User talk:Orangemarlin

* Click here to leave me a new message

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

FACs needing feedback view •
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Watching Anti-Science POV admin candidates

• None for now.

Articles on Quackademic Medicine

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

• List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites ^barley 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; [1]. Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. DGG (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

try Eisner in The death of psychotherapy, Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to est". A little out of date but .... Fainites ^barley 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• coral calcium. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical articles

Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give undue weight to fringe theories, and are either WP:GA or WP:FA:

• Alzheimer's Disease
• Rotavirus

From Graham

Hi OM, I know you know Rotavirus is a FAC and belated thanks for your timely edits. "You know who" is fortunately silent at the moment, (but fingers are still crossed). I've been feeling guilty for months over Herpes zoster— I think I caused many problems by incorporating too many primary sources. I've just looked at the article and, having just passed Herpes simplex and Genetics to GA today, (or yesterday, it's getting late in the UK), I can't see why Zoster is not GA. If you are amenable (? spelling), I would be grateful if you would let me collaborate (? spelling again), with you once more. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything you can do to promote Herpes zoster back to GA? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't own the article, and I never had an issue with your edits. I think "you know who" created a maelstrom that caused it to collapse. It needs to get back to GA, because frankly, it should be GA even now. I've played with a few edits here and there to improve it. BTW, if you want to amuse yourself, look at "you know who's" edits to Talk:Alzheimer's disease. Luckily, several people jumped in. But let's HZ one more time, and maybe we can get it promoted to FA. And I'll start looking at other medical articles in the FAC process. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I haven't forgotten your request to look at Alzheimer's disease. Every time I look at my talk page it gives me a guilty feeling. Trying to balance the little time I have at the moment between reviewing and writing my own stuff. I see you have some stability problems, which puts me off doing a detailed review of the prose just yet. I may have some time tomorrow evening, so is there anything you particularly want another opinion on? BTW: I remember you enlightened me a while back about Osteopathic medicine in the United States. This is now at FAC and, although I think the text isn't ready for FA, I wonder if you could comment on the handling of the subject -- something I'm too ignorant to comment on. Colin°^Talk 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that AD is getting close to FAC. When you have a chance, can you jump in? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Graham? Alzheimer's hasn't changed much since I reviewed just the Epidemiology section (which hasn't changed at all). The sort of checks I did need to be done by the editors who have access to all the sources and can rewrite weak text or re-source weakly sourced text. I don't have the time, knowledge, ability or access to the material needed to write Alzheimer's. I'm just about to head off on holiday -- back on the 25th. Let me know which section(s) you think are FAC-worthy and I'll look at them then. Colin°^Talk 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's

Just in case you don't spot it (it is no longer the last item on the talk page), I've added a review of just part of AD. Taking this to FA is going to need a serious commitment of time--doing the sort of text-source checking I've done + actually writing material.

Whichever medical article you decide to concentrate your efforts on, if you are heading towards FAC, let me know and I'll be happy to have a look (eventually :-). Colin°^Talk 07:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease belongs in the FA group of articles. It's a little weak right now, but several editors have gotten involved with it over the past few months and really began a process of clean-up. I've focused on it in the past, but if there are a number of editors ready and willing to join in, it's time to start. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm offering to help in the way I helped Graham on Rotavirus--that is, someone else did the research and wrote the content. My research/content time is committed elsewhere. How about creating a TODO list on the talk page, and ask the editors to take a section each to scrutinize and fix (or, at least, point out what needs fixing). Colin°^Talk 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

See here; you might want to initiate and shephard the WP:FAR. I just don't have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at some of the other FARs at WP:FAR, as well as the instuction page; you're supposed to post the links about the notifications like on other FARs, notify all relevant WikiProjects (I got Med for you), check articlestats for most involved editors, and leave a record on the FAR that notifications were done. That's the kind of time-consuming stuff I used to do on every FAR, and I just don't have time for anymore. In fact, as I recall, when I did the notifications for Intelligent Design, I was, um ... attacked as canvassing :-) See the other FARs on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I did go through the article stats to notify editors. I decided to ignore editors who haven't touched the article in 2 years or so. But how far down the list do I go? Editors that only appeared to revert vandalism don't seem to be too involved. I forgot about the project. I'm learning. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How far to go depends on the article and the stats; you can usually sorta tell where to draw the line by wherever there is a big dropoff in participation. I think you probably got everyone who's interested, but you have to post them back to the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at other FAR's to see how to do that. Oh boy, I just love the cutting and pasting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

You're at 3RR, yourself. I submitted a WP:AN3 report, but I can't block as a participant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of it. It appears that several editors were reverting this character, yourself included. I would hardly consider what we were doing as edit-warring, however. We were just trying to keep the consensus version. Oh well, he's been blocked!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature??

