User:Orangemarlin

This user has a GYFROOMFPOV

Barnstars and related

Please do not feed the trolls
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)
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)
The Undeniable Mechanism Award For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar For your dedicated work on scientific articles, keeping the pseudo out of science, I hereby award you, Orangemarlin, this Barnstar. Your work on Good and Featured articles like Evolution and Minoan eruption has greatly improved Wikipedia. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
To Orangemarlin for exceptional work on herpes zoster. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You are retentive and obsesive. Now have a cookie. Tim Vickers 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]]
For unbelievable efforts to bring Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to FA status. Filll 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Have a squeaky rubber Tiktaalik for services to mass extinctions! Thanks for your persistence and hard work, .. dave souza, talk 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The Original Dinosaur Barnstar
For all your work on Petey, Holly, Katie, and hundreds of other articles. Happy 10,000th edit! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being an ultraviolet ray of sunshine on Wikipedia, energetically fighting for encyclopedic standards while not letting yourself or your good humour be censored. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 14:19, December 5, 2007
Congratulations!--Filll (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To Orangemarlin: I hereby award you the most esteemed Stinky Sock Barnstar‎ of Olfactory Excellence, for your highly developed sense of smell.--Filll (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We need more editors like Orangemarlin who are willing to stand up to POV-pushing from the fringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to award this triple crown to Orangemarlin in thanks for superb content contributions. Durova^Charge! 08:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar: Thanks for helping to rid Wikipedia (once again!) of one of its worst pests. -- Fyslee / talk 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the word for not being civil

Incivil—According to the OED, it means unmannerly, rude, clownish; impolite or uncourteous to others; uncivil. That is a very good definition of not being civil. However, the word hasn't really been in common usage since the 18th century.
Uncivil—According to the same OED, it means Not civil or courteous, impolite; rough, rude, lacking in manners. Also a good definition of the lack of civility, but much more current in usage.
But to confuse this issue even further, incivility and uncivility are both in current usage.
So, I think uncivil and uncivility are the words of choice. IMHO.

Key Wikipedia Moments

10,000th edit

WikiCounts

Get your Wiki Edit Counts

My Wiki Edit Counts

Article edit counts

Ice Hockey

Go Kings. Ducklings suck.

My World View

I scored as Modernist. Modernism represents the thought that science and reason are all we need to carry on. Religion is unnecessary and any sort of spirituality halts progress. You believe everything has a rational explanation. 50% of Americans share your world-view.

Modernist

100%

Existentialist

88%

Materialist

88%

Postmodernist

81%

Romanticist

25%

Cultural Creative

25%

Fundamentalist

13%

Idealist

0%

What is Your World View?
created with QuizFarm.com

I love these tests, because I can manipulate them whatever way I want. But they are fun nevertheless. I was honest with my answers here, and I'm a typical American apparently.

Favorite Quotes from Discussion

I'm just going to add some of my favorite quotes that I've seen on discussion pages, especially in the Evolution vs. Creationism area, but I'll include Hockey or anything else that's amusing.

"...one could argue that evolution is not "undirected", in that it is directed by processes like natural selection. It's just not willfully directed." -Silence
"Also, what is it with creationists and grammar? Do you think God is bitter over being represented by bad spellers?" -Random Replicator
"A POV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of a cabal."-PhilKnight
'This fictitious cabal will obviously possess views directly opposed to the accusing editor, who will be remarkably willing to overlook contrary evidence."-PhilKnight
'In this manner nearly every good faith editor will be accused of being a member of entirely contradictory cabals."-PhilKnight
'Similarly, good faith editors are frequently accused of being sock puppets, trolls or vandals, very often by user accounts that fulfill these definitions. "-PhilKnight
Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing...Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority--William A. Dembski, 2004
Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.--William A Dembski, 1999
From Jerry A. Coyne ( Brockman, John (editor) (2006). Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Vantage Books. ISBN 9780307277220. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)): Well, which is it? Is intelligent design merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism, as most biologists claim, or is it science--an alternative to Darwinism that deserves discussion in the science classroom? ...you won't find the answers in the writings of the leading advocates of ID. The ambiguity is deliberate for ID is a theory that must appeal to two distinct constituencies. To the secular public, ID proponents present their theory as pure science. This, after all, is their justification for a slick public-relations campaign promoting the teaching of ID in public schools. But as is clear from the infamous "Wedge Document" of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle, and the center for ID propaganda, intelligent design is part of a cunning effort to dethrone materialism from society and science and replace it with theism. ID is simply biblical creationism updated and disguised to sneak evangelical Christianity past the First Amendment and open the classroom door to Jesus. The advocates of ID will admit this, but only to their second constituency, the sympathetic audience of evangelical Christians on whose support they rely.
And for the fact that "evolutionist" is considered a pejorative term, because it really is defined as a "belief" in evolution as much as there is a belief in G_d. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle. Evolutionist means nothing to me, and is not a word that any scientist would use to describe their understanding of that particular field of science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have built a system that accommodates people whose net contribution is negative, while alienating some of our best volunteers...It happens more and more that some loudmouth jackass causes enough trouble that it seems easier to accommodate him. This is short-sighted, and is why the fraction of jerks here is growing. What should we do instead? Keep people who help the project, lose people who do not, and protect each other from harassment. We could do that if we only had to deal with opposition by trolls and vandals. We cannot do it against the opposition of established members of the community."- Tom Harrison
I am now officially an Evilutionist. Can't wait to sacrifice some virgins at the altar of Darwin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design is intended as a wedge to get materialism out of science and society. But in fact it is a wedge that, if used, will break apart Christian faith even more effectively. Genuine science, on the other hand, does indeed require that we rethink our beliefs, but its effects on faith are far less destructive than those of young-earth creationism and intelligent design. As Pascal famously said, "A little science distances one from God, but a lot brings one back." -- Dr. James F. McGrath, Assistant Professor of Religion, Butler University.
While we're at it, let's make the "creationism" article say that God created the world 6000 years ago, the "slavery" article say that slavery was good for black Americans, the "Jews" article be nothing but conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the media, and the "9/11 attacks" article be nothing but an allegation that George Bush (and the same Jews) took down the towers. Then, we'll put all the actual information about those things in separate articles called "scientific view of creationism," "criticism of slavery," "responses to Jewish conspiracy theories," and "historical perspective on 9/11 attacks," which will be shorter than the articles about fringe theories, harder to find, present themselves as less legitimate since they are sub-article forks, and used as bludgeons to keep rational, objective information off of the main pages for those topics. That's the kind of Wikipedia that the homeopathy people appear to want. Randy Blackamoor
Homeopathy reminds me of religion: an opiate for the masses and poison for the rest of us. User:Jim62sch

