Jump to content

User talk:Orangemarlin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 12 December 2011 (→Not saying fuck: Got it. That boomerang works quite well, but I'm afraid someday the CIVIL types are actually going to hit me with it.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • New threads belong at the bottom of talk pages. Just click this link to start: 'new section'. I reserve the right to summarily remove (without responding, and possibly even without reading) any new threads placed here at the top of this talk page.
  • Discussion directly pertaining to a specific article belongs on that article's talkpage, not on this page. Where such discussion is erroneously posted here, I may move it to article talk, or (if I'm feeling lazy, cranky, mean, belligerent, or for any other arbitrary reason) simply delete or revert it. Just post it where it belongs in the first place.
  • I likewise reserve the right to curtail (by reversion, deletion, archiving or otherwise) any thread on this talkpage that I (on my sole discretion) feel has become, or is is likely to be, unproductive. If you object to such curtailment, then by all means don't post here.
  • If you are an admin here to admonish me for some imagined slight against humanity, a POV editor, the purity of Wikipedia, or Jimbo Wales himself, do so if you think it's going to matter, or even if it makes you feel better. I'm not going to censor you. But, unlike two admins who threatened to block me with no right to do so, make sure you have your facts right. They didn't.
  • This user has their preferences set to automatically watchlist all articles they edit, and all pages they comment upon. It is therefore completely unnecessary for you to {{talkback}} this user to tell them that you have replied to a comment. Assume that I will either respond if I feel like, or I won't respond because I don't wish to continue the conversation. Putting a talkback template will guarantee I won't respond.
  • Sense of humor matters. If you crack me up in warning me not to say "fuck", I'm going to laugh, and probably not use "fuck" for a couple of days. That being said, there is no implied or explicit guarantee of that.
  • All comments that are, in any interpretation, supportive of the New York Yankees will be immediately reverted. You have been warned.

Archives

Important Items to Watch


Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/2/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/2/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

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
Worm That Turned 121 0 1 100 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 13 hours no report
FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted Review it now
Roswell incident Review it now
La Isla Bonita Review it now


Featured article removal candidates
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark Review now
Rudolf Vrba Review now
Michael Tritter Review now
Middle Ages Review now
Emmy Noether Review now
The Notorious B.I.G. Review now
Isaac Brock Review now
Mariah Carey Review now
Pokémon Channel Review now
Concerto delle donne Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 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.

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

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.

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)


Fuck This Place

Jclemens is absolute douche. Thanks MastCell, you're a good guy. If I were completely healthy, I'd love to see Jclemens in person. Probably a little pussy that would hide in his mommy's basement. Wouldn't have the balls to talk to me like a man. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU TINY LITTLE MAN JCLEMENS. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin, I understand that you are very upset and angry right now. I do think that lashing out in anger is not going to achieve anything positive, and that your feelings on the matter can be expressed better. As such, I have removed your comment from the proposed decision talk page but not the one immediately above here, as this is your talkpage (though I do think that in the cold light of day you yourself might wish to remove it). If you wish to take this further, I suggest you do so calmly and wisely. If you would like any friendly advice, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OM, think of it this way: by expressing yourself in these terms you risk creating a sympathy backlash for Jclemens. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Harvester makes a good point. Stress relief is what you need OM. I'd suggest killing a puppy every time Jclemens comes to mind. It works. I survived the Bush years using a similar technique involving kittens. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that's what happened to the Panthera tigris altaica population!!! LeadSongDog come howl! 14:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He said puppy. Not kitty. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a mental block about puppies dying. That's why Nipper is now 127 (human years) and going strong. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OM is not the only one that is totally pissed off. This editor voted me to be banned from the article for using "uncivil hegemony and sarcasm" three times out of about 180 posts and when I go to the page mentioned here I find a post made by him that reads:

