's better, that Shot Info's was a reply to, because it said all that without actually saying any of it. I appreciate understatement, I guess.Woonpton (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. But remember, there are readers who fail to understand well-written sarcasm, so Shot Info needed to go for the blunt sarcasm. Taken together, it's just about perfect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- This qualifies as one of the best pieces of sarcasm written on Wikipedia in a long time. I applaud it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's okay but I like this one better. I guess I like Bish's satire better than Giano's, a little subtler. But these are fine distinctions.Woonpton (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, that takes the championship trophy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's okay but I like this one better. I guess I like Bish's satire better than Giano's, a little subtler. But these are fine distinctions.Woonpton (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- This qualifies as one of the best pieces of sarcasm written on Wikipedia in a long time. I applaud it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. But remember, there are readers who fail to understand well-written sarcasm, so Shot Info needed to go for the blunt sarcasm. Taken together, it's just about perfect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I liked Bishonen's better, that Shot Info's was a reply to, because it said all that without actually saying any of it. I appreciate understatement, I guess.Woonpton (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- This was a classic from Shot Info. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- He isn't arrogant, it's just that His modesty knows no bounds, He is supremley modest, His modesty is noble even... Elonka would be funny if she wasn't an administrator. Verbal chat 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read Shot Info's response to Elonka? One of the better comments in this drama. Why did Elonka's RfA succeed? Oh, yeah, I remember. Something about voluntarily stepping down if good faith editors requested it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right (looks like I'm aligned with Slim and Geogre, two people who dislike me :-) I agree with just about everything MastCell wrote: my reasons for losing confidence in FT2 are different than everything else raised. IMO, the community wants arbs who are responsive to the community, aware that they "serve", and in touch, in the style of NYB or Kirill: FT2 is not any of that, and the arrogance isn't working. He should just step aside. I'm sporadically keeping up with the Elonka, Bish exchanges: even if Elonka argues (unconvincingly) that Bish was wrong and Elonka has not abused tools,[3] Bish has done as much to help Wiki as Elonka has done to harm it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tried not to pick on you about that, but..... I just think you care about this place. I have a different opinion of FT2, of course. I laughed at Elonka's comments all around, but others have replied appropriately. Bish's response was perfect. And as for Elonka's definition of tag team...has she looked at the crowd who are adding comments? Many of them dislike each other. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I commented at all. I completely ignored both of my Notes to Self.
- I'm sure the snack counter will have anything you need. I'm hoping that they provide real butter for the popcorn. I hate that fake grease stuff. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey did the project go in to the Twilight Zone while I was sleeping?! Wikipolitics at its best, past the popcorn, no wait, can't eat that, anyone have some chocolate? :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, your point is well taken, and you said a mouthful there, about readers that don't understand sarcasm, or satire either. I find the prevalence of this disability in Wikipedia remarkable and alarming.Woonpton (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some psychiatrists believe that frequent sarcasm is Passive aggressive. However, I believe that writing and understanding sarcasm requires a high level of intelligence. :) Oh, and it's still probably passive aggressive. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, your point is well taken, and you said a mouthful there, about readers that don't understand sarcasm, or satire either. I find the prevalence of this disability in Wikipedia remarkable and alarming.Woonpton (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, well, "some psychiatrists" say a lot of weird (stuff) but I wouldn't put much stock in it. I'd say if the sarcasm is mean, then it's not all that passive, since the meanness in mean sarcasm is usually evident in the tone (in other words the aggression is fairly straightforward) and if it's not mean, then it's not aggressive. So I wouldn't say that fits very well. At any rate, this is one of the many diagnoses or behavioral descriptions that aren't well established or agreed upon. One of my graduate degrees is in psychology, and I would characterize passive-aggression as anger and hostility carefully hidden under a layer of superficial niceness (or civility, if you will). It's deceitful (although not always consciously so) and creepy, because it's so perverse (in the sense of not-straightforward). There's a lot of passive aggression in Wikipedia, but where I see it is in people who are always superficially civil but at the same time manipulative and obstructive and impossible to work with because they don't share the same values or the same goals, so they're always working against you with a great deal of cheerful civility, but at the same time a great deal of hidden animosity. That's the kind of people who keep me from working in Wikipedia. My 2 cents, if that. Woonpton (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
heads up
You have been mentioned here, albeit in a tangential way. FYI. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been watching all the threads. No need for me to comment, since I'd just come across as hateful. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've learned something about WP
If you are going to make people mad at you here, make sure it's enough people to form a lynch mob, because everyone pities a lynching victim, whether he deserves it or not.
Problem with one = content dispute
Problem with ten = indef block
Problem with thirty = "Lay off, you big bunch of meanies braying for blood!!! Just chill out and have some fricken tea, why doncha??!?"
Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You've learned much grasshopper. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
FAC revisited
Orangemarlin, I apologize about my previous suggestions on the Syracuse University FAC. You were correct that my comments were not made entirely in the spirit of WP:AGF. In the spirit of WikiLove, I sincerely apologize. (Please don't try to get me blocked.) I did a Google News search of Syracuse to see if there's any recent news stories that might be useful for you to use in the FAC. Amazingly, I found two very recent articles from high-quality sources that were not in the article. I enjoyed reading the following articles, and since you have an interest in Syracuse, you might too:
- Georgetown Throws Down Syracuse, 88-74
- Juiced-Up Hoyas Crush Orange; Georgetown Shoots 59 Percent, Never Trails Against Syracuse : Georgetown 88, Syracuse 74
- Of particular interest, I see that in his most recent game the one Syracuse guard hit four 3's but 0 women.
Hope this is useful. All the best. Your good friend and dedicated helper, --JayHenry (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are permanently on my list of evil Wikipedians. I hold you in utter contempt. I shall do everything to disrupt and harass you at every chance. And in honor of the passing of Khan, "revenge is a dish best served cold". Wikilove my ass...what the hell is a Hoya??????? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 09:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think an hoya is the feminine of an hoyo, which is a hole or a pit in Spanish. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- If only there were, say, a freely available, user-edited online
encyclopediadictionary which could answer such questions... :) MastCell Talk 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)- Fixed that for you.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Read. And still we ask, what the hell is a hoya???? LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed that for you.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- If only there were, say, a freely available, user-edited online
- I think an hoya is the feminine of an hoyo, which is a hole or a pit in Spanish. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
FT2
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Open_letter_from_FT2 Verbal chat 09:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, saw it. It qualifies under WP:TLDR. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have an urge to shout "KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAN" for some reason. Verbal chat 10:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies. By far. And remember, I'm an old fart, so I actually watched Space Seed on TV when it was on NBC in 1967. And there wasn't any 1080p high-def TV either. And I walked uphill in both directions in 10 feet of snow. Well, there was snow in Los Angeles, even back then before global warming. But I digress. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, I decided to read it a bit more (thereby, reducing my sleep tonight by a full hour). So, did he or did he not resign? I can't tell. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's stepped down, until a hearing (the design of which he outlines). I've asked for a clarification. He isn't contrite though. I have to agree, it is my favourite Trek film. Unrelated, I'm probably in trouble over at the List of pseudosciences talk page - I would consider that an abuse of admin tools. Verbal chat 10:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- She won't threaten you with a block, because you haven't contributed to the thread above about the current wiki-drama. As for FT2, this is a mockery of everything that should make a great Wikipedia.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's stepped down, until a hearing (the design of which he outlines). I've asked for a clarification. He isn't contrite though. I have to agree, it is my favourite Trek film. Unrelated, I'm probably in trouble over at the List of pseudosciences talk page - I would consider that an abuse of admin tools. Verbal chat 10:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, I decided to read it a bit more (thereby, reducing my sleep tonight by a full hour). So, did he or did he not resign? I can't tell. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies. By far. And remember, I'm an old fart, so I actually watched Space Seed on TV when it was on NBC in 1967. And there wasn't any 1080p high-def TV either. And I walked uphill in both directions in 10 feet of snow. Well, there was snow in Los Angeles, even back then before global warming. But I digress. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have an urge to shout "KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAN" for some reason. Verbal chat 10:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at this piece of crud masquerading as a medical article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance
I'm not an expert, but it looks like there is a whole load of pseudoscience and not much fact. It seems to be mostly based on the pseudoscientific definition of food intolerance, rather than the actual definition. I can't even tell whether or it any of the stuff is actually backed up by the references because they're all stuck at the end. I just removed a few obvious bits of crap but I suspect it needs a lot more work. I don't have time to work on it right now anyway, but I'd be interested in seeing if you have any thoughts about it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a piece of crud, because it's badly referenced (so far, few of the references actually support the writing) and it is a long way from passing WP:MEDMOS. However, there is some evidence of IgE issues with certain foods. But, it is totally unbalanced. It's a POS right now, and I've tagged it as such. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of all the templates we have deleted, this is the one I miss most ({{sucks}}:
![]() |
This article sucks and is in need of attention.
