Jump to content

User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 7

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

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

[1] 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. Antelantalk 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. Antelantalk 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. Antelantalk 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)

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)
My brain started pulsating violently after "implied imprimatur"... Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Perchance a mega-dose of whisky may be the correct treatment. Jefffire (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Whiskey won't help for this one, better test the waters for memories of hemlock....LeadSongDog (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh

I know what you mean. Actually, just as you typed that, I was typing this: [2]. Perhaps a little sarcastic, but, weel, it is in response to Dana Ullman. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How you can help

There is a request for mediation for race and intelligence. But it lacks substance (i.e. an explanation of what is needed). I hesitate to write anything because i am partisan and Jagz will just reject anything that comes out of anything I suggest. But maybe you can characterize the impasse at the RfM page. Here is one thing I think you and Brusegadi can do, very specific: clearly, the talk page needs a moderator to cut the crap, instill some discipline, keep it on track, etc. You do not feel comfortable doing it. fine. But could you fill in the appropriate box at the request for mediation, explaining the need for this and requesting a mediator who will arbitrate the discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try. I'm not so good with the Wiki-legal stuff like ArbComm and mediation. And since Jagz doesn't want to play nice and join the mediation, it's not going to be very useful. I'll add what I can. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity

I agree with you. In my case, however, I have already been accused of lots of things on the internets under my real name, mainly political things. Also, I have discovered that I like arguing polemic things a lot, and that my contributions without failure cause people to find my real identity anyways, so I just use it directly. For other editors, Ldemery request to disclose identity is ludricrous. People have the right on wikipedia to be anonymous, I just chose not to. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
He's blocked. Maybe someone will make it indef--but since I don't really run across him (I just saw the ANI), I'm not too worried. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

I'm honestly (and obviously!) at my wit's end. Not sure what we can do to stop Jagz' constant disruption.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC or ArbComm. I'm done with his racist POV. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. More? --Filll (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Living dinosaurs

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that this article currently is at AfD. I hope you don't consider this canvassing, as I don't care how or whether you !vote, but I saw you had participated on the article's talk page quite a bit. Since I recognize you from vandal patrol (or maybe AfD? I'm not sure) I just wanted to drop you a note in case you weren't aware. Take care, Xymmax (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is better as a disambig page - useful content can be put into more focused articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must really dislike you...

New, fresh report (already declined) at WP:AN3. seicer | talk | contribs 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. Malformed, incorrect, silly, vengeful...oh well. Thanks Seicer, but now he'll think another admin is protecting me. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There's still a lot of activity. Please continue to keep an eye. El_C 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: You've got to be kidding

I've posted a reply and demand a retraction (or at the very least, an apology) of your accusations of racism against me. I admit to not having handled this in the best manner, but I had my reasons and the idea of racism was not among them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I do not claim to speak for OM, I sincerely doubt you will be getting a retraction. Unblocking a racist editor less than 8hrs into his block is simply stunning. Either you yourself have some tendencies that are not going to help you in editing a wide range of topics or you are simply incapable of being a good admin. Either way, you made your bed on this one. Better lie in it, Hersfold. Better yet, walk on over to the article your unblockee chose to disrupt and you apologize for forcing us to deal with that racist. Baegis (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I once again encourage one or both of you to follow my recall procedures outlined at User:Hersfold/Recall. I do not feel as though my actions were grossly out of line, and therefore will not resign, however you are welcome to open a petition. I will uphold my responsibilities as outlined in that procedure should you do so, and will also extend you lot the courtesy of announcing it on the admin's IRC channel just so everyone knows. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC
So the loser group of editors who elected you in the first place is going to recall you. You make me laugh. How about you voluntarily resign and let us re-elect you? Oh, you're too much of a coward to do that? You'd rather attack me instead? Demand an apology? You make me laugh. I pity your moral reasoning. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You support racism. You get neither an apology or retraction, so keep your racist supporting attitudes off my user page, please. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Hersfold's talk page are really getting over-the-top, and bordering on personal attacks. Please cease this combative attitude - it's really damaging to the project and making the situation worse. krimpet✽ 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I came here to make the same point as Krimpet; OrangeMarlin, you are a great editor on some of our most controversial topics; and I don't think Hersfold was correct in what he did. However, if you accuse Hersfold of being an apologist for racism, or similar, one more time, you run the risk of being blocked, because you're taking this way too far. Black Kite 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Black Kite. Herfold may have acted wrongly, but screaming and shouting really won't help that. Take a day off. I don't think anyone disagrees that racists are scum, but there's not much that can be done now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So Hersford gets away with this? Because I stand up to this moral choice, I get fucked over with two or three warnings on my page? Instead someone doesn't warn Hersford for his bad choice? Please note his long excuse filled statement on his page. Does that not read like an attack on me? I don't like to be attacked, and he was caught for a big mistake, so instead of immediately reconsidering his mistake, he went on the attack. An age-old public relations ploy, which I don't buy. Hersford may or may not be a racist, but he certainly let an avowed racist get away with something. Sad. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A block for OM? Wow! I've been dubious about the whole civility-trumps-all meme that has been going 'round since the AC Arbcom case (thought maybe it was out of proportion to the problem). But if OM gets a block while God saves the whatever gets a pass, well, perhaps there's more to what they've been saying afterall. Geez. Oh yeah, OM, I don't think there is much point to posting to Hersfold anymore. If something similar happens again any time soon, well. . . R. Baley (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Last thing I'd want to do, I assure you, but there are obviously limits - you just can't go round repeating insults like that. Black Kite 19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Then block me then BK. I remember reverting edits to your page a while back when someone changed your name to "Black Kike." I have been laser focused in standing up to racism around here, because I do not stand for racism, and God Save the South is a fucking racist pig. Hersfold used the old argument that as long as you're civil you can say anything you damn well please, just stay civil. So, unblocking God Save the South, despite dozens of KKK-apologist edits being reverted by several fine editors, is acceptable to this community? And Hersfold didn't contact the blocking admin? Even B, an admin who has battled me on any number of occasions found the unblocking just plain wrong. What is this place coming to? And shoemaker, I like you, but please, don't make recommendations about taking a day off. I hate when people say that to one another. I spent yesterday watching my last hockey game of the year, drove on the PCH in a convertible, ate a fine meal of sushi, and a great dessert of coffee and cake. I enjoy my time here, but I really enjoy my life in the real world. But thanks for the recommendation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You won't find me arguing with you about racism, God Save the South, the fact that Hersfold's unblock was probably ill-advised, or coffee and cake for that matter. But I really wish that you'd laid off the abuse as I suggested. The last thing this encyclopedia needs is you blocked. Do we have an end to it now? Black Kite 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeat after me...Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean.... ;) (can't do one of those smiley things with 2 eyes closed). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Calm blue ocean". . .I like it, but please. . .for the love of everything holy. . .I beg you . . .don't post anything about [[WP:Tea]].  :-) Eyes open, R. Baley (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you learn something new every day. Been here for 2 years and never seen that page before....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Well, you're probably doing something right then. R. Baley (God Save the wikiTea) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

