User talk:Orangemarlin/Archive 15 Elonka discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Bishonen-FT2

Smoky sez: ONLY YOU can prevent WikiDrama.

FYI in case you wanted to grab some popcorn. --B (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears a multiple-bucket popcorn show. I'll also need to have a couple of sodas too. If only the Fox sports broadcasters would join in, then it would be perfect. I'm amused the one or two admins that are showing support for FT2. I saw my name showed up, thanks to MastCell. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey did the project go in to the Twilight Zone while I was sleeping?! Wikipolitics at its best, past the popcorn, no wait, can't eat that, anyone have some chocolate? :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the snack counter will have anything you need. I'm hoping that they provide real butter for the popcorn. I hate that fake grease stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I commented at all. I completely ignored both of my Notes to Self.

I actually feel bad for FT2 - I sometimes forget how vicious this place can be. He doesn't get enough credit for the good work he's done - specifically, the Poetlister thing comes to mind. I can't get too worked up about the oversight thing, because at bottom I think he was just concerned about his privacy, and I could see myself acting similarly if I were in his position. But all he had to say was that he asked for help with privacy issues and then misspoke later because he'd forgotten the specifics. I think he Plaxicoed himself with the verbose stonewalling and buck-shifting. The problem is that Wikipedians tend to eschew a statement like "I lack confidence in FT2's judgement as an Arbitrator" in favor of statements like "FT2 is a disgrace and should be ashamed of himself." I've subscribed to the former at least since a certain eponymous ArbCom case, while I think the latter is cruelly overblown.

By the way, did you notice that "tag team" is now defined as... no, I'm not going there. Nevermind. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried not to pick on you about that, but..... I just think you care about this place. I have a different opinion of FT2, of course. I laughed at Elonka's comments all around, but others have replied appropriately. Bish's response was perfect. And as for Elonka's definition of tag team...has she looked at the crowd who are adding comments? Many of them dislike each other. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right (looks like I'm aligned with Slim and Geogre, two people who dislike me :-) I agree with just about everything MastCell wrote: my reasons for losing confidence in FT2 are different than everything else raised. IMO, the community wants arbs who are responsive to the community, aware that they "serve", and in touch, in the style of NYB or Kirill: FT2 is not any of that, and the arrogance isn't working. He should just step aside. I'm sporadically keeping up with the Elonka, Bish exchanges: even if Elonka argues (unconvincingly) that Bish was wrong and Elonka has not abused tools,[1] Bish has done as much to help Wiki as Elonka has done to harm it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Shot Info's response to Elonka? One of the better comments in this drama. Why did Elonka's RfA succeed? Oh, yeah, I remember. Something about voluntarily stepping down if good faith editors requested it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He isn't arrogant, it's just that His modesty knows no bounds, He is supremley modest, His modesty is noble even... Elonka would be funny if she wasn't an administrator. Verbal chat 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka would be ignored if she wasn't an admin. Wait a minute, most of us ignore her now. The anti-Science crowd fete her constantly, so she thinks she's popular. Weird. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka was controversial even before she became an admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3. (By the way, this was one of the rare occasions I was right about something, see oppose #44.) Who didn't see problems coming here? Anyone ... anyone ... Bueller? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 18:64, 14 January 2009

She actually placed a warning that she would block me for using Twinkle to revert some edit warring at some article today. I promptly deleted it, mainly because she hasn't a clue about anything that really matters at Wikipedia. She must have read our thread here, and decided that being the wimp that I am, I would quickly end this conversation, because she's the all-powerful admin. Yeah right. Anyways, she once sent me an email making some spurious and ridiculous comments about another editor, an email that was right on the verge of being slander. I noticed that she has done this before. Wow. Just wow. And when I forwarded the email to ArbCom, who should reply to me about it? FT2. No wonder she's supporting him--without FT2, maybe Elonka's comeuppance will be at hand.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(triple ec) Not sure I saw Shot Info's response (where? my interest wanes). In addition to the AOR claim, it succeeded because Tim Vickers nommed her, when he was nomming lots of editors because a change to allow IPs to create articles was in the works. Without Tim's name, I doubt the candidacy would have succeeded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This was a classic from Shot Info. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I liked Bishonen's better, that Shot Info's was a reply to, because it said all that without actually saying any of it. I appreciate understatement, I guess.Woonpton (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. But remember, there are readers who fail to understand well-written sarcasm, so Shot Info needed to go for the blunt sarcasm. Taken together, it's just about perfect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This qualifies as one of the best pieces of sarcasm written on Wikipedia in a long time. I applaud it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's okay but I like this one better. I guess I like Bish's satire better than Giano's, a little subtler. But these are fine distinctions.Woonpton (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that takes the championship trophy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, your point is well taken, and you said a mouthful there, about readers that don't understand sarcasm, or satire either. I find the prevalence of this disability in Wikipedia remarkable and alarming.Woonpton (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some psychiatrists believe that frequent sarcasm is Passive aggressive. However, I believe that writing and understanding sarcasm requires a high level of intelligence.  :) Oh, and it's still probably passive aggressive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, "some psychiatrists" say a lot of weird (stuff) but I wouldn't put much stock in it. I'd say if the sarcasm is mean, then it's not all that passive, since the meanness in mean sarcasm is usually evident in the tone (in other words the aggression is fairly straightforward) and if it's not mean, then it's not aggressive. So I wouldn't say that fits very well. At any rate, this is one of the many diagnoses or behavioral descriptions that aren't well established or agreed upon. One of my graduate degrees is in psychology, and I would characterize passive-aggression as anger and hostility carefully hidden under a layer of superficial niceness (or civility, if you will). It's deceitful (although not always consciously so) and creepy, because it's so perverse (in the sense of not-straightforward). There's a lot of passive aggression in Wikipedia, but where I see it is in people who are always superficially civil but at the same time manipulative and obstructive and impossible to work with because they don't share the same values or the same goals, so they're always working against you with a great deal of cheerful civility, but at the same time a great deal of hidden animosity. That's the kind of people who keep me from working in Wikipedia. My 2 cents, if that. Woonpton (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

Orangemarlin, I am very sorry to have had to take this step, but I am hereby formally notifying you of the potential of future ArbCom sanctions. Over the last few months, your actions have been disruptive within the topic area of pseudoscience. You use Twinkle to engage in revert wars without participating in substantive discussion at the talkpage,[2][3][4][5] sometimes even using Twinkle to revert other good faith editors as though they were vandals.[6] You have been making threats and false statements,[7][8] and you have ignored previous cautions.[9][10] Please consider this your last warning. If you continue to act in a disruptive manner, your editing privileges in this topic area may be restricted. Orangemarlin, you're normally a very good editor. You have done an enormous amount of excellent work on Wikipedia, and your efforts are appreciated. To avoid any possibility of sanctions, please, just follow a few simple rules: Stay very civil in your comments and edit summaries, avoid edit-warring, and do your best to engage in civil and collegial discussion over matters that are in dispute, by keeping comments focused on direct improvements to the related articles. These are good methods to approach dispute resolution, and will help to result in positive and long-lasting changes to Wikipedia. Thanks, --Elonka 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OM, calm down a bit, and I say that understanding your frustration.

Elonka: I've read the diffs and understand your "concerns", but you are overstepping. As for the methods for dispute resolution you mention, you are correct that they are valuable guidelines, but they often seem to be forgotten or misunderstood in many cases. I am hardly a perfecrt editor, and carry the baggage that I have mostly crafted myself, but then, I suppose that that applies to all of us. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OM: Elonka is right about one thing: you've gotten sloppy with Twinkle again. If it isn't vandalism and you cannot remember to change the edit summary, then don't use it. Seriously. To you, its a goof, a wrong button. To the person you revert, you are accusing them of being a vandal. I'm serious, OM - you need to stop being so lazy, and manually edit and enter summaries. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppy, I'm kind of offended by this comment, since it's hardly different than what Elonka has stated. Let's look at it one by one. In each of the Twinkle reverts above, in no case did I accuse the editor of vandalism. Only in Elonka's mind is there any assumption that the use of Twinkle is an indication of Vandalism. In fact, a full read of WP:TWINKLE tells me that that the only rules are to use it within the rules of Wikipedia. So, unless one of the four edits that Elonka states above is in violation of Wikipedia rules, I'd like to see it. Below is diff by diff reply to each of Elonka's specious accusations about Twinkle:

• This edit to Chiropracty was a reversion of edits that were not discussed back to the last edit by User:Eubulides who is one of the better medical editors on the project. In no case, did I make any comment that it was vandalism, and, in fact, did use the standard reversion button. Again, I did not violate any rules of editing as established by any number of Wikipedia rules.
• In this case, User:Levine2112 made large changes without consensus. Again, I did not accuse the editor of anything. However, there was a lot of edit-warring between several different editors, and I requested page protection (using Twinkle I might add). The edit summary was perfectly civil, made no accusations, and was fully within my rights as an editor. Moreover, based on that one edit, Elonka has the temerity to call me disruptive. That's uncivil.
• This edit, like the above ones, is fully within the rules of Twinkle and Wikipedia. I stated that I was reverting to the consensus opinion. I did not make any accusation about the editor. I added a fully useful edit summary. Exactly, where was I lazy about using Twinkle?
• This edit had a clearly written edit summary (there was no reason for Levine 2112 to remove the sourcing). I did not accuse Levine2112 of being a vandal--in fact, I consider Levine a hard-nosed good faith editor, not to dissimilar to me in editing. User:QuackGuru and Levine2112 were in the middle of an aggressive edit war at the time, and my review of the references indicated that they should not be removed, and I stated that in the edit summary.
• This edit in my opinion was vandalism, pure and simple. The anonymous editor has made precisely one edit to one contentious article, reverting without adding an edit summary.

In each case, I was hardly lazy, I provided an accurate edit summary, and I was well within my rights and obligations of Wikipedia. Elonka has made a bad faith listing of edits that were, from any standpoint, just simple clear editing. I expect an apology from Elonka for what she wrote. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, the one I was looking at was the anon revert; it looked like a misguided but good-faith edit to me. I will accept that you felt it was vandalism; my apologies. I confess that my memory of when you first got Twinkle and accidentally used the auto-summary not realizing it had that built-in "identified as vandalism" made my judgment a little hasty. I am sorry I called you lazy. :-( KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that User:MastCell has made an unbiased comment on Elonka's warning and accusations here. In no case does he or I find diffs that support Elonka's bad faith accusations. I believe my next step is to formally request ArbCom's assistance in removing my name from these accusations, and a request to determine exactly what admins are allowed to do. The pseudoscience arbcom ruling is being used incorrectly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, there has never been a more "uninvolved" administrator in pseudoscience issues than Elonka. Just ask her! ;) Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that like "Ask the fox if he's seen the missing chickens"? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Abusive User

The following user Double Fanucci has been placing a sockpuppet accusation on my user page. What can be done about this?Bluecord'sAgenda (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Abandon your sockpuppet account, and go back to editing with your main one. (Sorry for butting in, OM.) Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, butt in at your pleasure (did that sound right?) I have no clue what this is about. I hope I'm amused when all is said and done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The curious thing about this case is that Bluecord'sAgenda put the accusation there first. This would appear to be an "I'm another sockpuppet, please block me" statement. Always helpful. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 RFC

