User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/6/0
Rio Grande 223		19 June 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Bernard Quatermass	Review now
The Slave Community	Review now
Exosome complex	Review now
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	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)[reply]
Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This one has been stable in reasonable shape for awhile now. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on this one. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- This is pretty much fixed, at least until the next SPA... MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelan^talk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried on this, & only very partially succeeded. DGG (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet therapy and Alex Chiu. You've got to be kidding. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prostate cancer#Ejaculation frequency I'm sorry, but this just cracked me up. I need to read the references, but my side hurts. Juvenile, I am. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question seems okay to me, as it more or less just states the recent research and puts it in context. There might be something to it, might not. However, that study has bolstered support for these people, which is, erm, unfortunate... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colon cleansing– After hearing radio commercials dozens of times for supplements, I had to do something. - Roy Boy 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Thought. Some New Age medicine/religion attempting to hide it's snake-oil medicine by using religion. Intelligent design used the same method, and it didn't work there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Request for Arbitration

If you are here to read about all of the Wiki-drama surrounding the secret hearings (so secret that no one on the ArbCom knew about them apparently), you can read it here. No editing allowed. One day this will be funny. I hope.

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)[reply]
6 clicks. I'll tell you if you buy me a barusaki. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell is a barusaki. Didn't even show up on a google search.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- No good donuts in SB. But I'm trying to figure out 4 clicks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI it's a legitimate solution (no side bar, no "what links here") Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's sneaky. Not accepted as a real answer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One click: Random article. YMMV.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate all of you. Just on principle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You don't have admin powers any more. Neener neener. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You mean besides Jim Boeheim? MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, beside Boeheim, who is just this side of Einstein on my respect scale. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A gift that keeps on giving. Thanks you friggin' commie, pinko, tree-hugger. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, Boris (nee' Ray Ray) IS a tree hugger. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm thinking about converting to Druidism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination)

I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editor's behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and not very familiar with the AfD process. Someone else will need to help you out here. And I agree with your assessment. Sometimes smoking the AGF weed just doesn't work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a new one has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (3rd nomination). --B (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, wow I just voted "delete" ...(the saddest say was when manatees in popular culture got deleted :() Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

Thank you for your input. Best wishes this new year travb (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be speedily deleted, but I guess not. I can't even believe some of the comments being made. Big noses??????? Where does this crap come from. I'm going to get drunk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this response to you. Well I also posted the same as you that I found this offensive, I wonder why you were the one he decided to chide because you said you were offended. I think that article is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. This is the second time to try to delete, amazing! Enjoy your drink(s), I'm off to bed.--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete it G4, but at this point, I can predict the future and tell you exactly what would happen if I did. It would be taken it to WP:DRV, there would be whining about the injustice of evil deletionist admins, the AFD would be reopened, and the only thing it would accomplish is set back the ultimate deletion of the article by 2 weeks. I have removed the racist stereotype list from the talk page and suggested that if Deeceevoice readds it again, blocking is in order, but unfortunately at this point, speedying the article would only result in more drama and a lengthier overall process. That is, I freely admit, a horrible failing of our procedures that garbage is allowed to exist in a published encyclopedia while we collectively decide what to do with it. --B (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how the community would take an article about Stereotypes of Christians, but I'm sure us big-noses while feasting with Pontius Pilate can come up with one. Wait a minute, did I just quote Life of Brian? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan eruption

What is with these edit summaries?[2] People often simply use BC without any intention of it being a "Christian" edit. Is there some proof this is Christian POV pushing in this article? I can't find it in the edit summaries. I don't see any notes by you on the talk page, and I think that BCE is the designation of choice (note, it's actually the 1618 that is Christian POV) for Wikipedia articles. If that's the case, and there is no indication that this article is being used to force the conversion of Wikipedia editors to Christianity, or merely to push a point of view based in Christianity--to be less hyperbolic--teaching other editors to use BCE rather than BE would be a useful contribution to Wikipedia. "Changed BC to BCE, a preferred, and considered more neutral dating choice on Wikipedia." As an example. In fact your edit summaries appear to be far more anti-Christain POV than the use of BC appear to be Christian POV. If I missed something nefarious earlier in the article, please bring the issue up on the article's talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can ask that a bot be created to change these. If BCE is preferred, as it is in most modern writings, this can be accomplished without multiple edits per article and throughout Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over the user's contributions. It's pure Christian POV. Nevertheless, the article was written with BCE (since I wrote it, I'd know, cause I don't ascribe to the BC/AD convention, since it's not relevant to my life). I am all right using BC/AD when it has a history in an article. But when an article is almost all about a volcanic eruption that affected the Greek and Egyptian worlds, using BC is kind of ridiculous. The editor has been reverted in a number of articles. No AGF makes sense here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't trust bots. I saw too many Terminator movies. :D. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I kind of resent your lack of AGF in stating that I'm anti-Christian. I'm anti-POV whatever it is. BCE is neutral. BC is not for an essentially scientific article. I would never argue for the use of CE in place of AD in an article about the new testament. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment says, "your edit summaries appear to be far more anti-Christian POV than the use of BC," and I made sure it said just that, rather than stating you are anti-Christian. They really do come across as very hostile.