No doubt I will take heat for this, but I cannot in good conscience stand by while you call other editors "racist" and whatnot. You have been asked repeatedly to be civil to other users, and you just aren't able to. You repeatedly cause situations to become worse by heaping insults on those editors you disagree with, a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please take some time off to cool down over this situation. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. I guess civility is the only piece of policy that matters. Wow. Baegis (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Please take some time off to cool down. . ." would that be a cool off block then? R. Baley (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, what is the diff after a warning that caused this escalation? R. Baley (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This block strikes me as wildly inappropriate, especially when the dispute in question got resolved several hours ago. east.718 at 23:40, April 6, 2008
Calling someone who is a member of the KKK a racist is like saying the sky is blue. This is horribly inappropriate. --B (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Hours ago"? This was OM's comment just one hour ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"You support racism. You get neither an apology or retraction, so keep your racist supporting attitudes off my user page, please." was OM's comment to Hersfold, and there's no indication Hersfold is a member of the KKK, B. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblocking an avowed racist and member of the KKK is a de facto racist attitude. Sorry Firs that you don't understand that principle. Why don't you complain about me to your buddies at Wikipedia Review. I'm sure they'll support you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. "Cool down" blocks are explicitly deprecated -- see WP:CDB. Please take some time to review Wikipedia's blocking policy before placing blocks in the future. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that cool-down blocks are explicitly depreciated, Raymond. I did not say this block was in place to force OM to calm down: that was someone else. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's your signature that appears after "take some time off to cool down over this situation." Did someone forge your signature? If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Implied by your first comment. Hersfold has basically responded to the protests against this most unwise unblock by saying either try to recall me or shut up. No one gets any gold stars here, but this block was not good. R. Baley (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No implication was meant. Do you really think "shut up" is in the same league as "So the loser group of editors who elected you in the first place is going to recall you. You make me laugh. How about you voluntarily resign and let us re-elect you? Oh, you're too much of a coward to do that? You'd rather attack me instead? Demand an apology? You make me laugh. I pity your moral reasoning" and "You support racism. You get neither an apology or retraction, so keep your racist supporting attitudes off my user page, please", R. Baley? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
With apologies to OM, but as this was addressed to me, I would like to respond here. (Fortunately, just as I had read the above, my mom called).
(unhelpful comment redacted) . . .I will say this, (my take on what happened is as follows): GSTS has uploaded his own self made pics of Klan rallies. He has tried to POV-push on the Klan article -but very civilly. After being blocked for that and 3rr, Hersfold made an unblock, without consulting the blocking admin, or (to be charitable) without reviewing the situation. Upon receiving complaints about shortening the block time -to allow more POV-pushing (Cross-burnings are like christmas trees! they're lighted) discussion , Hersfold threatened to block the two editors complaining at his/her talk page. I saw the "recall me or shut up" as basically a "suck it up peon, nothing you can do about it anyway". The drama escalated a little from there, but for the most part was winding down. . .until the OM block. So, same league or not, there's plenty of trouts to go around. R. Baley (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So Firs, you've made hardly any edits since we outed you on your attacks on me from Wikipedia Review, and your first edit is to block me? You must be kidding. You've been looking to get me for months, and I guess your first edit in months is to do so. Wow, how professional. Meh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"My first edit" wasn't to block you, I did not attack you on WR, you did not "out" me anywhere, and I certainly have not been "looking" to get you for months. Despite everything you think of me, OM, I very much like you, enjoyed working with you, and hope that someday you can just start being civil with your fellow editors and stop making those personal attacks. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You know what? You did attack me on WR, and we can show it. You supported some twit who fucked an article on here, and I reverted his or her edits. You specifically whined about me on WR, and that means you have a vendetta against me. You were way out of line to block me, based on our past history. And I remember seeing an edit to your page last week, and noticed that you hadn't contributed to the project in months, so if you recently came back, I didn't notice, but I don't really care. I will NOT be civil to racist pigs. Sorry dude, but the moral high road is to treat racists like the cockroaches that they are. And if one of our admins is too fucking lazy or stupid to review the edits of said racists and then unblocks them they deserve our derision, scorn, and anger. And if that's uncivil, so what? Civility to a newbie is fine, I'll do it. Civility to someone who takes a different opinion on a subject is fine. Civility to creationists and homeopaths is fine. Civility to racists, anti-semitic nazis and hatemongers is never going to happen. I have gotten one racist indefed, I've gotten another one temporarily blocked, and I'll get others thrown out of here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with nearly everything you've just said, except the part about me attacking you on WR. It didn't happen that way, Orangemarlin. I have no "vendetta" against you, and our past history is me asking you again and again to observe WP:NPA. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
For those of us who don't frequent WR, can we get some sort of summary of what happened? Antelantalk 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See this for details of the previous battle between Firs and I. Obviously, he and I have a seriously difficult history, and this is just a revenge block. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It was no "revenge block". OM and I worked well together on numerous articles, I enjoyed working with him, and had hopes of working with him on future articles. Unfortunately, OM just cannot stay civil with other editors, even very good editors (I'm thinking specifically of user:Badgerpatrol), and although I've repeatedly asked OM to stay civil and refrain from making personal attacks, he just isn't able to do so. This isn't the first, second, or even tenth time OM's been asked to stop making personal attacks. Many times, it devolves into a giant explosion which disrupts the encyclopedia. Hence the block. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have plenty to say. But unfortunately, given our current atmosphere, I cannot. Oh well. I think Wikipedia is definitely headed for trouble, big time, but I cannot even say why because it is too dangerous. You guys are doing a swell job though. Swell.--Filll (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WR has a search function which you don't have to log in to use so it is pretty easy to find. Plenty of established wikipedia admins etc. have posted there so you won't turn into a pumpkin by looking. I hate it when my wiki-chums fight with each other (sigh) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WR harvests IPs, so it is probably not a good idea to go there. WR apparently harbors hackers that have sent spyware to editors here. According to some usually reasonably reliable sources, one of the founders of WR has a bad history in the "racism" and "neoNazi" and "antisemitism" area. So, I just do not know what to think. I am very disappointed with what I have seen out of some involved in this very ugly situation, and I have let them know. Of course, I was immediately threatened with a retribution and revenge block for saying I was disappointed and pointing out that a lot of bad things go on at WR. Threatened visciously, which of course just is exactly par for the course, and I guess what is to be expected out of people like this. You really show your true character when you do horrible things like that, you know? So we know what to think of you. You made it abundantly clear. So these are not nice people. Not reasonable people. And definitely they are not associating with sane people. I can't say more since they will probably attack me and block me. I will probably even get blocked for this. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Being blocked