From the talk page disscusion, it seems this RFC is going to remain open for either an unconditional resignation or until the issues involving the aborted Arbcom case against you are more fully examined. I plan on going over FT2's draft of your case more completely than I have done in the past. It will be impossible for me to meaningfully comment on his judgement without also commenting on your actions. And I am familiar enough with the material to know that while your actions end up being shown in a better light than FT2 presented them, they will hardly be seen as admirable. You may want look over this stuff again to have an idea what will might brought up. I plan on emailing you a copy of anything I end up putting together on your actions before posting it publically so that you have a chance to make any corrections on my part. But then again, this may all be resolved before I have the opportunity to do the research. I thought it only right to prepare you in case this is all brought forward again.--BirgitteSB 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to participate in this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I will respect that and be as careful as I can to keep things accurate without your input.--BirgitteSB 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You either do this publicly or I will request that you be sanctioned for this threat to me. FT2's problem was not what he said about me, but the way he went about it. That matter is officially resolved, and your doing this is completely disrespectful of that process. Again, go back to arbcom for a public airing of the matter, or go away NOW. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I know you have been supportive in the past. You need to understand that the process was violated by FT2. No one cares about what he actually said now, because in some cases he was right, and in most of it, he was on Planet NLP. It was a drama that needs to stop NOW. The case was dismissed, and that's that. If you want to do this again, you need to do it in a public manner, so that it's not the same irresponsible bogus investigation that FT2. In fact, since I consider this whole story water under the bridge and floating in an ice cap in Antarctica, and used by certain editors cast aspersions on nearly anything I write, I consider your doing this will effectively end my editing career here at Wikipedia. It should stop now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no plans to do anything but put a public outside view in the RFC about FT2's judgment. I am sorry you see this as a threat, as I did not intend threaten you in any way whatsoever. I rather intended to be respectful of you by giving you this heads up on the matter. I am sorry that this message upset you. I really think you are misinterpreting me, and I hope that in the end you will find your concerns are relieved.--BirgitteSB 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern would be that the use of a "secret tribunal" outweighs any actions by OM. I realise that Wiki is not the real world, and participation is voluntary, but my stand is that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment should offer a guiding principle for preesent and future WP actions related to a user's actions. As FT2 acted in a way that ignored that principle (and I know WP is not bound by the due process clause), whether or not he violated a specific wikipolicy really shouldn't matter as he seems to have violated the spirit of the expectations of any open community. In fact, this whole thing reminds me of the nonsense at Guantanamo. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to write a full reply

I'm not sure what your request does for the process. FT2 is effectively gone from ArbCom. So, if you're saying FT2 isn't and this process is necessary, I'd say, it doesn't matter. FT2 has no respect from the community, so even if he went back to ArbCom, he'd be a powerless fringe player, until his term was up. So, not really understanding your motives, you're either trying to bury FT2 completely, or you're out to make editing difficult for me. The former seems a little bit of piling on, and the latter will shut me down. I absolutely refuse to participate because I promised to stay out of the FT2 situation (if the former is your goal), and I refuse to participate on principle if the latter is true.

When this difficult drama occurred (I'll have to admit that it effect my real life for a week or so, because I was totally flabbergasted by what had happened), many of the individuals who showed me support were not supporters of me, but disgusted by the process. What FT2 did wasn't about me, but it was about how he abused his powers. That's what should be the target of any discussion about FT2's fitness to be an Arbitrator. If you make it about me, FT2 will be partially exonerated, because that will be what people will remember if FT2 decides to find some other powerful role in this project. We cannot allow secret, arbitrary, and singlehanded decisions to happen at Arbcom, and that should be the focus of what FT2 did wrong.

My current "battle" with Elonka is not because we need admins to guide us to an NPOV, my issue is that Elonka is harming the project by being a one-woman judge, jury and executioner in the same manner as FT2 attempted. The authority at Wikipedia must be transparent, democratic, and fair. What FT2 did was not, and that's the reason I'm strongly opposed to what you're doing. It cannot be about me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I assure it is about FT2 not you. If it turns out to unnessecary with regard to FT2, I have no desire to pile on him. Currently I do not think that it is uneccessary, but I will give everyone concerned about this a chance to convince me that I am wrong. I am in no hurry and I really have no desire to distress you or anyone else.--BirgitteSB 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's useful to keep in mind that OM's conduct, and some of the conclusions drawn about that conduct in the text that FT2 posted as a "nem con" case, weren't at the heart of the criticism FT2 received. OM wasn't exonerated, and no one has tried to claim that his history is pure as the driven snow, but it has largely been irrelevant to the analysis of how the "OrangeMarlin case" played out. The case was transmuted to an involuntary mentorship (which is most likely concluded by now, I'd guess), and anything further about it would sensibly focus on the process and the judgment involved in the nature of the case as opposed to examining OM in greater detail.

Birgitte, one thing you might want to look into (either by speaking to FT2 or other arbitrators) is to what extent FT2 attempted to involve the rest of the committee - and if they responded, try to determine the nature of that response. There is more there, and to some extent the rest of the committee unfairly escaped their due measure of blame. Avruch ^T 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still at a loss how this helps the matter at hand, which is whether FT2 deserves to be on Arbcom. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree. His resignation should have ended it, in my mind, but it looks like the RfC and the potential for future "discussion forcing" actions won't be resolved until all the details are tracked down. Avruch ^T 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have been convinced that further comments regarding FT2 are unnecessary and the that his resignation will hold ground. I am sorry to have upset you with prospect of all this. All I can say is that although I was wrong, I did really believe what I proposed doing was important and necessary earlier and did not propose it lightly. I hope that this message will relieve your anxiety over the matter and wish you the best of luck.--BirgitteSB 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

KT Extinction event

I readded your deletion with the citation provided. It turns out to be just a letter, but to a major pub that would attract and publish replies. Lemme know what you think.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but should we consider letters to the editor as reliable sources? They're not reviewed, and they can be opinionated. Theoretically, some homeopath could send a letter to the NEJM, and it gets published, and it wouldn't mean squat to the article. I'll take a look.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to the admittedly optimistic assumption that bogus letters will attract contrary response. Still, the content should stand on its own. If, having seen it, others don't think it valid, then I've got no attachment to it - I just want the article to be sighted before dispensing with it.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This comes up occasionally. Letters published in reputable journals should probably be treated carefully. The reason is simple: journal articles are selected based on scientific merit, while letters are typically selected to showcase a range of opinions or stir debate. They can still be useful sources, but a claim from a letter to NEJM shouldn't be given the same status as a claim from an article published in NEJM. My two cents; I can't remember if this was codified in WP:MEDRS (not that it would help with KT extinction anyway)... MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I own the article (nor claim to be a world-renowned geophysicist), but when I was writing the article, I ran across a lot of stuff that at one time seemed like a viable theory, only to be discarded. I did another pubmed search (which usually picks up articles on most scientific journals) and a google search, and I just can't find a peer-reviewed article. The University of Texas, I suppose, wants to PR the topic, but I'm not at all convinced. Also, linking the press release as if it is the letter is probably not the way to go on a reliable source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this comment veiled anti-Semitism ...

[11] ... or am I oversensitive? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realize my antisemitism meter is tuned to a very sensitive level. Let me see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

speaking as an uninolved and impartial gentile....erm...I don't get it. I don' think so but am pretty clueless here. The revisions suggest he is trying to phrase carefully and recognises it is a sticky area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Casliber there. Looks like he's talking linguistics as carefully as the subject matter permits. If there something that could be taken as a slight, I can't detect it.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really trying to understand what his intentions are. he has made other remarks on that page (to which I have responded) and the bottom line is: they are unnecessary. He made an edit and I and another editor voiced objectings. Ethnicity and being Jewish just have nothing to do with it. And he could explain his edit without bringing them up. So why does he? At the very least it is a puzzle. I do not consider the issue under question to be sticky at all; the question does not have anything to do with race or religion, it purely has to do with translation and sources. Why does it have to be sticky? And if he is trying to phrase carefully, well gosh, I would hate to know what would come out if he just spoke his mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if he were taking linguistics seriously, he would not have said that Hebrew was the liturgical/scholarly language and Aramaic the vernacular ... that is just an ignorant statement, like saying Old English was the scholarly language and Middle English the vernacular - that isn't at all the difference. I do not see any care being taken about linguistics. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment appears to me to be factually wrong but not anti-semitic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with everyone here. This is just my opinion, but his comments sound like he knows a little, but not a lot. I don't think he's antisemitic--just a bit clueless IMHO. But he's right on the edge of stepping over a line that I don't think will be good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Now I'm not so sure. "Tar baby" is not a word I'd use as a metaphor in the context he's making. He's still confusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I may have over-reacted, but the more I tried to engage him, the more confused i became about why he kept bringing up "Jewish" and so on. I am trying to leave that talk page alone for now. I respect your sensibilities on this and appreciate your checking it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of apparently many talk-page stalking Jews, I think the tar-baby line and some of the other references are just a reaction by him to Slr's remark about anti-semitism. His comments overall don't strike me as anti-semitic, although it does seem like he's trying to promote a certain point of view of Jesus (that I'm too uneducated to really grasp from his sideways approach). Good person to grab on the general topic might be Nishidani - he's got a deep grasp of this sort of topic (if you're prepared to read a lot about it!) and is about as neutral as anyone. Avruch ^T 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I only looked at the linguistic portion: I sincerely hope this guy does not try to pass himself off as a linguist as he is essentially clueless. Of course, he's right that Hebrew and Aramaic are related, duh, they're both Semitic tongues (along with Arabic, Amharic, Maltese, Akkadian, and so forth). But so what. He's way off on the Ebonics and vernacular crap. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To Jim, yeah that's what I was thinking. He was a fake linguistic expert. But his comments like "Jews=Hebrew" is odd. And Avruch, "tar baby" has no context except as a racist name for blacks. I think he was looking for another metaphor (I can't quite remember what it is, but it's imagery that one uses when one is falsely accused), but he used a fairly disgusting one. Anyways, his comments still make no sense to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it struck me as exaggerated confirmation (as if suspecting him of anti-Semitism was ridiculous, and he was saying 'Oh you're right, I'm a Stalinist and former member of the Hitler Youth, address me as Imperial Wizard'). Avruch ^T 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I do not mean to harp on this, but I am turning to you because there is obviously no point in my engaging Stevertigo and if I contribute to the talk section on the Jesus page, I will only be accused of making trouble. But I am troubled ...

Recently, Stevertigo wrote,

Why? Because dealing with Yeshua means dealing with Yeshu, and that means dealing with the extremely pejorative interpretation of that name,

No, Yeshua does not force us to deal with Yeshu. Moreover, there is nothing pejorative about the name Yeshu. There are stories in the Talmud about a character named Yeshu. Scholars are divided as to whether this refers to Jesus - that is the controversy, does Yeshu refer to Jesus? There is a controversy in part because no one knows what Jesus' name actually was in Hebrew or Aramaic. Moreover, if the character is not Jesus, then the stories cannot possible be pejorative against Jesus. There are some modern Talmud scholars who claim they are about Jesus, but they interpret the stories not as being pejorative but rather ambivalent and expressing Rabbis ambivalence towards Jesus and Christianity. Point: Stevertigo's claims are either wrong or distortions, and simply reveal that he does not understand what he is talking about.

not to mention the Toledoth Yeshu, which may have had some small part in inspiring a couple hundred years of academic Christian anti-Semitism.

The Toledoth Yeshu, a set of medieval texts, are anti-Christian. But if you know anything about medieval history, you would know that these rabbis were reacting against Christian anti-Judaism. To blame these texts for anti-Semitism is perverse. First, it is bad scholarship because it proposes an effect to be a cause (the stories came after anti-semitism, not before). Second, they blame the victim.

There is no point in my saying any of this on the talk page, it would only inflame Stevertigo more.

But I really am concerned about what I perceive to be his unnecessary "blaming the victim" when it comes to the Toledoth Yeshu texts (texts which need not even be mentioned in this discussion since they are NOT historical texts, have no value in historical research on Jesus, and do not need to be brought into a discussion about "Jesus's original name." I did not bring them up. Andrew Card Did not bring them up. Stevertigo did. Why? They are not relevant to the issue under discussion. I can only conclude he brings them up in order to blame the victim. But why? I am genuinely puzzled. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this issue has made it to WikiEn-l following the block. Avruch ^T 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistically, he's up the proverbial creek not only with no paddle, but with no hands. As for the reast, well, I see spittle flying. WTF? It's very weird. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI...

