User talk:Orpheus

sock puppet

whats a sock puppet? user Precious Roy keeps putting sock puppet on my page! how do I stop this? so annoying?

AYBABTU

I noticed you single handedly "Citation needed" and removed almost all of that article. Good Job! Not only was that "translation" horrible (For Googles sake it was an [b]interpretation[/b], not a translation), but various other parts of the original article were also completely unessicary... or nonsequitor. So good job on making work on a horribly awful system entitled wikipedia. _{This comment was unsigned by user and user intended it be to be that way, please respect user's wishes and leave comment unsigned} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.179.195 (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

==coven(short film) hi there, I noticed you contributed to the vote on this film, I am concerned with some of the comments that seem to be an attack on Wicca, can I do anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccawikka (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hayes

His sexuality has been under debate on the talk page, and people have added things to the article. Do you understand? Michael 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When that was added, the debate was more recent. It is still controversial, though. You can delete it if you want, but it's still relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike 7 (talk • contribs) .

It's not irrelevant if it's been disputed, but I have no problems with you deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike 7 (talk • contribs) .

Terminology

Yeah, I'm a little bit of a rugby fan... even though I'm a native of the States, been there all my life, and go back at least six or seven generations. Still, I should have realized what the "log" meant in NZ! <g> — Dale Arnett 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hovercraft

Sure anytime. I just saw it coming up in the #wikipedia-spam irc channel, a new anti-spam project, and it was pretty obvious anyway. Feel free to join us on there if you want! -- Anaraug 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pandeism

Thanks for checking. It was not a mistake. He asked a question on another page and I answered it on his own page. HeBhagawan 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean

Hey thanks for the reversion - the problem is the user page for that IP looks as though it needed an admin to give it a boot or two - had put it on the Admin/Vandal list - anyways - noticed youre in WA - hey we have a big project just starting -have you noticed? SatuSuro 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I was just CSD trawling Jimfbleak.talk.09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu

Um, you just revert to the IP vandal's version, rather than away from it. Was that intentional? A Ramachandran 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that just after I left this msg. A Ramachandran 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The anon previously known as Maleabroad

I see you reported Sati (practice). I reported Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu. I asked for a block of the whole class C network to anons. That will force him to log in to edit... A Ramachandran 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I too filed an incident report at ANI. Hopefully we'll see a user block soon. Abecedare 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked a bunch of the IPs, which are probably open proxies. I fear he'll be able to come back with more, in which case we will definately semi-protect. --Robdurbar 09:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Either tell me or go to the request for protection page and make a request for semi-protection. --Robdurbar 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Maleabroad

Ah, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I reverted his edits, and I see that somebody else has already blocked the newest sockpuppet. I've added (I think) all the last pages he edited, before the first block, and should be checking in on them every day or two. But feel free to let me know if you need any help in dealing with this. Luna Santin 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No 5 above

Hey noticed you reverting the embedded vndlsm at Pacific Ocean again - I've been struggling with the new templates - the vndl definitely needs another warning but am not sure which one! SatuSuro 08:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Both bits of info are useful - thanks for that I think I get curious about the oncers, and a bit concerned about the four in the rows - good idea to reduce it to not worrying about any of them at that level at all, thanks agin SatuSuro 12:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalit

Hello. I was wondering if you would offer an explanation as to your most recent revert on Dalit. The version to which you reverted was extremely vandalistic since the guy who did it blanked out a lot of sources and inserted a paragraph of fundamentalist POV with a "source link" that had zero bearing on the text added. Thus, the edit was vandalistic and I reverted it. I hope that, upon deeper inspection, you will concur with my assessment. If you disagree on any particular reason then please do initiate discussion in the talk page instead of unilaterally reverting. Thank you and good day. India Rising 03:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see a userbox in your page that you are an LGBT. I am interested in LGBT studies and would appreciate it if you could put the relevant links - template in my talk page so that I may learn more about the Gay rights movement and related topics. Thanks. India Rising 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There was a "discussion" in the talk page with the user in question. However, I analyzed his contributions log and his unproductive comments and he seems to be a "tendentious" editor with a Christian Missionary POV trying to spread bias against Hindus. At least, that is my impression based on his edits as well as his talk page posts which betray his bias. I did not reach this decision lightly as I was very careful in weighing all his statements and how close his edits came to wikipedia policy, as well as the reality of the situation as depicted by non-partisan and reliable sources to which all have access which were in complete opposition to his fantastic claims. Based on all this, I concluded that WP:AGF is not reasonably applicable here and thus arguing with a consistently dogmatic user is pointless. Nevertheless, if he decides to initiate a civilized discussion in future I will do my level best to reason with him based on WP:AGF applied without consideration to his edit history. India Rising 06:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to All your base are belong to us

I more or less agree that the livejournal bit was difficult for some people to understand, and was often the source for reverts/changes for people that didn't understand the reference. However, you should have added it to the main list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattarata (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversionist

I filed a checkuser and ANI report, but I see you are already on top of things as far as reverting him goes ! :-) Abecedare 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism adn Hinduism article

Why did you feel the need to revert my changes to the page Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and Ajivika? Please respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benevolent56 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Dravidians in Hong Kong

You're welcome, Orpheus. --Fantastic4boy 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

TypeEditor1's edits

If you dont have any proof that I am the previous user Maleaborad, do not accuse me of being a sock-puppet. Certainly do not revert my edits without an agreement on the discussion.