Or should we just drop the pretense, and automagically give everyone who says they have real-world medical problems a "get out of ArbCom free" pass? That seems to be the direction we're heading, and I don't see any collective will within the committee to change it. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, isn't that the kind of talk that he wants me banned for? I am seeing a new side of Wikipedia that I do not like at all and it makes me very discouraged and angry. Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of hypocrisy we've come to expect from Arbcoms, unfortunately. Alas they are blind to the corrosive effects of their double standards.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no useful set of checks and balances on the admins here. Most adminning is of the drive-by variety--take a quick look, issue an edict, and move on, Judge Dredd-style. I came out well in this latest round and yet I'm hardly encouraged by the process. JJL (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took it off the page Artifex? Really? So, Jclemens, the pathetic little pussy who probably thinks being a janitor is a step up in life, gets to cast lies against me and get away with it? Then I can't even tell him he's a fucking asshole? Well, how fair is that? And Boris, if the system here actually worked well, I'd believe you on the backlash. However, he'll get support from the asshole crowd who thinks that homeopathy works, so it doesn't matter. Arbcom is made up of a few very good people, a few decent people, and a couple of truly awesome losers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?... I didn't take it off the page (whatever it is). To... uh... tell you the truth officer... she was dead when I got here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The DNA tests have exonerated you. It appears that Alexandr is the guilty party. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why quacks can succeed: A case study

If the only difference between science based medicine and quackery were that one worked, and the other didn't, the current proliferation of homeopathy, etc, wouldn't be possible: the benefits of active treatment are normally perceived as superior to placebo. But the playing field isn't level. Humans are social animals, who want to perceive medical treatment staff as caring about them. They respond to things such as friendliness of the clerk at the front desk, the ambiance and decor of the office, and so on. When selling snakeoil, medical marketing factors such as these are everything. By contrast, the average citizen displays an appalling lack of medical knowledge. It is therefore a mistake for physicians to assume that they are so obviously better than quacks that they need not do everything they can to improve the treatment experience. Moreover, the success (or lack thereof) of a doctor's practice may not provide adequate feedback: the diversion of patients to quacks, and concomitant loss of demand for medical services, might simply be resulting in fewer students attending medical school than would otherwise be the case. Such a trend could easily be obscured (for now) by the current growth in the medical field and proliferation of new and expensive treatments. I assume, Orangemarlin, that you don't tell your patients to fuck themselves. Nonetheless, your behavior here, and for the last several years, illustrates the current attitudinal problems of the medical profession. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're judging the "attitudinal problems of the medical profession" by Orangemarlin's contributions to Wikipedia, then I have to question the validity of your conclusions. MastCell Talk 05:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
???OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an example. I've ample experience with doctors to conclude that there's an issue. Walk into the waiting room in a typical doctor's office and what will you see? A (figuratively) sterile environment brightly lit with fluorescent tubes installed in an acoustic tile ceiling. Beyond chairs, no attempts at decor are made; walls which could be covered with reprints of classic renaissance art or stunning landscapes are instead bare. None of that is really necessary: you don't need sufficient illumination to perform surgery or walls that can easily be sterilized in the waiting room. The receptionist is likely to greet you with an attitude of polite indifference. The doctor will converse with you only to gather enough information to make a diagnosis and formulate a treatment plan - it is absolutely out of the question that he/she would have sufficient time to really get to know you. None of these are favorable attributes for a medical system that is in direct competition with quacks.
There is also the matter of physicians hanging the "alternative medicine" (i.e. quackery) banner where it doesn't really belong. Systems like homeopathy, etc, are clearly trying to practice medicine, and failing miserably at the task. But sites like Quackwatch are fond of sweeping all sorts of new-age spiritualism into the "medicine" category, then finding, not surprisingly, that the practices don't meet accepted evidence-based medicine standards. Purporting to cure cancer is clearly a medical claim, and proponents of unproven treatments in this respect should be vigorously excoriated. Claiming to balance someone's chakras or transmit reiki energy? It's about as medical as an exorcism. Continuing to stuff more and more physical, social, and religious activities into the "alternative medicine" category is untenable, and undermines respect for the medical profession.
Finally, physicians themselves need to live up to evidence-based medicine standards. Far too many, at least outside the academic community, are treating based primarily on their own clinical experience or pharmaceutical manufacturer's advertising, while ignoring the medical literature. It requires a great deal of humility for doctors to admit that their own experience is subject to placebo effect and confirmation bias, so Cochrane may know better than them. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were large national differences on this one. In the UK, most GP's waiting rooms (and many hospital corridors etc.) have pictures and other visual attractions; many GP waiting rooms have small children's play areas, and fish tanks, and so on. Similarly, many individual doctors' consulting rooms have some level of decoration. And again, I think that it's possible that in the UK there may be a bit more of a "consider the whole family" approach. Thirdly (and possibly most importantly), in the UK we have The NHS, which (although not perfect) does mean that people aren't quite so tempted to hunt around for other (and possibly less expensive) modes of treatment. As someone who's had multiple surgeries, I've had quite a bit of experience of waiting rooms, wards, and corridors in the UK; I haven't seen, here, quite the same level of user-unfriendliness as is described above. It could be interesting to get hold of any end-user-surveys of medical care in different countries and compare levels of perceived impersonal-ness (I know there's a real word, but can't quite get to it) with levels of "alternative-medicine-seeking". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra, I have no clue as to your goals or even your logic here. I don't practice medicine, and if you read anything here about me, you wouldn't have made that assumption. As to relating my attitude towards pseudoscience as to what I do in the real world, well, that's why I hide behind a large degree of anonymity. I tell idiots here to fuck themselves, when in the real world, I have to smile and say, "sure, but the evidence doesn't support it." Then I call security and have them thrown through the window out on the street or something. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fat lady