User_talk:Casliber#Deinosuchus Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on arb enforcement

Look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement; it doesn't even touch on the problem area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA oppose

In regards to your recent RfA Oppose of Geni.... haha, just kidding. How are you doing? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungry. I can't find a decent pizza here in California. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found that people here (California) passionately defend pizza which is merely mediocre, most likely for not having experienced the real thing. Maybe such innocence is a good thing: one is always dissatisfied with the mediocre when one knows there is better to be had. For example, I remember, with a pang, the days when, as an student, I thought a bottle of five-dollar cabernet was a fine and savory thing to be treasured on the palate. Never lose your ability to enjoy cheap wine. But I digress. Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We Californians aren't happy if we're not watching our diet, eating organic field greens with organic olive oil mixed with organic balsamic vinegar and poached wild salmon. So, our idea of pizza is a non-fat, whole wheat crust, topped with feta cheese, and more field greens. No salt. No fat. I want a pizza where the grease drips onto my plate.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you like goofy stuff on pizza, isn't there California Pizza Kitchen? Or are they only in non-California areas? If you ever come out to the East Coast, I can show you quite a few great places. However, that's a far distance to go for a decent pie. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrgggggh. CPK is out here, but I don't like goofy stuff on my pizza. Grease. Lots of cheese. A really good sauce. Maybe some pepperoni, but I can live without!!!!! Now I'm hungry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There must be some New Yorkers in southern California who can produce decent pizza. The only problem is that you'll probably have to listen to them blather about how great New York is. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in California do you live? I know of a smattering of passable New York-styled pizza joints around the state. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find a few Pizza joints. It's just that they're not on every corner like in NYC. And given that 10 miles away might take me 45 minutes to drive, I'll just whine. And to MC, I live in California, the center of the cultural, intellectual, and drug-addled universe...I don't listen to anyone blathering except fellow Californians.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh God... way worse than New Yorkers. You guys fetishize organic food, meditation, and holistic medicine, and then tolerate air quality that would kill an ox and traffic that literally drives people insane. Most annoyingly, many of you actually believe that California is the cultural and intellectual center of the universe (having spent some time in Chico, I'll give you the "drug-addled" part). :) MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And guess what? I eat only organic food. As for meditation...nope. Holistic medicine? Nope. But we do love to prescribe pot.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

With pot comes the need for good pizza. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, Doritos. Cool ranch. But that would be if I, in fact, ever inhaled. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Having spent a good deal of time in California, I'm sad to report that there is no good pizza there. Go to Philly, New York, Chicago or Boston for the good stuff. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Never inhaled" huh...prefer to partake of special brownies then? ;) Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I made a response to Dave about Elonka's treatment. I honestly feel that you got off easy. Why? Because I am jealous. Normally, people demand my head, say they are going to ban me, start making up new violations just to try and bury me, etc. She might as well come after you with a feather compared to what I deal with. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I've tried to clear up the evident lack of sufficient clarity in my statement.[12] Keep taking the treatment! . dave souza, talk 11:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the saying? "More weight!"? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I've never asked for your head! I think I did request an arm or something to keep you from typing! LOL. There are five types of editors around these parts:

1. Vandals.
2. Uncivil, POV-pushing, SPA accounts that usually go away fairly quickly.
3. Civil, and useful, editors that really don't do much to build the encyclopedia, but do all the shit-work of deleting articles, reverting vandalism, run various bots. They usually end up being admins, but aren't very useful in content disputes.
4. Civil, and useful, editors that contribute to the encyclopedia, usually staying away from editing in controversial areas. Those that enter the world of woo science, usually either give up or turn into....
5. Cranky-pants, grouchy, moderately uncivil editors that contribute heavily to the encyclopedia, bringing articles to a higher level of quality, and usually edit in the articles that are at the front-lines of POV-pushing editors (who may also fit in this category).

Although my tolerance of woo is negligible, I don't like boring paragraphs of discussion, and I despise unsourced edits, what Elonka fails to realize about me (and what others fail understand about you) is I unfailingly follow WP:NPOV backed up with WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. I never tell someone to go "jump in a lake" either subtly or directly. The #5 editors populate this place, and are necessary, because we aren't an academic institution. This isn't Encyclopedia Brittanica, where a bunch of editors sit in a room, all of whom with impeccable academic credentials, determining what is and is not inappropriate in an article. IMHO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm a #3, but I like to think I'm useful in a content dispute. Doubt I'd ever be an admin though, even if the RFAers didn't (understandably) prefer to promote editors who can actually write, I'd have to be in the midst one of my crazy spells to even consider the gauntlet. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people cross over two categories. This isn't science, mind you.  :) Even though everyone wants Wikipedia to be the grand academic, yet democratic experiment, it's a bit of a fantasy. I've been in academics, and I can tell you back-biting, yelling, screaming, calling your colleagues a bunch of crackpots is normal. And playing politics is also part of the story. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, there are certainly surgeons who yell and scream and throw shit, but only toward their "underlings" - rarely if ever do they treat "colleagues" that way. But in my experience, no one yells or screams. The worst insults anyone's ever lobbed at me in academia are that I was "careless" or "underprepared" (or maybe those are just the ones I take most seriously). Politics - yeah, they're pretty intense, but as at Wikipedia, the machinations usually take place under cover of superficial civility. A wise man once remarked that he'd been in academic medicine too long, because when he watched Amadeus he found himself rooting for Salieri. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that the point? He made the ultimate anti-hero: a man who, having done everything right is pushed aside. Cold, methodic vengeance ala Blake's Poison Tree or Poe's Cask of Amontillado. However, I'm not recommending such a thing (although, it would be interesting, and it is an alternative to the simple drama now). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow MC, you must live in a world quite different than mine. I remember giving a research grant to a big name cardiologist, and over drinks he ripped everyone of his colleagues' research. Then, I had drinks with one of his targets, and he ripped everyone else. I was at an American College of Cardiology meeting, and there were some ripe remarks to each other about the results of a famous study. Now, I realize there is not a lot of figurative yelling, it's more passive aggressive than anything. I was in mortal fear of my life when I was doing research as a graduate student. Everyone was battling everyone. But that was in the 80's (when you were in diapers), and we were just more cranky back then. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in diapers, but I'd rather not go into details. Yeah, my experience is similar - it's a competitive world, and it's impossible to overestimate the role that personalities, rather than science, play. But most of the aggression is passive - it's talking serious shit about your colleague/competitor over beers, and then asking polite but pointed questions at conference presentations. Which, to my mind, is sort of how things work on Wikipedia... MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank god that I am just in literature and political theory. We tend to drink tea, chat about social stuff, and keep our commentary to polite but smug elitism in regards to people we don't like. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jump in a lake? But clearly you are a witch and will float! So whats the problem? :) Side not e - "all of whom with impeccable academic credentials" hahaha. I hate the EB, and I think they are hacks that don't know anything. I use Wikipedia to try and forge some pages as proof that one person can do far better than they (ala Sam Johnson vs the French academy). Back on topic - add a 6 role of people who are here: nice editors but are forced into the mean position which, over time, ends up with people not liking her. I really think that you guys and Elonka could seriously get along. Perhaps talk, find common ground, get a drink, go out, get trashed, and make sure that no one ever speaks of what happened? You know, all of that "bonding" stuff. By the way, I am clearly number five. Hence why I will be leaving after I finish my content goals. I'm sure there will be festivities. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have used EB as an example. You may lock me in stocks for 24 hours. If Elonka actually knew my real-life persona, there is 0% chance that we would get along, drinking or not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you ever feel down, or if you feel that you need to scream, shout, or attack someone, just remember: he's always watching all of us. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That scared me. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be scared. Maybe then you will think twice before doing anything ever again!!!!! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief; whence that pic? Scary is right. LOL. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's this thing with big purply bows on the head? Suits Aretha Franklin, but in this case nope. . dave souza, talk 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The origin of it. And I don't think it actually suited poor Aretha, lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You might know...

... What is it that Jon Stewart has against Orange People? Just asking...LeadSongDog (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're going to make me google this to figure it out? I need more coffee.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I figured you would have watched it, but perhaps the inaugural ball gowns were more to your interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my interest in inaugural balls is kind of small. Hell, non-existent. And I'm not a big fan of Jon Stewart. Sooooo, that means I missed the whole cultural experience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionism

Snalwibma said Humani Generis discussed evolution, not evolutionism. Fair enough. But it seems fair to say that Pascendi did talk about evolutionism, albeit in a very critical way. A good read BTW. ADM (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you source this accurately? I think it helps the article considerably, but not being a religious scholar, I wouldn't know where to get that information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

If you would care to look at the conversation that I had with JP, I have brought ti from his talkpage to the article talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I did. I watch his page along with yours (of course). I'll discuss there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Of course" mine? I had hope the unpleasantness had passed. If it has not, then I will leave you to the article.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In an expression of good will, I have reverted the edit. I hope that for those who want a very traditional exclusive definition for anti-Semitism with want an equally rigid definition for 'exclusively" and be willing to directly attribute the quote to Lewis.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course was meant to watching your page, jpgordon's page, and just about anyone else with whom I interact. I still don't like your name, it is highly offensive to me, but as you state, the water is under the bridge and out to sea. I am discussing this situation in good faith with you, I disagree with you, but I respect your thoughts. Fundamentally, I do not ascribe to weakening anything that deals with antisemitism (but I don't give a crap about the dash, a conversation on the article talk page that was borderline silly), and it only refers to anti-Jew. In the same vein, I do not believe The Holocaust refers to anyone but the extermination of Jews in Europe. That's my philosophical point and I believe it is backed up by scholarly sources. Hopefully, we can resolve this definition. In conclusion, I am giving you full good faith, as I expect the same from you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

An edit conflict. Thanks for reverting. I've found that when someone writes out what the intend to place in the article (if it's a paragraph or sentence under discussion) on the talk page, consensus comes fast. Try it, and let's see what happens. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned my edit on the talkpage. I think that if the article basically quotes Lewis, then it should be directly attributed to him.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting confused by multiple conversations. Let's just keep what we say here as comments between you and I. Why don't you propose what you're thinking on the talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that I reported the change on the talkpage when I did it. You replied to it there. I'm going to bow out of this for a little while. I think I need to write a small essay on my views of the Middle East to clarify some of my views for an editor who expressed some concern in a rather backhanded way. I can see with out clarification, it will prove to be a stumbling block for some editors and harmonious editing with me. I've a couple of other things to do , but will try and get to it tonite or tomorrow. I appreciate your cordial and collegial tone , and hope that we can build on it. Sholom.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like your name, but I do appreciate what you're writing in the article. Don't bow out. I have great respect for intelligent, rational individuals who communicate effectively, as do many others. I don't agree with your changes, BUT, I think there is some mid-ground to which we all agree. I tend to move to the center when I perceive someone else is willing to do the same. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OR, I'll be back to the issue. I have some peculiar ideas about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that another editor made a not so veiled reference to the other day. Rather than the discussion get sidetracked there if it comes up, I think I ought to write the essay first. I really appreciate your collegial tone and do regret that we once got off on a bad footing. It's not a bow out, in as much I I'll return shortly. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I need to write that essay! Damn, I'm lazy. ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Message of support

Um, um ... maybe the email was not perceived by the sender to be threatening. However, I decry any situation where someone receives an unwelcome email and is not allowed to post it publicly. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The email slandered a fellow Wikipedia editor and threatened me quite directly. I have felt quite insecure in standing up to Elonka because of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, where were you a year ago? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the threatening aspect, I'm sorry it had that effect on you and I hope Elonka's apology mitigated the effect. I agree that criticizing another person without also giving evidence to the same people isn't a good thing to do.

Jim62sch: apparently I was doing things like new page patrol, help desk, editing Mucoid plaque and updating the speedy-deletion templates. Why – what was happening around then? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone posted a private e-mail I sent them and all hell broke loose (and the person curiously waited three months to post it -- it was just really weird). Oh well, it was a year ago, so water under the bridge. I'll have look that article up as "mucoid plaque" sounds suitably icky. LOL. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

and so it goes

Note this.

I am not on Wikien, and I have no desire to engage Stevertigo right now. But do you think this is an accurate account of the problem? Slrubenstein | Talk

Edit ninja??? What is that???? Anyways, the more I read from him, the more I'm starting to see an issue. I still don't know if he's got an agenda, but he certainly jumps from "I've got a point" to "the world is against me" quite quickly. And to lump WMC with you and I (hell, lumping you and I together is somewhat of a stretch) is, well, laughable. WMC just cared about the 3RR edit war, not who did it. Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the "edit ninja" thing isn't so far-fetched. Indeed, much about this storyline eerily parallels Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That link is going to show up on my history. And if Obama interviews me for a position as Director of NCCAM (to shut down the waste of spending), I will have to explain why I went to that link. You commie pinkos do anything to embarrass the bourgeoisie. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Slr, I read it over, and he's missing the whole section of the Talk section regarding what he was trying to write. He was creating a POV. And he made some tenuous allegations like calling you anti-Christian. His assessment of the situation completely dismisses his acting like a twit and the intellectual discussion in the Talk page. And if he wants to protest, what's up with using the mailing list????? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel frustrated by the whole thing! But, even though I am not blocked, it is only fair that I stay away from the article as long as he is away. Well Spinal Tap is on TV which takes precedent over Wikipedia. Don't worry, Obama seems very determined to appoint whomever he consideres the right person for the job!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spinal Tap? The original movie? I'll get nothing done if I run across it on cable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The bass player in on of the bands I was in swiped my copy of Spinal tap (as well as the pickup fpr my acoustic and my Ibanez phaser). Grrr, I love that movie (and I miss my phaser). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, bass players are like that. It's our revenge for putting up with guitarists. (Riddle: How do you know when the stage is level?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably when the guitar player gets off the stage.

