User talk:Orangemarlin

* Click here to leave me a new message

Hello Orangemarlin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Orangemarlin 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

You are AWESOME!!!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: discussion and consensus can lead to knowledge:

Absolutely. But I can bet that while you were sitting around having those discussions, you were talking about the *separation column*, and not arguing about how you were going to decide who was going to operate it, and who wasn't going to operate it, and how one person built the column one way but it didn't satisfy everyone and so we had it destroyed (several times), and what the politically correct etiquette of protein fractionation is, and a lengthy explanation of the controversy behind all that etiquette, its history, and all the etiquette mistakes that were ever made in the field of protein fractionation, accompanied by hyper-linked references to the online protein fractionation manual of protocol (also impossibly dense), and peppered with all conceivable kinds of passive-aggressive, nonprofessional and nonacademic drama that didn't get anyone anywhere. Nope, my guess is that you discussed, kept *on topic*, and finally -- *took action* and built the thing, did your work, and moved on. Question: now that I've followed protocol and taken many suggestions to the Evolution Talk page, how does the "consensus" and "progress" process unfold now, resulting in a constructive edit to the article that won't immediately be reverted? THAT is the part of Wikipedia protocol I would be interested in witnessing, in action. Thanks,Mandaclair 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" :)

[1] :) Guettarda 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

treasure ships

hi there, I responded to your comment on treasure ships —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intranetusa (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Moving on

My frustration level with one user has reached a point where it's not longer fun to engage in debate on Evolution and Creationism articles. Hopefully, others will stand up to his POV pushing and ranting, and his subtle ownership of every article. I'd make a case, but that's not my style. I like editing some of the history articles on WWII and English History. Those will be more fun. I hope Filll and others carry the torch. Maybe when that one user realizes that he's not absolutely right on every issue, I can return. But this is insane. The Intelligent design discussion has gone on for two weeks, and it's lost its charm. When one repeats themselves over and over with an expectation of a different result, and that result never happens, it's a sure sign of insanity.Orangemarlin 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

I know that deleting messages on the talk page constitutes vandalism, and I didn't delete the comment for personal/political reasons. It was a mistake. I didn't read the entire comment when I deleted the comment. I only saw the heading that said "Worst president" (looks misleading) and the bulk of the comment that said Clinton being the root of all problems etc etc. Such comments are typical on pages of controversial figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali etc, and I have removed comments before. Template {{notaforum}} produces message that says "This is not a forum for general discussion of -. Any such messages will be deleted." I didn't see the part that suggested that the page include hypothesis about Clinton being the bad president from reliable sources. And so I thought that the comment was irrelevant to the talk page, because the talk page is about discussing changes about the article, not about the subject itself. mirageinred 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wasn't too worried, you seemed like a regular editor, so a lecture from me probably was overkill. However, even though I am a huge Bill Clinton supporter, and can't stand any negative comments, I am also not one to censor. It seems like we're on the same page, so no big deal! Orangemarlin 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice this discussion & just wanted to mention that WP:BLP in fact encourages editors to remove unsourced opinions and claims about people in talk pages. This tends to be ignored with prominent politicians and the like but if it goes overboard, there is definitely no harm in removing such comments. Even if it's not a BLP, off topic comments are sometimes removed, especially when it goes overboard. Nil Einne 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but a famous person like Clinton probably gets a lot of BS like that. To me, it wasn't all that bad. Orangemarlin 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan eruption

Thanks, Orangemarlin. I was glad I had at last found a reference to this J.G. Bennett, who is mentioned in the article but is quite impossible to find. I had found an abstract of the article I reference on this rather obscure Catastrophism website, but hadn't noticed the article itself wasn't free. A pity. Maybe this Bennett will have to be dropped sometime; there surely are others who have claimed the same as he. Classical geographer 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that this type of historical relationship would have been studied by a number of individuals. I would prefer, although I do not own the article, that we find a reference that isn't trying to "prove" the Moses story through the Thera eruption, rather someone who might show how the myth arose from the eruption. Subtle difference, but keeping a religious POV out of the article will reduce arguments. Orangemarlin 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Evolution