The other 29 teams in baseball ought to just stay home for the summer. The fat lady is in Miami, warming up her vocal cords for the Miami Florida Marlins. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better fix that - it's a redirect to Miami Marlins. It will be interesting if they manage to sign Pujols, although I don't know how they plan to pay for their Yankees-style rent-a-big-name-player spree. Apparently the SEC is already curious about the dodges they used to finance their stadium. (Hey, Miami taxpayer! Sorry your house is worth 10% of what you paid for it. Now we need you to cover $2 million in property taxes for the new stadium so the owners don't have to pay them). Good to see them making moves, though, I guess. MastCell Talk 23:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The alliteration is cute though, you gotta admit. I got a supersize dolphins coffee mug years ago when I visited. My uncle had a holiday house there...and watching Burn Notice and Dexter makes me wanna go back :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter is filmed mostly in Long Beach and other locations, with a few scenes shot in Miami. Don't get too excited. Burn Notice, one of the best on TV, is full-on Miami. I love it. I'm beginning to miss South Florida, but then it'll be 95 °F (35 °C) with 100% humidity, giant cockroaches, alligators in my backyard, and 10 freaking hurricanes pointed my way, and I decide I just love California! And MastCell...you're just pissy because of your Phillies. But we both need to laugh at the Mets. Losers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only went there the once in winter, and can anticipate the summer being...errr..challenging. Maybe the Mets should move to Miami. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, did they really only introduce interleague play in 1997?? Man, it's the local derbies in the UK and Oz that really get the fans going. Amazes me that one wouldn't want to see the locals slugging it out with each other as much as possible...and good for reducing greenhouse gas emission due to fewer planes needed to transport players and fans....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Marlins won it all in 97! I was still living there then. There are a couple of Aussies in the MLB. Can't name them, but I've heard their accent. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lebron, errrrrr, I mean Albert Pujols is in negotiations this evening with the Miami Heat Miami Marlins. As long as there is no baseball Dirk Nowitzki wandering the league. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Laws and Gifts