Please improve it in any way you see fit. |
- Alas poor Hoover; we know them well. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like Jimmy Dyson to me. Dam that Hoover. . dave souza, talk 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I never saw that before. We can't use it? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was checking links. Elimination diet is worse by far. I checked out the history, and I wasn't shocked by the contributors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can we put them on it? Just asking...LeadSongDog (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, an elimination diet is actually a reasonable way to approach a potential food allergy or sensitivity. Our article could be better, I guess. This article (PMID 15864086) might be a good starting point. There are some iffy food-allergy tests out there (PMID 18489614), but elimination diets (combined with oral food challenges) are a reasonable part of the diagnostic algorithm (PMID 10678717). MastCell Talk 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with the article is that it is written in a manner that offends my sensibilities of what constitutes a well-written article, not that I think it's another form of colon cleansing. But I remain highly skeptical of any of this environmental allergen are the root of all medical issues POV. Some parts are written "ok". Some are cruft. And being a part of the "diagnostic algorithm" is quite different than what reads like the only diagnostic tool available for a whole host of diseases, like diabetes. My issue with Food intolerance article is not that I think it's BS (I don't), it's because it was written in a manner that makes a relatively intelligent reader think it's BS. And elimination diet, is an odd word. Again, it makes it appear that eliminate the right things, we cure cancer, diabetes, and ED. (I exaggerate for dramatic effect.) I think the two articles should be combined into one. I don't want to find that Oprah is on the new elimination diet that she found on Wikipedia. :) And thanks for bringing logic to this discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, A Cure for Cancer. . . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hm... I prefer No Cure for Cancer. MastCell Talk 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, A Cure for Cancer. . . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with the article is that it is written in a manner that offends my sensibilities of what constitutes a well-written article, not that I think it's another form of colon cleansing. But I remain highly skeptical of any of this environmental allergen are the root of all medical issues POV. Some parts are written "ok". Some are cruft. And being a part of the "diagnostic algorithm" is quite different than what reads like the only diagnostic tool available for a whole host of diseases, like diabetes. My issue with Food intolerance article is not that I think it's BS (I don't), it's because it was written in a manner that makes a relatively intelligent reader think it's BS. And elimination diet, is an odd word. Again, it makes it appear that eliminate the right things, we cure cancer, diabetes, and ED. (I exaggerate for dramatic effect.) I think the two articles should be combined into one. I don't want to find that Oprah is on the new elimination diet that she found on Wikipedia. :) And thanks for bringing logic to this discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, an elimination diet is actually a reasonable way to approach a potential food allergy or sensitivity. Our article could be better, I guess. This article (PMID 15864086) might be a good starting point. There are some iffy food-allergy tests out there (PMID 18489614), but elimination diets (combined with oral food challenges) are a reasonable part of the diagnostic algorithm (PMID 10678717). MastCell Talk 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can we put them on it? Just asking...LeadSongDog (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was checking links. Elimination diet is worse by far. I checked out the history, and I wasn't shocked by the contributors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alas poor Hoover; we know them well. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
When I got diagnosed with Crohn's disease my doctor had me do a diary with an dietician with an Elimination diet. I just read this article and it's nothing like what I expected it to read. If it stays in this state the article title should be merged to food allergies or something. This article is nothing like what I was taught about how to use the elimination diet. Just a thought, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Holy crap I opened a can of worms. One problem with the article is that they seem to be lumping all sorts of food intolerance together. Maybe there should be a separate short section for each type of food intolerance, with links to the main articles for each. As I understand it (and I'm no expert), IgE is well established, as is lactose, gluten and certain chemicals such as sulphides. Others such as IgG are mostly unproven although there is some evidence that IgG might play a role in IBS (although it is not proven). The IgG is also the version of food intolerance that is used by all the quacks, and it appears to be the version that this article is mostly describing. Quackwatch also has a good article on dubious food intolerance tests. My own guess is that IgG does play a role in IBS, along with stress, but you probably need to actually do the test on the IgG from the gut itself, not using the blood which is how the ALCAT test does it. But that's irrelevant for the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought IBS was what you have when they don't know, or are to lazy to find out, what you have. And shouldn't the IBS article say so? I've seen a specialist misdiagnose Spigelian hernia as IBS.Mccready (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I open cans of worms around here every day. That's what we're supposed to do. I restructured the article (with lots of unwritten sections) using WP:MEDMOS, which allows us to bring it together with legitimate research on what the disease is and is not. Using the elimination diet for diagnosis of Crohn's disease is perfectly legitimate, but that article makes me picture something altogether. MastCell is correct that it is an important diagnostic tool, but I disagree with him that it's not that bad of an article. It stinks in just the way CG says. And there is a lot of cruft in both articles. Lots. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry pet peeve about to be talked about. :) IBS and IBD are two very different diseases. Sorry to make mention but I went almost two years with the IBS diagnosis and my Crohn's disease was found by emergency exploratory surgery. Also, IBS is not diagnosed only because of laziness, read the article, it explains it pretty well. I'll take a look again at the article too. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
Orangemarlin, I am very sorry to have had to take this step, but I am hereby formally notifying you of the potential of future ArbCom sanctions. Over the last few months, your actions have been disruptive within the topic area of pseudoscience. You use Twinkle to engage in revert wars without participating in substantive discussion at the talkpage,[4][5][6][7] sometimes even using Twinkle to revert other good faith editors as though they were vandals.[8] You have been making threats and false statements,[9][10] and you have ignored previous cautions.[11][12] Please consider this your last warning. If you continue to act in a disruptive manner, your editing privileges in this topic area may be restricted. Orangemarlin, you're normally a very good editor. You have done an enormous amount of excellent work on Wikipedia, and your efforts are appreciated. To avoid any possibility of sanctions, please, just follow a few simple rules: Stay very civil in your comments and edit summaries, avoid edit-warring, and do your best to engage in civil and collegial discussion over matters that are in dispute, by keeping comments focused on direct improvements to the related articles. These are good methods to approach dispute resolution, and will help to result in positive and long-lasting changes to Wikipedia. Thanks, --Elonka 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- OM, calm down a bit, and I say that understanding your frustration.