But, there's this ...

A man went to Africa to go on a safari, and night after night he was kept awake by the sound of thundering drums. By day, the drums were still heard in the background among the other noises of the jungle. After the fourth night he went to the Chief and ask him to stop the drums. The Chief answered in a booming voice, "no stop drums". This went on for three more nights when finally he asked the Chief why the drums couldn't be stopped. The chief looked at him with horror in his eyes, and in a shivering whisper said, "If drums stop ... bass solo next".

:) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. So this thread starts with a serious conversation about antisemitism, it morphs into comments about This is Spinal Tap, and now we get jokes about bass players. What next? How Culture Club was better than the Rolling Stones? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the best rock movie is still Almost Famous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, you haven't seen DiG!. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Musicians are good at morphing. Culture Club was better than Duran Duran.  ;)

I will second MC in DiG, psychologically anyway it was fascinating. Was a bit lukewarm on Almost Famous...the Metallica documentary was rather fun too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say, but I never saw DiG. I'll have to watch it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I can resolve this thread. I met Derek Smalls once (true) and he called me an anti-Semite. (not really). -Stevertigo 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

VT-Wake

Turn your TV on ESPN2 if you aren't watching it already - Tech is up 4 with 2 minutes left on #1 Wake. --B (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn...I'm there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We led 32-16 at one point and looked like we were going to blow them out. Since then, they have slowly but steadilly whittled away at the lead. --B (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't hit free throws I see. What's with the uniform color? Looks orange on my screen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange and maroon = our colors ... we wear each about half the time. --B (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

At least foul trouble is killing them. If it goes into overtime, we have a huge advantage that nobody is in foul trouble for us. --B (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

14.8 seconds ... this is exciting ... ---B (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why players can't hit free throws is beyond me. And I thought it was just maroon. Didn't know about the orange thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

HOKIES WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup. Another change in the #1 next week. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We have ALWAYS had problems with free throws. Our radio guy is attributing it to fatigue - we're not very deep so our starters play a lot more than most of the conference and in a physical game, they get tired. --B (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that! Syracuse had a game on Monday (clobbered by the former #1 Pitt), and the announcers said that SU ranked #299 in free throw percentage in NCAA basketball. Of course, I didn't know there were 299 Division I BB teams. Well, I do like the orange color. Made me feel like I was watching the cuse!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When we played @WFU last year, we led by 8 with under 1 minute left, but lost because we couldn't hit free throws. This year, we've been better, but this game was horrid. If we were hitting free throws, it's a blowout. But there's something about our games against Wake - they seem to be thrillers. --B (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I love good college basketball games (never watch the NBA, for example). Thanks for pointing it out to me. The Big East and ACC are going to be eating their young this year given the number of good teams in each conference. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Big East is just insanely deep this year. Notre Dame? Who even knew they played basketball? --B (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they don't play much football there.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug Gottlieb

Thanks for cleaning up the article again. I somehow accidentally reverted back in that deadspin crap. (have you read it? it's pretty funny) stusutcliffe (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure Gottlieb is Israeli? I see no evidence of that and don't understand your referencing the Law of Return. The fact that he spent time in Israel doesn't make him Israeli--I lived in Israel for a year myself and am not Israeli. stusutcliffe (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ünderland

Hey, what's wrong with the article I just made?!!! I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to do this whole message thing, but message me back with an explanation or leave it alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woden Der Konig (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Juliancolton is a name that came up. Did you or that other person do this and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woden Der Konig (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a few others must have agreed as it was deleted. BTW, as König has an umlaut, it should be represented in English as Koenig. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptions, as Händel might have suggested to Häckel.... dave souza, talk 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was utter nonsense and vandalism. It was deleted by an administrator. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also already a Baron Werner Ünderbheit article. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apple juice

It seems to have been derived from doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00632.x which might be worth reading. I don't have access beyond the abstract.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but no. They're making a leap of original research based on some cellular research. In addition, we actually don't think that's the mechanism for AD. Some of these journals just don't do the right kind of review of the research. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just didn't want a new editor to get too discouraged if there was anything to it. Thanks for looking.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Parviz Haghendish

Anyone but the orig ed. may remove a speedy tag with or without good reason. That any one other editor thinks the article possible is, and ought to be, enough to prevent speedy. DGG (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Obama's birth, Peabody and Sherman

I would guess that one user is in high school and probably has no idea what I'm talking about. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so that means I'm so old, that I remember the WABAC machine. Moose and squirrel. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily old - you might have studied it in your History of American Animation class at the prestigious university you went to. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As with most of his classes, I'm guessing he slept through it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was sitting in my Spiderman pajamas watching Rocky and friends every Saturday morning. In black and white. With rabbit ear antennas. And no internet to check the facts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you did sleep through the 70s, all you missed was Watergate and Disco. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing disco would not have been a bad thing. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The one bad thing to miss might be Star Wars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you all talking about? History again? Verbal chat 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Leia remembered her mother, yet Luke didn't (see Episode VI). The Force (which Luke was praticed in) obviously, was more with Leia. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one force that can defeat The Force. It's called "script continuity". Or the lack thereof. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it took the bad guys (Star Wars chronically speaking) 18yrs to build the first Death Star. Only took'em about 3yrs to nearly complete the much larger new Death Star. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Better technology!!! I'm more of a Star Trek than Star Wars fan. I'd watch Seven of Nine all day long. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Star Trek. Khan remembered Checkov, even though (on screen) they never met before (see TOS episode: Space Seed). Also, in the TOS episode the Enemy within, why weren't Sulu & the gang rescued by the shuttles? To be fair: Roddenberry's group didn't have the Shuttles contructed yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez, you're one of THOSE. I take each episode as a stand-alone show, not worried about canon. Of course Trials and Tribble-ations helped clear up the whole Klingon appearance issue.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the TNG episode (forget what it's called) explained why all the aliens have humanoid shape (it happens when they're all portrayed by humans). GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chase. Of course, much like what caused the Big Bang, who got that genetic material moved around the universe? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Shatner gets mocked often for his acting style. But IMO, he was splendid in 'The Enemy within': "Just a minute, Janice", "Help me, make the descision" & (my fav) "I'M CAPTAIN KIRK". GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT a fan of Star Trek:TOS. Although I'm old enough where I watched the series way before it went into syndication. My dad hated it, thinking it was a communist plot or some drivel. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not spending a minute or two discussing it with me. Elonka requires a summary desysopping, your opinion on whether she's done something right or wrong is irrelevant. Since you've taken control, I'm staying out. Don't expect any further comment or interest from me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

May I email you? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish. Please understand that I rarely reply to emails, but depending on what you say to me, I might reply to your user talk, implement your recommendation without comment, or just ignore it.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sent. By the way, I thought only SV had a CIA connect. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO, However, I'm throwing a on there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

From the most reliable source out there. :) (Ah Poetlister, you jerk.) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Based on that logic, and the fact that I graduated from Syracuse University, a large number of whose students perished on Pan Am 103, I suppose I am part of the Jewish conspiracy around here. Oh wait a minute, that theory is based on Poetlister? Never mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wait and you too will be added to some cabal list if you aren't already. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of your deceased Uncle for an article.

I'll gladly assist in drafting an article about your USMC Uncle's Bio, his historic contributions, and his loss, if you're serious. How much information do you have about him? Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you miss the high level of sarcasm. First, though he was my favorite uncle, the only reason I spent years in the Navy, and was a hero, he was as non-notable as the articles you've written. Moreover, and most importantly, I will never surrender my privacy in that manner. You have attempted to make Wikipedia your personal biographical tool, and have added your war buddies in that quest too. I have no doubt that they were outstanding gentlemen, and served their country well in that miserable and useless war. But you dishonor them in name and in memory by using Wikipedia as your personal journal in a vain attempt to memorialize them. Why don't you write a book about them? Or an article in some peer-reviewed journal? Show some honor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You should've been a surgeon, OM. No tolerance! (Not an insult, gall bladders and tumors paid for my education, just an observation). To BR Lang - it looks like you're not understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. No crime, but before you get in too much trouble you should consider what others have told you. You might be interested in http://en.wikibooks.org - that website will allow you to use the wiki software and Wikimedia resources to post the information you'd like to see out there. Avruch ^T 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! A surgeon?????? Now I'm really insulted. I'm going to quit in a fit. I'm never going to edit again. You know I didn't care about the articles one way or another, but given Lang's use of Wikipedia to be his biographical tool (I'm too lazy to find the long drawn-out drama on his using his user page as his biography), I just didn't see that writing these articles, in violation of Wikipedia policy, as the best way to honor his comrades. He could set up a couple of very nice websites instead. And Wikipedia software is free to download, and most web hosting services provide it for you. Oh well, hopefully we can move on.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wise words from the herpetologist. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction

The Arbitration Committee has amended the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin by successful motion, archived here, to include two clarifications of the initial remedy.

Effective immediately, the restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment. Furthermore, the Committee observed that administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Six degrees of Wikipedia

I don't know how many of you played Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon during the early days of the internet, but I did. While watching the 2009 NHL Winter Classic, I was too lazy to use anything but mouse clicks to get to an article on Wikipedia. Then I wondered how hard it would be to get from one article to another completely unrelated one, without typing one thing. So, here's what I tried to do—European Parliament election, 2004 (Slovakia) to Sports Night. So the rules are, get from the first article to the last one in the least number of clicks, while never leaving Wikipedia. You need to list out how you did it of course, since someone will figure out some sneaky way to do this. What do you win? My lasting admiration and true respect on Wikipedia. Well, maybe not.

• 8 clicks. I'll tell you how later. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• 6 clicks. I'll tell you if you buy me a barusaki. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What the hell is a barusaki. Didn't even show up on a google search.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• 4 clicks. But I want coffee and a donut. (It's cold and foggy up here in Santa Barbara. Need a hot drink.)  :) Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No good donuts in SB. But I'm trying to figure out 4 clicks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI it's a legitimate solution (no side bar, no "what links here") Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Can I use what links here? Article 1 -> what links here -> user talk:Orangemarlin -> article 2. Problem solved. ;) --B (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, didn't think of that. Darn it, I was looking forward to a donut or barusaki.

