User talk:Orangemarlin

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

Archives /Rules archives 1|/Amusing Vandalism|/Medical 1|/Miscellaneous 1|/Miscellaneous 2|/Miscellaneous 3|/Religion 1|/Religion 2|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 1|/Evolution-Creation Discussions 2|/Archives 1|/Archives 2|/Archives 3|/Archives 4|/Archives 5|/Archives 6|/Archives 7|/Archives 8|/Archives 9|/Archives 10|/Archives 11|/Archives 12|/Archives 13|/Archive 14|/Archive 15 Elonka discussions|/Test page|/New user page|/Baseball ideas|/Dinosaur ideas|/Arbitration discussions|/SU Basketball|/Syracuse University|/Herpes zoster|/Archived Election Commentary Important Items to Watch Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Historical elections 13 Sep 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024 Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024 Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Historical elections 13 Sep 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024 Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024 Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 43 0 0 100 Open 22:18, 21 September 2024 6 days, 16 hours no report FACs needing feedback view • Weise's law 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) This one has been stable in reasonable shape for awhile now. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Working on this one. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites barley 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) This is pretty much fixed, at least until the next SPA... MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Mannatech. An article about a company that purveys sugars, calling them health products (glyconutrients). Antelantalk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I tried on this, & only very partially succeeded. DGG (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Magnet therapy and Alex Chiu. You've got to be kidding. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Prostate cancer#Ejaculation frequency I'm sorry, but this just cracked me up. I need to read the references, but my side hurts. Juvenile, I am. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 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) Colon cleansing– After hearing radio commercials dozens of times for supplements, I had to do something. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) New Thought. Some New Age medicine/religion attempting to hide it's snake-oil medicine by using religion. Intelligent design used the same method, and it didn't work there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Bach flower remedies Like Homeopathy but without even the attempt at balance.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Samuel Hahnemann. Bio on seminal homeopath. Needs watching.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Elimination diet. Why do editors think they can add this crap to the project? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Category:Diets has a number of dubious articles that get a fair bit of traffic and lack perspective. e.g. Cookie diet (800 calories), Alkaline diet, LighterLife, Cyclic ketogenic diet Phil153 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Medical Articles Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA: Alzheimer's Disease Rotavirus Helicobacter pylori Request for Arbitration If you are here to read about all of the Wiki-drama surrounding the secret hearings (so secret that no one on the ArbCom knew about them apparently), you can read it here. No editing allowed. One day this will be funny. I hope. Why Complementary and alternative medicine is pure bullshit The fundamental intellectual flaw of “CAM” as a concept is that it is made to include modalities that are extremely diverse, even mutually contradictory, under one umbrella. Very deliberately modalities which are scientific and mainstream, like the proper use of nutrition, are often included under the CAM umbrella by proponents in order to make it seem like CAM is a bigger phenomenon than it actually is, and as a wedge to open the door for the more pseudoscientific modalities. —Steven Novella There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is “Eastern” or “Western,” is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest…—Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD (1998). "Alternative medicine meets science". JAMA. 280 (18): 1618–9. PMID 9820267. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

POV

You are nothing but a POV pushing Mammalian-Supremist! Well I'm here now to unmask you and show the world the Truth about Wikipedia and it's pro-mammal policies. You always think you are right just because you have all the facts on your side, but we're not going to let you get away with it anymore! You MUST make room in this encyclopedia for our groundless opinions and baseless conjectures!

Heh heh, I just couldn't resist. Sorry I was away for so very long, but it's certainly a pleasure to be back. I'm looking forward to working with you again, and many of our other fine editors as well.  :) Doc Tropics 16:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's gotten worse around here. More and more anti-science nutters have found Wikipedia to be THE place to add unsourced cruft about their woo. You missed the day when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event article was featured on the mainpage. A bunch of creationist types (there are two types of anti-science nutjobs: alternative medicine woo and creationists) tried to insert information about how dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark or some such nonsense. Lots of fun. You missed it. Look at my contributions if you want to pick one or two fun places to stand up for the Pro-Mammal POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Very nice to see Doc Tropics here. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi to you too Kenosis, it's always a pleasure  :)

