User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 2

On the Hoyle-Boeing-thing-going

Hi Orange, I will try to get back when I have an identity on WP, planning to do so. Until now I've left comments here and there signing with IP I saw you had a bad day checking for the original Hoyle quotation. This was from some archived discussion group, objections - evolution, or something. I don't have a firm reference at hand. Here's what I think, what I remember (I'm a physicist). Hoyle might have written it in a book, rather than an article. The book was coauthred, but I don't remember the name of the other author (Indian sounding). Whether or not the quote is there in that book, I think I know what he was referring to. Hoyle (almost certainly) firmly believed in evolution through natural selection, he understood that mechanism, he never questioned it, or he was just uninterested in it. What he was actually concerned about was the origin of life. He thought that life must have emerged somewhere in the universe, not on Earth specifically. Wherever it originated, it has travelled everywhere through comets and the likes. His motivation for coming up with this hypothesis was that life is very improbable, too improbable to arise in many planets independently at (more or less) the same time. But the Universe is very vast. So, by extending the "pool" for life to begin to the entire universe, such probability might become sensible. In summary, he argued, life has originated only once somewhere sometime in a vast universe (he probably still believed vaster than most do), and then was spread all around. This is also known as panspermia. Hoyle is using a kind of entropic principle he had used before for an outstanding discovery in Physics regarding how carbon atoms arose in stars. To paraphrase, he thought that a functional boeing can actually come around by chance if tornadoes are happening all over a vast universe at the same time. To conclude, his boeing argument was an argument in favor of panspermia, in relation to the origin of life, and had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, nor evolution by means of natural selection. It goes without saying that recent findings that suggest life exists in meteorites, compatibly with Hoyle, are dismissed as false by creationists, who cite Hoyle's objections out of conetxt, but then refuse to embrace his authority in regard to the origin of life (and the related findings possibly confirming one prediction of his). In other words, Hoyle passes from being a total genius in their view when he proposes the boeing argument, to a pure idiot just a few lines later when he advocates panspermia. --209.150.240.231 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Hoyle, the confusing guy? I swear everytime I read something of his, he's saying something different. Do I know you? Orangemarlin 05:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not likely we know each other. Not from WP though, I still have to open a user account. I make just comments to talk pages, usually suggestions for articles, anonimously.

Re: Hoyle. I am certain he proposed panspermia. I'm almost certain (99.9%) that's were he used the Boeing 747 example, which was not meant to be literal, of course it wasn't. He couldn't see an easy mechanism for the origin of life, so he kind of went for an argument from ignorance (I cannot see it so it must be very very improbable). But in essence he was just trying to increase the probability for life, still from the point of view of a pure naturalist/scientist, by enlarging the stage for life's first step (from Earth alone to space). One could accuse him of not being expert in that field, but he was not totally crazy, just bizarre (none other than Crick is another proponent of panspermia). His version also had kind of constant injection of biological "stuff" from space. But predisposition to bizarre theories is what has made the day for many scientists. Holye not being awarded the Nobel prize in Physics with Fowler was an injustice, but the intuition he started from was kind of bizarre, but absolutely correct. He was opposed, maybe, for his character. But to my knowledge, he never took any stance on Darwin. --209.150.240.231 05:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if this helps, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html attributes the Boeing quote to Hoyle F Evolution from Space JM Dent 1981, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#nonchris refers panspermia to Hoyle, Fred & Chandra Wickramsinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (Simon & Schuster, NY, 1981). At Kitzmiller, Behe testified that "n the year 1973, a man named Francis Crick, the eminent Nobel laureate who discovered the double helicle shape of DNA with James Watson, he published, with a co-author named Leslie Orgle, he published a paper entitled Directed Panspermia, which appeared in the science journal Icarus.", while Buell testified "Dr. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe published together an article in the journal, a technical journal called Icarus. The title of the article was Directed Panspermia. ... and then Dr. Hoyle... wrote a book entitled the Intelligent Universe." Make what you will of that lot. .. dave souza, talk 11:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoyle also presented a paper on panspermia at a Royal Astronomical Society meeting in 85/86 (can't quite remember but can look it up if necessary) which was not well received (got very heated to say the least). Chandra Wickramasinghe was also lecturing at the time as we invited him to talk to our Astrosoc and from what I remember he was analysing cyclical patterns in disease outbreaks - the biologists in the audience complained that all he had done was prove that people got colds in the winter! Neither mentioned boeings in relation to these as far as I recall - they were just trying to get a serious debate started on whether life could have "seeded" in the same way other elements that make up the earth have come from other parts of the universe. Hoyle was a really nice man and it's sad that his legacy is so warped by the fixations of the time. This "life in comets" could prove him right yet. Sophia 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably Hoyle had an issue with natural selection too. Anyway, the 747 mystery might have no solution. Maybe it's not even in print anywhere. One hypothesis is that he mentioned it during a radio program. Now, that'd be interesting, as he had also invented the term Big Bang during a radio program (to mock it, actually). Anyway, Dawkins mentions it in The Blind Watchmaker. He's quite reliable, therefore I assume the quote is correctly attributed, wherever he learned about it. --209.150.240.231 06:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) That was me! Now I exist as a wikipedian. --Gibbzmann 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Shingles: Are they contageous