For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift. And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same. That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by claw, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.63.208 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Verily, you doth full of fucking shit. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a cranky Mets fan. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't knock my Mets! JJL (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those verses are from the Doctrine and Covenants, so it's a cranky Mormon Mets fan... MastCell Talk 00:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about you MastCell. Doctrine and Convenants isn't something familiar to most individuals. Curious that someone would dump Mormon propaganda on someone who lived many years in Utah, and has quite a high level of immunity to their beliefs. As if a bunch of gold plates actually showed up in Palmyra NY. More like someone was eating shrooms.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such cynicism. Next you're going to tell me that there's no such language as reformed Egyptian. MastCell Talk 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Orthodox Egyptian... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote most of the article on Martha Beck, I'm sure I'm not very popular with the Teaching of Reformed Egyptian crowd. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Hi there. I happen to have the above article on my watchlist, and I just noticed your reverted an IP editor as "vandalism" and left a boilerplate message on their talk page to the effect that they had been reverted. I know when you're in RC Patrol mode, it's kinda easy to miss some stuff, but the edit was actually a good-faith edit made by an obvious newbie. Maybe next time, could you maybe use an automated tool to undo their edit with a kinder message ("undid good faith edit by xxxx: whatever issue") and maybe add a welcome message to their talk page rather than a warning? I know it's a little extra work, but it's best not to scare them off!. Thanks! - Alison ❤ 02:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, few IP's are worth that much trouble. My interpretation of the edit was pure vandalism. I do use "good faith" when it's clear it's a good faith edit. I prefer to scare off newbies who waste our time than spend a nanosecond pretending that they'll do anything more than be a waste of our time. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! And then there are those who refuse to register, contributing without fully engaging with the community in what often gives every appearance of an attempt to evade responsibility and accountability for their edits—while nevertheless fully availing themselves of every opportunity to use Wikipedia policy as a bludgeon with which to beat others over the head and complaining that their anonymous edits are looked on askance. See e.g. this crapmess and this related plaintive solliloquy. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I truly don't understand why IP editors are allowed, never have. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Every time I've brought this up, I've never yet heard a good justification for allowing it. No one, not even experienced admins, have provided a decent reason. Requiring registration doesn't prevent anyone from editing. EVERYONE can still edit! The disadvantages of editing as an IP far outweigh any supposed advantages. The advantages are often equivalent to policy violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I stirred up the pot, let me continue. I cannot remember a single IP editor who wasn't either a punk at a school just causing trouble, a true vandal, a POV pusher OR someone trying to avoid responsibility as Scheinwerfermann says. Now, I started as an IP editor. But I never did anything to raise the ire of an admin (of course in 04, admins weren't a bunch of sanctimonious, incompetent and arrogant fucktards that they are now). The IP's that end up registering, usually make one or two edits, then register, and we never hear from the IP again. All other IP editors are WORTHLESS. There is no other argument. If I had the power, I'd block an IP after one violation of anything. But we keep letting them fuck around this place causing problems. We waste more time on IP users, but then we ban Badger Drink for nothing. And Jimbo thinks that real editors aren't leaving in droves. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a larger issue: when weighing costs and benefits, the powers-that-be around here (WMF, arbcom) value the time and effort of established editors at very nearly zero. Look at the Scibaby problem in climate change. Look at what MastCell has had to go through with (whoever it was, name escapes me). The whole attitude is "better to waste 10,000 hours of time of good-faith editors than to take the slightest chance of blocking an obvious troll who might, possibly, somehow, someday make one constructive edit." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You depress me Boris. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up IPs and reminding me of this and this. Next time how about you just give me a paper cut and put lemon juice on it. Depressing. So this baby seal walks into a club... ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remind me of that Abortion debacle. What amuses me is that DMSBel got blocked and banned. Makes me happy. Oh, that's not what really amuses me. It's that I was involved in that travesty of an Arbcom thing, when I made like 5 edits at most. Oh wait, we're talking about IP's and not DMSTwit. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bust in, but if you read the actual stats, it's the IPs who provide most of the content. The regulars only maintain. Be——Critical 05:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and bust in. IP's provide most of content where? The whole project? Or Abortion? Well, if you're stating that they provide most of the content for Wikipedia as a whole, I'd say "lend me some of that dope you're smoking." No way. And if you're talking about the abortion article, then I'd you're wrong. Almost all of the IP's contributions was whining, complaining, POV-pushing, and being overall jackasses on Talk:Abortion. I counted less than 10 (???) edits to the article itself. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP as a whole, see this article [2]. Be——Critical 06:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't seem to have many facts on its side. I just chose a few random articles, and almost every single article is mostly written by one or two people, with a bunch of people cleaning up or vandalizing (almost always IP's). I cannot believe that IP's contribute any more than a couple of percent to the totality of the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have real stats, but it's also my casual observation from doing a little bit of recent changes patrol. Be——Critical 07:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Dartmouth Study of 2007 showed that, "Surprisingly, however, we find the highest quality from the vast numbers of anonymous 'Good Samaritans' who contribute only once. Our findings that Good Samaritans as well as committed "zealots" contribute high quality content to Wikipedia suggest that it is the quantity as well as the quality of contributors that positively affects the quality of open source production." (Anthony, Denise (2007). "The Quality of Open Source Production: Zealots and Good Samaritans in the Case of Wikipedia" (PDF). Dartmouth Technical Report (TR2007-606). Retrieved 7 December 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))
    • And there you are, beating them over the head, Orangemarlin. No wonder editor retention is at an all-time low. I edited anon for many months before trying registered accounts. Had you been doing your WP:DICK thing back then, who knows who else wouldn't be here now. And as a checkuser, I know too well what some anons do. But what you did back there was slam some editor - possibly not a native English speaker - who had done their best. That's just not right - Alison ❤ 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues with editor retention, from Sue Gardner, no less; "Newbies are making up a smaller percentage of editors overall than ever before, and the absolute number of newbies is dropping as well. That's a problem for everyone, because it means that experienced editors are needing to shoulder an ever-increasing workload" - well, I wonder why? - Alison ❤ 07:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I knew there were more stats somewhere, I just didn't know where to find them. It seems to me that there is more to it than the steep learning curve or unpleasant environment. Wikis feel very retro, they just don't have the vibe people are used to. They're yesterday's thing, not what people do anymore. Twitter, facebook... that's where it is now, not wikis. Be——Critical 08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the views of OrangeMarlin and many others come from a kind of selection bias. We remember the disruptive IPs because they waste so much of our time, and because whenever we mention a particular IP, it's practically always a disruptive one. Whereas good IPs rarely edit outside article space, and we rarely have any reason to interact with them or even remember them. That makes them incredibly inconspicuous. Studying Abortion would also produce a skewed sample of IP contributions, as it's difficult for a casual or new editor to make an improvement to such a well-developed article, so all your left with is the vandals and trolls. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is not a native English speaker, and not competent to write in English, why the hell should we be nice? I can read French, I can speak French, but my writing, well let's just say it is at about a grade 2 level.... I know enough not to edit a French language wikipedia article. Why coddle anyone? Oh and registration is not that arduous anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Alison. Sorry, but you're using logic that the anti-vaccination jackasses uses. Using your experience to make a conclusion about the whole Wikipedia experience. The fact is, you probably weren't a bad IP editor, so I wouldn't have treated you with the disdain I treat most other IP's. You see, Adrian is right, I have selection bias. I cannot remember the good IP's because they don't do anything bad, and we forget about them soon, or they register. They don't get treated badly. So your logic is easily dismissed for two major reasons: 1) I do not treat well-meaning IP's as dicks. If I err on the side of abusing them, oh well, not a major loss to the project. But the major one is 2) it's all about statistics. I'm one editor, probably hanging around 1% of the articles of Wikipedia, most which attract dumbfuck IP POV pushers. A nice IP editor fixing some silly video game article, I'm not going to see it. Of course, most of the IP editors on video game articles are adding "this game rocks. If you need more power, just hit your up button three times, while standing next to the green rock next to the dragon's dungeon." OK, I might have reverted something like that a few years ago. All and all Alison, I just don't agree with you. Boris is completely right. We spend a 1000 hours arguing about how we should be nice to fucking IP's. And spend 0 amount of time on how to get rid of fucking IP's and make better articles. Oh wait, we have Jimbo Wales removing a picture on Pregnancy that's been there for five years or so, because it offends his sensibility or some such shit. That's important to. Oh, wait I shouldn't be snarky to the lord god of Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you're entitled to your opinion, of course, you're going to have to do a little better than "I just don't agree with you". As for the not treating well-meaning IPs as dicks, you just did that - that's why I'm here and we're having this conversation! Seriously. As for the 'why the hell should we be nice to non-native speakers?' - I can't believe I'm hearing that here. Look - I also spend time on French, German, Dutch Wikipedia where I deal with articles related to my native country and add images, fix cats, etc. My French is high-schoolish. Sometimes I SUL in and sometimes I don't even bother. I'm an 8+ year editor on this project - an admin/functionary (BFD - I know) - and when I'm there, I'm just another IP with poor language skills. All I need is for some ban-happy hater on that project to not give a shit, and I'm in the same hot water as the editor you just slammed. See? WP:AGF runs this place, not WP:DICK and it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to at least take a look before you decide to slap some anon editor upside the head - Alison ❤ 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break...I said arb....hehehehehee