OM, I just reviewed the entire history of Antigen leukocyte cellular antibody test (seriously, all of it), and I can't tell you how impressed I am with the work you did there. The effort that you put into cleaning up that article is nothing short of mind-boggling. Of course I'm not even remotely qualified to comment on the subject itself, so you won't see me on that page, but "stalking" your edits has always been a great way to find articles in need of serious attention. Keep up the good work! Doc Tropics 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I always figured the dinosaurs perished precisely because there was no room for them in the Ark. I mean, one brachiosaurus alone would have taken up the entire boat. The dinosaurs, along with the unicorns. That last part is the well-known Irish Rovers corollary to the general theory (pardon the overly-generous terminology) called Creationism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but baby dinosaurs were probably a lot smaller than adult dinosaurs. Presumably if dinosaurs did exist at the time (doubtful since dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist anyway, so dinosaurs were already long gone by the time Noah and Methuselah were chillin' out), Noah could have taken two baby dinosaurs or two dinosaur eggs. (Or dinosaur DNA inside a mosquito) --B (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hush! You'll give the Creationists ideas... Hey! You might be on to something. Maybe the Ark was actually a gigantic floating lab, and instead of actual animals, he had fertilized embryos. Boy, would that be a space-saver. Not to mention that you wouldn't have to take so much food on board. Just enough to keep the crows and the doves alive. And maybe the crows got a little out of control and ate up the embryos from the dinosaurs. And the unicorns. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OM, everybody knows Noah had cardboard crates of dinosaur eggs in the ark's hold (and yes there was plenty of backup DNA to be found in all the bugs 'n flies on board). You truly need to get with it here. All this PoV pushing of your own opinions stirs up so much strife, when we could all be sitting about the wiki-campfire singin' I Don't Know How to Love Him (none of that public domain stuff, please, true believers believe in Intellectual property and 500 year copyrights). Why can't you get up to speed on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the omelette feast on Day 39 that did them in. They were running short on food, and the eggs complained the least. Besides, them little mammal critters were tired of being stepped on. Antandrus (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was just driven by necessity. I think it was an organized effort by the mammals to destroy their reptilian competitors. We need an article on this conspiracy theory of mammalian gene-ocide against the poor little dinosaur embryos. We could call it "Eadibus T-rex". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the only unknown here is, did Noah ask for his omelette with eggstra cheese or what. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And did Noah drink his coffee straight, or did he drop in a couple of sugar cubits? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe, sounds ok to me, anyway. I do happen to know it was very likely café au lait because this is where the Frito Lay company got their name (not many folks know about this). You see, some of the dinosaur eggs on the ark were fried and there was indeed lots of coffee but as we know, the old Aremaic translations can be a bit dodgy, muddled, so we fix them up. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I drop a note on OM's page in the morning, then I get free entertainment all day long. Let's do Gwen's page tomorrow! Doc Tropics 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

←So much to respond to. Entertainment. Dinosaur eggs (let us remember that birds are really dinosaurs, so a dinosaur is going to taste like chicken! Baby dinosaurs....of course, I wouldn't want to be the person trying to take the young of a nice Utahraptor. And B, you keep forgetting about the birds...real dinosaurs. Well, everyone please keep us entertained. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So maybe Noah took dinosaur eggs on board, and once the flood was over, they hatched and quickly evolved into birds. In, like, 3 generations. That makes total sense. Under Creationism, all things are possible. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me: How did Noah illuminate his boat at night, like when he was staying up late reading the Antediluvian Times? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They had lightbulbs back then. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's always been chicken, as OM said. Glad to see he's groking things at last. I was beginning to worry he hated freedom. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that cuneiform tablets didn't require much light. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially if they were made from mud containing radium, so they could glow in the dark. I was going to say torches, because they didn't have Ark-lights yet. But I could be wrong. Those Egyptians were crafty. They were smart enough to build pyramids, a type of building that, as Will Cuppy said, "couldn't fall down if it tried", so those things are still around K's of years later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, scribes in Ur couldn't read the tablets unless there was a very strong shadow. Glow in the dark mud would have only lowered the contrast. This is why electric lights were invented by the priests (the scribes' guild got their monopoly by keeping this a secret, which was later lost to history, but had to pay off the priests and the Egyptian priests later nicked it for themselves). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuneiform writing and hieroglyphics survive today, which you know if you've ever taken a doctor's prescription to a pharmacist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I suspect we're onto the secret of how the Egyptians made such precision cuts in the stones: Laser beams. That was the easy part. Lugging the rocks from the quarry was still a pain, though. Luckily for them, they outsourced that work to the Hebrews. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser beams??? You have no creativity Bugs, nor do you have an understanding of the powers of the Egyptian pharaohs. They used their fingers, because they were actually aliens who were stuck here over 3000 years ago. Oh, wait a minutes, I've been watching too much Stargate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that Battlestar Gallactica? Anyway Von Däniken cleared this stuff up years ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember him. He hasn't been heard from in awhile. Maybe he took a vacation in teh Bermuda Triangle and never came back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We know all of this stuff around the world is true, due to the painstaking documentaries of such activities, filmed by Steven Spielberg. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