Hey. Are you an administrator? If so, can I get the rollback feature? I'm a good person, I promise. I'll use it responsibly.  :) Saritamackita (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not an administrator, and I have no control over it. Anyone can use it, but it's really complicated to set up--in fact, I did nothing to set it up, someone helped me out. Once you have Twinkle, there is an expectation of using it properly. I got admonished for placing incorrect warnings on many users talk pages, so I've learned to be somewhat nicer. A few times, I clicked the wrong button accusing editors who actually are my friends of being vandals. That was very embarrassing. Anyways, go to WP:TWINKLE for more information and assistance. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why people keep mistaking you for an admin? It must be your air of authority. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of a high level of crankiness that is the major characteristic of all admins. Interestingly, I've thought about being an admin, and despite the fact that it would be the most interesting RfA in years, I can't see what you have that is very useful. I only care about the articles I care about, so I couldn't block anyone on those articles because I'd be involved. I have all the tools of undo, posting warnings, and admonishing anonymous vandals. And I have the pleasure of getting warnings from you, Dave Souza, Tim Vickers, and few useless admins for being a jackass whenever I want. I have the best of both worlds. Though you get paid a lot more for your job than I do.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paid? We (admins) get paid? :LOL: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the rumor. I hear it's around $0.02 US per hour, because everyone keeps giving you guys their 2 cents worth. Was I misinformed? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paid good money grief. El_C 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA often turns out to be a forum where any mistakes one ever made (forgot to pet a cat on Tuesday, etc.) gets magnified exponentially compared to all the good that one does. I was lucky to undergo mine early on, with only 600 mainspace edits! El_C 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to pet your cat??????? You horrible, evil admin. I'm posting an RfC right now to have you permanently banned from editing any cat-related articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an example, I assure you: entirely hypothetical! El_C 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel better. As I recall, I've see that some very cute cats own you.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's only one of me, but I keep him busy! Kitty 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One cute kitty. How is it living with a Jewish Communist? I hope he only lets you eat kosher tuna from a third-world independent fisherman who utilizes sustainable fishing techniques. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

← I was tempted to say it was your more... irascible moments that led people to think you were an admin. But that would have been too easy. I wouldn't let your involvement in those articles stop you; apparently, you can block people with whom you're involved in a dispute, under WP:IGNORE. See, if they're arguing against you, they must ipso facto be wrong. If they're wrong, then blocking them improves the encyclopedia. If it improves the encyclopedia, then you can ignore the blocking policy. QED - or am I missing something important? MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You just gave me a migraine. Thanks. Oh, please see the section below. Talk about someone who both needs to be ignored and blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chickenpox

Hi there. I don't believe that the text you removed was a fringe view, per WP:WEIGHT. However, it did mis-state the NHS's published reasoning for not implementing childhood vaccination. I've fixed it and provided two references. BTW, I'm not into quackery and I speak as one who suffered from chickenpox as an adult two years ago ... richi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong wiki recommendation. The problem is that although that might be the view in the UK, it's hardly common elsewhere. And besides, Herpes zoster can be prevented by not getting chickenpox or by adult vaccination if you have had chickenpox. It is a very useful vaccination. What has happened in some places is that there has been a concerted attack on vaccination. This is unfortunate. And I had no idea who had written the comment, so please don't take it personally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. I have no data that says whether the vaccination is routine outside Australia and North America or not. The main article does imply that most of Europe chooses not to. In terms of land area and population numbers, my guess is that routine vaccination is actually a minority phenomenon. I agree with you that anti-vaccination sentiment is usually ludicrous pseudo-science; e.g., the MMR "debate" here in the UK. In this case, however, there are real questions over the overall usefulness of routine zoster immunization. IMHO, bodies such as NICE generally do a good job of weighing up the pros and cons of a complex issue such as this, without being too influenced by a profit motive ... richi (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a fun one....

Infant formula...check out the article history and talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting IP popping up and removing material critical of formula, leading to some page cleanup. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 'fun' by being an amusing edit history with 3RRs etc...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember I ain't been involved with usual trench warfare on med articles...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I saw that. I checked out the IP if it resolved to say Nestle WW HQ!!! But no. Im trying to reduce my involvement in trench warfare. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. My favorite (said with extreme sarcasm) medical editor is involved. That article will be a mess in a few days. Oh well, time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