Since our conversation has wander a bit, I thought I'd put in a break. OK Alison, you've always treated me fairly and I've always respected you, but you're starting to piss me off. Neither of us probably cares about that (BFD, in other words), but you're trying to make me prove the negative with IP's. If you can show me proof that IP's are overwhelmingly a benefit to Wikipedia, then I'll never give shit to another one again. Furthermore, you need to prove to me that I'm a dick to worthwhile IP's. I mean we all make mistakes, but if more than 0.1% of the IP's I treat with disdain actually become useful, I'd love to see it. The fact is, as mentioned above, we're wasting way too much time on these IP's. As for how I work around here....did you know I co-wrote almost all of Alzheimer's disease with a non-native English speaking Spaniard neurologist? An FA article at that. But he wasn't an IP, he registered his account. Oh well, I guess we can dig up all kinds of examples to prove our points. I still don't why we put up with tendentious IP's with an agenda. Just saying.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I'm pretty sympathetic to Alison's point - and am currently discussing the issue of editor retention with MastCell [3] - I dont' really see how the edit, which adds "You will see you growing" in the context of reproductive organs, could be viewed as anything but silly vandalism. My experience in looking at article histories and such also confirms that much of the important contributions come from IPs. II | (t - c) 04:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, the edit could have been made by a child, who is excited at having understood the concept of pregnancy. Cardamon (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the problem comes from discussing "IP editors" as a generic group. My experience with IP editors in climate change is filled with memories of comments like "Are most of you who are alarmists & cultists also gay? I'm looking to pack fudge" or "If there was a god, you would go to hell, for being dishonest & immoral." On the other hand I don't doubt that there are IPs who have brought articles on other topics (Family Guy episodes or whatever) up to FA status. But I'm not going to see those.