• Talk:Aspartame controversy

So far I haven't seen even close to a neutral summary of the past. And though I'm starting to get a sense of things now, any clarity that you might provide would be welcome. - jc37 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You pretty much did the above through your AN/I notice. Thank you. Watching there for now.

As an aside, regardless of whether these are SPAs, SPs, MPs, or whatever, I don't know that it's accepted to so cross the line of civility. This is merely a suggestion, but you may wish to reconsider some of your comments, especially since, due to AN/I, other editors may now be watching, may become involved. - jc37 04:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm, you don't know me too well. I actually will not, under any circumstance, substitute civility for NPOV. My treatment of these sockpuppets were quite civil compared to my usual standard of dealing with trolls. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Causes of autism

Thanks for helping out with Causes of autism. The broader autism area is quite the Augean stables, with no Hercules in sight; it's always nice to see another volunteer stablehand. Eubulides (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you just call me a horse? LOL.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, you were just told that your work is no longer full of horsebullshit..LeadSongDog (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll take this as a positive! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Hercules never got promoted past demi-god status. It could be that mucking out stables is a career limiting move. Or did he just forget to wash up afterwards?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was born a mortal. Demigod is the best you can do, no matter how many girdles you steal. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rats. There goes my retirement Plan B too! Can I buy up Madoff's assets for pennies on the billion? LeadSongDog (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Creationism is right

Humans lived with dinosaurs. I am so sorry that I was so stupid and blind, so that I could not accept that some supernatural entity created the world. I apologize to all of the Creationists on Wikipedia. I still despise CAMmies, but that's a different story. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How you ever dreamed early humans could have gotten by without lorry-sized chickens, I don't know, but I'm so happy you've seen the light. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... that website is a parody site. I'm quite confident that there is no "Dr. Booble, who received his doctorate in paleontology from the respected Holy Patriot!™ Bible University and Correspondence College of Claptrappe, Oklahoma". --B (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also pretty confident that God didn't apologize for "'Collateral Damage' in Huckabee Tornado Smite Attempt". --B (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, B. Thanks for letting us know about that. I for one never, ever, in a billion-jillion years (let alone 6,500), would have guessed that a story about finding a dinosaur saddle could have been a parody. However, I still think it's clueless to think early humans could have done without couch-sized drumsticks. :) As for the Huckabee story, I glark this has to do with some language glitch and could easily be straightened out through a financial donation to any charismatic evangelist in good standing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm B. I knew that. I was just trying to be funny, cause I'm frustrated with various editing annoyances (see below). I needed humor. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, that is absolutely priceless! Thanks so much for the link OM, I immediately bookmarked it....chuckling all the while. Very reminiscent of National Lampoon (magazine) circa the late 70s, early 80s. Doc Tropics 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rude comments on Talk:Aspartame controversy

I'm investigating the sockpuppetry issues, but... A number of your comments on the talk page there were intemperate. WP:NPA applies to everyone, as does WP:CIVIL - we need to treat even abusive sockpuppeteers with dignity rather than getting nasty and abusive back. Being rude really never helps things.

The sockpuppet investigation was appropriate - once it gets to that point, disengagement on the talk pages is probably a better course of action than continuing to let them goad you and responding in kind.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd be right in 99/100 situations. But in this case, the editor needs to have his butt kicked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am preparing for a posterior application of pedal effort and motion in their general direction. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't stop being rude at them, though...