anti-Semitism at Race and Intelligence and its talk page

I appreciate your comment. Just so you know, I left a message on Jimbo's talk page, and also at AN/I ... no response. It is not that I m tolerant, but I have been so systematically critical of Jagz's disruptive edits, POV pushing, and occasional bullying that most admins will just see this as a personal conflict between me and him. So there is little I can do that would not just feed that view (which of course I think is a misapprehension/distortion) or could even leave me open to charges of abusing my admin. privileges. The fact is there have been many times I have called Jagz on his BS, but he invariably began accusing me of personal attacks. This one is actually mild compared to other things I have said, now archived: [2]; Jagz' first reply: [3]; second reply: [4], and then [5]. So at this point I feel that there is nothing I can do that would not be counter-productive. So I appreciate any ideas you have. If you have time, perhaps you can go over Jagz edits ... unfirtunately, you have to go over all of his edits to the talk page over the last couple of months to get the full undersstanding of how he opperates - he is sometimes subtle, and often akes many inoccuous or semi-reasonable edits between highly disruptive or bullying ones ... there is a pattern but it is visible only over weeks or months, not days. Or perhaps you can come up with an actual strategy for dealing with him. I just feel that because of my history of reverting his edits to the article, and arguing against him, my hands are tied. Minimally, if you can just keep an eye on him for the next few weeks, I would be gratefull. Or maybe you know other editors who can also keep an eye on him and may have better ideas about how to handle the situation. It is evident to me that he is a racist but he never or almost never makes any direct, explicitly racist comments. And he will cite the sentence i just wrote as a personal attack against him, and use it against me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this article to other editors. I consider some of his edits to be horribly anti-semitic (mentioning Hitler's twin was a recent one), so I've asked other concerned citizens to pay attention to Jagz and this article. I will spend some time on this article, despite the fact that I vowed to stay out of some of the crap that I see on this project. I know of a few POV editors who do a bunch of small edits, that individually seem innocuous, but together they're hugely POV. We can't let this go on. There's an MoT and anti-racist admin I'm going to contact. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a different anti-racist admin you're thinking of, but I'm on it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not an MoT, but thanks!!!! :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Qu'est-ce que c'est "MoT"? Probably not "Ministry of Transport"... Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Member of the tribe. If you have to ask... :) In all seriousness, we're way too tolerant of editors who are here primarily to make the encyclopedia express a more racist and/or anti-Semitic and/or homophobic viewpoint. They detract from the encyclopedia and the related process of building it. Yet so long as they're able to put a very thin veneer over their agenda, they can persist virtually indefinitely, because God forbid we "censor" someone. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaa (well you learn something new every day)..I'd never heard of MoT either....and I am off to look at 30 Days of Night: Blood Trails which is the prequel of 30 Days of Night (film) which I also just learnt about from wikipedia (gosh I feel edified today...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, there used to be a novelty hip-hop act called Members of the Tribe ([6]). They were two guys who went by the MC names of Ice Berg and Dr. Dreidel. They sort of followed in the footsteps of 2 Live Jews... good stuff. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to keep this MoT thing secret. I don't want to give away the code to the White Supremacists running around this project. Thanks MC. But, I need to look up that rap group. Sounds amusing. A bit like Adam Sandler's Hannukah song. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm too old for that hip-hop noise but I have some old Kinky Friedman albums. I bet OM would love "They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore." Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean Jesus the myth???? They write songs about that? Who woulda thunk that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> Casliber, one of the better medical editors around here is going to see a bad movie? Of course, I'm into zombie movies. And books, like World War Z. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most recent comment on my talk page. To be frank, I have been thinking of quitting for a long time. I have been one of a small group - sometimes two, sometimes up to four - people who have been fighting for over a year to, blieve it or not, make the article as "neutral" as it currently is and I am weary!!

We now hoave a bunch of constructive ideas out there. i hope other editors such as yourself will be bold and stat taking action, especially given the near unanimity of the RfC (Jagx wanted the NPOV alert tag removed as he thinks it is currently NPOV and Ramcrake and i want to push our own POVs.) Whagtever you and others do i will support! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't quit. I am involved in so many articles (trying to stick to medicine), that I need help if we are ALL going to make this article NPOV. Someone needs to stomp down on POV-warriors and hard. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

whole food supplements

You have removed my referenced corrective edit to Vic Shayne's nonsense. Why?

If you go to YOUTUBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEyozWX3_1o) you will see that he is selling whole food supplements and is entirely compromised.

What he says in what he has been allowed to post on WIKIPEDIA is marketing nonsense. There is no science to support what he says. It contradicts published nutrition science and is erroneous.

See: http://www.michaelmooney.net/whole-food-supplements.pdf to clear up the non-science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutrinut (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize

I want to apologize for losing my head. I was rude and that was uncalled for. Please accept my apology for getting out of hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your frustration in the situation, really I do. However, also understand that I take my job as an adminisitrator quite seriously. I try to avoid taking sides in content disputes when I use my administrator tools. The article was clearly being tossed back and forth rapidly between two groups of editors, and there was little productive editing going on. Looking at the article's talk page, at least now there appears to be some constructive work going on to improve the article rather than to just haggle back and forth. The protection is at least having its desired effect, which is to get people to use the talk page to help hammer out the major changes the article needs. As an uninvolved party, I easily agree with the fact that creeping racism needs to be kept out of articles here at Wikipedia. However, as an administrator, when an article descends to the level of an edit war, regardless of the relative merits of the two sides in the war, the war needs to be stopped. I hope you understand... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also want to apologyze