    The WMF folks want to believe that IP editors are humanity's gift to Wikipedia. Some of us grizzled veterans of controversial topics think the opposite. We're both right, and we're both wrong. What's needed is a nuanced approach that can encourage the good IPs while protecting us from the bad ones. But "nuanced approach" is not the Wikipedia way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuanced, as in any IP editor with no recent constructive edit history gets fast-tracked from {{uw-vandal1}} to {{uw-vandal4im}} to wp:AIV. Be nice, but don't take so much crap before the slapdown.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it comes down to is that just about every single grizzled veteran started out as an IP editor (and many of us still edit as IPs from time to time), so beating up on IP editors who make newbie errors is counterproductive. Most people choose not to participate in an activity where they are treated rudely or bullied; therefore, for every potentially decent IP editor who is treated like the dirt beneath someone's feet (and I include the silly autogenerated templates that (loosely paraphrased) say "you did something wrong on xxx article, but we're not going to tell you why you're wrong, you're just going to have to guess") we eliminate one more potential longterm, productive, grizzled veteran. Risker (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I agree we all started out as IP's. No argument there. But I'll bet a year's salary that not one of us did our first edit as "Julie has big tits" or some such thing. And remember, every grizzled editor gives an IP editor a few chances. In fact, it takes 4 vandalisms in a short period of time to qualify for AIV. Second, I don't "beat up on newbie editors". This is just about vandalism. I guess I have a stricter standard of what constitutes vandalism, and frankly, which button I choose depends on several things: my mood, the performance of any of my sports teams, whether I've had a good dump, and whether MastCell or Boris has cracked me up lately. Seriously, it's a judgement call. and if I don't' have time to review their talk page, I err on the side of calling it vandalism. It's just my way of doing things. AND, if an IP is trying hard to fix something, but screws up, I always put a welcome template, and give advice. So, what are we all arguing about? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and what about the beating the long term editors receive from IPs. Check out the rants here on my talk page from this "new editor" [4] His edits do by the way look very similar to those of a half dozen other new accounts. I have left about 8-10 nice messages on their user pages and am wondering if I should just be blocking on site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and MastCell seem to attract them. He's dealing with someone who has googled every combination of XXX and thiomersal to try to make a point with regards to vaccines. I swear his next step will be "there are 473 hits for anal cancer and thiomersal". Again, I'm not seeing the usefulness of IP's. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need empirical data on the issue of IPs. Does anything now if this has been done? Colin is working through this issue of new, intelligent University student. [5] We definitely need to have appropriate rewards and sticks in place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be useful!OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Define "empirical data on the issue of IPs" please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard Wikipedian's definition of "empirical data": numbers and statistics that support things we're already convinced are true. :P MastCell Talk 06:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we have the number on how many begin editing, what percentage of the edits are good or bad on a 5 point scale as seen here[6]. What percentage are appropriately warned / excessively warned / treated too leniently. How many editors are driven away / do not even start editing due to the IP issue.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved...