BTW there is a tool somewhere to calculate this automatically (I didn't use it -- now that would be cheating.)  :) Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's sneaky. Not accepted as a real answer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• One click: Random article. YMMV.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• I hate all of you. Just on principle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have admin powers any more. Neener neener. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since I already have your lasting respect and admiration, which you propose as a reward, participation in this exercise seems a bit pointless. MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I'd like you to point out the diff where I have ever expressed any lasting respect to anyone. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean besides Jim Boeheim? MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, beside Boeheim, who is just this side of Einstein on my respect scale. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

4 clicks, all in the mainspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tech vs Clemson

FYI, in case you are interested, Tech is playing #11 Clemson on ESPN2 starting right now. We are a 1-point favorite somehow. --B (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I'm on conference calls right now. But thanks to ESPN, I can at least watch the score in real time!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

18-11 right now. Well, you did say you needed to win this game to get into the top 25. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ... their defense is the press. If you break the press, they don't have anything. We've been trading 3 for 2 since the first media timeout and that has given us a decent lead. --B (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We're shooting 65%, including 3/7 from 3-point range. (Not included in that is a missed 3 where he was fouled, then hit all three free throws.) --B (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you AT the game???? I love going to college BB games. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Too far for a weeknight game - I was in a meeting today until 6:30. That makes it hard to get to Tech for a 7:00 game. I'm probably going to be at two Tech games this year, but that's about it. --B (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

B, you alive? How could they lose that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More or less. I hurt my leg that night - as I was walking up stairs to the bathroom during a break, my calf just gave out started killing me. The doctor said it was just strained and would take care of itself in a day or two, just to stay off of it. It's still a little tender now and I can feel it a bit when I'm walking, but it's not bad at all. I didn't really feel like sitting in front of a computer yesterday, though. As for how we lost the game, we just don't know how to play with success. I don't know what it is, but we've blown leads a lot this year. --B (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for defending me at ANI the other day against the damning accusation of doing too much editing. I owe you a massive diet beverage of your choice. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm addicted to Coke Zero lately. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Coke Zero? An empty can with nothing in it? Not even air? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It has caffeine, water, and coloring. All the key nutrients for survival. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was Caff-Pow! LeadSongDog (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Any taste to it? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

Just a friendly note that someone has reported you to ANI. Thanks,  GARDEN  21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How dare you use an editing tool to make edits! I hope you're having a good week end. I believe there is some big sporting event over the pond this weekend? Unrelated, but have you noticed how the people making reports to ANI are often the ones causing the problems. Verbal chat 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI has some good uses, if you have a case. I've seen some very bad editors blocked for extended periods of time because of the discussions there. OTOH, certain individuals think it's there forum for pushing their POV. Immortale doesn't have a clue about aspartame. And of course, in a world of risks and benefits, the unproven or even totally fabricated risk of some cancer from utilizing Aspartame is far outweighed by the reduction of the intake of carbohydrates for everyone. Yeah, I know, stop drinking my diet drinks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that aspartame lowers your metabolism, thus causing you to not as easily burn the calories you take in? One of my (overweight) coworkers claims that he's better off drinking regular soda than diet soda at lunch with this as the basis. I've been trying to cut out sodas completely, but I need my diet coke fix. ;) --B (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you need the caffeine! That's a real bitch to get over. I stopped drinking caffeine 17 years ago and felt like shit for a week. The next week was merely hellacious. After that it got better.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that floors me about my coworker - he drinks orange soda at lunch. What's the point in soda if it doesn't give you a caffeine fix? That's like having steak and potatoes without the steak. --B (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I once ordered a glass of ice water with no ice. Sadly, the waitress didn't even blink. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Some orange soda has caffeine in it (Sunkist, for one (I think)). I wish they'd come out with caffeine-free Dr Pepper. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's Fanta that they have at this little place we go to - I didn't know any of it had caffeine. --B (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a theory, and I'm not sure I buy into it, that the body is "fooled" by the intake of fake sugars, and tends to store it. And as for your co-worker, he's ingesting about 71 grams of carbs or sugars with one can of Coke. Three or four of those daily for a year, and someone will be finding him insulin resistant with Type 2 Diabetes. Diet Coke contains nothing, maybe a bit of sodium. Sorry, but your co-worker will be diabetic with heart disease by 40. Tell him he's an complete idiot. The crap one reads on the internet is going to be the death of us all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fanta I'm not sure about. But Sunkist I am.

Diabetes eh? Can you explain the chemistry? I'm curious about this now, as the wife uses Splenda. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Splenda is fine. Unless there is a mechanism that Mast Cell knows about (he seems to read more of this cruft than I do), I see no way that artificial sugars induce Type 2 Diabetes. I was commenting on B's coworker ingesting tons of sugar water (in the form of Fanta or whatever)--I'm guessing he doesn't exercise, eats high carbs, drinks too many carbs, and is probably pre-diabetic anyways. I eat about 50 g of carbs per day. The recommended for someone who engages in strenuous activity should be around 70 g. B's coworker is getting 70 g of carbs with one can of soda. Whatever infinitesimal risk there might be from Splenda or nutrasweet is far far far outweighed by the risks of death from that much sugar intake. Sure, in a perfect world, we should probably refrain from the soda, period. The world isn't perfect, so we make compromises, where we reduce the long-term risk of what we can control. And reducing Type 2 Diabetes in this country will be a good thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

50 g of carbs a day? Really? Assuming you're reasonably active that's a diet well under 10% in carb calories, which is doable but toward the extreme end. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I buy the Diet Coke with Splenda at home - I like the taste of it a lot more than the regular one - it's much sweeter. I'm really trying to cut it out, though - the only sodas I've had in the last week were what I had at lunch. --B (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read several articles about problems with artificial sweeteners. Given the concerns and the results of studies I would be surprised if users of these products in excess weren't at risk for diabetes, because the artificial sweeteners, as I understand it, trick the body and cause changes in eating and drinking habits that are harmful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think B is on the right track - if you're worried about what you're drinking, drink water. Then when you choose to have something sweet, you'll appreciate it more. Or not - I quit drinking all that stuff a couple years ago. Now I can drink a couple sips of Dr Pepper, but I just don't like the taste of Coke any more. Guettarda (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The solution is straightforward. People worry that aspartame breaks down to methanol and thence formaldehyde, a carcinogen. Now, methanol ingestion can be effectively treated by administering ethyl alcohol, either intravenously or orally in the form of cheap whiskey. Aldehyde dehydrogenase catalyzes the breakdown of both alcohols, and it has a greater affinity for ethyl alcohol than for methanol. Thus, ethyl alcohol saturates the enzyme and prevents the breakdown of methanol to its toxic metabolites.

This basic biochemical fact suggests an easy way of allaying one's concerns about aspartame. If aspartame is co-ingested with ethyl alcohol in sufficient quantities, then the ethyl alcohol should prevent any accumulation of formaldehyde, through a basic competitive inhibition of methanol breakdown.

Most toxicological sources suggest maintaining an blood ethanol level of 100 mg/dL in cases of methanol ingestion, to saturate alcohol dehydrogenase and prevent methanol breakdown. That's 0.10% in breathalyzer terms - tipsy and stay-off-the-roads drunk, but not falling-down-blackout-drunk. Depending on your body weight, gender, and ethnicity, it should be sufficient to pre-load with a beer or two and then mix a shot of rum with each Diet Coke. And the aspartame controversy goes away (at least, part of it - there's still the issue of phenylalanine).

Disclaimer: please don't actually do this. It's exceptionally poor medical advice, but an interesting thought experiment. MastCell ^Talk 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But does it solve the main aspartame problem...that the stuff tastes like crap? Or does that require a higher blood-alcohol level? Guettarda (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoid the caffeine and artificial ingredients. It's safest to limit yourself to distilled water, rain water, and pure grain alcohol. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So the rum and Diet Coke are out? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Like the general from Dr. Strangelove to whom Boris is alluding, I only drink bourbon and rainwater. But hey, we can't all be health nuts. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

curious

[13] Slrubenstein | Talk 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

request

Can you review this discussion and see if you can make any constructive comments? There has not ben much discussion yet but I wonder if this merits and RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Doug Gottlieb

Hi, sorry, not a Wikipedia expert here but I thought I had finally added an unbiased account of the credit card theft thing from college. Can you explain what the BLP violation is? Thanks! Rudiger19 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you didn't edit the article; therefore, I'm not sure what to explain to you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually I did, I hadn't logged in. I was 71.129.183.205. I added the part about why he had to leave Notre Dame. I thought I had done so NPOV, and with citations, unlike other attempts to add that information. Thanks a lot! 71.129.183.205 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Whoops see I just did it again. I thought I was logged in. Let's try this again ... Rudiger19 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The source you added said "He was accused of stealing credit cards, and forced to pursue his education elsewhere". That does not verify the claim you added to the article. --B (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely why I deleted it. There are sufficient sources that state he stole credit cards and was tossed out of ND (why a nice Jewish boy from Orange county needed to steal credit cards is beyond me...and I'm not even going to wonder why he went to Notre Dame, but that would be original research). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Article already protected, edit warrior already blocked. I would have helped, but it looks like my reactions are just a fraction too slow. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. All before afternoon tea?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

another request

Could you do me a favor and just keep an eye on this? Do you think I am over-reacting? if you think I am wrong please tell me, i value your view. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you actually under-reacted. What's up with the threatening of editors? And he seems to be inventing his own definition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this. I have said all I have to say but others need to be firm and clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yankees suck

I was so surprised that A-rod confessed to juicing himself with steroids. (Note sarcasm.) Yankees deserve this crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You do have to wonder if he saw the new moniker coming.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New moniker? Do tell. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he means "A-Roid". Just a guess though. --Ali'i 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Should have guessed. BTW, long time, no see. Welcome back. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... been away (mostly). Hope to have some time to re-devote to WP. But we'll see. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh! You're the guy that asked me to use edit summaries, then you don't even read them! Maybe I'll go have a hissyfit now.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I hardly ever read the edit summaries on my own page, and I have missed tons of funnies. Teaches me a lesson!!!!! OK, who has a slice of that humble pie? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hi Orangemarlin, there were some interesting IP edits to Richard Dawkins this morning - and one overenthusiastic rollback on my part. But unless I've badly misread it you warned the IP who removed the offending word rather than the one who added it. So I hope you don't mind, but I've replaced your warning with a welcome. WereSpielChequers 10:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He added it and promptly removed it. It's still vandalism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It looked to me that one IP vandalised, then the second IP de italicised something, then the second IP undid the first IP's vandalism. WereSpielChequers 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If we evolved from burnt cookies, how come there are still (burnt) cookies?? This adds a new dimension to those "what kind of cookie are you?" I thought cookies evolved from biscuits and cakes. Verbal chat 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Alcat Test needs a little work

I just had a look at The_Alcat_Test and it needs a bit of an overhaul. I was going to start removing the crud, until I realised that I would have to delete the entire article except for 2 paragraphs (one saying what it is, another saying why it's crap). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this page yesterday and wondering what to do with it. I wasn't sure it fits FTN, but it needs help. Verbal chat 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been cleaning it up. A SPA showed up for one edit to put in their comments, which I removed. It's really a mess, with random comments, including the typical pseudoscience nonsense of "we just don't understand." Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another Health Litrature, nice spelling error. Verbal chat 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work guys. Now someone just needs to fix food intolerance. I had another look at it, and it's still in very dire shape. I could do it, but it would take me a day or two finding the proper references and putting together all the info and I have better things to do at the moment, although if it doesn't get fixed soon I'm going to just hack away the worst of the crud. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh oh, we've been found out - see User:Dr_John_Pridgeon - we're all part of the conspiracy... Verbal chat 13:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! At last count I'm being paid by the MSG industry, drug companies, and blood testing companies to put misinformation on wikipedia. Oh how I love conspiracy theories. I think I should contact these companies to see if they will in fact pay me to keep all the pseudoscience crap off wikipedia for them. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof problem - help needed

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available. Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a hole in that principle I think. You'll end up with arguments that a subject needs to have been established through a peer reviewed reliable source (or collection of such sources) as pseudoscience before non peer reviewed sources are allowed. If there is truly a dearth of standard reliable sources on a particular subject, this principle won't much help against fringers who will drive a truck through that hole. Avruch ^T 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, you open yourself up to accusations of canvassing by posting this request for participation in an RfAr on multiple user talk pages. Avruch ^T 15:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first argument is a non sequitur i.e. the conclusion does not follow from your assumptions. On 'no canvassing' I have never accepted that particular rule, as you probably know. Prevention of communication of ideas and questions is something only prohibited in dictatorships. I am raising an interesting and valid question that deserves to have maximum attention as we come to discuss how we deal with advocacy of fringe positions. Besides, there seems to be a consensus on the talk page that this principle should be used. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the problem with canvassing isn't that it is intrinsically wrong, but that it tends to be abused to slant discussion. Best practice is to use widely-read noticeboards to solicit comment on the appropriate talkpage. A simple notification sent to all major prior contributors to a page is also welcome. Try WP:Pseudoscience#Neutral point of view as applied to science.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the idea behind the principle, it just seems like it should be a little bit more proof against wikilawyering. Perhaps the flaw I see comes from misunderstanding the principle, so I'll describe it in different terms.

• Problem: Psuedoscience topics often do not attract criticism from serious scientists and scholars in reliable sources, because the topics themselves are frequently considered unworthy of such attention. This creates a problem on Wikipedia because the so called "experts" that engage in these fields (and who are not considered reliable by the mainstream) are overrepresented in direct coverage, leading to the potential for granting them undue weight in our articles.
• Solution: Allow articles on fringe subjects to include criticism from established, mainstream scholars even if such criticism isn't published through peer review or another type of reliable source.