- Elonka: I've read the diffs and understand your "concerns", but you are overstepping. As for the methods for dispute resolution you mention, you are correct that they are valuable guidelines, but they often seem to be forgotten or misunderstood in many cases. I am hardly a perfecrt editor, and carry the baggage that I have mostly crafted myself, but then, I suppose that that applies to all of us. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
OM: Elonka is right about one thing: you've gotten sloppy with Twinkle again. If it isn't vandalism and you cannot remember to change the edit summary, then don't use it. Seriously. To you, its a goof, a wrong button. To the person you revert, you are accusing them of being a vandal. I'm serious, OM - you need to stop being so lazy, and manually edit and enter summaries. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Puppy, I'm kind of offended by this comment, since it's hardly different than what Elonka has stated. Let's look at it one by one. In each of the Twinkle reverts above, in no case did I accuse the editor of vandalism. Only in Elonka's mind is there any assumption that the use of Twinkle is an indication of Vandalism. In fact, a full read of WP:TWINKLE tells me that that the only rules are to use it within the rules of Wikipedia. So, unless one of the four edits that Elonka states above is in violation of Wikipedia rules, I'd like to see it. Below is diff by diff reply to each of Elonka's specious accusations about Twinkle:
- This edit to Chiropracty was a reversion of edits that were not discussed back to the last edit by User:Eubulides who is one of the better medical editors on the project. In no case, did I make any comment that it was vandalism, and, in fact, did use the standard reversion button. Again, I did not violate any rules of editing as established by any number of Wikipedia rules.
- In this case, User:Levine2112 made large changes without consensus. Again, I did not accuse the editor of anything. However, there was a lot of edit-warring between several different editors, and I requested page protection (using Twinkle I might add). The edit summary was perfectly civil, made no accusations, and was fully within my rights as an editor. Moreover, based on that one edit, Elonka has the temerity to call me disruptive. That's uncivil.
- This edit, like the above ones, is fully within the rules of Twinkle and Wikipedia. I stated that I was reverting to the consensus opinion. I did not make any accusation about the editor. I added a fully useful edit summary. Exactly, where was I lazy about using Twinkle?
- This edit had a clearly written edit summary (there was no reason for Levine 2112 to remove the sourcing). I did not accuse Levine2112 of being a vandal--in fact, I consider Levine a hard-nosed good faith editor, not to dissimilar to me in editing. User:QuackGuru and Levine2112 were in the middle of an aggressive edit war at the time, and my review of the references indicated that they should not be removed, and I stated that in the edit summary.
- This edit in my opinion was vandalism, pure and simple. The anonymous editor has made precisely one edit to one contentious article, reverting without adding an edit summary.