...this to userspace - hope you don't mind. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong? I've done all my archives in the same manner. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Forgot one dumb slash. Ack. I'll be moving it again. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AZ

Hey, I saw from a post at WT:MED that you're back-- I hope you're well. Could I trouble you for information about Alzheimer's organizations? What group should I suggest for charitable donations? Time is of the essence (printer deadlines). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm back. Are you hinting at something about my obvious dementia? The Alzheimer's Association is the leading one, and audits of its use of funds seem to exceed appropriate standards of charitable foundations. Yeah, I'm back. Still cranky however. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we just wanted to make sure you thought highly of them before naming them recipient. You'd be off if you were on Wikipedia and weren't cranky :) Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope there's a link to the original deletion discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an advert

The material I added to the two pages is not an advert. The material clearly meets wikipedia policy in that the statement is referenced with reliable source(s); texts published by well known and respected publishers and authors. If you believe the material is advert, please cite the specific wikipedia standard or policy and relevant section to back up your assertion; otherwise, please restore what you deleted as your deletion may actually constitute vandalism, as I read the relevant wikipedia page on that. ParanakanDoctor (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked as a sockpuppet of DPeterson. You must think we're idiots. Oh, you can't read this. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no, he can read it, he can't reply....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet that DPeterson and his/her numerous socks has neither read nor replied to any of these things. It's amusing that every time they do this, one or more of us revert, do the SPI, and they always claim that they're innocent. It's not challenging.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI on Evolution as fact and theory

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You've done a lot of good hard work here. It is appreciated. Did I cross paths with you on my work at Dialectical behavior therapy? Alatari (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Psychology articles rank only slightly above Marvel comic book heroes as Wikipedia articles that interest me.  :) I do watch a couple of articles on attachment therapy, because I watch as many pseudoscience or junk medicine articles as I know. We might have crossed paths there, but your name is unfamiliar to me. I don't usually do anything at AN/I's...but let me see what's going on. I'll probably still ignore it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone found me an interesting tool so I don't have to count on my swiss cheese memory: http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php?wikiDb=enwiki_p&firstUser=Orangemarlin&secondUser=Alatari&sort=0 Alatari (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Saving that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we're rationally skeptical that there's even a controversy

Thanks for the chuckle. Orangemarlin you're very good with words, I'll give you that. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Man from Earth

A big aloha to you and welcome back. Hope you're doing better and intend to stick around. I was wondering, have you ever seen the science fiction film, The Man from Earth (2007). I would be interested in hearing some feedback from you on this film. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. LTNS. No, I have not seen the movie, but it seems to have a wonderful premise. Now, let me see if I can download it somewhere, since they seem to not mind peer-to-peer networks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh I never thought I'd hear someone else mention this movie. I was friends with the guy who plays the main character years ago when I lived in LA so I checked it out. I found the premise really interesting but due to the low budget they weren't able to take it very far. The entire movie is dialogue for the most part and they spend most of their time in one room. Interesting idea, but I was disappointed. Noformation Talk 02:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it quite well. It's on netflix last I looked. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A word