It reflects a lot better on all of us if even the abusive sockpuppeteers are treated with dignity and civility.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Grumble. Not sure I agree, but I you're posterior application of mass and velocity is sufficient, the world will be back in order. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

After I blocked the two I thought were sockpuppets after reviewing it in depth, Immortale and Unomi, Jpgordon ran a checkuser on both of them and Karloff, and came up strongly negative (far apart, no similarity in ISPs or other internet type similarity). I think your suspicions were reasonable - I spent over an hour looking at them and concluded so as well - but I think the evidence now is pretty unambiguous that they weren't. I went back and unblocked.

I know that this is frustrating you - but if they really aren't connected, and them being far apart and not evidently connected on the net seems to indicate that strongly - they're not doing anything wrong enough for anyone to intervene, other than the mediation cabal or mentoring / discussion with another uninvolved administrator (I should probably not get involved in that given my apparent mistake). If you can see past your suspicions and try and work with them at the mediation case that was filed, that's probably a constructive way forwards towards resuming cooperative editing and good faith on all sides.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know they are socks--just have to prove it a bit more. I think they should be indeffed for reasons way outside of sockpuppetry, but I figured it was the easiest way to do it. Now Unomi and Immortale are going to enjoy running amok. This place sucks sometimes. But I appreciate your blocking them long enough to giving some breathing space to the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ignoring you all very rudely

The Cuse is down three at the half to UConn. I could bite a noob right now.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

SU up 7. Less cranky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Overtime. I'm ill. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I owe you an apology. That was one of the best games I've ever seen in my life. I'm sorry for the mean things I said earlier in the season. That was absolutely epic tonight. Jonny Flynn has more heart than my entire team put together this season. (Guess we got what we deserved...) --JayHenry (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm breathless. BTW, talking trash about sports is NEVER uncivil and NEVER requires an apology. That was, without hyperbole, the best sports contest at any level that I've ever seen in my life, and I've been to some exciting games. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard about this game from a classmate who decided to watch it before returning to studying for a final tomorrow. That's a well-earned win, I think. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having quite the alma mater sports year. First, The U demolishes the Pink Tide in the Sugar Bowl. Now, SU wins a 6OT game against one of the top-ranked teams in the NCAA. Almost as good as 2003, when SU won the NCAA, and in 2004 when the U won the Fiesta Bowl and went undefeated. Oh, I almost forgot. 2003 was when my Florida Marlins won the World Series. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry

Orangemarlin, It sucks hard, and I apologise, but I felt I had to revert rather than keeping your good edits. I see the point on the OMpsych talk page (it's not worth the trouble), but give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile. Or is that cm/km? Anyway, I feel Coppertwig had no justification for the reversion (or the POV additions), and if CT wants mediation, let him/her ask for it rather than placing the burden on me. After all, I asked for and gained consensus before making the bold redirect and bringing the "OMM" people out of the woodwork. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have the testicular fortitude to do it. What you did was right. The article was crap.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Signs of quackery

See page 157 - as clear as anything I've seen.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Major depressive disorder, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You clearly haven't read the sources. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:DTTR. I consider this a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely just a newbie error. Been around just since December and done over 2k edits, started numerous gf articles.LeadSongDog (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah. He's pushing a POV on Omega-3 that's just not supported in the sources. He fails to read conclusions, and instead reads the discussion of an abstract. He's on a kick now. Reminds me of all POV pushing CAMmies....whine, scream, yell, whine some more, quote some obscure citation, whine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, also this; it might be advisable for X to cool off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Orange, I agree with you that, most likely, omega-3 does nothing for MDD. However, in the face of clashing opinions in the literature, I do not think we can be one-sided in our treatment of the issue. In addition, you edit summary [2] "Reverting one-person POV vendetta.." is rude. Please remember that incivility disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stress and conflict. Thank you. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're new around here, so I'll give you a heads up. Civility does not trump NPOV. I wouldn't waste time mentioning where I'm rude, you'll run out of space here, since it's frequent and getting more so. I pretty sick and tired of the CAM-pushing crowd. I like your edits so far, actually you're much more ballsy about adding things than I am. You'll be the target of their attacks soon, and you'll get cranky. Trust me. Unless you take mood-altering drugs. Then maybe not.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This must be confronted. Seeking NPOV does not ever require incivility; in fact it requires the opposite. The belief that incivility is justified by alleged "POV-pushing" is a result of a belief that one knows or owns NPOV, that those with differing POV are enemies of Truth; whereas the clearest sign of NPOV is a maximally inclusive consensus. In no way does this require allowing imbalance or domination by fringe opinion. But it does require, it demands civility and cooperation. --Abd (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. X. is clearly not a member of CAM cabal. X seems to be a newbie and, looking at his other edits, I see that he is sincere and hardworking and is really improving drug articles. Let's not break his honeymoon with WP... "Unless you take mood-altering drugs." - He-he ;) The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OM, you're wrong about your recent edits to Major depressive disorder. Dead. Wrong. I read the sources at the end of those sentences you revert warred, and they 100% support the old version and don't support your version. Not only are you wrong, but you went out of your way to insult people who pointed it out, and edit warred against multiple good editors to put your POV-pushing version in. Since you did it (and continue to do it) at Orthomolecular psychiatry as well, further disruption will be sent to ANI or AE. The only reason I haven't taken this there earlier is because you do a reasonable and thankless job battling CAM POV in articles.