- In each case, I was hardly lazy, I provided an accurate edit summary, and I was well within my rights and obligations of Wikipedia. Elonka has made a bad faith listing of edits that were, from any standpoint, just simple clear editing. I expect an apology from Elonka for what she wrote. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah ok, the one I was looking at was the anon revert; it looked like a misguided but good-faith edit to me. I will accept that you felt it was vandalism; my apologies. I confess that my memory of when you first got Twinkle and accidentally used the auto-summary not realizing it had that built-in "identified as vandalism" made my judgment a little hasty. I am sorry I called you lazy. :-( KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that User:MastCell has made an unbiased comment on Elonka's warning and accusations here. In no case does he or I find diffs that support Elonka's bad faith accusations. I believe my next step is to formally request ArbCom's assistance in removing my name from these accusations, and a request to determine exactly what admins are allowed to do. The pseudoscience arbcom ruling is being used incorrectly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh come on, there has never been a more "uninvolved" administrator in pseudoscience issues than Elonka. Just ask her! ;) Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is that like "Ask the fox if he's seen the missing chickens"? •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Abusive User
The following user Double Fanucci has been placing a sockpuppet accusation on my user page. What can be done about this?Bluecord'sAgenda (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Abandon your sockpuppet account, and go back to editing with your main one. (Sorry for butting in, OM.) Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Antandrus, butt in at your pleasure (did that sound right?) I have no clue what this is about. I hope I'm amused when all is said and done. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The curious thing about this case is that Bluecord'sAgenda put the accusation there first. This would appear to be an "I'm another sockpuppet, please block me" statement. Always helpful. :) HrafnTalkStalk 08:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
FT2 RFC
From the talk page disscusion, it seems this RFC is going to remain open for either an unconditional resignation or until the issues involving the aborted Arbcom case against you are more fully examined. I plan on going over FT2's draft of your case more completely than I have done in the past. It will be impossible for me to meaningfully comment on his judgement without also commenting on your actions. And I am familiar enough with the material to know that while your actions end up being shown in a better light than FT2 presented them, they will hardly be seen as admirable. You may want look over this stuff again to have an idea what will might brought up. I plan on emailing you a copy of anything I end up putting together on your actions before posting it publically so that you have a chance to make any corrections on my part. But then again, this may all be resolved before I have the opportunity to do the research. I thought it only right to prepare you in case this is all brought forward again.--BirgitteSB 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I refuse to participate in this. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will respect that and be as careful as I can to keep things accurate without your input.--BirgitteSB 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- You either do this publicly or I will request that you be sanctioned for this threat to me. FT2's problem was not what he said about me, but the way he went about it. That matter is officially resolved, and your doing this is completely disrespectful of that process. Again, go back to arbcom for a public airing of the matter, or go away NOW. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I know you have been supportive in the past. You need to understand that the process was violated by FT2. No one cares about what he actually said now, because in some cases he was right, and in most of it, he was on Planet NLP. It was a drama that needs to stop NOW. The case was dismissed, and that's that. If you want to do this again, you need to do it in a public manner, so that it's not the same irresponsible bogus investigation that FT2. In fact, since I consider this whole story water under the bridge and floating in an ice cap in Antarctica, and used by certain editors cast aspersions on nearly anything I write, I consider your doing this will effectively end my editing career here at Wikipedia. It should stop now. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have no plans to do anything but put a public outside view in the RFC about FT2's judgment. I am sorry you see this as a threat, as I did not intend threaten you in any way whatsoever. I rather intended to be respectful of you by giving you this heads up on the matter. I am sorry that this message upset you. I really think you are misinterpreting me, and I hope that in the end you will find your concerns are relieved.--BirgitteSB 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- My primary concern would be that the use of a "secret tribunal" outweighs any actions by OM. I realise that Wiki is not the real world, and participation is voluntary, but my stand is that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment should offer a guiding principle for preesent and future WP actions related to a user's actions. As FT2 acted in a way that ignored that principle (and I know WP is not bound by the due process clause), whether or not he violated a specific wikipolicy really shouldn't matter as he seems to have violated the spirit of the expectations of any open community. In fact, this whole thing reminds me of the nonsense at Guantanamo. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have no plans to do anything but put a public outside view in the RFC about FT2's judgment. I am sorry you see this as a threat, as I did not intend threaten you in any way whatsoever. I rather intended to be respectful of you by giving you this heads up on the matter. I am sorry that this message upset you. I really think you are misinterpreting me, and I hope that in the end you will find your concerns are relieved.--BirgitteSB 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will respect that and be as careful as I can to keep things accurate without your input.--BirgitteSB 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary break to write a full reply
I'm not sure what your request does for the process. FT2 is effectively gone from ArbCom. So, if you're saying FT2 isn't and this process is necessary, I'd say, it doesn't matter. FT2 has no respect from the community, so even if he went back to ArbCom, he'd be a powerless fringe player, until his term was up. So, not really understanding your motives, you're either trying to bury FT2 completely, or you're out to make editing difficult for me. The former seems a little bit of piling on, and the latter will shut me down. I absolutely refuse to participate because I promised to stay out of the FT2 situation (if the former is your goal), and I refuse to participate on principle if the latter is true.
When this difficult drama occurred (I'll have to admit that it effect my real life for a week or so, because I was totally flabbergasted by what had happened), many of the individuals who showed me support were not supporters of me, but disgusted by the process. What FT2 did wasn't about me, but it was about how he abused his powers. That's what should be the target of any discussion about FT2's fitness to be an Arbitrator. If you make it about me, FT2 will be partially exonerated, because that will be what people will remember if FT2 decides to find some other powerful role in this project. We cannot allow secret, arbitrary, and singlehanded decisions to happen at Arbcom, and that should be the focus of what FT2 did wrong.