• Conceptual weakness: There will need to be enough of a record in reliable sources to establish that a particular topic meets as "psuedoscience" for the purposes of this principle. In topics with truly very little reliable source coverage, that won't be possible; so you'll be stuck at irons with the fringers trying to exclude non-RS criticism by arguing that their favorite topic isn't actually pseudoscience and is thus exempt. Avruch ^T 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, also - this is open to the (ironic) argument that by introducing an official sanction for a "lower standard" of sourcing in a category of articles it will ultimately (directly and by precedent) reduce the reliability of the encyclopedia further. Avruch ^T 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to keep this short and sweet for the time being, but I have a bit of an issue with your statement. Firstly, if you make it that easy, then the nutjobs can then pull out a claim that some guy is a great scientist who states it's not pseudoscience. But my biggest issues is that I don't think anyone has to state it's pseudoscience. Most scientists ignore these fringe ideas, and make no comments whatsoever. There is a checklist of items that make a fringe idea pseudoscientific, and that's all that should be necessary. Oh, by the way, I don't think this is canvassing. There are so many things going on around here, it's impossible to keep up with everything. If there is a discussion on pseudoscience, then I think inviting some of us to participate is necessary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a big fan of this proposal. On a good day, I can make a case for myself as a "established scientist or academic". So then all I need is a blog, and the reliable sources will start coming in droves... :) MastCell ^Talk 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't quit, MastCell. Just stay away from the things you don't like. Drop the admin bit, if it helps. Nothing on Wikipedia is really worth getting stressed out over - as your userpage says, more or less, the grind continues with or without you. Things get better over time, but sometimes its hard to see that from the inside. So focus on what you enjoy, because even if it isn't solving complex problems it still helps this project that reaches billions. Avruch ^T 02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'm fine, just need a little time outside the bubble. MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding MastCell

Our friend appears to have decided to depart Wikipedia based on what he said here. MastCell was one of the good people around here, fighting the good fight to make sure articles didn't say "HIV does not cause AIDS." The one thing he did that I just can't, is treat the crazies with a marginal amount of respect, and using humor as a method to get movement without hurting too many feelings. And I always enjoy chatting with a fellow pawn of Big Pharm.

I on the other hand have decided on another tactic to remain sane. Treat all the nutjobs with the disdain that they so richly deserve, and always assume I have the moral high ground in the end. Remember, many of fought to keep the bullshit out of vaccine articles, and now it's being shown that the anti-vaccine fuckwads have caused the deaths of numerous young people in the developed world, while pushing an unproven, and ultimately dismissed, bullshit link between these vaccines and autism. I have no tolerance for the alt med POV pushing crowd that have done nothing but hurt human beings, by making claims in medical articles that just aren't supported by anything.

Maybe if I can give you a suggestion. Look what Short Brigade Harvester Boris did. He gave up the admin bit (not officially mind you, he "claims" he can't access his admin account, but it would take him about 12 nanoseconds to have someone retrieve it for him), treats everything with a sense of humor, and remains somewhat functional around here. That's what you need to do, create a fun-loving sock.

There are too many admins and arb members who are anti-science, and who don't mind that the vaccine article says "MMR causes autism" as long as the fuckwads pushing that agenda are nice about it. We have admins who have appointed themselves official KGB for the Politburo (oops, I mean Arbcom), whose pro-science contingent can be counted on one hand. Who's going to be a voice of reason to them? I'm too angry with the shit that's happening to the science and medical articles on Wikipedia to care about the feelings of a few POV-pushing crowd and their admin supporters. I'd rather be perceived to have a personality disorder than to throw my brand new MacBook Pro across the room when I read about how Big Pharm is suppressing all of the good data that show how munching on a bunch of vitamins cures everything, including male pattern baldness. What those people fail to state is that Big Nutritional Supplement is making more money by attempting to suppress good science. Funny how that works.

Well, I don't intend to stop here, because I intend to fuck over every single POV pushing shit for brains that tries to rewrite the article on Lung cancer, by saying, "smoking doesn't cause this." Or "drink your own urine, and you'll live for 120 years." MastCell was nicer about it, and would glide in, clean up the problem, and I wouldn't have to name names. I'm sure another science type will show up to replace him. But we're getting more poorly informed admins than we are medical or science ones. This project is doomed for failure unless that changes.

Maybe it is time to go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oy, MastCell is gone? Shit. It's too early in the morning for a drink.

Yah, OM, just stay sane. I agree with you about the way our Lenin-loving agriculturist has handled the situation. Probably the only reason I'm still here after five years is my area of expertise isn't overrun with crackpots, and the reason is that you can't make any money at it. Antandrus (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not dead yet! Just taking a break - but a real (and indefinite) one this time. We'll see how it goes. The good news is that no one is irreplaceable. :) MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"no one is irreplaceable" I call bullshit on that, MastCell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a major problem is the RfA/admin culture. I know of a few (relatively) new and trustworthy editors in medical/science areas, e.g. User:Sasata, User:Mr Bungle or User:Paul gene, but they would almost certainly get dismissed out of hand at a RfA for not having participated in deleting stuff or warning vandals on an industrial scale, even though that has zero relevance on their judgment if they had to block some useless troll or POV pusher on a science article. I really wonder how the current crop of science educated admins ever got their mop. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The pace of edits peaked in May 2007 and has gradually slowed since then

Standards for adminship used to be completely different than they are now. That's not necessarily a good thing and I think we could afford to be a lot more picky than we are - the level of growth has slowed down a lot. When I first became an admin, image backlogs were at 2+ weeks and there was a perpetual CSD backlog of over 24 hours. Take a look at the graph on the right. It shows the number of days between 10 million edits (the lower the number, the faster the pace of editing). We stopped growing in May 2007, but the number of admins continues to grow (albeit at a much slower rate). In 2007, we desperately needed more admins but there really isn't that big of a need right now. So we can be choosy. --B (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of people get through RfA without those check-the-box deleting and vandal fighting edits, so I can't agree on that score. However, I don't recall ever encountering the first two editors you named, and I would oppose Paul gene because of his issues with use of primary sources and discussions at WP:MEDRS. Orange, the way to eventually bring MastCell back is to model Wiki as the kind of place he would want to be part of :) (By the way, thanks for the vacation well wishes, and Ialwaystoldyaso about ARod.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue with Paul gene is moot now since after writing two FAs he stopped editing altogether (sorry I didn't check earlier) following this discussion; his arguments are bit convoluted, but he was trying to point out that published research articles aren't as unreliable as WP:MEDRS paints them, and wanted a more restrained guideline along the lines of "use of reviews is encouraged particularly in the articles on the broad subject such as (example of FA article)". Writing from a review doesn't guarantee a good article, as we've both learned from the PANDAS page. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul was tendentious, and I would have opposed him on principle. As for RfA's, my default position is oppose, unless there is a compelling reason to support. Most admins are, to be frank, not very mature, intelligent, or wise. Some of the candidates should not be an admin, specifically because they don't know anything about many of the articles. We have enough admins who can tell me all about the 21st level of Halo--that's a fat, immature, anti-social punk. Please B, don't tell me you know all about the 21st level of Halo. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I never played Halo. I played the first three Quake games (back when I was in HS/college) and that was about it for first person shooters. The only video game I have played in recent years is NCAA football. --B (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Over the Chanukah Break (of course), my son and I played the NCAA football, of course, as Syracuse. We got whipped. He considered my gaming skills to be at the 4 year old level. Actually, I enjoy WWII video games, although I find them very unrealistic (outside of the fact that one can't actually die). When I was in grad school, we used to play these massive WWII board games, that had 4000 rules, and battles were decided by the roll of a dice. But it passed the time, while we were fractionating proteins on a massive gel column--one of the most boring things ever.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG, it wasn't Advanced Squad Leader, was it? Or another Avalon Hill game? (We used to play ASL all night ... then the next night ... and the next ...) Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

De ja vu. I can't believe there is an article on that here. Yes, it was that and Air Assault on Crete. OK, this is major geek/nerd. I need to have someone oversight this thread so it's not used against me ever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(looks over his RPG collection on two walls, and three extra piles) You know, it's probably too late in my case (more RPG then war games), but yeah, we both probably would be the ones stuck in the trash can SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I drew a line at that point. At least, I could be a bit secretive playing Avalon Hill games in my apartment. With the RPG, you had to be outside for all to see! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, rocket-propelled grenades can be problematic indoors. Trust me on that one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(jawdrop) *laughs* Ok. I do mean Role Playing Games, not Rocket-propelled grenades.. hopefully I saw this in time before the ATF folks launch their mission *grins* :D SirFozzie (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh this sucks. I knew exactly what you meant. I've hit the highest possible level of nerd/geek-dom.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

POV pushing noted. A new study is pissing off the alt med crowd. Neuhouser ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Thomson C; et al. (2009). "Multivitamin use and risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the Women's Health Initiative cohorts". Arch. Intern. Med. 169 (3): 294–304. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.540. PMID 19204221. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They may not be best pleased with a study reported by Ben "Frankenstein" Goldacre. Or perhaps that's more of a problem for Big Pharm. I'll trust you, you're a doctor. . . dave souza, talk 10:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First, never trust me. Second, MC is a real doctor. I sold myself to Big Pharm years ago. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor? I'm a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the northeastern US. What, too soon? MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A related article which is a bit of a mess is Megavitamin therapy. Verbal chat 08:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Began clean up. You can tell a POV article when every positive point is given total undue weight, and every criticism is followed by ten critiques of the critique using unreliable sources. There were silly little statements like, Big Pharm blocks the great results from downing some vitamin. Maybe urine therapy can work, if you take megavitamins, since most of it will be in your urine.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just reading about this today, here: [14] the NY Times "Well" blog. I'm not usually a big fan (its oriented, seemingly, towards criticism of physicians and attention to common patient complaints), but once in awhile there is some interesting insight in the columns that often inspire the blog (written by Dr. Pauline Chen). The "Diagnosis" and "Cases" columns are usually worth the read; Diagnosis is written by Dr. Lisa Sanders, and Cases by guest columnists who are usually physicians. Avruch ^T 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OM, consider this a warning - you must be more sensual in your editing from now on. Verbal chat 21:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:RFA/S@bre

Fortunately, we cover the really important things.

I'm ROFL. As usual, you have the virtue of being right, although it could be phrased more politely. If I had my druthers, all admins would be required to have a college degree or suitable life experience, but, as with many things on Wikipedia, I concede that I am in a small minority and don't pursue it. --B (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Politeness never was one of my virtues. I bet you haven't noticed, because I'm so good at hiding it. I don't particularly care about college degrees and such; maturity, intelligence, and a great sense of humor do. Some people lack one or more of them. Just saying.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Politeness. Well given that it's an encyclopedic project, maybe being accurate is more important (and you do have that virtue). Oh, sorry, should introduce myself I guess. I'm Ched (big whoop), and have enjoyed reading your contributions greatly. I would have dropped a note earlier, but didn't see anything but a "who asked you" opportunity.

On a side note, I'm also sorry to see Mastcell spending less time here - I was looking forward to getting to know him, seems like a real down to earth kinda guy. I'm sure he'll do well in whatever direction he chooses to travel though, and hope he drops in from time to time. Anyway - nice to meet ya Orangemarlin. Try not to bite us n00bs too hard ;) have a good one. — Ched (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I usually only growl at noobs. LOL. Biting I reserve for the truly useless. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Look, I've compromised repeatedly in this section and I really don't think it's a stretch to say naturopaths "can rely" on scientifically unproven techniques. Even former critics of my changes such as Sciencewatcher agree that it's accurate to say "can rely on scientifically unproven treatments." If you don't believe nutritional counseling is scientific, than any nutritional counseling by conventional medicine would also be considered "unscientific" such as someone with high blood pressure being told by a doctor to consume less cholesterol. That's scientific. I'm not saying naturopathy ALWAYS relies on scientific treatment - I agree that it doesn't, but it also doesn't ALWAYS rely on "scientifically unproven treatments." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintersdoor (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page - the proper place for discussing edits to articles, so we can all join in. Verbal chat 20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just in case Wintersdoor missed what I quoted above, The fundamental intellectual flaw of “CAM” as a concept is that it is made to include modalities that are extremely diverse, even mutually contradictory, under one umbrella. Very deliberately modalities which are scientific and mainstream, like the proper use of nutrition, are often included under the CAM umbrella by proponents in order to make it seem like CAM is a bigger phenomenon than it actually is, and as a wedge to open the door for the more pseudoscientific modalities. Otherwise, it belongs at Talk:Naturopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Wintersdoor needs to examine this subpage of mine: Alternative medicine critics, especially the quotes from Marcia Angell, Stephen Barrett, Michael Baum, Robert Todd Carroll, and Richard Dawkins. BTW guys, I would appreciate some help in getting this subpage fit for mainspace. Please visit its talkpage.