Hi Orangemarlin. Just wanted you to know that I got fed up with Gnixon as well, and finally threw my hands into the air and left the Evolution article too. Wikipedia, in my general assessment, can be pretty damn ridiculous. The furthest thing from an intellectual, academic, or educational pursuit I can imagine! Anyway, my regards, Mandaclair 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Note how Gnixon archives parts of the article with discussions that may offend him and only him. But he lives in Creationist POV discussion as is. I intensely dislike his continued "policing" of the articles. He seems to derive some pleasure from using the factoring (I think that's what it's called) of the article, as if he and only he knows what's best. As for a number of articles on here dealing with Evolution and Creationism (including the Intelligent Design article), they have been corrupted and weakened by the POV pushers. It's interesting, I worked on the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, and I actually work with some of the more religious editors in making it a very good article. There are some sectional problems that need to be fixed, but otherwise a couple of the "creationist" editors have worked very closely in developing it. We have argued about things, but in the end we developed a NPOV that is both accurate and meets the needs of the reader. I once was shocked to see one of those editors revert a very POV edit that actually made the article more religious, but also more POV. Historically, the Evolution article was written over time with a lot of input from many different POV's--it used to be very well written, and was a featured article once. Now, it has been damaged by certain individuals trying to force a religious POV on the article. I'm hoping some of the stronger willed editors will come back. You should hang in there. Orangemarlin 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should come back. Your past contributions were good ones. It's hard sometimes to fight for intellectual integrity and fend off the agendas and rhetoric, but it's a worthy battle. TxMCJ 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edits to United States National Academy of Sciences

You don't seem to be a new user so I assume that you are not just trying to vandalize the article. It would be more productive if you participated in the discussion on the talk page for United States National Academy of Sciences rather than deleting sections of the article off hand. Kborer 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be interested in your comment: the sources presented are inadequate for the claim of "criticism". By the way, the discussions on ID look interesting. .. dave souza, talk 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin: if you would, please have a look at the talk page for Evolution now. Things got a bit out of hand there today and I felt compelled to post something that was difficult, but I felt, necessary. I am sure that holy hellfire will rain upon me for it, but sometimes a person just has to do what she feels is right. Hope you come back around someday, TxMCJ 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. A certain editor keeps factoring or archiving discussions that are essentially opposed to his own. Amusing POV. Orangemarlin 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about POV refactoring... he did it again today, where someone posted a question about "scientific controversy", and he left that posting and archived the response. Then he tried to justify this by the fact that exactly one person agreed to a format where the "original comment is left, and the rest is archived" -- when in fact, I doubt that one person fully understood the potential abuse of that system. TxMCJ 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently trying to address this on the article talk page -- making sure that things get archived and factored objectively and consistently, with no POV pushing either way. Could be a losing battle with Gnixon, but I'm trying. TxMCJ 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're doing, but have you seen what he's doing lately? He has redesigned the whole Evolution article to meet his needs. Maybe he thinks he has some sort of tacit support. I don't know. I'm watching. But unless some of the other editors jump in, I don't know if we can save the article from this religious POV attack. Orangemarlin 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good voices there -- Graft and Silence and GetAgrippa, and Filll still checks in from time to time. I am there trying to at least keep the conversations intellectual rather than rhetorical. Come back and join in again, orange -- majority consensus will prevail. Also: I daresay that the bold thing to do is just for one of us to just go ahead and edit the article to one of the more academic formats suggested by Silence or me or others, and simply refuse to allow POV-centered edits to the article to stand. Remember my long-standing complaint: how all of this roundabout discussion on the "talk" page really results in very little progress at the end of the day (which may in fact be the clever-but-not-invisible intentions of a certain editor), but the important thing is the article itself. If Gnixon wants to hinder the process by micromanaging the "talk" page and mixing up issues with intent and rhetoric and tangents, then let him have that little party. None of those suggestions are likely to culminate in anything meaningful, or gain much support. Then the rest of us can edit the actual article itself, which is really all that matters. TxMCJ 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evolution