My current "battle" with Elonka is not because we need admins to guide us to an NPOV, my issue is that Elonka is harming the project by being a one-woman judge, jury and executioner in the same manner as FT2 attempted. The authority at Wikipedia must be transparent, democratic, and fair. What FT2 did was not, and that's the reason I'm strongly opposed to what you're doing. It cannot be about me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I assure it is about FT2 not you. If it turns out to unnessecary with regard to FT2, I have no desire to pile on him. Currently I do not think that it is uneccessary, but I will give everyone concerned about this a chance to convince me that I am wrong. I am in no hurry and I really have no desire to distress you or anyone else.--BirgitteSB 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's useful to keep in mind that OM's conduct, and some of the conclusions drawn about that conduct in the text that FT2 posted as a "nem con" case, weren't at the heart of the criticism FT2 received. OM wasn't exonerated, and no one has tried to claim that his history is pure as the driven snow, but it has largely been irrelevant to the analysis of how the "OrangeMarlin case" played out. The case was transmuted to an involuntary mentorship (which is most likely concluded by now, I'd guess), and anything further about it would sensibly focus on the process and the judgment involved in the nature of the case as opposed to examining OM in greater detail.
- Birgitte, one thing you might want to look into (either by speaking to FT2 or other arbitrators) is to what extent FT2 attempted to involve the rest of the committee - and if they responded, try to determine the nature of that response. There is more there, and to some extent the rest of the committee unfairly escaped their due measure of blame. Avruch T 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still at a loss how this helps the matter at hand, which is whether FT2 deserves to be on Arbcom. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I agree. His resignation should have ended it, in my mind, but it looks like the RfC and the potential for future "discussion forcing" actions won't be resolved until all the details are tracked down. Avruch T 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still at a loss how this helps the matter at hand, which is whether FT2 deserves to be on Arbcom. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Birgitte, one thing you might want to look into (either by speaking to FT2 or other arbitrators) is to what extent FT2 attempted to involve the rest of the committee - and if they responded, try to determine the nature of that response. There is more there, and to some extent the rest of the committee unfairly escaped their due measure of blame. Avruch T 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have been convinced that further comments regarding FT2 are unnecessary and the that his resignation will hold ground. I am sorry to have upset you with prospect of all this. All I can say is that although I was wrong, I did really believe what I proposed doing was important and necessary earlier and did not propose it lightly. I hope that this message will relieve your anxiety over the matter and wish you the best of luck.--BirgitteSB 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
KT Extinction event
I readded your deletion with the citation provided. It turns out to be just a letter, but to a major pub that would attract and publish replies. Lemme know what you think.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but should we consider letters to the editor as reliable sources? They're not reviewed, and they can be opinionated. Theoretically, some homeopath could send a letter to the NEJM, and it gets published, and it wouldn't mean squat to the article. I'll take a look.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to the admittedly optimistic assumption that bogus letters will attract contrary response. Still, the content should stand on its own. If, having seen it, others don't think it valid, then I've got no attachment to it - I just want the article to be sighted before dispensing with it.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- This comes up occasionally. Letters published in reputable journals should probably be treated carefully. The reason is simple: journal articles are selected based on scientific merit, while letters are typically selected to showcase a range of opinions or stir debate. They can still be useful sources, but a claim from a letter to NEJM shouldn't be given the same status as a claim from an article published in NEJM. My two cents; I can't remember if this was codified in WP:MEDRS (not that it would help with KT extinction anyway)... MastCell Talk 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I own the article (nor claim to be a world-renowned geophysicist), but when I was writing the article, I ran across a lot of stuff that at one time seemed like a viable theory, only to be discarded. I did another pubmed search (which usually picks up articles on most scientific journals) and a google search, and I just can't find a peer-reviewed article. The University of Texas, I suppose, wants to PR the topic, but I'm not at all convinced. Also, linking the press release as if it is the letter is probably not the way to go on a reliable source. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- This comes up occasionally. Letters published in reputable journals should probably be treated carefully. The reason is simple: journal articles are selected based on scientific merit, while letters are typically selected to showcase a range of opinions or stir debate. They can still be useful sources, but a claim from a letter to NEJM shouldn't be given the same status as a claim from an article published in NEJM. My two cents; I can't remember if this was codified in WP:MEDRS (not that it would help with KT extinction anyway)... MastCell Talk 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to the admittedly optimistic assumption that bogus letters will attract contrary response. Still, the content should stand on its own. If, having seen it, others don't think it valid, then I've got no attachment to it - I just want the article to be sighted before dispensing with it.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this comment veiled anti-Semitism ...