I suppose that by this time you would have red my reply in alzheimer talk (if not, do read it before reading this). As I say there I might have made a mistake with my edition and I am sorry for it, but I hope this serves to upgrade the section. I only want to remark that my editions were on my own. I have no relation with io,io, even if he is also interested in the section. I don´t want that his interest or behavior in this section is mistaken with mine, being my only interesest of creating an stable subsection which summarizes the field in only a few lines. As I have said in the talk section a good begining would be to name the main approaches to the field, what do you think? Can you help with it?... There are no reviews on AD investigation trends... :-). Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you apologizing for? I haven't seen anything you've done that requires an apology. Hmmmm. Should I look for something?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey... I know is hard to copyedit everything I (or other users) do...However be sure that I'm really grateful for all your work in AD in the past few months. Apart from that you can also feel very proud of the job done. Compare this treatments subsection [7] just two weeks ago, and the current section. I added much of the content, but style is as yours as mine, and right now I believe that much of the work in that section is done (only care-giving left to be upgraded). Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much your edits as someone else's who's refusing to listen. Oh well, we'll clean it up!!!! Keep up the great job. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

TPH RfA Talk page

I'm not going to continue any banter on TPH's RfA talk. I thought (and I think you agreed before another editor started going at it with you) that you had one minor sarcastic and borderline uncivil comment. I understand your point regarding details being important to admins, it was just that in my opinion TPH tried to give you a good faith response and you kind of threw it back in his face. I opposed TPH's RfA and I disagree with a crat chat that would involve discounting oppose votes (so we both agree on these two points), I just thought the talk was getting out of hand regarding discussing the topic. I apologize for an offhand accusation of incivility, that probably didn't do much but inflame a situation. That talk page is kind of a mess at the moment and me singling out one tiny comment only adds to that mess. Gwynand (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Those conversations ALWAYS get out of hand. I just want you to know that I can be pretty uncivil at times, and I wasn't trying intentionally or unintentionally to be uncivil. Anyways, we're in agreement on TPH. I think his dismissal of the opposes indicates a couple of things: 1) lack of maturity in trying to improve for RfA #6 (which better wait a year or so), and 2) wanting this Admin thing so badly he just can taste it. But what do I know. I don't understand why anyone would want to be an admin. I have 90% of the tools, a big group of admins trust my opinion on things, so get involved where necessary, and I love editing articles, which might be restricted if I have to be an uninvolved admin. The whole admin structure needs to be reformed and soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I have nothing major against TPH as an editor or even as a potential admin. He was a borderline case, people brought up some tough diffs on him and I went oppose. The worst thing now is how he has gotten involved in discussing--even as just a small comment--how some of the oppose votes are weak. He gave 2 more answers to RfA questions that seemed like he was raising the white flag. He is shooting himself in the foot--I'd say RfA is all but done as a fail and he must know he needs to wait another year to really have a chance. I think he tasted "victory" when he had a huge favorable ratio a few days ago, and now that it has all blown up he is spinning out of control and only hurting his future chances. Anyways... thats my 2 cents on that RfA: I currently just feel bad for TPH and wish he would get his act together and just do his time for another year. I almost reccomended he withdraw in my oppose vote, but that might have been a little much. Gwynand (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he has to mature. I know that there are admins who are <20. But they don't act like they are <20. TPH, on the other hand, can be a little petulant in his responses. And I really believe that any nominee ought to not get involved in responding to anyone. Let supporters do it, or just let it be. He is digging himself a deep hole. And the worst part is that each time he comes forward with an RfA, it ends up in the same way. People remember these things.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was, this culture where we have to second guess every oppose is sort of annoying to me. For example, suppose that I have some sensitive information that I do not want to share with the community, and I want to oppose based on this private information. I might just say "5 RfAs in a year is too many" or "Oppose per above" and not give more detail. It is not that I do not have more information on which I am basing my decision, just that I am not prepared to share it, for any number of reasons (including making the candidate feel worse than necessary, as I have explained at a few RfAs, or maybe not wanting to sway others by my reasoning). But the claim that "well those guys didn't give any reason for their opposes, so they do not count, whereas all these supports count", well that just starts to irritate me a little. --Filll (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if it gets uglier than usual with lots of arguing about every oppose, then feelings get hurt. And it creates bad will, and more bad will than necessary of course. I seem to recall a few threads at AN/I where someone made spurious complaints about someone else, and stated it was to get "even" for failed RfAs. Wow...we do not need more of that. Why encourage this? I am an inclusionist by nature, so I have a bit of a problem with someone who's main stated purpose is to delete more stuff on Wikipedia. A lot of that stuff is something that someone like me has written, or is in the midst of writing. We worry so much about discouraging newbies with WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL, but we do not worry much about what a newbie feels like when they are just trying to write an article and it gets deleted by someone who is a bit too zealous, and they do not understand the rules for speedys and AfDs? A lot of them do not even realize they can retrieve deleted articles. So they are excited about a chance to contribute, and they start writing, and then we drop a bomb on them. Well you do not think that will discourage newbies? --Filll (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For an example, take a look at this.--Filll (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Check my talk