I understand shingles are not contageous per se, but can produce chicken pox in those without resistance, which itself may produce shingles sometime after the chicken pox regimen. Thus: Shingles may cause chickent pox in those without resistance to chicken pox, and the resulting exposure to chick pox may then cause shingles. Do I understand correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.52.227 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a technical point. Shingles cannot be caught from another individual. Chicken pox can, and it does not necessarily lead to shingles, thus it is not considered, by definition, to be a contagious disease. The virus is contagious. The disease is not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE Talk:Creation-evolution controversy‎#False dichotomy

I copied the section over verbatim and decided to leave the tag in, just in case somebody objected & moved it straight back into the article (so it didn't get deleted in that case). Now that the removal to talk seems to have been accepted, you're probably right that there's no reason to leave the tag. Hrafn42 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the tag on a talk section (though I agree it was POV beyond belief), and I thought it should be removed. I didn't read your comments above--and I thought it was weird it was unsigned.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning

This is an incivil edit comment. Please don't do it. "Inappropriate" would have been enough. Accusing people of vandalism in this way is rarely a good idea - if it really *is* vandalism, report them for it. IMHO it wasn't vandalism William M. Connolley 21:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He's entitled to his opinion, and yes, given the situation and the editor who left the warning, I can see a case for vandalism. BTW have you had a chance to read your e-mail lately? I never received a response. Thanks. •Jim62sch• 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I responded to his uncivil comments. I saw it as vandalism in the same way he left a warning on my page. I'll ignore it next time, and solicit your help.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to simply remove with a neutral comment. If Pg continues, or you think it amounts to harassment, a charge I will be sympathetic to, please do solicit my help William M. Connolley 08:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Took your advice

And both edited and augmented my user page. I realized that it is a place where I can put material that I suppose technically would be Original Research, but was more "I-wuz-there" rather than research. There are a number of other such areas where I simply never published.

Anyway, thanks for the useful suggestions.

Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OR on your own page is no big deal. It's not the article.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Petey

Nice to see you alive. So what's next on the list? Possibly Petey? I saw a Discovery Channel show on the Permian. Interesting. I hate insects, and I'm pretty certain I would have hated the Permian.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw a special on DSC, too. I wonder if we were watching the same show. They had those two-feet-long dragonflies... Yeah, I'd love to collaborate with you on P-T. Sounds like fun. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The giant centipede pretty much disgusted me.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's extinct now, if that helps any. ;) I'm not fond of centi/millipedes myself; I had to kill this huge desert centipede back in summer of 1998. It was nearly a foot long, and... ugh... what a mss that was. Speaking of messes, Petey needs a lot of work. What is with the bullet-point mania in the extinction articles? I feel like I'm reading from PowerPoint slides. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ronnotel

I have responded to your charge that I have "barely contributed to the project" here. Ronnotel 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks!!!