Hi. I am going to modify my comments on the evo talk page. I honestly think that your specific interactions with Gnixon over evolution as theory were trollish but I cannot and didn't mean to make any larger comment about your involvement in the article or you personally, and I apologize for my impatience and intemperance. About evolution being a theory - it is a theory. It is also a fact, but it is a theory. I understand entirely your frustration with people who think that theory = opinion. However, I am absolutely certain that the proper response is not to say that evolution is not a theory, but rather, to explain that theory is not the same as opinion. I think you are right that "theory of evolution" is used differently from "theory of gravity" but we have to insist that people use the word theory correctly, and be consistent in telling people they are wrong when they misuse it. The article has gone through many changes and I always thought a clear explanation of "theory" should be included ... right now I think it is in a spin-off article on misconceptions or FAQs. As to Gnixon - I have not observed him or her enough to make any general comments, but I have seen her make informed edits concerning science. In any event, whatever agenda she may/may not have, she is right to call evolution a theory. If you had criticized her for saying evolution is therefore not a fact, or that theory means opinion, I would have taken your side instantly but my reading of the argument (admittedly, a hasty one) is that she was simply saying evolution is a theory. Well, I will go over the discussion again. Thanks for contacting me. peace, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it and made a change. Gnixon explicitly stated that evolution is also a fact. You ask me what could you do differently. All I can say is: especially when you have finely-tuned sensitivities (e.g. to creationists), bend over backwards to assume good faith at leat by reading what someone says carefully and be willing to take it at face value. This is hard advice to follow because I often over-react myself. But in at least this one exchange with Gnixon I think you overreacted. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My unsolicited 2 cents is that I agree with orangemarlin that there appear to be some subtle agendas at play here, and that much of Gnixon's suggestions often seem to be guided by a (perhaps unconscious and unintentional) attempt to make the article "more acceptable" to creationists. For example, creationsists love to incant "evolution is *only* a theory" over and over and over again. And whereas it is true that evolution is a scientific theory, it's not always clear whether Gnixon stresses that point for the sake of being intellectually complete, or because he knows that many readers with other beliefs or agendas would really like to see such a statement (which they do not really understand), top-center and first-foremost in the article. Sure, anyone can click to the FAQ and see the word "theory" defined, but I believe Gnixon knows that most readers won't do that, (and this is also the logic behind some of the POV-biased archiving and factoring strategies he takes.) It is possible that I am way off target with this, but that is, I believe, much of where orangemarlin's objections may come from. TxMCJ 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, you are indeed way off target. Gnixon 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have avoided your POV editing with a passion. I don't want to see your commentary on my personal page. Orangemarlin 22:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, with all due respect to G: anyone clearly and admittedly grounded in a POV that involves any doubt or disbelief about a certain topic (and worse: very little sound knowledge or background in that topic) has NO BUSINESS editing a scientific or informational article about that topic. I don't believe in the little gnomes and fairy-folk of Scandinavia, but I am not over at those pages monopolizing the talk pages and cluttering the airwaves because of it, while maintaining a false guise of belief and good faith. Not trying to launch an attack, G., but I just haven't the foggiest idea what on earth someone with your background is doing trying to take a lead on the Evolution page if it's not based on some agenda. It's not clear that your intent is based on knowledge, or a sincere intent to write a scientifically accurate and educationally valuable article. TxMCJ 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, OM, I've no desire to communicate with either of you, but I will answer lies. The paranoid are welcome to accuse me of being some deep-under-cover creationist with a hidden agenda, but I've certainly never "admitted" any such thing. Gnixon 04:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess you're a psychiatrist too. Wow, I didn't know that!!!! Orangemarlin 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnixon, are you denying being a creationist? Before you answer too quickly, you might want to read John 18:27... the Big Man's always listening, you know... TxMCJ 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"cricket, cricket..." TxMCJ 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hey OM, have you seen how Silence is pulling his hair out about this now as well? Check out this little gem he posted to Gnixon today: "The thing I understand least about this entire exchange is how you can so consistently and unwaveringly misrepresent what everyone else wants. It shouldn't even be possible to misunderstand what structure people are advocating or trying out, when those people have explicitly listed their entire article layout proposals in ToC form!" And there's more... it's rich, man, really rich. TxMCJ 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Action / Gnixon