Apparently I upset Mr. Morrell a few nights ago, and he has suggested he's not particularly interested going back to allopathic medicine anytime soon. Now, I'm hoping he'll email me to flesh out what I did to upset him, but in the meantime, if you want his input, you might want to ask him directly. Antelan^talk 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He can get upset fairly easily. I don't particularly enjoy his POV about things, but he's one of the few CAM woo-pushers who actually knows enough to be helpful. In other words, don't worry about, and I'm certainly not seeking his opinion on anything. If he says something to which I agree, I'm fine with it, if I don't agree, I ignore him. I would suggest the same. He is one of the world's experts on homeopathy, and I think in his world, allopathy has a totally different meaning than some people are pushing. But then again, he is so tendentious, it's hard to dig it out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I learn new things here every day (re: his status as a foremost expert on homeopathy). I'll just let things be, then. Until next woo, Antelan^talk 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source that I thought you two may (or may not) find interesting/offensive. AMA Journal of Medical Ethics. Cheers. Bryan Hopping ^T 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

...speaking of vampire movies beyond the Arctic Circle

....I recently saw Frostbiten, which I thought was funnier than 30Days of Night, and probably just as scary (though that wouldn't be hard..). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Watched Blood trails now, thanks to Youtube, feel much better now. had mor plot in 20 minutes that the ^&$%#^# movie did in 2 hours (oh well...). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those mushrooms have gone to your brain. Stick with plants that have pretty flowers, nice smells, and it's not necessary to eat them with my eggs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

............Cryptococcus aaaaargh.......Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed....

...I hope. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're concerned about page-move vandalism on your user page, I can move-protect (or semi-protect) your user page if you so desire. It might be an inconvenience if you wanted to move your user page, but not a real problem unless you wanted to move it right away!!! :) Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think I'm gonna call you "Elfish" from now on. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And I will begin editing all LOTR articles starting now. Except did he mean El Fish, since I reverted his vandalism on El C's page? Oh geez, now I don't know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict trying to make just that point. The rest of my comment was

If the latter [El Fish], it was pretty clever actually. If the former [elfish], it was just weird. Everyone knows that page move vandalism has to go to [X...on wheels!]

One other point - Tolkien intentionally used "elven" (and dwarves) rather than "elfish" and "dwarfs" to separate the modern "little people" from the "real" elves and dwarves. Guettarda (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And that proves a point. I never read Tolkien, and won't watch the movies. Now Star Trek OTOH. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's only the people who read the appendices obsessively who know anything like that. Sadly, I read them 25 years ago and I still recall them vividly. The movies are crap. The books are incredible. Guettarda (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The movies are crap, but fun and enjoyable all the same. The books are too long. Get them on unabridged books on tape (err... CD). - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm sticking with Zombie movies and Star Trek. This LOTR stuff bores the crap out of me. Kill some monsters and be done with it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you and Jim were friends? I'm not sure if he's going to be able to forgive you if you diss an entire world created so that Tolkien could play with philology. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> BTW, Guettarda, can you do that semi-protect thing? UtherSRG did all of the reverts, and I think I could do them for now, but I can't see why I would ever move my page, unless I think El Fish is a better one. I'm starting to think it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

trolls at Race and Intelligence?

Ho OM, I appreciate your comments at Race and Intelligence and on my talk page. I am concerned about a couple of racist editors - it is evident in one case, and seems to be the case in another ... but I am far more concerned with the discussion turning into an attack of their character, or a debate over their beliefs, which I think will only have the effect of paralyzing any attempt to address the neutrality problems with the article itself. I just left this message on Brusegadi and Wobble's talk pages. I share it with you because I appreciate the comments you have already made, and I hope that you will keep an eye on the article and the talk page and perhaps act as a moderating influence, or just a more objective, sane voice. So I wanted to shar emy concern with you:

With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll. There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV. I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar. My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward. I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward. Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing. The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work. And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death. They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop? I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith.