Hello OrangeMarlin, Thanks for the warm welcome and concerns. The ole ticker is fine. I have missed you guys! I think Meme has the perspective of a psychological scientist instead of a biological scientist, hence the emphasis of memes. Making a statement that evolution is not a change in inherited traits is naive. I have been trying to be Wikipolite and show Good faith-and be diplomatic. I love your blunt nature it plays well-Good cop/Bad cop Hee,hee. I have also been following Tim's lead as I really don't want to read his long diatribes and logical assertions and non sequiturs. Jeez. You have always been a quick read of editors so your analysis is probably correct-sock puppet. I have a keen interest in epigenetics, hybridization, and evodevo and apparently Meme shares a similar interest, so that caught my eye. We will see how the worm squirms-I mean screw turns. Thanks for the interest my friend. Regards GetAgrippa 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, could I ask a favor that you stay away from the Memestream discussion for a while. I'd like the admins that review this to focus on his contributions, rather than any allegations over motive. I fear other involved editors adding their opinions will just lead to unproductive wrangling on general subjects, rather than a focused discussion of his editing. Tim Vickers 00:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do as you request, but you are asking a lot of me this time. Memestream has been a pain in the ass ever since he's show up, and now he's a sock. I don't believe one thing he has written about his motives. I don't believe he knows anything about evolution short of what he may have read in some Creationist propaganda. And it is clear he is intensely disliked by a LARGE number of valuable editors. Philosophically speaking, we are wasting an incredible amount of time trying to rehabilitate Memestream. But this attitude is pushing me away from the project. Maybe you don't think much of my edits, but I think I've made a valuable contribution. I'm not the only one who has considered leaving lately (and the arguments over reliable sources will definitely drive me away). So protect a argumentative, tendentious and POV-warrior editor like Memestream, or maybe you should spend your energy engaging the HUGE number of editors who actually can contribute to this project. It pisses me off that someone as obviously smart as you puts me down for getting upset at the total lack of NPOV at Homeopathy but go overboard to protect Memstream. I don't get you Tim. Hopefully, you'll explain it to me someday. But because I respect you, I'll stay out of the discussion, as reprehensible as I think your request is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate that. If I were to just run things as I think best Meme would not be able to edit biology articles, since he obviously has little in the way of expertise. However, since he hasn't done anything actively wrong (edit warring, personal attacks or vandalism) I can't really agree to him being blocked, despite how much of a waste of time and effort his rather ill-informed contributions can be. If he had not contributed at all in a positive way I would have no compunction in blocking him, but his physics edits are quite valuable so he isn't a simple troll. It's tough being an admin sometimes. Please see that I am trying to be magnanimous, helpful and forgiving towards somebody I find extremely annoying because I must be seen to be neutral and balanced. Tim Vickers 01:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this one. Dang OrangeMarlin will have you in the cardiac lab next thing you know (hee, hee). I think Tim is just trying to be fair and give him the benefit of the doubt. I tend to be a courteous sort so my nature runs the same. I tend to agree that his biological perspective is off for this specific article, but his psychological and social evolutionary perspective would be appropriate for an article in that realm. I would be surprised if he turned out to be a creationist. I think he is just naive of the biological sciences. I also think he was pursuing logical,philosophical, and POV arguments not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I got the impression he was questioning or discounting the published peer-reviewed experts and that just beckons a fall. I've been away so I don't know what has been going down in my absence. In any case, I wouldn't want it to influence our relationship. The evolution article has really come together and is very accessible-that is quite an accomplishment. It is much more organized and coherent. Kudos to the editors who pulled this one off. Regards, GetAgrippa 02:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in the yin yang so on balance I'll eat a salad first and then my steak smothered in garlic butter. I would love to buy you a steak diner then belt down a few stiff drinks to increase our HDL's. Health food. Yeah. Tim you would be invited too (if you are listening) and we can smoke the peace pipe. I'm against tobacco products so we may have to break a few laws or argue it is medicinal(hee,hee). GetAgrippa 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As penance I have re-written the section on retrotransposons in the Duesberg hypothesis article. Tim Vickers 04:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are just trying to kill me. I need to drink. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought about what you said above. First, let me thank you for dealing with areas of pseudoscience and mumbo-jumbo that I would not touch with a cattle-prod. Your contributions are valuable and I, for one, am grateful. As to 'working me out', I realised yesterday that if you are in a position of authority you have less, rather than more, freedom of action. I am constrained as an administrator to apply the rules as fairly and evenly as I possibly can. You can rely on me to add correct and referenced science to any article that needs it, that is my training. However, as admin I must also be even-handed and struggle to take a neutral point of view and a neutral attitude - even in areas where I have strong opinions for or against one side. Anyway, all the best. Tim Vickers 15:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know where you sit. But I also don't think that's right. I think there should be a certain percentage of admins, with their extra tools, that lead the good fight, whatever that may be. I know you're a scientist, so I know some of these articles make you nauseous. But I really do think some of the admins should be encouraging the better editors rather than trying to save the Memestreams and Gnixon's of this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the squeaky wheel gets the most attention. Some peole work quietly and are never associated with any Wikidrama. Others waste everybody's time out of all proportion to their worth. This is true in all organisations, not just Wikipedia! Tim Vickers 15:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A related slow-motion edit war is this user User:Tm1947. I follow him around and clean up his HIV-denialist edits. Tim Vickers 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Wikipedia is the anyone (GAAAAHHH!!!) can edit Wiki, so inherantly the problem exists. I would encourage people to stay within their education or knowledge base for major edits, and limit yourself in areas that your not truly knowledeable. The problem is some are naive of their own ignorance, and you can limit excellent editors who are out of field (Fill for example is not a biologist, but he has made excellent edits). You know the med or grad student who thinks he knows everything, and that attitude will limit their education. Vandals and POV pushers are a major distraction and frustration. Perhaps everyone should be required to at least mention their education and experience on their page so other editors can have something to go on (of course you could lie,but I think that would reveal itself soon enough). You don't want to spend thirty minutes arguing with a 16 year old, or someone who just read one book and pushes that POV. I have been away so my frustration level is low, and I'm trying to just let things go rather than have a brain hemorrhoid. This wiki encyclopedia is only as good as the editors who contribute, so I prefer a high standard much as OrangeMarlin. Evolution is not my field of interest, so I try to just suggest in Talk and limit myself. I should add I do have strong opinions that sometimes get the better of me and I start POV pushing (but I realize that so I back off). I like having good editors to question me or bitch slap me if I get out of control. I've been married so long I don't even wince anymore.GetAgrippa 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not big on credentials that's why I usually stay away from medical articles. Tim Vickers took control of Evolution and got it FA, which was great. Of course, the idiots try to convince us that it's ONLY at theory!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we made dogfood of that horse long ago with the Fact and Theory entry? I guess nuclear physics theory has fooled us for decades in a false Cold War. I knew it was a conspiracy. Just like them men on the moon. There is the Evolution article, Introduction to Evolution, and now we need Evolution for Dummies. Jeez. When I left there was a card carrying Evolutionary biologist trained by Gould that was really getting things in focus (I can't remember the name).GetAgrippa 17:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a great amount for referencing Chronic myeloid leukemia. I am in a position I never expected to be, that wikipedia information would be vital to me for my own health, and being a wikipedian, after seeing other leukaemia sites, I find myself coming back to the wikipedia article on CML over and over. If you develop the article more, you'll be helping out a fellow wikipedian you are acquainted with. All the best and keep up the good work. Tell me when Petey is ready and I'll give you a review to thank you. AshLin 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make my opinion known widely once again. As long as Wikipedia is the #1 google hit for medical articles, we owe it to make them accurate, to follow a Scientific POV (there's no room for pharmaceutical company propaganda or unproven claims from the alternative herbalist side). We'll get there.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A question