[13] ... or am I oversensitive? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize my antisemitism meter is tuned to a very sensitive level. Let me see. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- speaking as an uninolved and impartial gentile....erm...I don't get it. I don' think so but am pretty clueless here. The revisions suggest he is trying to phrase carefully and recognises it is a sticky area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with Casliber there. Looks like he's talking linguistics as carefully as the subject matter permits. If there something that could be taken as a slight, I can't detect it.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- speaking as an uninolved and impartial gentile....erm...I don't get it. I don' think so but am pretty clueless here. The revisions suggest he is trying to phrase carefully and recognises it is a sticky area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am really trying to understand what his intentions are. he has made other remarks on that page (to which I have responded) and the bottom line is: they are unnecessary. He made an edit and I and another editor voiced objectings. Ethnicity and being Jewish just have nothing to do with it. And he could explain his edit without bringing them up. So why does he? At the very least it is a puzzle. I do not consider the issue under question to be sticky at all; the question does not have anything to do with race or religion, it purely has to do with translation and sources. Why does it have to be sticky? And if he is trying to phrase carefully, well gosh, I would hate to know what would come out if he just spoke his mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, if he were taking linguistics seriously, he would not have said that Hebrew was the liturgical/scholarly language and Aramaic the vernacular ... that is just an ignorant statement, like saying Old English was the scholarly language and Middle English the vernacular - that isn't at all the difference. I do not see any care being taken about linguistics. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The comment appears to me to be factually wrong but not anti-semitic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with everyone here. This is just my opinion, but his comments sound like he knows a little, but not a lot. I don't think he's antisemitic--just a bit clueless IMHO. But he's right on the edge of stepping over a line that I don't think will be good. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Now I'm not so sure. "Tar baby" is not a word I'd use as a metaphor in the context he's making. He's still confusing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I may have over-reacted, but the more I tried to engage him, the more confused i became about why he kept bringing up "Jewish" and so on. I am trying to leave that talk page alone for now. I respect your sensibilities on this and appreciate your checking it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Now I'm not so sure. "Tar baby" is not a word I'd use as a metaphor in the context he's making. He's still confusing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with everyone here. This is just my opinion, but his comments sound like he knows a little, but not a lot. I don't think he's antisemitic--just a bit clueless IMHO. But he's right on the edge of stepping over a line that I don't think will be good. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The comment appears to me to be factually wrong but not anti-semitic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- As one of apparently many talk-page stalking Jews, I think the tar-baby line and some of the other references are just a reaction by him to Slr's remark about anti-semitism. His comments overall don't strike me as anti-semitic, although it does seem like he's trying to promote a certain point of view of Jesus (that I'm too uneducated to really grasp from his sideways approach). Good person to grab on the general topic might be Nishidani - he's got a deep grasp of this sort of topic (if you're prepared to read a lot about it!) and is about as neutral as anyone. Avruch T 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I only looked at the linguistic portion: I sincerely hope this guy does not try to pass himself off as a linguist as he is essentially clueless. Of course, he's right that Hebrew and Aramaic are related, duh, they're both Semitic tongues (along with Arabic, Amharic, Maltese, Akkadian, and so forth). But so what. He's way off on the Ebonics and vernacular crap. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- To Jim, yeah that's what I was thinking. He was a fake linguistic expert. But his comments like "Jews=Hebrew" is odd. And Avruch, "tar baby" has no context except as a racist name for blacks. I think he was looking for another metaphor (I can't quite remember what it is, but it's imagery that one uses when one is falsely accused), but he used a fairly disgusting one. Anyways, his comments still make no sense to me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it struck me as exaggerated confirmation (as if suspecting him of anti-Semitism was ridiculous, and he was saying 'Oh you're right, I'm a Stalinist and former member of the Hitler Youth, address me as Imperial Wizard'). Avruch T 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, I do not mean to harp on this, but I am turning to you because there is obviously no point in my engaging Stevertigo and if I contribute to the talk section on the Jesus page, I will only be accused of making trouble. But I am troubled ...
Recently, Stevertigo wrote,
- Why? Because dealing with Yeshua means dealing with Yeshu, and that means dealing with the extremely pejorative interpretation of that name,
No, Yeshua does not force us to deal with Yeshu. Moreover, there is nothing pejorative about the name Yeshu. There are stories in the Talmud about a character named Yeshu. Scholars are divided as to whether this refers to Jesus - that is the controversy, does Yeshu refer to Jesus? There is a controversy in part because no one knows what Jesus' name actually was in Hebrew or Aramaic. Moreover, if the character is not Jesus, then the stories cannot possible be pejorative against Jesus. There are some modern Talmud scholars who claim they are about Jesus, but they interpret the stories not as being pejorative but rather ambivalent and expressing Rabbis ambivalence towards Jesus and Christianity. Point: Stevertigo's claims are either wrong or distortions, and simply reveal that he does not understand what he is talking about.