Isn't this the saddest thing possible? I'm blocked for standing up to an admin, Hersford, who made an egregious mistake in unblocking G-d Save the South (isn't that just a despicable name?). And instead of reading what that KKK-apologist wrote, he asked him to not edit that topic, because he was merely misunderstood. Or some such new age crap. I get blocked for calling a racist a racist--this is not the ACLU, it's Wikipedia, and you get stained by racism by supporting it. So now I'm blocked, because I stand up to racism. I'm missing the logic.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You're not blocked. Raymond arritt unblocked you. Though if you carry on calling out Hersfold, it won't be long until you are. Please drop it now. Black Kite 00:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that by now all concerned have made their point. In particular, I suspect Hersfold will be very careful not to unblock an avowed racist again. We can remain vigilant but I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing to focus on this incident. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't forgive things as easily as others. Hersfold did something wrong, so why am I being attacked. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say "forgive" (much less forget). From a tactical point of view it's best to disengage for the present. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm cranky about it. But thank you for your support. You know what got lost in this kerfuffle? GSTS is sitting around able to continue his disruptive and tendentious whitewashing of the KKK article. And since civility trumps racism, he's sitting pretty. That's the sad thing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My prescription

From the office of Dr Liber I hereby prescribe 12 sessions of group therapy involving collaborating on Petey for both Firsfron and Orangemarlin till they bury the proverbial hatchet and get a Featured Article out of it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not my operating method. I don't put up with shit like others around here do. Firs can just stay away from me, and continue to play on the WR attack site. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In OM's defense, a block is a pretty severe permanent stain for OM to have on his record for this incident. It is easy to understand a desire for greater justice here. Antelantalk 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to know something funny? An admin here blocked me, and I believe Firs did the unblock, calling it unfair. That actually doesn't show up in my "record", so does this? I don't care that much, I doubt I have any chance of being an admin, even if I were completely civil, given how the creationists and homeopaths (read CAM nutjobs) hate me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


My diagnosis: Wikipedia is headed for a whole bunch of trouble. While we are frantically worrying about blocking editors for saying someone has a silly argument for claiming it is scientifically proven that ghosts are speaking to them out of their radios, and allowing people to claim it is unCIVIL and against BLP to have negative reviews of almost uniformly panned books since it might hurt the feelings of the authors, we are deciding it is ok to let those interested in promoting sex with minors and racism to run rampant and spew nonsense here in the interests of being "uncensored". Well guess what kiddies; in the court of the public opinion and the media, we are going to be destroyed with these silly politically correct standards. They are going to kick our behinds so seriously in the media you have no idea. Is anyone who is in a position of power on Wikipedia actually thinking strategically and using their heads? If you are worried about a bad public image, we are really heading in a completely stupid direction (will I be blocked for using the unCIVIL word "stupid"?). Sorry, but the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Deal with it.--Filll (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea

I was going to suggest Night of the Living Dead as it is a critique of racism and a zombie movie all in one article, but someone's already got it to featured status.

You haven't got schizophrenia in yer list of good med articles. Vaughan and I have busted a gut balancing and watching it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your red link. Don't block me :) Dammit Calisber, I'm a doctor not a psychiatrist. :D OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Aaawwwwwww....we're real doctors too......Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Can you please explain your edit to Chiropractic that reverted my last edit using TW? You did not provide much of an explanation, nor did you contribute via the talk page about the relevant edit, where there is a section devoted to the issue. No consensus has been reached on adding that section into the article at this point in time. Thanks, DigitalC (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about I not? I do not get involved in talk pages, because of tendentious discussion that bore the shit out of me. Never ever again come to my talk page with a rude uncivil comment. Thank you for your participation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing uncivil about my request for comment. DigitalC (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Asking someone on their talk page why they did not contribute to a discussion is, in fact, uncivil. I don't participate in discussions because of long-winded discussions that get nowhere. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must really dislike you...