I've tried really hard to understand your perspective for a couple of weeks now, but you seem to be rabidly anti-CAM POV to the point of not even caring what the sources say or what consensus is. That's not healthy for building a NPOV encyclopedia or even building a strongly pro-mainstream encyclopedia. Phil153 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be really clear, I'm on your side here. I think you do a very real-world-important job generally in balancing out the ridiculous insertions and numerous policy violations and wikilawyering of the quacks, many of whom a sensible encyclopedia would have banned long ago. But you've stepped way over the line in few places lately - a bit more subtlety and occassionally backing down from things that don't matter would go a long way. When uninvolved admins call you on something, or someone like Xasodfuih templates you, it would be helpful to stop and really consider your position. What you're doing now looks bad for something like arbcom down the road (which fringe articles are going to end up at again). You're probably smarter than me so I feel silly saying this but the line you've stepped over is very clear and a reminder doens't hurt now and then. Other comments seem not to have registered. Phil153 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I`m not going to wade into the specific Major depressive disorder background, but this discussion has gone beyond that article. OrangeMarlin is rightly hard-line on demanding that sources meet WP:MEDRS when used in medical articles. We all should be. Too many editors seem to believe that a lay summary, or worse - an advocacy/sales piece, should be usable as a reference. I'll make limited use of them to help find reliable sources (e.g. correcting details in bibliographic information) but especially in these controversial topics we must insist on the best available sources or else we are completely swamped in low quality, unreliable, and unverifiable sources, often with subtly altered copies scattered all over the internet that look credible on the surface but don't have a real quality-control system behind their publication. WP is regularly being exploited by any number of groups using it to lend credibility to various unsubstantiated ideas, promotions of commercial enterprises, and outright frauds. No one should have to apologize for resisting these exploitations. Unfortunately we do not have a technical system in place for grading sources, so that lesser-quality references can be used with caution (as when using a self-published source to attribute a statement about its author). The only problem I see with OM's behaviour is that he isn't willing to call a spade a diamond as some would like. Does it really matter if we call an edit pro-allopathic or anti-CAM? That Phil would characterize OM as being "rabidly anti-CAM POV" is itself a rather disturbing choice. Perhaps he'll reconsider it.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't reconsider. The history speaks for itself. I'm offering my opinion on what his behavior looks like to an outsider who's participated in a few of these issues, not an indictment on his viewpoint (which I largely support)

Just today he edit warred against multiple editors to insert unsupported anti-CAM text contradicted by the reliable sources on that text. He called good editors idiots, trolls, and POV pushers in multiple edit summaries - when they are actually correct in their reading of the sources and OM is 100% wrong. This is not "hard line" application of policy. He's also been edit warring to blank Orthomolecular psychiatry to a redirect, against 12 editors and two uninvolved admins have called it clearly against consensus. Because of his edit warring against consensus, the page is protected to the non redirect version, so no one can edit it. If a cam-friendly editor was doing this they'd be up before AE long ago.

Again, I feel silly trying to talk about this but the only alternative is ANI/AE, so it's best dealt with here. Phil153 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Block

A report was made to Administrators' noticeboard for Edit warring regarding an edit war you appear to be involved in at Major depressive disorder. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for this disruption to Wikipedia. Please use this time to reflect on the situation and once the block has lifted please engage other editors on the article's talk page to avoid future conflicts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Thank you, Nja²⁴⁷ 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)