Hi OrangeMarlin, I just want to let you know that you don't help anyone when you give into your urge to verbally abuse people you with whom you have disagreements, least of all yourself. I realize I don't know the full context of your interactions with those users - but honestly I am not sure it really matters, you're a grown up and you need to be able to control your temper when you interact with others, even people you don't like. If you can't do that in the future you will need to avoid those people - because that kind of behavior is just as damaging to the encyclopedia as the kind of behavior you are accusing those editors of. By making the climate that hostile your are making sure that only the most meanspirited and motivated (i.e. pov-pushers) editors are the ones that stick around, and that is not going to solve your problems either. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably realize that I won't listen to any advice on this matter. However, I think you have failed to miss the point. I'm all right with creationist POV pushers like the ones that we see at various Evolution related articles. Eventually they get kicked in the ass by several other editors, and their POV edits are reverted. I just point them out to others. I don't "abuse them", as you say. If you're talking about Captain Occam, you need to read EVERYTHING. He made one of the most reprehensible accusations against my person, and he lacks the courage to apologize for it. He deserves all the abuse I give him. You need to see what he had sad, then come back and let's discuss that particular point. If you lack a diff for his exact verbiage in some arbcom discussion, then you're not looking hard enough. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always try my hardest to fail to miss the point ;). I happen to be quite familiar with Captain Occam and the emotional stress that trying to "collaborate" with him can cause. But what he deserves is besides the point - its about what wikipedia deserves and about what it requires. Wikipedia is much like the real world that way - you cant just go around giving people what you think they deserve, because by doing that then you are all of a sudden deserving of similar treatment yourself, and you'll make someone feel justified in giving it to you. It leads nowhere. I think your behavior was understandable and I don't want to punish you for it - but I don't think it is excusable - no matter what Occam did to "deserve" it - because you don't just hurt Occam - you hurt the project. And if you continue going that way you will eventually force the turn of events against you - without it mattering whether your attitude was at first understandable. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I've never collaborated with Captain Occam. Please, once again, you need to see what he said. It goes beyond "real world" behavior. If he had said that to me in the real world, the consequences to him would have been much more than a verbal commentary. The funny thing is that his love buddy, Jclemens on the Arbcom, repeated the same shit. Again, read the original point. Then let's talk. Oh, in my world, there are consequences for lies. Sorry, but I must live in a different environment than you. In my world, lies mean prison at worst, a tongue-lashing at the minimum. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See these cowardly statements. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the statements. I don't know where people go to prison for making unsavory speculations about others (I am also not sure that it falls in the category of lies in the world in which I live) - but in any case I am sure that you understand that dealing out vindictive tongue lashings, or other acts of vigilantism or revenge, also have consequences in the real world, just like they will here unless it stops. As I am sure you realize good men have gone to jail for meting out justified but illegal punishments. I wouldn't like to see the wiki-equivalent of that situation happen to you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Never mind. Read what you said. Totally disagree. We're done. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[7].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why the fuck did you do that? Certain editors, who shall remain nameless, will think I influenced you. Probably use the diff to prove that I eat virgins for dinner. Hehehehehe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long story...short penis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you don't have the short penis, because the two nameless editors will use that against you by claiming everything you do is because you feel inadequate. Hehehe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much sums up the situation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A special message for the holiday season

execute Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I stub my toe on a chair, the offending chair is sacrificed to the gods at dawn. I completely agree, it's an evolved behavior, as is almost all behavior. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That story was propagated far and wide in the press. Must have been a slow news week...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spot a nutritional quack?

Sorry, but... copyvio from here redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DietitiansNZ. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 09:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're no fun LSD. No fun at all. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LSD has always been fun for me. Just don't take to much. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just say "no" to Dogs. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying fuck

My read of the ANI thread that just closed was that you were directed not to be mean to quacks, lest they get their preciously little fee fees hurt. It was also reasonably well acknowledged that there's no reason for DMSBell or Captain Occham to overlap with you.

If you find DMSBell or CO overlapping with you, at all, please just contact one of your friendly neighborhood concerned users, as opposed to being mean to them. Especially do not use the fucking word fuck.

Best wishes! Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll not say the fucking fuck word to them.  :) Can I have a list of friendly neighborhood concerned users? LOLOrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start with Short Brigade (bolded for emphasis), Myself, MathSci, MastCell, Doc James, but basically anyone you have found is reasonably clueful and go with "I don't know why xxx is interacting with me." Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We just call him Boris. LOL. He's a more civil curmudgeon than I am. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can contact me whenever, but I'll give you the same advice I'm going to give you now. Why care about the opinions of people you don't respect? Captain Occam hasn't edited an article since early July, but he's made nearly 60 posts to WP:AN/I in the past 48 hours alone. You need to learn to ignore people like that.

    You know how WP:CIVIL works on this site. It's perfectly WP:CIVIL to insinuate that someone is manipulating a life-threatening illness to influence an ArbCom case. To understand why that's offensive would require maturity and empathy, qualities which (while thankfully well-represented on ArbCom) are conspicuously lacking in the community at large. On the other hand, rearranging someone's username to include the word "Cumface" is the sort of playground-level insult that's right in the community's wheelhouse. Most people here can grasp the latter form of incivility, but aren't capable of grasping the former. Just let it go - you'll be happier, and it will frustrate the professional litigators and drama-mongers.

    There are a lot of good people here - like Alison and Maunus, for example. If they criticize you, it's worth listening respectfully, even if you end up disagreeing with them. The trick is to separate that sort of constructive criticism from the more petty, insignificant stuff, and not to paint both with the same brush. OK, I've reached my quota of pompous moralizing for the day. MastCell Talk 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&oldid=465534110"