I know you have not been feeding trolls but I am concerned that a constructive discussion you were part of has been or seems to be in the process of being derailed, and hope you can help... maybe just watch the page and when necessary help keep discussion on track? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. Before I can reply, I'm trying to find where I've ever responded to Confederate till death (and that's one devolved individual). I'm less inclined than ever to feed trolls, especially at this article. So if I did, I won't any more. I think that Jagz is a smart guy who utilizes what I've always called "an intellectual racism." He tries to couch his racism in research and education, but it's racism nevertheless. Confederate guy needs to be blocked for uncivil comments, plain and simple. I don't know what's going on around her, but you ought to just check out Human evolution. We have another one there!!! OK, let me try once again to see what I've done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I do not think you have said anything to Confederate till Death; my initial post wasn't directly addressed at you. I just know you are concerned and attentive to these matters and hope you can help prevent things from getting too derailed through continued participation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just plowed through the talk page, and I see what you're saying. But this comment is so offensive, that I don't think I've ever read anything like it before. Just so you know, I do not react very well or civilly to anti-Semitism, so I'm glad I missed it the first time through. I placed a comment on AN/I with respect to that comment. It is offensive. This article is pissing me off. Between this article and Human evolution, I might need valium. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am with you - but it would take a lot more to get him banned from Wikipedia. If that is what you want, then the only way to win is really to give him enough rope to hang himself with. Stooping to his level (which means almost any comment referring to or directed at him) will only let the average Wikipedian (I am very sorry to say) characterize this as a personal conflict between the two of you. I am glad you did an AN/I but I fear you will get little response. The great enemy here is what I call the Wikipedia time compression effect which makes us think that all conflicts have to be resolved in hours or there is something wrong. If he wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper, there might be weeks of letters in response before the whole thing plays itself out. What I have discovered here is that there is womething about Wikipedia that makes people experience everything as if it were text-messaging-time ... when effective actions, real resolutions to serious problems, actually occur at newspaper/snail-mail-time. Wikipedia attracts lots of hares but it really is the tortoises who will win. Sorry for the overwrought mixed metaphors but you get the idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're depressing me. Stop it. In some cases, the short lifespan of Wikidrama is a good thing. In this case, I think someone like Confed will hang himself without my rope. But, the system does work well. That one comment is so offensive, that he'll get a bunch of nice and not-so-nice warnings. People will watch his contributions and his articles. Then he'll hang himself. It should work well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay - in the meantime, please do not OD on valium! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting cynical my friend. Check the AN/I now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad about this outcome. Not to belittle it, but he was an easy target. At the article in question, we are in for a longer battle Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason to pick off the easy ones. First, they do attract troll-feeders, who then can be legitimately attacked by the more subtle trolls. Second, it takes the focus from the true POV-pushers on an article like that. But he was anti-Semitic, and my tolerance level of that approaches 0. By the way you once called me a troll.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, next time you come across a troll like that you can notify me and I'll deal with it quickly. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought enough people watched my page that someone would have jumped in just based on this conversation. When I didn't see anyone, I went to AN/I. I think I could have found 20 admins who would have blocked and indef'ed--I wanted the community involved. But thanks! I'll remember that. Back to the article. I'm very concerned that editors are lost on the racism--I'm more concerned about pseudoscience (fringe theories really) making it almost sound like racism is supported by science. So, I'm looking at the article as merely a pseudoscience article, fairly similar to Homeopathy (except for being a lot more obnoxious). That's where you can help too. And you'll note the crazy editors there. Don't even think about going over to Human evolution, although I think we've reverted most of the racist ideology that was added to it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your thread at AN/I and just wanted to stop by and wave vaguely in your direction. Hope you're doin' okay after your run-in with the above user. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question

My tongue was firmly in my cheek. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew it. I was just trying to play along. Just make sure that tongue doesn't get sore doing it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of threatening my tongue with violence, perhaps you could deal with the last two tiny comments on the shingles article? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Moi? Threaten your tongue? If you spent a minute not casting aspersions against my good name, you'd see I responded to both. Fixed one. We need a virologist to work on the language of the second one. I'm just not familiar with the terminology. Aren't you a virologist???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A sock puppet show

[8] I think it is sort of funny.--Filll (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's something we should have on the sockpuppet templates. How cool...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

Saying someone is pushing POV violates WP:Civil. --Jagz (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a POV pusher may be so, but saying that they are pushing a POV is descriptive of the action, not the actor, and is not inherently proscribed. Antelan^talk 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You save me from wasting typing motions responding to someone who pushes a POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, saying that someone is pushing a POV is a description of an action. If the person isn't doing it, then they can explain that they're in fact being neutral.

It may be that saying someone is pushing a POV isn't very likely to make them recognize that or stop, but I wouldn't call it uncivil, unless it's done uncivilly. OM's remark above doesn't strike me as at all mature or helpful, but even it's only minimally civil. Maybe he's not trying to be mature or helpful in this situation. OM, when you got that jab in, you handed your opponents a little bit of ammunition. Try not to do that, eh? Stop after the word "thanks" next time.

The game isn't to avoid being uncivil. The game is to actually be excellent to everyone. Do that, and you never have to worry about someone saying you're uncivil. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that OM's comment is spot-on accurate. In such cases, how can we be honest and accurate without violating Wikipedia's policy on civility? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I say anything about violating a policy on civility? I don't think he violated one. I think he said something that, while possibly accurate, was immature and unhelpful. Is the goal simply to label people accurately, or is the goal to make progress on the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't address who but rather what statement pushes a POV. When we assume good faith the corollary is that we assume the author either didn't intend the statement to push a POV or didn't realize that isn't acceptable to do so. By critique of the statement we give the errant author an opportunity to learn while still making nice. At least that's the theory. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the theory. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's better in practice than getting off-topic by talking about the other guy. He's not the subject; his edit is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond. I'm getting the feeling GTBacchus wants me to be nice to an editor that is pushing a racist ideology. I'm being about as civil as I can be. Where are the ethics around this place? Where is the moral high ground? Is being civil the standard of excellence, and bullshit racist POV is acceptable, as long as we are civil? That's pretty inane if you ask me. So, GTB, let me put it bluntly. Please support the racist, because he's civil. Good move there dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That "feeling you're getting," that I want you to be nice to an editor that is pushing a racist ideology? Unfounded. I want you to win without undermining your case. I'm not supporting him. I'm supporting you, by pointing out how to refrain from giving ammunition to your opponents. What you said about "bullshit racist POV being acceptable as long as we are civil," that's not my position and never has been. If you think I think that, you invented it yourself, and you're putting nonsense words in my mouth.

