User talk:Orangemarlin

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

Archives /Rules archives 1|/Amusing Vandalism|/Medical 1|/Miscellaneous 1|/Miscellaneous 2|/Miscellaneous 3|/Religion 1|/Religion 2|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 1|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 2|/Archives 1|/Archives 2|/Archives 3|/Archives 4|/Archives 5|/Archives 6|/Archives 7|/Archives 8|/Archives 9|/Test page|/New user page Important Items to Watch Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 115 11 1 91 Open 22:18, 21 September 2024 3 days, 22 hours no report FACs needing feedback view • Weise's law Review it now Battle of Saipan Review it now The Motherland Calls Review it now Featured article removal candidates Anarky Review now Isaac Brock Review now 0.999... Review now Mariah Carey Review now Pokémon Channel Review now Concerto delle donne Review now The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now Geography of Ireland Review now Articles on Quackademic Medicine Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something. List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites barley 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell Talk 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites barley 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelantalk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I tried on this, & only very partially succeeded. DGG (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Magnet therapy and Alex Chiu. You've got to be kidding. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Medical Articles Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA: Alzheimer's Disease Rotavirus

Task Forces

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

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

Natural Standard Acupuncture Flashcard

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

http://www.naturalstandard.com

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

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

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

MEDMOS

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

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

Talk:Lung cancer

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

Alzheimer's disease

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

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

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Orangemarlin,

Would you be interested in helping me with The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. History: the article started off as an advert. After a short edit war between a supporter and fellow WP:MED editor (since retired) I had a go at rewriting it as NPOV as I could stomach. That was 2 years ago. Since then, I've watched it. Every now again, some fan or member of staff comes along and deletes the criticism. Over the last two months, two editors have come along and added a whole lot of positive stuff while slowly chipping away at the negative. I just haven't had the time to look into it but tonight decided that I simply must. See my comments at Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. I have no connection with the IAHP at all and hadn't even heard about it before WP. I think the article needs revised. Shorter. Appropriate weight. Avoid separate support/criticism sections. If you are interested in collaboration, perhaps a sandbox is the place to work on such a revision? I don't think it is a huge task, but will probably involve a battle. Are you up for it? You can respond here. Colin°^Talk 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If this causes me to start drinking, the guilt will be on your head. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you asked me to watch this article, and I've been sadly delinquent, mostly just watching an SPA slant the article more and more. I was waiting to see the final result before diving in too much, but I agree that there are some problems afoot there that need to be addressed and will try to provide additional input. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. WP:WEIGHT is a serious problem. The "support" section is huge, and frankly, support from George Bush (you've got to be kidding, like that's someone I trust) and Gorbachev means nothing. You're right, this article is a huge advertisement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, don't feel bad. I too have been taking a wait and see attitude. And the deletion of criticism is much more subtle and harder to simply revert. Can either of you two guys get access to any of the papers listed by QuackWatch or the AAP statement from 1999 (reaffirmed in 2006). Colin°^Talk 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, what criticism could be stronger than using those testimonials in the lead? I did some copyed, and will do some more. DGG (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I'm struggling to find time to do my "share". Don't waste time copyediting stuff that isn't reliably sourced. Sadly, the George Bush letter falls into that category. We need to separate the medical discussion of the therapies (sourced to peer reviewed literature) from the (misguided IMO) celebrity endorsement of people, books and institutions that "do good work". Colin°^Talk 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] This statement, and his subsequent defense of that statement, such as [3] and [4]. There is not politeness in these, they are flat out attacks on another user. SirFozzie (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

They are flat-out calling DMHO that. That's an attack. (edit) He even admits to asking other editors for support in calling DMHO that.. it. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. [5] SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

A different issue from the DHMO RfA

Orangemarlin, I would like you to consider one aspect of this particular post of yours - you have abbreviated SynergeticMaggot's username to "maggot". I will take a moment to refresh your memory on your !vote during my recent RfA[6], where you concurred with the opinions of QuackGuru and Guettarda; they had opined that I was (at least) insensitive by abbreviating QuackGuru's username to "Quack". I suggest to you that abbreviating SynergeticMaggot's username to "maggot" is also (at minimum) insensitive. I urge you to revisit your comment and insert SynergeticMaggot's full username into your comment in place of the insensitive abbreviation. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... according to AIDS denialists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my edit on kevin trudeau

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

Heads up

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

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

Hey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Section 2(a) Refusal

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

/s/ by Barbara Rutland, USPTO Examining Attorney

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

ACLU agrees "White Pride" is "offensive":

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

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

• The well known neonazi Group Storm Front has a website with the title "Stormfront White Pride World Wide" [7] and lists the related links as White Nationalist/ White Pride links

• Google reports that related searches for "white pride" are kkk, aryan nation, naawp, and skinheads [8]

• The Yahoo! White Pride and Racialism list [9] includes links to Stormfront and the Klu Klux Klan and David Duke and the National Socialist Movement (Nazi) [10] the Afrikaner Resistance Movement of South Africa [11] and similar websites

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

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

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

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

DHMO RFA

Talk about surreal endings [12] (his comment was in reference to [13]). This is kinda like watching a TV show when the writer obviously didn't know how to end it so they throw in a deus ex machina and roll the credits. --B (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your note

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

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

Page move

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry on Philip E. Johnson

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

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

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

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

5 word test in Alzheimer

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

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

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

Creationism template

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease

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

Cool tool

I asked Franamax to make a tool here, and this is what s/he came up with. Cool eh? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vampires???? LOL. You are the weirdest MD I've ever met in my life. Of course, I just edited BMW R 1200 RT, so who knows what lies behind the mask. By the way, I just watched From Dusk Till Dawn again. Still think it's one of the funnier and innovative Vampire movies out there. I know, it's not real vampire lore for an expert such as yourself. Now, I need to figure out this tool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You fungalist you...

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

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

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

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

Goat trauma???

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

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

Nice article

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

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

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

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

Intelligent design RfC

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

AIDS troll

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

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

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

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

mind reading

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

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

Lara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reply

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

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

Alzheimer

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

Quick heads up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judaism an unnecessary religion?

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

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

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

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

Just noticed this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avruch

I'm currently supporting him. Could you point to some of the difs that are disturbing you about him? Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs) and Phillip E. Johnson

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

:He's a sock.  Case closed.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)