Welcome Back JzG

...it's the whole culture. People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt, to the detriment of people who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia. A couple of tabloid stories is not what I call multiple independent sources, I think that human-interest stories in the press are just about 100% worthless as primary sources for an article and not much use for filler either. I don't have a problem with Jeff, because his focus is pop culture and I know we have a problem with sourcing pop culture articles within policy, and we need people who understand and love pop culture to help us fix that, but all these articles on the cause du jour of less-than-serious newspapers simply do not belong in an encyclopaedia; they have no evident lasting impact or significance. Yet the fact of their being covered in a couple of papers during the slow news season is deemed to be "multiple sources", ignoring of course the fact that all papers have space to fill and shamelessly fill it with whatever tittle-tattle happens to be doing the rounds. Like the erectile dysfunction crap in Rudy Giuliani. Does anybody who is even remotely serious about politics actually give a shit about that? It is pointless nonsense publicised by his detractors in order to belittle him; it's no more significant than someone being bald or short-sighted, undeniably common in men of his age, not in any way a distinguishing feature (hey, you look like Rudy Giuliani, but I'd like to be sure, so if you wouldn't mind...)

In short there are too many idiots and too few people prepared to tell them to fuck off. And yes, that is precisely what we should tell them, because anything less encourages endless debates and Wikilawyering. Want to tell the world that Lance Armstrong takes drugs? Fuck off. At least until he has stopped successfully suing the newspapers for saying it. Want to tell the world about the evil world Jewish conspiracy? Fuck off, forever, and never even think about coming back. Want to tell the world how the scientists are all wrong? Fuck off - until it's in Nature, anyway. Want to out someone as a paedophile? Not here. Want to explain how 9/11 is a conspiracy and no plane crashed into the Pentagon? Web space is cheap, get some of your own.

The real problem, though, which underlies all of this, is that...these people are making me angry and that makes me depressed. I know how people feel when their neighbourhood is vandalised or overrun with beer-swilling louts. The louts may think they own the place, but in the end they don't, and the people who are prepared to put the time, money and effort into building the neighbourhood should get more consideration than those who view it only as a venue for their own selfish pleasure. Wikipedia will be a better place when Jonathan Barber grows up, to name but one persistent offender.Guy 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG Quote II

There is a problem here, but not an easy one to solve. A number of articles attract virtually no attention other than from POV-pushers; that leaves one or two good Wikipedians fighting the NPOV corner against all comers, and leads to burnout - at this point trolls will often come along to poke them with a stick. It happens that many (though by no means all) of these good Wikipedians are admins. Wikipedia, as a project, seems to have "delegated" management of POV targets to a people who are then considered expendable, or even considered the source of the problem, when burnout strikes. As they get more experienced, the POV-pushers become more adept at querulous argumentation, citing policy and constantly trying to establish a new "neutral" average between their POV and the current state of the article, a kind of ratchet effect. Cold fusion has twice been reverted to the 2004 FA version due to the pernicious effect of "fringecruft", there are many other articles where minority activists dominate the agenda. I've seen this at articles like Simon Wessely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and user:ScienceApologist is one of the on-admins who is burning out fighting off the kooks. The bad news is, when that happens, the kooks will move in big time. Watching articles prone to kookery is a thankless task, I go back every couple of months to Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and sometimes I'm horrified at what's been done. This is not an especially healthy situation for the project, but these articles at the margins, the ones that form the core of the fringe cosmology obsessions, Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other paranormal subjects, simply don't get enough eyes to impede the POV-pushers, because most editors (rightly) can't tolerate the stupidity that goes on there. I also think some people are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is now probably the number one most important place to promote your fringe view, mad theory, band or whatever. I don't know a good way to fix this. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews on Wikipedia

Added Orangemarlin to Jew Wikipedia Users 65.27.38.203 (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)