User talk:Orangemarlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning
As of this post, you've made 11 posts to my talkpage, and the day is only have over. Using my superior math skills, my unsurpassed intelligence, my intuitive fashion sense, my tasteful sports loyalties, and my infinitely better physical appearance, I've extrapolated that at current pace, you'll have singlehandedly made more edits to my talkpage, today, than I have. Which, of course, is prima facie evidence that you need this warning. Keeper ǀ 76 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm now officially declaring myself a Vandalizing Keeper76's page account. However, I am going to have a secret meeting with myself, and declare some sanctions of Keeper76. This should only take 2 or 3 minutes. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
MedRevise.co.uk
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ...
... for this -- the editor, who is almost certainly User:Firefly322, no more knows when to give up than (s)he knows how to write good prose. I therefore consciously err on the side of caution, rather than allow my frustration to inadvertently drag me into an edit-war. You may find Issues in Science and Religion an interesting example of this editor's unique editing style. HrafnTalkStalk 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
query
[2] Did you intend to revert me? 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. That was not a personal attack on any editor (It's like saying the "Yankees Suck"). It does not violate ANY guidelines outlined in WP:TALK. I have a singular policy about user or article talk. No censoring, unless it is very specifically a personal attack. Don't censor is my advice to you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- And please, don't take what I did as any type of criticism. The statement about Republicans was probably not necessary, but it did not have to be deleted. You may ask the editor who posted it to delete it (which is what I do, depending on the editor, in either or a nice or not so nice way.)OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Okay, that's your call. But three specific editors had already opposed, it seemed clear to me that therefore "It's pointless to propose anything as long as the Republicans have their little dwarves around here to vote in mass against" refers to them. Having this kind of talk is going to lead to flame wars, bad faith, acrimony, as well as influence others into thinking this kind of discourse is acceptable, with similar consequences. I don't see how that leads to editing an article well, and in this specific case, the talk page is almost impractically busy enough without it. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I long ago learned if you talk like that, you convince no one of anything. You ignore it. And really, we don't vote around here. It's forming a consensus. Kind of different thing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of what we do around here, no idea why you're telling me that. Also I made no point that the comment may convince anyone. I did make the point that it was obviously a personal attack on the three editors who already opposed - that's got nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the formatting of the section - and the point that it and your reversion of it likely hurts editing of the article. *shrug* 86.44.27.255 (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take offense. I didn't check out your contributions, I just see you're an IP. You used the word "vote", and I wanted to disabuse you of that particular train of thought. I doubt my reversion does anything of the nature. We shouldn't censor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Don't think I used the word vote anywhere, OM, except to quote our admin friend of anti-rightwingmidgetshill fame. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- No offence was taken, btw, just some mild irritation that you had not been editing the page at a time when it was technically difficult to do so before dropping in, i think. I realize you were being friendly above.
- Don't think I used the word vote anywhere, OM, except to quote our admin friend of anti-rightwingmidgetshill fame. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take offense. I didn't check out your contributions, I just see you're an IP. You used the word "vote", and I wanted to disabuse you of that particular train of thought. I doubt my reversion does anything of the nature. We shouldn't censor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of what we do around here, no idea why you're telling me that. Also I made no point that the comment may convince anyone. I did make the point that it was obviously a personal attack on the three editors who already opposed - that's got nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the formatting of the section - and the point that it and your reversion of it likely hurts editing of the article. *shrug* 86.44.27.255 (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I long ago learned if you talk like that, you convince no one of anything. You ignore it. And really, we don't vote around here. It's forming a consensus. Kind of different thing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Okay, that's your call. But three specific editors had already opposed, it seemed clear to me that therefore "It's pointless to propose anything as long as the Republicans have their little dwarves around here to vote in mass against" refers to them. Having this kind of talk is going to lead to flame wars, bad faith, acrimony, as well as influence others into thinking this kind of discourse is acceptable, with similar consequences. I don't see how that leads to editing an article well, and in this specific case, the talk page is almost impractically busy enough without it. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- On the wider point, having seen the Ossetia war talk page before this, i think there is a case for somewhat aggressive attempts to communicate an acceptable level of discourse on pages that a) are being read and edited by new users, and b) do not have the space for nonsense. I was not making it here, but the idea did inform my sole edit in this area, since i'm one of those guys who is not an enforcer or quoter of civility or personal attacks policies in any other context. But perhaps in contentious fast-moving contexts there is all the more danger of gaming and tactics and edit-warring being carried over into attempts to clerk, leading to even more fun! 86.44.22.206 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
You've been included in a case at the Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. Feel free to put your two cents in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me there- the user who filed the MEDCAB accused some of the users of being on a "crusade" against them. I was trying to get them reassurance that the other editors were simply of like mind, not a roving gang. My apologies for the confusion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. We've worked together on articles, and have each other's talk pages on our watchlists. Haven't sent armies to the Holy Land or murdered any of its inhabitants lately. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've been vandalizing User:Keeper76's page with several other editors. But seriously, there are a very large number of related articles that several devoted editors watch. Is the assumption that we divvy up articles, each editor only editing a few? Or instead, isn't amazing that a lot of smart, devoted, articulate and rational editors find the time and energy to edit these articles? And if someone seriously looks at my contributions, you'd see my editing overlaps with medical editors, science editors, and, in some odd places here and there, history, warfare, baseball, hockey,.....and it goes on and on. Am I in a cabal or "roving gang" in any of those places? I don't think so. Maybe the point is that there are anti-science editors who lack any support for their POV, so without any intellectual backing, they attack a "cabal". We should ignore them. And in the case of this particular mediation, the editor who requested it ought to take an English writing course, instead of causing this dramafest.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. We've worked together on articles, and have each other's talk pages on our watchlists. Haven't sent armies to the Holy Land or murdered any of its inhabitants lately. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)