New, fresh report (already declined) at WP:AN3. seicer | talk | contribs 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny. Malformed, incorrect, silly, vengeful...oh well. Thanks Seicer, but now he'll think another admin is protecting me. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There's still a lot of activity. Please continue to keep an eye. El_C 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I just caught up with the astonishing un/blocking. I'm at a loss for words. El_C 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still wondering what I should do. I despise racism in any form, and I think those who allow it either actively or passively get stained by evil of it. There was a chain of events that was appalling. An racist editor was whitewashing the KKK article, and after several warnings was blocked for 48 hours. Hersfold came out of nowhere to unblock the racist, and gave this feel good warning to not edit the topic. That's when all hell broke loose. And Hersfold's reply was one of those excuse filled diatribes that doesn't smell right. He should be tossed out of the project, but we'll see. Then Firs, who's been battling me in the past by whining at Wikipedia Review gets his revenge by blocking me. Not sure how that helped the matter, since I, who was trying to keep racism out of the KKK article gets blocked, and useless racists, G_d Save the South (or some such nonsense) gets unblocked. Not quite sure how that made the project better, but I guess I'm not worth of such knowledge. The upshot is, Hersfold may or may not be a bad person, but he does believe that civility makes a person right, no matter how horrible that person is. Wikipedia sucks sometimes. But, I stand by my actions. Supporting racism is justified morally, especially here at Wikipedia. I have to put up with Creationists, Homeopathy potion promoters, holocaust deniers, global warming apologists, Alternative medicine nutjobs, and every freak who has a fringe theory to promote--but racism is just not going to be tolerated by me.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of the politically correct, CIVIL at all cost policy going awry. I am going to be shining a light on this. A bright light. There are lots of things wrong with this "CIVIL Trumps Everything Else" policy, and this is just one more example.
It is amazing to me how people just refuse to think for themselves. Someone at the top states "CIVIL is really important", which it is, now that we are a very prominent website and web destination. After all, who wants to read in the New York Times that admins are using the "f word" against poor newbies? Of course that will cause negative press and media fallout.
However, you do not think that blocking someone for calling someone else a racist in these circumstances will cause a problem in the media? You do not think that some of the other aspects of Wikiculture might not look strange from the outside? I could make a long list, and believe me, in the court of public opinion we would end up in a LOT of trouble. A lot more trouble than an admin using the "f bomb".--Filll (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that policy requires compliance with Florida law in order to protect WP servers.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that means. They cheat Democrats of being elected President?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I'd very much like to support you in this matter, but your post above makes it very difficult for me to do that. I'm not sure how to express this concern. From what I'm seeing here, blocking you didn't make much sense, and something does need to be done about someone whitewashing the KKK article. Would you be open to making it easier for admins such as myself to take up your case? I look forward to being your ally. We can communicate by email, if you prefer; mine is enabled. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your email. If the post is about my joke regarding Florida and elections, then I hope you understand it's a joke. If it's my rant about racists and admins who think it's appropriate to unblock racists, I'm not sure what to say. Is there a case "against" me? If there is, no one has mentioned it to me. I would hope that we were allies just being on the same side of these things. If you want me to be civil to racists, to admins who unblocked racists, or to admins who block me in revenge, I'm not sure I'm willing to be that kind of editor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My email? Did I email you? I'm not posting about your Florida joke, and I'm not aware of a "case against you". I would like to see Wikipedia deal effectively with people pushing racist agendas. If we can be effective by being civil, then I support civility. If we can be effective by being uncivil, then I support incivility.