Hey O -- I'm not asking for your help, just wanted you to know that Gnixon's started the threatened "administrative process"... I'm not wiki-savvy enough to know how to insert all the links like he has, but this shouldn't matter to any reasonable administrator. You can find the administrative/mediation discussion by following it from my Talk page. Comment there if you'd like, or stay out of it if you'd prefer. I'm not requesting either one. Advice is welcome too! Thanks, TxMCJ 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosspost of Administrative Action request response by Felonious Monk: (crosspost by TxMCJ 07:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here. What I do see is one user, Gnixon, who's been an aggressive and overly assertive editor on a number of topics and all too quick to accuse others and be incivil himself, making allegations that appear to be exaggerated against an editor he appears to be in a simple content dispute with. If Gnixon is genuinely so unaware that he considers the behavior he's described to be harassment and wikistalking, then my advice to him is to become more familiar with the terms and grow a thicker skin (being unwilling to get as good as he gives). But if he thinks he can use this venue find clueless admins to waylay opponents in simple content disputes, then he may find himself hoisted by his own petard and the community's goodwill rapidly diminishing for any future claims he may bring here. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Troll

Are you now threatening me because I don't agree with you? Good to know you don't have any interest in science or reason, beyond your personal dogmas. What are you going to do next, come to my house? Don't get "e-tough" if you don't have anything to contribute, just shut up. This is really upsetting, none of you evolution fanatics have any interest in facts. --Fm.illuminatus 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening? No. But you are in violation of WP:3RR. I'd suggest you read WP:CIVIL too. Orangemarlin 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this guy is bad. I'm wondering if he's a sockpuppet of one of our favorites. Orangemarlin 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Hey OM, where the heck are the instructions for naming a reference for later use in the same article? I know I've seen them but I can't seem to find them now. You're the citations guru so I thought you could help. Thanks. --Margareta 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been using the CITET templates, but where do I find info on the "ref" tags? I know there's a way you can use them to name a reference the first time you use it so that you don't have to put the whole citation in every time you use it again in the same article. I just can't find the instructions on how to do it... Oh wait, found it here. Just had to hunt around a bit.

I agree it can be pretty amazing what gets in here as citations. It seems to be getting slowly better overall, though. --Margareta 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

I am quite aware of the three revert rule and how bullies use it to stop what they see as unsuitable edits. That was not the case with my edit to the Clinton page - but I couldn't really be bothered to argue the toss. PaddyBriggs 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

Hockey editor? I'm an editor of many talents, master of none (see my contributions). Right or wrong, my fingerprints are over many US Presidential & Vice Presidential related articles. PS- Can anyone 'source' the correct date for Kucinich's introducing Impeachment articles against Dick Cheney? Is it April 25, 2007 (at Dennis Kucinich) or April 24, 2007 (at Dick Cheney). GoodDay 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll stick with the 'Al Gore Jr' edit (afterall, it's still wiki-linked to 'Al Gore'). No harm done. GoodDay 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it was filed today, 4/24/07. Impeachment Resolution Orangemarlin 22:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. GoodDay 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

2 is not the be all and end all, and, frankly, when it comes down to it, I'm the one who put up a block on the article because of the edit war, so it's my responsibility to mediate, propose compromises, and help work towards a version that as many people as possible can be happy with, or, at least, grudgingly accept. I'll admit to having my doubts over the ability to bring a few people into the compromise, but I really would appreciate if you would help. If you don't like the proposed compromises, by all means propose more. I do, however, think the first sentence of 2 has problems - for one thing, "is an argument for the existance of a God" is somewhat awkward English anyway, and that direct quote from the DI, complete with calling natural selection undirected... is troublesome.

If you honestly feel after consideration that they aren't acceptable, I accept that, but please do consider them first. A, B and D are actually pretty good - C probably was a mistake, given I forgot to add a replacement for some of the the removed content, but, oh well. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick reply to your request on "ID isn't an argument for the existence of God". I didn't put it into its own section (sorry) as I don't think that is what we were trying to prove. I didn't think it would be anything worth a thread. Anyway, the problem comes with it being limited to only an argument for the existence of God and telling readers that as a statement of fact, when this is a disputed point. Morphh ^(talk) 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morph, I agree that it is disputed, but only in a narrow sense of the word. DI individuals, when under oath, stated that it was an argument for G_d. How about language like, "Although it is claimed by DI that ID is science, in courts and in certain documents, ID appears to be an argument for the existence of G_d." I'm trying to balance both feelings with some equal weight, though I contend that most of the weight is that it is an argument for G_d.Orangemarlin 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious why do you spell 'God' 'G_d'? 68.109.234.155 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Thanks, I'm just fiddling with refs at the moment, it really needs a major rewrite. I didn't protect it, it was already protected (which is why there hasn't been much vandalism!) All I did was add the tag that indicates it is protected. TimVickers 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]