TypeEditor1

Re: Checkuser

Of course. :) Just a few polishes here and there -- saves you having to worry about a few pages of guidelines and template intricacies. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maleaboad (again)

In case you haven't given up reverting User:Maleabroad's socks yet, you may want to read this thread. Cheers. Abecedare 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about those templates. Hindu (Culture) has been deleted, although I am pretty certain the content will be back on wikipedia soon in one guise or another. :) Abecedare 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that we have another sock of Maleabroad active, e.g. this diff. Could you please take a look and see if you agree this could be another incarnation? The name Randomatom001 is suspicious because it fits the naming pattern used by Maleabroad for some other socks, ending with numbers. The edit behavior is similar in that when he is reverted, he reverts back with a personal threat of some sort. He has shifted the pages he is focused on, however, adding some new ones. Can you add Ganesha beyond India and Hinduism to your watch list, as he seems to now be targeting that page as well. Rather than get into a reversion war I have put some information on the talk page explaining the problem with the picture he has uploaded and pattern of edits that are similar to previous socks of Maleabroad. Buddhipriya 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya and I have created a new page for the " Maleabroad Sock Fan Club" to report sightings of the latest avatar - hopefully it will make it easier for us to accumulate evidence, revert his vandalism, and get the accounts blocked sooner; without having to 'spam' each others pages. Hope you'll watchlist the page. By the way, the newest active socks are User:Hindu in Canada and User:FlamesBlaze. Cheers. Abecedare 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Brutus

Nice catch on that <ref> link, I didn't realize that the previous edit had destroyed a valid reference. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Scythia

The decision was actually site wide, not on any one article. Because of incessant edit wars that were raging constantly all across wikipedia in mid 2005, back and forth between the supporters of "BCE" and those who favor the more widely known BC, it was finally agreed to have a cease-fire, that both formats are equally acceptable, and for each article to go with whatever was used there first, but that changing an article from one to the other is not acceptable. This is the identical policy that was worked out with regard to differences between British and American spelling. Scythia is originally a 'BC article', so it should stay a 'BC article'. By the way, this controversy has generated more megabytes worth of archive pages than you could read in a week, since almost everybody has an opinion on it. Every argument anyone could dream up for either usage has already been advanced with the most eloquent passion, about 80 times each. And every poll ever conducted has always consistently shown a slight edge (55-60%) in favor of using the more familiar AD / BC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

What to do regarding the aggressive WP:SPA there? I rarely edit the political articles and as a member of the Harmonious Editing Club I try to avoid reversions, which puts me at a disadvantage when dealing with these agressive possible socks. Buddhipriya 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard IV's fruit knife

Re your comment at Talk:Historical anomalies in Blackadder. Are you saying fruit knives did not exist in 1487? The idea of one man defeating an entire army armed with a fruit knife is a deliberate absurdity included for comic effect. Jess Cully 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The historical anomaly is England capturing Constantinople from the Turks, not the manner of said capture. :) Jess Cully 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us

There seriosuly has got to be a better way than the current way. {{nihongo}}, for instance, is a solution, but due to the multiple line breaks it doesn't work for this text. I consider it to be an WP:ASR because Wikipedia should be written like it might be printed, and in a print version there's going to be no problem at all with Japanese character sets. hbdragon88 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

AFA edit conflicts

No worries on the conflict - it was just acting very strangely. As to an RFC, I'd hold off for just a bit longer. As he pointed out, he has improved his tone since he first appeared. Based on his last couple of comments, I'm curious to see how he responds as the current category proposals which have moved substantially towards consensus. If he ends trying to block categories everyone else can agree to, I'd feel the need to invoke WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the RFC becomes more appropriate. That's also part of why I suggest considering each category separately. AUTiger » talk 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to link to CMM's talk? I was expecting a reaction like that after he added the category (which I wish he hadn't done until we finished things at talk, honestly). As for the discussion at AFA Talk, we need to try to bring it to a consensus decision - call the question, as it were. AUTiger » talk

MacBook

The latching is completely different. The Pro model has traditional latching, whilst the MacBook does not have "latches" at all, but uses magnets to close. This is why it's termed magnetic latching. While the latch of the Pro may have some magnets in its implementation, it's wholly different. Further, it's advertised by Apple as "magnetic latching" on all their literature and website (see the bottom left section termed Magnetic attraction http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook/design.html). The latching is not something mentioned on the Pro's design site since it's not wholly different than what's found in most laptops. (http://www.apple.com/uk/macbookpro/design.html). Thus, in the article it comes done to how Apple has decided to term the latching found on the MacBook. It's not something that was made up by me or other Wikipedia users. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AFA edit conflict resuming