Your longer post above makes it very difficult for me to stand up and say, "OM is right," because you've included, along with your very good points, extraneous stuff that I can't agree with. Fortunately, that stuff is extraneous, and the baby won't suffer from losing the bathwater. I think it's worthwhile to pitch a position in such a way that people can sign on to the substantive point without getting distracted.

Maybe, this being your talk page, you aren't trying to advance a position that you would want people to support, I don't know. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My poor brain. I read "email" in your post, and starting to think email, then wrote email, when I meant "post." I suck at multi-tasking (reading Wikipedia, posting changes, reading corporate email, arguing with my CFO about salaries, calling our sales reps to get stories right, dealing with an employee who sexually harassed another employee, smoking pot, replying to GTBacchus). LOL. Sorry, I'm whining! Well, I could redact the bathwater above, but I think there's a logical chain of events from the blocking of a racist to the blocking of me, albeit for 8.754 nanoseconds. My point, and I'm in violation of WP:POINT, is that civility should not trump anything, including racism, POV-pushing, fringe theories, tendentious editing, etc. I agree that being civil to newbies (but only until they violate any of those other items), being civil to 90.3% of admins, being civil to other editors, etc. But I'll sign up with a position that makes what I say nicer! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard put to find anyone who actually thinks that civility should trump any of our content policies. There's simply no conflict between them, so there's no question of "trumping". At what point does one have to make a choice between being neutral and being civil? I've never seen such a thing. Maybe I'm missing something, but I want to make NPOV, RS, V, etc, stronger, by taking away the ability of tendentious editors to trip us up with our own policies. I think you can remain true to what you believe, get good work done more effectively, and enable others to support you more easily.

Would you be civil to a racist if it made them go away more quickly than being uncivil? Is it more important to win, or to see that people are correctly identified as "racist"? What if there's a conflict between the two? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that I was not uncivil to racists. I agree with your position. I only got uncivil to the admin who decided to unblock the racist. So, my point was that Hersfold chose to unblock the racist nutjob because the racist nutjob said he'd be civil. And if anything, said racist nutjob wasn't blocked for uncivil commentary, but for being a racist nutjob. (Yes, I'm being uncivil now, but it's all out in the open). Sooooo, I guess I'm really on board with you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, largely. I would note that being a racist nutjob is not grounds for blocking. The day we block someone for being a racist, Wikipedia is over. If someone should be blocked, it's not because they're racist, but because their editing constitutes disruption. It sucks to be the guy standing there calling him a racist when it doesn't help to do so, and it does rob you of the moral high ground. On the other hand, if you stick to talking about his disruptive editing, then you'll stay spotless, and you'll bring more attention to the real problem, which is the bad edits.

Anyway, did you find that being uncivil with the admin who unblocked the racist was helpful? Would you recommend it, to someone in a similar situation? (This is not a loaded question - I'll accept "yes" as an answer, if that's your feeling about it.) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. What is a "global warming apologist"? Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"It's the sun! It's the urban heat island! No, it's natural fluctuations! No, maybe it's cosmic rays! It's a liberal conspiracy to blow hair dryers on all the world's thermometers! It's the oceans! Oh please dear God, let it be anything but CO2!" Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think it's Florida cheating Gore out of the Presidency. But it's possible I'm still in denial.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey OM