Otherwise, I agree that his comments need to be made at Talk:Naturopathic medicine. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another POV strategy at intelligent design

RE this edit and the several leading up to it. This appears to me to be yet another stealth POV strategy, this time combined with another agenda, the image issue. Interesting, these sorts of things, even if somewhat testy. I left a note on Talk:Intelligent design providing specific locations in which some of the countless critics of Pandas are already cited. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MichaelCPrice

MCP also edits physics articles, and, as it so happens that that is my area of expertise, I have suggested a collaboration somewhere over there. May I request that you hold off on any AN/I report just until I get a reply? I think a voluntary refocusing on less-disputed articles would help. It seems that every time I forget about the constant sniping that lead me to drop Orthomolecular medicine from my watchlist in the first place, the same arguments are still flying when I get back. Would you be interested in creating a FAQ like they have over at ID? Maybe one discussing OM and megavitamin therapy as they differ from proper nutrition and deficiency supplementation, and a repository of few recent review articles or something along those lines. I am not sure what to do about the assertion that the MEDRS policy calls the Wall Street Journal a reliable for medical information when, in fact, it states exactly the opposite. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And note my warning above. I can think of legion differences between OrangeMarlin and Megavit therapy, but do we really need a FAQ on it? Peace out dudes. Groovy. Verbal chat 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to consider a merger of megavitamins and orthomolecular. I asked Verbal about it here; please chime in with any suggestions. Thanks! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll hold off for a bit, but the number of personal attacks, including calling anyone not supporting his POV "deranged", is getting out of hand. I think he should be blocked. The WSJ is not a reliable source for medical articles. That was discussed long ago, precisely because it is not peer-reviewed. He's wrong. And why would someone who seems to know a bit about physics have such an anti-science attitude towards medical articles? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you for your forbearance. Commented at AN/I. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Eldereft, but it appeared that Mr. Price was just continuing to make his point whether through personal attacks or through tendentious editing.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular sympathy for anyone who cannot stop calling another editor a liar long enough to try to work things through with a mediator, no worries. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Foie gras

There is discussion on this photo at WP:ANI. Someone marked it "resolved", but I don't think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Of all the articles on Wikipedia, it's kind of funny that we both end up here. It's a damn goose, and of all the things I care about in life, this isn't one of them. I wonder if these same editors will show the same sympathy for Child abuse, Genocide, or something that really matters. I love foie gras. I love it fried. I love it on baguettes. I love with apples. I love it with my eggs. I'll look at the ANI. It seems like it's just a cranky SPA causing trouble. Tell me Baseball, is Wikipedia worth the trouble? I think I'll have some foie gras and ponder the world. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I opposed the photo on POV grounds, but the groundswell is against me so I stopped working there. I'm neutral about ducks. I've eaten duck, which is OK but I like chicken better. I don't like liver, in general. I like liverwurst sometimes (the poor man's paté) but that's about it. And liverwurst is a lot less expensive than foie gras. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You reverted again, but consensus on talk seems to support the image. Will you discuss it on the talk page? rootology (C)(T) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugger, he beat me to it. How exactly is an image of a duck being fattened up in an article section called "fattening" POV? It simply illustrates what happens. Please come to the talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really interested. But thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Consensus will have to form without you :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise

...when I came across this while working on the ALCAT article.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Well, there are a few anti-science editors who will consider that a reliable source. And I would, given it's an Syracuse University student, but I just can't compromise. LOL. You have wayyyyyyyyy too much time on your hands. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I did have, until I discovered WP. Fixed that.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, I have my laptop in front of my TV, watching House. I end up checking everything he discusses on Wikipedia, determining the accuracy of House's diagnoses, Wikipedia, and my own knowledge versus PubMed searches. That qualifies as OCD on so many levels. I think that's how I ended up getting involved with orthomolecular medicine way back when. I was going to edit Wilson's disease (MastCell can chime in here) based on all of this, but I took a cold shower, and felt better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the trailers, House may be joining you at the clinic.LeadSongDog (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson's disease is just quackery. Now Wilson's syndrome - now there's a fine, upstanding diagnosis. Almost as good as "tired thyroid". MastCell ^Talk 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If House is using Wikipedia to do his diagnoses, it's no wonder all his patients seem to be at death's door. (And by the way, the punch line about "trying to pull them through" is at least as old as a W.C. Fields film I was watching recently). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Med question

Hey Orangemarlin. I'm lookin for some input. First, I don't know a damn thing about the medical field (other than my First Aid and CPR certs) - so I'm out on a limb here. My mom's in her late 70', and has had all kinds of back and hip surgeries over the years. The pain is getting tough for her, and the spinal shots and such are helping less and less. She got to the point this week, that she made an appointment with a chiropr, kiro, .. <copy/paste> chiropractor. I read through the wiki-articles, and other than the bland, the heated discussion pages, and all the POV stuff - I feel I know less now than I did when I started. My main exposure to the field is watching 1/2 hour of "Two and 1/2 Men" every week (guess that tells ya something). I've always been under the impression that the field was just with a bunch of quacks charging outrageous fees for a back rub. I know you can't give advise - but I'll sign off on that waiver form for an opinion.

I'm asking you for two reasons, 1.) You're a pretty straight-shooting guy that doesn't try to sugar-coat anything. 2.) You seem to have a reasonable amount of knowledge in medical and scientific fields. Which leads me to Q: Should I be talking my mom out of going to this guy? Thanks, appreciate any input. — Ched (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a firm policy of not giving personal advice on medical matters over the internet (or even in real life). Two and half Men is hysterical, but it shouldn't be your guide to chiropractic. Honestly, Chiropractic is a junk science. Case closed. None of my family go to chiro's. I would never go to one. But I would investigate this, and satisfy yourself.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm no doctor no way, so this is just a personal opinion: Taking serious back problems to a chiropractor has roughly the same likelihood of success as taking a broken-down car to the teenager stocking the shelves at the local gas station convenience store. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd endorse these comments and say same for acupuncture. But chiro is more than just a backrub. Chiros have been documented to have killed people. The stuff on [15] is worth a look. Kevin McCready (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - Thank you, Really appreciate the input here! It's not that I'm foolish enough to simply believe what I read on the web (or anywhere else for that matter) - but the input from a few folks whose opinion I value (which also confirms mirrors what I was thinking) at least gives me a direction in research. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of context

I just thought I'd let you know your comments are being taken a little out of context here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus

Hi, OM;

Any interest in having a look at Edmontosaurus? It's a refreshing, low-controversy alternative to the everyday Wiki experience, but on the other hand it's not exactly a stub, either. J. Spencer (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A low-controversy article????? NOOOOOOO. I read it over, and I'm not sure what I can add. I'm guessing it's ready for a nice FAC process! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the read! If you think of anything later, I'm planning on waiting until after Deinosuchus has had its day at FAC before submitting. J. Spencer (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ALCAT

Thanks for stepping up, I was getting a bit fatigued with the topic.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Who put in all this cruft? Unpublished letters? Abstracts from meetings where it was clear the article was never published? HUH? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea summa culpa. A lot of it started at this and this list of papers from what look like reliable sources though the copies are hosted on a COI site. Because the bibliographic data on those lists was spotty, I brought much of it in as a work-in-progress, while looking for more reliable published versions and refining the citations. Many of them on the list turned out to be in reliable journals indexed on Medline. Some of the other journals not on Medline are supposedly on EMBASE, but I don't have access to check.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. Some of the "letters" were unpublished correspondence between various individuals. I also ran across a letter that Pridgeon (is that his name?) wrote to the South African medical society or something. He quotes these things. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Dr John Pridgeon has much the same list. He says he's behind ALCATSA.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

COI, I suppose! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Hi, i see you are a very active user, and for that i ask you for help to support me in starting the task force as the cardiology articles needs allot of working, and many articles are missing, please if you are interested to support me or help, do that on the proposal page Maen. K. A. (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice

The continual sniping at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine is really boring and counterproductive to actually building an encyclopedia. There are enough editors there that it should be possible for the two of you mostly to shun interacting with each other without negatively impacting discussion. Would you be willing to try this? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm?????? HUH????? I haven't been uncivil to him. And you know I can be quite uncivil whenever I feel like it. How about someone blocking him for a week or so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not been unCIVIL, but neither have you been particularly collegial. While I argued for your interpretation of MEDRS over that of MCP, I doubt that offering to mentor them in the guideline will be taken well; I am no sort of sociologist, that is just my impression. I am not asking you to smile and kowtow to insufficient sourcing - that would be dumb (I also think that willful abuse of sources should be blockable, but that is my own bit of fringe). Look at it this way - if a drive-by admin sees those personal attacks and no response, they are much more likely not to write it off as a problem with both editors.

Then again, MCP already rejected my request, so big whatever. I wonder if there is anything interesting from those new personal comment redacted editors with whose interpretations of sourcing and weight I tend to disagree. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm collegial to those who don't try to push ideas that are bad for human health. You and I (and many others) edit for the long-term, and eventually the CAM-cruft pushers will disappear. And they'll be replaced by others, I know. MCP does not get or understand or even care about NPOV, RS, MEDRS, and/or anything else that makes a good article. I'm trying to help him, and it was in good faith. I'm hoping he's just misguided. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyroluria

While I am here, if you get a chance could you check out my merge of Pyroluria to Orthomolecular psychiatry to make sure I covered all the salient points in proportion due to their prominence? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Troll food missing an ingredient

I guess it's missing a "no"... :-) Cacycle (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

answer

Most people say yes or no.Prussian725 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clear he doesn't want to talk to you, and I'd recommend you let it go. If you have something pertinent to say about an article, say it on the article's talk page. OM has a lot of pages that he has to deal with as a medical expert; he doesn't have the time or the inclination to debate with every creationist that desires it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read what Prussian says about science. You're right, if I debated every irrational creationist comment, I'd have to clone myself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you diluted yourself x100 thirty three times, each dose would be more powerful!!! . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended anybody, I really wasn't trying to pick a fight.Prussian725 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag

In this edit you introduced an invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for a ref named "rejectedclaim". SD (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I think I see what the error was; a later edit attempted a fix, but it was not the right fix. Hopefully everything is OK now. SD (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

civility (2nd notice)

These two edits here and here seem to be personal attacks on me, contributing little or nothing to the discussion or the improvement of the policy. please refrain from such comments. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO indeed. Just how did someone with this block history get rollbacker anyhow?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just revenge, because I made sure he got blocked on a couple of occasions. I'll need to point out the harassment to admins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning that he's been blocked 5 times is a fact. Sorry Ludwigs2. You crack me up, you'll be blocked in a week, given your past history. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

so just to clarify, your greater goal here is to get me blocked again? --Ludwigs2 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, you really don't understand Wikipedia. I have no power to block you. You retain that power yourself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

well, that's not what I asked, but I'll accept it as an answer. thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MSG comment

I'm sorry. That wasn't directed at you. I wasn't sure what Phil was getting at (and I agree with your reply to him—I assume he meant something else instead of "glutamate crystals"), so I unintended to reply to the original posts. It seemed to me that user was confused about a more basic point, so was replying to his theory that sodium might somehow turn good glutamate bad.