A link to one of the changes to BC from BCE would have done just fine in response, or comments on the article talk page. And, again, your edit summaries don't help as much as pointing out this is the convention on Wikipedia. Other editors will learn from that, so would casual checkers of the history.

I don't trust bots either. --KP Botany (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a hostile editor. I'm fairly comfortable with that. He was reverted once. Second time, I'm not very nice. Anyways, I get your point, and we need to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've been known to be a hostile first chance editor. I'm trying to cool it, though. I think we did move on. I hope you saw my edit summary--it was an indicator that a good story is always better than a Wiki spat. --KP Botany (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got multiple chat rooms on here this afternoon. LOL. Missed the edit summary.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until your talk page gets taken to WP:MFD for WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:NOT#CHAT. --B (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention that a high ranking admin participated. That should protect me. Oh. Wait. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't trust bots but you trust admins? Uh.... --KP Botany (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use admin and trust in the same sentence? Ummmmm..... OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on something

This view of yours, specifically. Do you believe Wikipedia should exclude covering topics based on whether certain individuals or groups are offended by the topic the article covers? A one-word "yes" or "no" answer should do. Thanks. Warren -talk- 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren, I'm not OrangeMarlin, but that's a loaded question. The issue here is not whether or not somebody is offended. Lots of Wikipedia content is offensive to someone. For example, it has been widely reported that many Muslims do not like our articles about Muhammad including pictures of him. That's not a reason that we accept for deleting something. What is a reason is when an article serves no purpose whatsoever other than promoting bigotry. Any actual stereotypes that are worth mentioning can be fully covered in Antisemitism or another appropriate article. Rather than reporting bigotry, this article is bigotry. The issue isn't that it offends someone - the issue is that it is morally repugnant and ought to offend everyone. --B (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B. And there is no way yes or no will suffice. I am offended by lots on Wikipedia, especially the New York Yankees article. An open and well-written article, no matter what it discusses, should be included here. These stereotypes are ridiculous, childish, unsourced, not notable, and insulting. Discussed academically in the anti-semitism article, as B suggested, is fine. I accept that. In a list of outdated and silly characterizations is just plain insulting and frankly racist. And to be honest, it's incomplete. So my answer is Yes, if done right. It's NO, in its current formulation. Sorry to give you an nuanced answer, but that's what you're getting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon doing digging, I figured out that the only reason Deeceevoice created this article and the stereotypes of white people article was to make a WP:POINT. See [3]. It annoys ... well ... infuriates me ... how much time has been wasted dealing with this utter nonsense. His/her objection is to Stereotypes of African Americans. Rather than nominating it for deletion, he/she set out to create poorly sourced articles about prejudices against everyone else. What fun! --B (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? Uh, you're not? This is more than infuriating. DCvoice should be blocked. Honestly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See all these. Obviously the whole bunch should either be AFD together, or else all should be brought to a common accepted standard, which implies a shitload of contentious work that nobody's going to enjoy doing. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What everyone is saying is that deeceevoice, in a fit of pointiness, gets pissed off that there's a Stereotype of African Americans article, then decides to make a whole bunch of similar articles. And this isn't a blockable offense? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example of WP:POINT (see especially the second entry under Examples). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also what Drenched started (and is evidently proud of).LeadSongDog (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block/ban of these editors should be started, seriously. We should not put up with bigotry or hatred like this. I am totally amazed that this isn't done with already. Ceedee is under an arb retriction if I understood correctly. S/he went into a major rant a while back on ANI. But no one is doing anything. Three deletions for this garbage, what a sick joke. There are enough people saying it's garbage and to delete the whole lot of these. So someone do it already. I find this to be totally unacceptable to make a WP:POINT and obviously I'm not alone on this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something much more fun to read...