Just to be prudent, I recently voted at R. Baley's RfA [3] and I mentioned a situation you were involved with. I probably wasn't happy with your edits there, but not to the extent to involve myself and I'm glad the situation has blown over. The vote has to do with my thoughts of Baley and are not meant to be insinuatory to you or anyone else. I have spoke with you in the past via talk page, and believe you are accepting of things that may mention some of your edits in a critical sense. Mostly I am just letting you know I mentioned you. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely get worried about someone commenting on me. Although B thought I was a woman. That freaked me out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. I insinuated that you were a Witch... I'll change that to Warlock. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You all are sending me to the shrink. My sexuality is confusing apparently. Grrrrrr. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, after a bit of thought, I believe it prudent to reply to you, because you should understand all of the underlying facts before passing judgement on me. First, I can't remember how I got dragged over to KKK (because frankly I stay away from articles that sicken me). I believe it was because there was an editor, now indefinitely blocked, who made a blatant anti-Semitic comment in the talkspace. I put an AN/I up about it, not expecting anything to happen, and I guess the comments were so sickening that there appeared to be a rush to block him. I started watching the page, which of course is an FA, and I reverted anything that appeared to be an NPOV violation or whitewashing. Another editor GordonUS (talk · contribs) ended up being blocked a couple of times for edit-warring. Then God Save the South (talk · contribs) joined in the fray, reverting edits. GSTS's edits appeared to me that he was a member of the KKK, if not closely affiliated. At the time he went crazy in his edits, I was sleeping, and I woke up to see he was blocked. Excellent job. Then Hersfold (talk · contribs) unblocked him without consulting the original blocking admin, without, from my perspective, reading the edits of GSTS or without asking other editors what was going on. So, he unblocked him with some crap that GSTS was civil and deserved a second chance. But he needed to not edit KKK for a while. I was appalled at the idea, so I left a semi-civil response to Hersfold about his choice. Hersfold, instead of owning up to a huge mistake, chose to attack me for: 1) not reading carefully, 2) not giving him good faith, 3) some other crap that doesn't mean much to me. What I saw was that Civility trumped racism in the moral code of Wikipedia, at least from hersfold's POV. I did not call Hersfold a racist until such time he pushed me too far. I stated that giving comfort to a racist was no different than being a racist, so I guess you could assume some sort of logical progression, but it was not direct. Hersfold was absolutely mistaken in what he did, and in a perfect world, he would have admitted to it. I would say that Hersfold's maturity in this matter is suspect given the fact that he did not own up to the list of mistakes he made, especially unblocking a racist of the ilk of GSTS. GSTS should be blocked for COI (being a member of the KKK), for personal attacks, for tendentious editing, etc. etc. Hersfold was very wrong.

With respect to my block, Firsfron of Ronchester (talk · contribs) aka Firs, decided to block me as I decided to leave Hersfold to his own conscience, and quit bothering him. I used to be tight with Firs, but in late January, he posted a rather rude and critical remark about me on a Wikipedia attack site, Wikipedia Review. He stated that he would not support an RfA for me, but given that I don't want to be an admin, especially since controversy and maturity aren't a requirement for admins these days, it was rather a silly remark on his part. Moreover, he had his facts wrong on WR (which is why he posted there, so a diff can't be used against him). A number of editors, including other admins, were disappointed in his behavior. I believe his block of me was merely a revenge block, and had no basis in fact. And he had to realize any block of me wouldn't stand very long, considering the whole point of the controversy was the unblocking of a known racist who was destroying the KKK article.

I personally believe that WP:CIVIL is being used by the fringe nutjobs on Wikipedia to further their agenda. Therefore, I take a personal standpoint that as long as the morally corrupt (say GSTS) or admins who lack moral fortitude prefer Civility over scholarship, Civility over racism or anti-Semitism, or Civility over NPOV, then I have no use for civility. You ought to know I will not attack anyone who is willing to engage in a logical discussion. But if there is an agenda, I have no use for it. It's a game that others can play. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a thoughtful response. It's certainly a lot to think about. I think, at the core levels, I agree with just about everything you state. I probably have more faith in civility than you do, but that's not to imply that you haven't had struggles with overzealous, incorrect enforcement of it. I see you as having some sort of an agenda here in the project, of course never to POV edit articles, but unfortunately it comes with dramatic protection and debate against those who disagree -- racists and the like. Your rigorous defense of what you believe to be right is often admirable -- although in the end I'm not sure of the overall good of going into the trenches for vicious debate with people as such. In terms of the KKK issue, I just don't see it handled well anywhere. Once GSTS was unblocked, the civil, semi-civil, or uncivil comments you made to Hersfold weren't really going to help the issue. In terms of games, the whole thing turned into a game, a charade, a war, when some civility early on may have just lead to Hersfold looking bad, the KKK page staying protected and GSTS left to do as he will. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, you're missing a few key points about civility of this block/unblock that should allow you to see it a bit more from my perspective:

Don't blame me for all of the problem. Hersfold made a huge error. Instead of being mature about it, he escalated the situation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that, if one positive comes out of this whole thing, people are made much more aware of Save the South's editing pattern (among other, more seedy, aspects of his presence here) and the overall recent attempt to whitewash the KKK article. The more eyes on that article, the better. After all, it is an FA and is supposed to be the best work of our editors. Not protecting it is simply comical. Hersfold's unblock was abhorrent as was the kneejerk response by an admin who frankly has personal beef with OM. Baegis (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First "you're missing a few key points" -- I rather dislike these first-sentence-of-replies from editors. I followed the situation in it's entirety. I don't think anything in my comments indicate I missed or don't understand something. Secondly, and more importantly, you wrote "Don't blame me for all of the problem." -- I didn't. In fact I explicitly said "In terms of the KKK issue, I just don't see it handled well anywhere." I thought Hersfold was more or less horrible, as well as Firs, as well as a few of the side-commenting editors. I think I've implied that I agree with your intentions but thought your incivility -- in addition to others -- just turned it into a "game" that you state you don't want to play in. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I'm rather defensive about this situation, because the point continues to be Hersfold unblocked a well-known racist and KKK-apologist (I mean well-known to Wikipedia), and this isn't about me. How it became about me is Firs insisted on a revenge block, and now Badgerpatrol, who has warred with me in the past, has felt it necessary to chime in (in a constructive way, so I have no complaint), which, again, makes it about me, not about Hersfold, GSTS and racism. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate to butt in here, because I have neither interest nor knowledge of this particular incident. Racist editors obviously have no place on Wikipedia and I suppose regular editors acing in good faith can rightly expect a certain leeway in dealing with them. But as to your specific points above; (Wikipedia Review link redacted for privacy) this is the post on Wikipedia review by Firsfron that OM refers to, subsequently replied to and discussed e.g. here. In fact, I barely know Firsfron, and he has annoyed me a little bit in the past as well to be quite honest. However, he has never struck me as the sort of individual to block someone as an act of revenge, and indeed has always been courteous and polite- sometimes to the point of inaction in fact, and particularly to Orangemarlin. I've never seen any evidence that he has any kind of "beef" with OM- in fact quite the opposite. Again, I take no sides here except to assert the facts and perhaps stick up for the reputation of Firs, who seems to be a decent admin. OM, please feel free to delete this post if you feel it's unconstructive. Badgerpatrol (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Save for the point that Badgerpatrol has "battled" me (through an AN/I and some strong editing disagreements) in the past, I guess this is fair. I am deleting his links to Wikipedia Review, since they track IP addresses, and will, whenever possible, out Wikipedia editors. Otherwise, I will not edit your post, although I strongly disagree with your assessment of Firs' motives. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back since you are all completely correct. The first thing I would do is site ban anyone who frequents WR. Anyone. These are not people who are interested in rational discourse or building an encyclopedia. And there is no reason to keep that sort of person here. And I stand by what I wrote on Firs' page. I am disgusted. I remain disgusted. And now, more than ever. Pure revenge block, as near as I can tell. Just bull. Shameful. He should be desysopped and given a nice long vacation from the site to think about it.--Filll (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my problem with Wikipedia Review. Firs thought he could come here and take out a revenge block, because what's said on WR doesn't count. The problem with the discussion on WR is that he and his anti-Wikipedia crowd were plainly and flatly wrong. Some editor, who claimed to be a physician was making edits to Pregnancy that were neither good nor bad. However, they were messing up the WP:MEDMOS layout to write it in a manner that they wanted. No matter how many times we asked them to look over MEDMOS, they refused. And the nutjobs at WR claimed that how dare we run off a physician editing the article. What the fuck am I? A auto mechanic? Firs failed to point out these facts, and just proceeded to attack me there. It was a revenge block, plain and simple. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maternity clothing

I put up a page about maternity clothing which went through the history of maternity clothing and then I placed a reference of where I got the information. I imagined that pregnant patients would like to read about maternity clothing so I added a link from the pregnancy site. My link kept disappearing so I replaced it. I am new to wikipedia I didn't realize this was upsetting you, whoever you are. In any case I receive a message that maternity clothing is not relevant to pregnancy which is bizarre. If you think that my page had something wrong with it then edit it and remove what you don't like. Instead you send me a warning that it will be deleted soon and 10 seconds later its gone. I am new to wikipedia and I assure you when I spend an hour of my time researching a topic and writing up a page which is a lot better than the one line they had on the maternity page and you just delete it, you are creating an environment which does not make members want to contribute. Now if you tell me what is wrong with my page and give me a chance to edit it or defend it I would be happy to do that for you.

thank you for you time,
Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmasri (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Please weigh in here if you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the edits you have made on Talk:Doctor of Medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It is not usual to template regulars, but your insistence on removing a censor tag is getting ridiculous. Don't go further.

Bryan Hopping T 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he feels that the osteopathic doctors are being censored. As for actual instances where this has happened.... none has been forthcoming. - Nunh-huh 07:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel so much better. So there might be some instance where there might be some censoring? I'm convinced. Maybe not. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI

The use of the word "controversial" to describe Haeckel's drawings has been an unchallenged part of his article since Oct 28, 2006. 67.135.49.254 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't watch Haeckel's article and I've never edited it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is in reference to your edit here and your warning. 67.135.49.254 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry dude, I call them as I see them. The word "controversial" can be used to push a POV. I'm not a historian, so I don't check links, I just check what seems right. As for the "warning", if you're going to make changes put it in the edit summary, so people like me, who scan medical articles for vandalism, POV-pushing and the such, know what's being attempted. I also would suggest that given your knowledge here, get an account, and become a regular editor. No need to be anonymous (I mean you can be anonymous with an account, just not using an IP address). What say you? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I need a second opinion

Hello, I was wondering if you could just give a quick look over User:Zero g's contributions and tell me whether I'm off my rocker, or if his/her edits seem to push a rather racist POV. I've been trying to revert some of them, but I'd appreciate a sanity check, and you come across as a very level-headed, no-nonsense editor. If you don't have the time, I'll understand too. If you do look at his edits and find that I'm just too easily offended, please also be honest and tell me.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. The last time I fought a racist, my talk page was clogged with posts. But we can't allow them around. I'll check it out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • This edit alone makes me think that Zero g has racist leanings. Shockley, who was completely discredited as a racist when I was in Medical school and graduate school, 30 years ago, was a racist pure and simple. Zero g's edits here seems to neutralize the implied criticism. He makes Shockley out to be a fine scholar who's just worried about the world.
  • This edit removes the scientific basis of the refutation of Gillhallen's theories. That's pushing a racist-POV.
  • Here's another edit that pushes a POV.
  • He has a fascination with right wing Dutch politicians as seen here who have racist attitudes. And calling people out who have "inferior English skills"? Oh come on.