I had Ted myself; one of my favorite classes (I like the math in physical chemistry). Cool Hand Luke 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? Believe it or not, when I was at the U, Ted Eyring was teaching Freshman Chemistry. One quarter (the U was on quarters back then), Ted had to go on a sabbatical to NIH or something, and Henry Eyring taught the class. It was like a direct line from Einstein to Henry Eyring to me. I know I am far beneath those two in intellectual capacity, but it was one of the many highlights of my life! And of course, Ted is directly responsible for where I landed in life. That's a long and private conversation we might share someday. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE complaint

Entirely peripherally, your name is mentioned in a thread I started at WP:AE, here. So it goes. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, actually it's not quite peripheral. ScienceApologist filed a report on Middle 8, asserting among other things that Middle 8 had been disrespectful of you in an edit summary. Middle 8 replied that you and s/he have the kind of bantering relationship where that's not a problem. I asked Middle 8 to seek your input to confirm that, since it appears to form part of Middle 8's claim that ScienceApologist's filing amounts to harassment and/or abuse of process. Middle 8 has now filed a second thread against ScienceApologist. I really don't know what your position on this matter would be, but matters are escalating and a word from you might help straighten things out and calm things down. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Crap. Two people I like and respect are battling each other. Never good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in and attempting to sort things out. Things heat up easily in this area, and I appreciate your efforts. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are my edits POV?

You reverted my edits in AIDS denialism claiming that they are POV. I request an explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AIDS_denialism#Two (if you please). I made three edits, all of which were NPOV, and you reverted all three of them. Why? -- leuce (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it at Talk:AIDS denialism. NEVER discuss edits with me here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. It was not my intention to discuss it here; only to draw your attention to it. -- leuce (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I have not made any edits but I received some type of warning that I messed up a wikipedia webpage. I don't use a shared computer so I'm really confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.23.18 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:199.20.23.18. Someone was acting out this morning, and their IP was reassigned to a new user, who was confused. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work

Someone that edits autism related articles and watches out for quackery in places like the MSG article is a good human in my books. Thanks for all of your hard work. (I don't think people hear positive stuff often enough). Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Just for the compliment, I'll be civil and nice for 24 hours to all POV pushing editors. Let me take several vicodin first. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please don't go that far, though enjoy the voicodin...Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I watch too many crazy articles, and various good faith editors drop me messages here that this article or that article needs watching. Of course, they're rarely fun. Well, Edmontosaurus was fun to read. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

civility (3rd notice)

from wp:civ: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." this edit you made - [16] - certainly qualifies as incivility. please try to remain focused on the issues, and leave comments about the editors out of it. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This "3rd notice" is approaching the point where an uninvolved admin might consider sanctioning Ludwigs2 for badgering; viz. "placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page" as noted at WP:HUSH. See also WP:BAIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

don't worry, three is the last. if OM continues making edits like the one above, I'll take it up with an administrator myself. I just didn't want anyone to think I wasn't giving him an opportunity to stop of his own accord. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is attempting to get revenge since I was responsible for his last 2 week block. I'll just bring it up with admins who can deal with him directly. My comments to you were completely accurate and fair. I believe your disruptive attitude goes against all the good things that Wikipedia is attempting to do, and taking revenge on me, who did not block you, is inappropriate. I believe further harassment will not conducive to a harmonious editing environment. I suggest you apologize for your badgering and attempting to bait me. I think it will benefit you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Ludwigs2's behaviour at the moment seems unreasonable, disruptive and unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For myself, I don't see how expressing legitimate frustration at argumentum ad nauseam is being incivil. Such argumentation is against WP:TALK, so WP does not expect excessive tolerance of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although Orangemarlin is often unapologetically uncivil, I don't see it in the diff provided [17]. II | (t - c) 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

civility stuff

Hey OM, I know the pseudo-science thing can be highly, highly nettlesome but please try to tamp down these edit summaries, they only stir things up more. You know, comment on the content and sources, not on the editor. I've said the same thing to Ludwigs2. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His attempt to change basic Wiki-policy without consensus of a large number of Wikipedians is reprehensible. Sometimes the editor is responsible for the edits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but one must stay civil. If anything, it gives much less of a wedge with which to nettle you back. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Best and hardest working Wikipedia vandal ever

This took work. Two observations. First, creativity should count for something. And second, she moved at least 30 pages in less than 5 minutes. That was truly impressive. Well, she's blocked now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that have been OorangeMarlin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that creative! But I vandalize woo pages with real science! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Meany :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Conventional/Mainstream and alternative medicine

I've noticed that lately you've been systematically removing "conventional" from before medicine in alternative medicine articles, on the basis that "conventional is pejorative" [18] and "there is medicine and there is quackery" [19] (other examples: [20][21]). I suppose conventional might sound pejorative because of the phrase conventional wisdom, but I think that distinguishing between the two is important in alt. med articles in order to reduce confusion. Perhaps mainstream would be a better? II | (t - c) 09:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these examples seem ok to me, but [22] does look a little confusing, saying "Dosage is in general an outstanding issue for herbal treatments: while most medicines are heavily tested to determine the most effective and safest dosages (especially in relation to things like body weight, drug interactions, etc.), there are fewer varieties of dosages for various herbal treatments on the market." My uninformed suggestion would be "Dosage is in general an unresolved issue for herbal treatments: while medically approved medicines....", and it's time to get that sorted out! . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As is quoted near the top of this page, there is only medicine and the other stuff. If I had my way, CAM would stand for Complementary and Alternative Magic. Medicine is a science that is evidence based. There is no conventional or mainstream medicine, there is just medicine. Attempting to qualify something with an artificial modifier is always pejorative. CAM supporters use all of the techniques of creationists: invent names for the science base evidence, use the word "theory" as if it is someone weaker than the "truth", etc. That's why CAM is a pseudoscience, because it follows all of the precepts of pseudoscience. The US government has put in over $1 billion in NCCAM, the place where woo is studied. Do you know what? They haven't found a single thing that works. Even in Herbalism, which I think holds a lot of archeological and historical knowledge of plant compounds that help humans, it's not the plants themselves that help humans, it's one or two chemicals in the plants. And those chemicals have to be studied for efficacy, safety, drug interactions, and dosage before they become useful for medicine. The Herbalism article is actually a useful one, but it should never imply that you go pick up a few hundred leaves of digitalis, and magically you can cure your arrhythmias. St. John's wort may or may not help depression, but it certainly doesn't help in major depression, and people shouldn't be using it without a physician treating even minor depression. Plants studied and analyzed, determining how they can be used scientifically in medicine makes them a part of medicine. Individuals claiming that someone is blocking their use in medicine because "scientists don't understand how it's used in a tribal ceremony" is crap. So, yeah, conventional medicine is pejorative. It's just medicine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

From the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Magic: Complementary and Alternative Magic comprises a group of diverse occult and spiritual systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of reality. Reality is a system of experience validated by agreed-upon standards of evidence by physicists and mathematicians, and by scientists and rational sentient beings in general. Some warlocks, witches, and wizards practice both CAM and rational conjecture. While some scientific evidence exists regarding some CAM rituals, for most there are key questions that are yet to be answered through well-designed scientific studies—questions such as whether these rituals are safe and whether they have any effect on the real world.

In other news, I am now glad that I opted against studying pharmacognosy - we need more researchers combing molecule-space for useful configurations, but it would sure be a headache at cocktail parties. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. Can you please place a warning before writing this stuff? I snorted my hot coffee laughing so hard. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blah - 5 hic) points for every type of alcohol made from barley - top importance this...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Double hic score if it's green? LeadSongDog (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Green?? Hmmm...I s'pose it is St Patricks Day comin' up soon, so green beers all round ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aww, crap! That made me look up Food color, wherein I found Food color#Natural food dyes listed (under green) chlorella algae which redirected to Chlorella pyrenoidosa. There, I followed a link to find {{PMID|11347287}. If I'm to believe what I read, green beer may turn out to be good for you. I'd better stick to what comes through St James' Gate in its unaltered form.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

poke

hey OM, didn't know if you'd be interested in this — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you're going to be accused of that huge canard, wait for it, ..........canvasing. GASP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. yea, but I thought you guys got along fairly well, so I was hoping to sneak one in ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

FYI, see the comments for oppose #1. Baseball Bugs isn't really 13-years-old and says that he is over 18. Apparently, Bugs Bunny (the cartoon character) is 13-and-a-half-years-old and that's the source of the joke. --B (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrrggggggghhhhh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to rub it in ;-) LeadSongDog (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Would you like salt in that wound sir? LeadSongDog (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny quotes are simply the most useful things in life. Duck season!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thwee and a half years old" is also Tweety Bird's catch phrase.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometime try putting your Google user prefs to use a language setting of Elmer Fudd for a while. Save this for a time when you need to laugh.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, I went ahead and restored, struck and indented your !vote. There is a long standing convention at RfA that when a vote changes, that we do not delete it. We don't even delete pointy !votes made by vandals. The only time I've seen an !vote deleted was when it was a blatant personal attack and the person who made it did the deleting, but only after several 'crats and admins commented on it---and I've only seen that once. A struck !vote, shifting to support, is actually a positive and more profound by leaving your original oppose. It shows that A) you were listening to the discussion and that B) others might have made the same logical mistake. Thus, it is very helpful in reviewing the RfA to have the entire history present and not hidden by deleting comments.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just an idiot in not reading carefully enough. If I thought it was worthwhile, I'd delete the contribution and hide it from anyone every seeing it.  :) Anyways, I was just a bit frustrated with the whole thing, and thanks for helping out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I've already walked away from ANI. It's off my watch list. The useful criticism in the No votes (as opposed to the vindictive stuff) has a recurrent theme that I spend too much time there. Ironically, as an admin I would probably spend very little time there, as my offline advisor has pointed out the constant backlog of work that's needed. No matter. Someone will do it, it just won't be me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

my edits are not advertising or disruptive but simpy a counter argument

Unless you believe that wikepedia is a fascist endeavor to control information my recent edits are not advertising. It is clear that you only want to block counter view points. This makes wikepedia look terrible and without any purpose except to force a specific viewpoint down the reader's throat.

Aloemps (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

your presentation is pure bullshit

A buch of atheist fascist asses sitting around forcing their opinions on the public regardless of science, clarity and real objectivity. You should be ashamed of yourself. Aloemps (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. There are guidelines for adding information to wikipedia to avoid conflicts of interest in addition to guidelines on original research verifibilty and notability. Q ^{T C} 10:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last week I was accused of COI due to 1, being a theist, 2, being an atheist, 3, being a scientist. The third one I've had trouble taking as anything but a compliment, and the first two just didn't make sense in the context of the complaint. Crazy. At least no one has accused me of being anti-science lately - that really did piss me off. Verbal chat 10:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my last edit, clarify to me how this was advertising or disruptive. All I read is additional information that provides facts versus an attempt in this artice that is nothing more than a crude attempt to discredit a natural supplement (just as with anything some are valid and some are not). I see your reaction to my edits as simply a reaction in that you did not like my edits based on opposing points of view. Also, your standard of providing references to back up information is lacking from the glyconutrient section that is really a section about Mannatech (misleading).

Am I allowed to present opposing info on this page? My example about false information is totally valid: digesting high molecular weight sugara is not how they are absorbed and this is easily accmplished when it comes to broad range molecular weight galactomannans from Aloe Vera gel. For this page to present information with insulting comments about flatulence is unprofessional and non factual. If you are demanding information backed up by references, how is this possible if you are not doing it yourself with anything meaningful except for a casual comment from a mainstream medical advocate with a philosophical chip on the shoulder? Aloemps (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS for a guide on sourcing and references for medical claims. Verbal chat 10:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The last esponse I received was not an answer to my question about edits I have made. It is my opinion that my edits were not advertising and not disruptive. Since you claim they are, then clarify this issue. I see the whole process of blocking someone from editing as simply a way to stifle opposing points of view and as we say in the USA it is about free speech. I see wikepedia as a format for the discrediting of alternative medicine without any discrimination but simply to do so based on world view. There is plenty to be discredited in both mainstream and alternative medicine but what I see happening with wikipedia is an extension of the control found in academia that stifles opposing points of view. What do you say about this and please provide a specific and meaningful response to this email. Aloemps (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that you're a conspiracy theorist, and that additions to wikipedia have to be verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. It is not a place for soap-boxing. Verbal chat 11:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

pointless attempts

This is my last entry. I can see that it is pointless to ask for meaningful responses. Wikipedia seems more like a college or university where opposing points of view are stifled in such a way that no one ever really deals with the issues and everyone moves in endless circles. I do not believe in conspiracies, unless there is a conspiracy of greed and arrogance, which goes on everywhere a person turns. Definitely, academic or pretend academics is the most perverted when it comes to greed and arrogance. Only those who live in the box of the accepted academic norm believe they are functioning with clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloemps (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)