Hi Orpheus. Just wanted to inform you that consensus is breaking down. Several users uninvolved with the cat dispute and resulting compromise, along with Christopher Mann McKay, have begun re-adding Category:Homophobia. I was wondering what you're stance on this new dispute is. Citadel18080 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want the compromise, then recommendations are fine by me

Hello Orpheus. In ref to [1], it seems to me that you are not interested in the rather generous "compromise" that was discussed by Citadel, myself and others. Thats fine by me as there are some very reasonable recommendations in the categorization article that we can work with. Hal Cross 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

AFA Compromise

I would be very interested in discussing a compromise with you. I've set up a subpage on my talk page for that purpose. Citadel18080 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AYB

Ayb became famous due to its misconception that base meaning a human's base. It was like saying your all your arse are belonged to me. Currently i dont have any ref to support, but to avoid this confusion, that silly sentence is necessary :) Lara_bran 09:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But primary meaning of base is that. Adults enjoy only adult humour. We leave it here.. i will come back only if i get a good ref. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I liked and following AYB only coz of that meaning. all the base includes everything else in base reagion of a human. even my friends love only upper part, they donno importance of base. Lara_bran 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Orpheus you made a rather cutting statement on the AFA talkpage (last sentence) [2]. Editors do not have to hold the same views of those they are editing. If someone states that the homosexual agenda is promoting pedophilia, then that is their view and it can be stated as such. There is a rather key AFA issue about the homosexual "community" promoting the notion of adult male sex with "boys", but I have not written that. If you are interested in exploring that issue on the article, there are plenty of AFA related views that state exactly that. I wasn't going to go there, but I can see that perhaps a lot more needs clarifying on the article itself in exactly those terms. Clearly the discussion would go a lot better if you did not make it so personal. Hal Cross 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus, in further response to your comments [3]. The AFA is clearly a sore subject with homosexuals as they are so outspoken about the homosexual agenda. I know this causes problems with such articles, but I think you are going to have to concede that NPOV is key here. All relevant views will have to be presented, regardless how much resistance you put up. The same is true with the controversial categories you and CMMK have insisted upon forcing on the article for so long. They do not satisfy NPOV and will just have to be removed. Editors have not been trying to remove any criticism from the AFA article. There is no such agenda there at all. You and CMMK repeatedly removing the stated and sourced views of the AFA really will look quite unreasonable to outside parties. And getting personal really doesn't help at all. If the views of the AFA being presented on the article have caused you to be so personal about it already, I really do think you need to reconsider your own actions as there will be a whole lot more such views appearing on the article before long. Writing an encyclopedia is not easy for some people as there are points that some people find objectionable. But thats part of the discipline. You just have to accept the reporting of facts about phenomena, knowledge, and views whether you like them or not. Hal Cross 02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of a large section of AFA views especially concerning homosexual agenda and pedophilia

Hello Orpheus. You removed a large section here [4]. which of course means that you have suppressed those sourced views once again. To my knowledge all objections, no matter how petty, have been answered. If you would like to explain exactly which parts you consider OR, or which have been unanswered, then reply here or on the AFA talkpage. Hal Cross 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AFA

Thank you. WAVY 10 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you removed a bit more than you intended

Here. What does the top part of what was removed have to do with your stated summary? Jinxmchue 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I see. Jinxmchue 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Research on the link between homosexuality and child molestation referred to by the AFA

Hello Orpheus. You removed this paragraph from the article [5]:

The AFA present research by Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute on the link between homosexuality and pedophilia [6], and research by (Freund and Watson, 1992), that homosexual males were “three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations. Ed Vitagliano of the AFA states that "it would be unfair to imply that all – or even most – homosexuals are a threat to children. Nevertheless, there are some elements of the homosexual movement which openly endorse pedophilia."(Vitagliano 1999).

I have no idea whether the study is discredited or not. Its research that the AFA have presented and it is their view that it is valid. Removing it suppresses the views of the AFA, but I've told you that multiple times before. If you didn't get it the first few times, remember that the AFA does not hate homosexuals, and only works to discourage homosexual behavior according to source. This is majority view according to a lot of Western religions. I.e.

• Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, generally forbid homosexual behavior, state that it is sinful, and apply laws and regulations to prevent and deter homosexual behavior from occurring.
• There is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the Bible denounces same-sex relations between men as "sinful and, in the eyes of God, an abomination".
• And there is even debate on whether homosexual behavior is considered to be a type of bestiality according to AFA relevant sources.

Actually I am not sure whether to place this information in the homosexual agenda section, with the supporting research, or to place it with the beliefs of the AFA. Perhaps it relates to both in slightly different ways. I know you have been removing the sourced views of the AFA for a long time, and I'm sorry, but all reliably sourced views will just get restored. But anyway, what are your suggestions for making these majority views as clearly presented as possible in the article? Hal Cross 07:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)