I think there is evidence that Zero S' edits support a racist POV. Now I have to watch his edits. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the sanity check. :) I'm keeping an eye on him myself.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't looked at any of ZS' other edits, but looking at the ones listed above I don't think I can draw that conclusion based on those edits alone. They look like to me like straightforward editorial work. Certainly the removal of the lead poisoning assertion is simply reflecting the cited source, in which the relevant para says:

which is a very long way from an assertion that lead was harmless. Caveat-I only looked at the online ref cited from Encyclopedia Romana, not the original Needleman paper.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, you may want to look at other edits, especially the first one OM listed. I too think it tries to whitewash Shockley.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. Don't you hate the way that diff botches the handling of paragraph breaks? The only substantive deletion I see was "causing a lowering of worldwide human quality", to replace it by "and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately threaten the future of Western civilization. Shockley advocated that the nation should seriously investigate questions of heredity, intelligence and demographic trends, and decide on policy changes if he was proven right." Now, as repugnant as Shockley's views are to most of us, I don't see that edit as whitewashing him. Am I missing something subtle? LeadSongDog (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
LSD, it's easy to find the overt racists that say, "Jew Comedians are funny." The subtle ones are worse yet. Lowering of worldwide human quality is substantially worse than the longwinded change that he made. It makes it seem that Shockley was scientific in his reasoning. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No quarrel with the principle, but was really it a bad-faith edit? Did it make Shockley's views on the matter less or more clear to the reader? Did it make them seem less dangerous? Not to my reading. Looking at ZS's reversion of this edit you can see where his edit summary referring to "'inferior' English skills" was coming from. It looks more like an en-us vs en-uk spelling revert war than anything else. In any case, it was seventeen months ago.LeadSongDog (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Looking at Talk:William_Shockley#Zero_and_Ramdrake I see Ramdrake offered to provide cites that call WS a racist. That would perhaps be more constructive.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund by William H. Tucker, ISBN 0252027620 comes close, but I don't think it actually calls Shockley a racist. LeadSongDog (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is one letter where Francis Crick calls Shockley a racist [4].
  • Here is another saying that William Shockley's position lends itself to racist interpretations. [5]
  • Here is another one calling William Shockley, the notorious eugenicist and scientific racist [6].
  • Or you can access this book review about him.[7]

I don't think there's any paucity of reliable sources calling Shockley a racist.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, so we should cite them as saying so on William Shockley.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I've reported this edit of Zero G at ANI, here. Please feel free to comment there if you want.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman and Homeopathy

You think you hate it, try actually dealing with that kind of discussion every bloody day =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article's lead stay relatively neutral (meaning that it states that Homeopathy is not scientific even slightly), I try to stay away. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I mostly avoid it. Ugh.--Filll (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

hey

Hey,this might interest you. Realist2 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop Calling me a Nazi

I'm not a Nazi, have no Nazi affiliations, nor do I want any! Calling a freedom loving Patriotic American a Nazi is as offensive as any anti-semitism is to a person of the Jewish faith. Now please stop it, it is hurtful and angering to be called that. --God Save the South (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OM, be a smart fish... Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You say "bait" to a fish? By the way, this page requires a mikveh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any branch of the KKK which repudiates support from, and the presence of, self-declared Nazis at their rallies and meetings. Since that is the case, I see no reason not to lump the two in together. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And GSTS uploaded photographs to the KKK article which included members giving the Nazi salute. Moreover, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has stated that the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups are closely aligned in the US. Moreover, as a blanket term, Neo-Nazism and KKK have similar goals which would include, if they were running this country, both the deportation of blacks and Jews, if not worse. To me, they're all the same. And notice that GSTS has never denied being a card-carrying member of the KKK. What's the difference. Damn, I took the bait. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Life gets complicated. The neo-Nazi BNP has begun campaigning in hopes of getting support from Jewish voters by claiming to be primarily against Muslims. Anti-semitism in another guise. :- / .. dave souza, talk 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So the enemy of your enemy is your friend? Twisted logic. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You had me puzzled for a sec...

[8] I had started writing a detailed response on how we can't protect that page haha lol! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of Twinkle buttons whose function I didn't know. So I went to the Sandbox to test them out. Well, now I know!!!! Luckily, I didn't click the one for speedy delete. See that's what happens when you play with your buttons. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, yeah playing with your buttons can be fun...but dangerous, lol. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does my username amuse you?

I like the color; my name is Mike (me brither's name was Pat). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you about the humor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_7&oldid=1088328604"