Oh, was that an rhetorical question, about what are the ethics around here? Are you assuming you already know what I think, or did you want an answer? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I want an answer on the moral high ground. I honestly believe that Wikipedia admins (I'm not sure if you are one, but given how often I see you around the organized tactics of the POV-pushers, I assume you are) prefer civility to NPOV, civility to utilizing RS and VERIFY, and civility to anti-racism. I'm just taking on the tactics of the lunatic fringe of CAM nutjobs and Creationist psychopaths and racists--I'll keep accusing them of whatever I damn well please, and you admins will run over to the article probably help me out, because you really do have the "squeaking wheel gets the grease" attitude. Logic really doesn't seem to come into play too often, given how many times reasonable editors are sanctioned. Look at ScienceApologist--he's doing our dirty work, and instead of banning the CAM POV-pushers, you admins (if you are one) block him about once a week--he doesn't deserve it. Jagz is an anti-semitic racist creep--why you haven't run over there and banned him from the project is why I think the moral high ground is missing from Wikipedia. There are articles where I do not take the uncivil approach (see almost anything I've done with Wikiproject Medicine, as long as the CAM nutjobs stay away). I even put up with an editor above who thinks that all medical doctors should be called allopaths, without resorting to calling him precisely what he should be called: a ********. This frustrates me. I'm supposed to be nice to a Nazi apologist in Zsero (talk · contribs)? In real life, if I ran across a Nazi sympathizer out here, they wouldn't get one bit of civility. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, yes, I am an admin. Second, I don't think that civility is more important than NPOV, nor do I "prefer" it. I think the absolute top priority here, for the sake of which everything else exists, is writing a free, neutral encyclopedia. If I thought that civility could get in the way of that, I would throw it out.

I happen to know however, that when we're uncivil, we undermine our ability to maintain NPOV. The reason for civility is that it's necessary for this project to work. We aren't civil to people because they deserve it or something, we're civil to complete assholes, because that's actually the most effective way to deal with an asshole. Being uncivil back to them is pragmatically a bad idea. It gives them ammunition, and makes it harder for us to do our jobs.

When you say that someone "should be called" an asshole, you're putting the priority of calling them an asshole above the priority of writing an encyclopedia, and that's not on. What you think he "should be called" is in the way of our goal. It's more important to maintain neutrality than to label people. Civility is our greatest weapon. You're not "supposed to" be nice to a Nazi apologist, but you'll treat him civilly if you want to win. It's not to be nice; it's because it works. Fuck being nice. Kill them with civility; it's the only way. Otherwise, call them names, because it feels good, but you'll be hurting the project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LDS (I hate writing that, but I'm not going to write your whole name)--I give good faith, once, maybe 5 times. But have you read the POV racial stuff Jagz is pushing? AGF is a discredited theory at that point. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "theory", it's your most effective weapon. If you're seen acting as if the other guys are good faith, you get so much kudos. Those translate into power. I'm not kidding, pretending to AGF is an effective weapon. It protects you from so much. Don't do it to be nice, do it to win. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be LSD, not LDS. I'll leave it you to decide whether that's better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Dyslexia. It's more palatable for me, probably less so for Mr. LSD. But who knows, maybe he was intentional.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. "If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes". "I get high with a little help" (from endorphins). "I'll be here all week". No offence taken.

No I haven't read it, but I presume by "racial stuff" you don't refer to anything I'd have much time for. Of course most such has no reliable source, can you just go at it that way? LeadSongDog (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LSD: generally, fringe and/or false statements about reality should violate the rule you're talking about (i.e., WP:RS). The problem is that, given the difficulty of differentiating WP:RS from WP:NOTRS, this is extraordinarily difficult to enforce. Let me say this: the more content-oriented an argument becomes, the more difficult it becomes for the community to differentiate right from wrong. Civility is enjoying its apogee in the Wikipedia community right now, to the detriment of content-oriented goals. Antelan^talk 05:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the racists, CAM nutjobs, and Creationist lunatic fringe (all of whom I lump under the label of Anti-Science POV-warriors) are nice about it, useless admins jump in a warn, block, or sanction those of us who use verifiability and reliable sources. And so civility trumps that. Most admins don't belong here. And the ones that see this bullshit are getting scared off by the concerted efforts of the anti-science POV lunatics. I'm ranting, because I really believe that Wikipedia prefers political correctness to accuracy and reliability. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Then work with those of us who are trying to fight that. The correct way to fight it, it turns out, does not involve incivility. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This illustrates my point exactly, that I have been pushing for weeks now. It is not as though I advocate being unCIVIL to people. However, I do think that we need to at least put our thinking caps on and try to be creative about new methods for dealing with POV pushers. That is what I have been trying to do at the Raymond arritt Expert Withdrawal pages.--Filll (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been suggesting, too. It'll take realizing that labeling the bad guy as a bad guy and calling him the name isn't working, so we should try something more professional, more backed by science, and more reliable. That's why we should be studying the science of conflict resolution, where people have learned that incivility is a bad way to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that coddling the bullies, which is the current approach, isn't that good, either. In fact, were I to pick one flawed system to use in the interim while trying to figure out a better plan, it would not be bully-coddling. Antelan^talk 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly easy to disagree with something called "coddling the bullies", but I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. How is that the current approach? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, notwithstanding my last above, I took a look at some of his stuff. I've got to admit he didn't seem to be the worst offender, but I waded in anyway. Pretty sure I'll come to regret that.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