OK, I really need some shut-eye and this nice editor has written a nice article you may like to offer some opinion on, or even judge for GA. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No threats

Please readact your threat here: [4] you have no power to block or get someone blocked and threatening to do so for no reason is an attack. Viridae ^Talk 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"help you get blocked" is the actual quote. And last time I looked participating in any admin-related action on Wikipedia is largely "helping people to get blocked". Or maybe AN/I isn't the battleground that it is :-) Shot info (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous. After 3 days off from Wikipedia, you come back to take offense to the most minor of minor things? --B (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Apparently Cla68's lies are acceptable. Yawn again. I think my testosterone is on the highest setting cause the Utes slaughtered Bama. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That game is on hulu.com if you are interested in rewatching any of it. --B (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something like that lies when there is ample room for a mistake to be made is an assumption of bad faith and is also not helpful to the ongoing discussion. Threatening to have someone you are in a dispute with blocked is ridiculous attack and appears to be an attempt to chill critiscism. B my being away for several days has nothing at all to do with the validity of the warning. Viridae ^Talk 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Cla68, despite tons of evidence to the contrary, can continue to state that I'm on some sort of sanction. Interesting. So, he's just badly mistaken, and is still in denial. OK, I'll give him good faith. And I appreciate your fair and honest review of the discussion, in a matter reminiscent of FT2's analysis. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, as a part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Further_review_and_sanctions, you were instructed to avoid "Unnecessary involvement in disputes or administrator actions as to which a party may be unable to remain civil and professional or to avoid excessive emotional involvement". That would obviously include any administrative action regarding Orangemarlin. --B (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that's where I remember Viridae from. Ah, should have known. BTW, I wish I could get a video of all 8 sacks of the Bama QB. Now that would make me happy. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they will be up on youtube soon enough. --B (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm coming to you when I need some hope in a football game. You called that last 20 minutes or so!!!! BTW, did you hear the Utah fans yelling "Urban Meyer" to Crimson Tide when they were warming up? It was during the pregame, and the Salt Lake TV stations had it. Now that was funny. And I still bet Meyer sent some tape, plays or something to Utah before the game. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't heard about that one. As for Meyer sending tape, there was someone that got in trouble for doing that a year or two ago. I must be getting old because I can't think of who it was - I want to say maybe one of the Mississippi schools. A coach called someone he knew in the other school's video department and the other school had just played this team he was going against. He got them to send him game tape which violated a conference rule that you could only exchange a certain number (3?) of tapes. But I'm sure that they got informal advice or something like that. --B (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah these days you get into trouble for anything. Why shouldn't Meyer help out his old team? And if it blows up a rival school, so much the better. :D I know you dance a bit of a jig every time UVA loses. Tell me the truth. Come you do, don't you? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNI

Please be sure to let WP:UNI know in the future when submitting article for FAC! I've already made the updates, but we're here for a reason. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't even know you guys existed. Teaches me a lesson for not reading carefully. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utah

I was in Utah; I've just returned to Chicago. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Utah not the state of Utah. My bad. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

Trademark ⊂ intellectual property. Copyright ⊂ intellectual property. Trademark ≠ copyright :) (I'm sure this is a highly inappropriate and inaccurate use of mathematical symbols, and someone will certainly complain)Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go. I learned something new. I've been "volunteered" (cough, spit, cough again) to clean up the commons images for an article that I'm shepherding through the FAC process. Of course, this isn't easy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would rather resign my admin bit and go through another RfA than try to get an article featured. On another note, I love the shortcut for Wikipedia:Restricted materials. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather listen to Mao's collected speeches than do either. But, courage! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, being a Mac-head, this is what sosumi really is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it is to me too, having been a Mac-head since ... since ... the things first appeared. Sadly, I'm currently typing this on a Vista laptop (the Blue Screen of Death Special). My copy of Mao's Little Red Book is less painful to read than the collected speeches, but mine is at work between a Dilbert collection and Punishments of the Spanish Inquisition (I just gave annual performance evaluations). Regarding FA and GA -- I prefer writing good articles to writing Good Articles, if you know what I mean ... it's a bureaucracy allergy I've developed in the last couple years. Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this section heading and the textstring orangem and assumed somebody was talking about me (those of my vandals who don't call me a faggot are all convinced I'm a commie). Sorry. Carry on. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't been called both a Commie and a Nazi, you're either a newbie or not editing from a neutral point of view. Consider both badges of honor. :) Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. It's when you're called a trolling commie faggot deletionist. It's always good to hear from the other OM. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

tehehehe ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make sure Orange doesn't miss the edit summary: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ummmmmm. Well, there are just too many ways to respond to that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a thread-killing dud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly write what I wanted to!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Someone needs to kick your butt. Insolent brat. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re..Attack

Hi, I'm not sure how my comments are considered a personal attack. Anyway I have left an apology on the said persons talkpage. Best wishes

@@ Line 244: / Line 244: @@
 ::::::::::::: 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.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
+== Re..Attack ==
+Hi,
+I'm not sure how my comments are considered a personal attack. Anyway I have left an apology on the said persons talkpage.
+Best wishes

Revision as of 17:34, 6 January 2009

Archives

Important Items to Watch