- not to mention the Toledoth Yeshu, which may have had some small part in inspiring a couple hundred years of academic Christian anti-Semitism.
The Toledoth Yeshu, a set of medieval texts, are anti-Christian. But if you know anything about medieval history, you would know that these rabbis were reacting against Christian anti-Judaism. To blame these texts for anti-Semitism is perverse. First, it is bad scholarship because it proposes an effect to be a cause (the stories came after anti-semitism, not before). Second, they blame the victim.
There is no point in my saying any of this on the talk page, it would only inflame Stevertigo more.
But I really am concerned about what I perceive to be his unnecessary "blaming the victim" when it comes to the Toledoth Yeshu texts (texts which need not even be mentioned in this discussion since they are NOT historical texts, have no value in historical research on Jesus, and do not need to be brought into a discussion about "Jesus's original name." I did not bring them up. Andrew Card Did not bring them up. Stevertigo did. Why? They are not relevant to the issue under discussion. I can only conclude he brings them up in order to blame the victim. But why? I am genuinely puzzled. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI...
User_talk:Casliber#Deinosuchus Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
RfC on arb enforcement
Look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement; it doesn't even touch on the problem area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Your RfA oppose
In regards to your recent RfA Oppose of Geni.... haha, just kidding. How are you doing? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hungry. I can't find a decent pizza here in California. Meh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have found that people here (California) passionately defend pizza which is merely mediocre, most likely for not having experienced the real thing. Maybe such innocence is a good thing: one is always dissatisfied with the mediocre when one knows there is better to be had. For example, I remember, with a pang, the days when, as an student, I thought a bottle of five-dollar cabernet was a fine and savory thing to be treasured on the palate. Never lose your ability to enjoy cheap wine. But I digress. Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- We Californians aren't happy if we're not watching our diet, eating organic field greens with organic olive oil mixed with organic balsamic vinegar and poached wild salmon. So, our idea of pizza is a non-fat, whole wheat crust, topped with feta cheese, and more field greens. No salt. No fat. I want a pizza where the grease drips onto my plate.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you like goofy stuff on pizza, isn't there California Pizza Kitchen? Or are they only in non-California areas? If you ever come out to the East Coast, I can show you quite a few great places. However, that's a far distance to go for a decent pie. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arrgggggh. CPK is out here, but I don't like goofy stuff on my pizza. Grease. Lots of cheese. A really good sauce. Maybe some pepperoni, but I can live without!!!!! Now I'm hungry. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- There must be some New Yorkers in southern California who can produce decent pizza. The only problem is that you'll probably have to listen to them blather about how great New York is. MastCell Talk 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where in California do you live? I know of a smattering of passable New York-styled pizza joints around the state. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure I could find a few Pizza joints. It's just that they're not on every corner like in NYC. And given that 10 miles away might take me 45 minutes to drive, I'll just whine. And to MC, I live in California, the center of the cultural, intellectual, and drug-addled universe...I don't listen to anyone blathering except fellow Californians. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where in California do you live? I know of a smattering of passable New York-styled pizza joints around the state. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- There must be some New Yorkers in southern California who can produce decent pizza. The only problem is that you'll probably have to listen to them blather about how great New York is. MastCell Talk 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arrgggggh. CPK is out here, but I don't like goofy stuff on my pizza. Grease. Lots of cheese. A really good sauce. Maybe some pepperoni, but I can live without!!!!! Now I'm hungry. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have found that people here (California) passionately defend pizza which is merely mediocre, most likely for not having experienced the real thing. Maybe such innocence is a good thing: one is always dissatisfied with the mediocre when one knows there is better to be had. For example, I remember, with a pang, the days when, as an student, I thought a bottle of five-dollar cabernet was a fine and savory thing to be treasured on the palate. Never lose your ability to enjoy cheap wine. But I digress. Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You might know...
... What is it that Jon Stewart has against Orange People? Just asking...LeadSongDog (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're going to make me google this to figure it out? I need more coffee.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I figured you would have watched it, but perhaps the inaugural ball gowns were more to your interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, my interest in inaugural balls is kind of small. Hell, non-existent. And I'm not a big fan of Jon Stewart. Sooooo, that means I missed the whole cultural experience. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I figured you would have watched it, but perhaps the inaugural ball gowns were more to your interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Evolutionism
Snalwibma said Humani Generis discussed evolution, not evolutionism. Fair enough. But it seems fair to say that Pascendi did talk about evolutionism, albeit in a very critical way. A good read BTW. ADM (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you source this accurately? I think it helps the article considerably, but not being a religious scholar, I wouldn't know where to get that information. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism
If you would care to look at the conversation that I had with JP, I have brought ti from his talkpage to the article talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I did. I watch his page along with yours (of course). I'll discuss there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)