KKK article

Hi, thanks for your encouragement. I've contributed other material to that article that got removed, and went through a period of just not wanting to fight it all. But I'm back. There is still way too much detail on the self-justification. Also have worked on articles about Lynching in the United States, Reconstruction and Disfranchisement after the Civil War, so sometimes it is hard to keep it all straight. Have been working on state articles to ensure there is accurate info in each about disfranchising constitutions at the turn of the century and their impacts.--Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough to time cover every article that I wish I could. Human evolution and Race and intelligence are two articles that are within my knowledge base, and that's how I ran into some anti-semitic and racist editors. It was offensive to me. I started an AN/I where I got one blocked indef. He hung himself, but I notice the admins around here don't do much good, except to police civility. So as long as the POV-warrior racists remain civil (which I will admit takes a lot of skill), they continue making a mess of various articles. It's sad.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Hello, you have been named as an interested party in a request for mediation on the Race and Intellegence Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Race_and_intelligence_2 Please stop by and indicate whether or not you wish to participate in this process. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?

I'm not sure what I did wrong because the thing that I added to the Doug Gottlieb page is true. His career free throw percentage was under 50%. I just didn't know how to link his stats page to the wikipedia site as a source. I'll make sure not to make any changes in the future, but what I wrote was true so I don't know why that would merit a block. Gottlieb being a terrible shooter isn't something that he hides either. He talks about it all the time on his radio show or on tv. He was mainly a passer but teams would make sure to put him on the free throw line at the end of games because he was such a liability. It's not often that the point guard on a team is the worst free throw shooter and this would give them a lot of trouble in late game situations because the ball would be in his hands and teams would foul him. I wasn't trying to sabotage your page, just trying to get across that he was a terrible free throw shooter. I'm not really sure why that would cause a problem. I didn't intend for it to be an issue, I was just trying to add to your site. As of right now that whole thing isn't even mentioned and it was a significant part of his career. I think the Notre Dame incident is more embarrassing and that is still up on the site. I don't see a problem with mentioning his career numbers at the free throw line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.123.61.252 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct several of your points:

1. I cannot and did not block you.
2. Wikipedia does not deal in "truth", only in what is neutral and verifiable. With respect to a living person, WP:BLP needs to be followed carefully.
3. The current sources do not agree with the free throw percentage you state, but if you have a reliable source that confirms what you've stated, then it will be allowed.
4. Your description of Gottlieb as a "terrible shooter", "mainly a passer" "given them a lot of trouble in late game situations]] qualifies as original research and is not allowed.
5. Yes, the situation at Notre Dame is an embarrassment for him, but it's mentioned in the article. To give it further undue weight violates the neutrality of the article. That situation happened a long time ago, and what makes Doug Gottlieb notable is that he works for ESPN, not because he messed up as a kid. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AD

Is this really necessary? I thought we didn't wikilink common stuff like this.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I'm certainly not going to argue about what gets wikilinked or not. I just went through the article last night, just trying to determine what needed some cleaning up. If you don't like it, please just revert, you don't have to get mad at me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely get mad at anyone, certainly not you:/) Just thought I'd ask in case there was some reason that wasn't apparent to me.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounded like you were pissed off!!!!!! Put a smiley face in or something...puhlease. No, no particular reason. I think we should review the appropriate guidelines for wikilinks. I'm sure it's as clear as WP:MOSNUM. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as suspected, no guidance whatsoever here. So, based on this discussion, I'd say wikilink red wine, since it has well studied cardiovascular effects, and skip the other stuff. Or not. Or something in between. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some redundancy of guidelines. (Yeah, what else is new?) See WP:OVERLINK. In this case the relevant question to ask is, "Would following the link contribute to the reader's understanding of this article?"LeadSongDog (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaplain

Hi, I have re-written the section you felt was uncivil - hopefully it is better now. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

:) Springnuts (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In a neutral article, the reader shouldn't even get a hint of uncivility or of commentary. It sounded like someone wrote a parenthetical statement that argued we were idiots to interpret it that way. Actually, I was quite surprised that military Chaplains could be armed. I was a physician in the US Navy and I had to learn how to use a sidearm--trained by Marines. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contender for jibberish of the year

Diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, now I've got to drink. You're paying for my rehab. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just dilute your Whiskey a lot, with succession of course. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)