How can WP:CON work if editors revert good-faith edits without even attempting to engage on, or even read, the talkpage?

I ran into precisely this problem before with FM on the "is Michael Behe a 'Catholic Activist'" edit-war. If you remember, even after I reverted with a link to the talk-section on the subject, you were the only one to bother actually making any comment. My opinion is that, unless you're willing to keep at least half an eye on the talkpage, you have no business reverting anything other than the most obvious vandalism/OR/POV-pushing on an article, and that's irrespective of whether you're "one of the good guys" or not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree completely. Sometimes the good guys are fighting so many parallel battles it's hard to read everything. The talk pages are starting to get annoying. It goes like this:

1. Some troll comes in and say "Evolution is a theory" or "ID isn't an argument for whatever."
2. Good guys state very nicely that it isn't so.
3. Troll get tendentious.
4. Troll is uncovered to be a sockpuppet.
5. Troll is banned.
6. Repeat.

The Talk pages are becoming forums for Creationists instead of places to develop the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns? It can basically be summarised as "Hrafn talks to himself." No comment or feedback from anybody else. Nada. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OM: I simply can't get FM to even listen to what I am saying, either on the talkpage or in the edit summaries. He might have good reasons for his viewpoint, but it's rather hard to see what it is when all I get in response are bald assertions with reverts: "it's a good example" & "it's not OR because there's a source" (never mind that the sole source is the document under discussion, therefore a primary source, and unsuitable source for discussion of itself). I'm trying to be "one of the good guys" about this, but if I can't even get a response out of him, I've got little choice but to escalate the issue to some higher authority. If you, or anybody you know, has any influence with him, could you please get him to at least explain why everything I've written on the talkpage on this subject is wrong. :( Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that somehow we got his attention, as he's deleted the offending paragraph. Thanks for your assistance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Inadvertently

Well, it's almost never helpful to template a user in good standing with whom you are currently engaged in a content dispute. For the record, you issued this warning for this edit, right?

Content dispute? Apparently you failed to read the history of the article. I was reverting a violation of WP:NPOV. Simple as that. I warned the user to not violate NPOV on the article any more. My comment was significantly nicer than the others I read on his page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought it somewhat overeager to template him for the one single edit he made on that article. Nevermind. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA comment

Regarding that comment, I redacted it, but you may want to contemplate on several things you said at that RfA. I was concerned about things you said in this comment where you called this notification "barely civil" and said that it "probably violates WP:CANVAS", both of which is untrue and I suppose you do know that. Then you also said that "the applicant failed my subtle test of maturity", which I found a bit assuming. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion. I'd appreciate your assuming some good faith towards an editor like me that has NEVER accused anyone of being uncivil. And I actually intentionally violate civility rules based on the fact I despise censorship. Also, after nearly 10,000 contributions to this project, I think I have an absolute right to make an opinion on a fellow editor who wants to be an admin.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely have that right, so disregard the maturity test thing if you prefer. But Ronnotel's notification was neither "barely civil" nor was it canvassing, since you clearly had expressed an earlier interest in the matter by posting on the RfA. So changing to "Strongest possible oppose" on that basis alone was a bit harsh and may rather lead to less weight being assigned to your otherwise sound comments. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look back on many of my earlier postings to RfA's, you'll find that I get annoyed with individuals who choose to respond to each and every oppose. He stated I made a "charge" about him. I most certainly made no charges, I made an observation and opinion, leading him to canvass me to review it. Basically, I'm done with each RfA once I vote. I don't look what others have written, nor do I particularly care. I have a simple process--I want to see FA's, GA's, a few deletions here and there, I want a couple of very contentious battles with POV-warriors, I won't vote for a Creationist nor someone under the age of approximately 25 (give or take), and I won't vote for someone whose edits consists solely of reverting vandalism. Frankly, I can't remember what Ronnotel had done, but it didn't meet my personal standards. Once he posted to my page, and took me off of much more interesting things like you know building this project, I wrote him off completely. I don't actually care bout Ronnotel one way or another, but he wasted my time from the project, and that is wrong. Again, these are my opinions, and why you come over hear and blast me for it is troubling. Your and other's posting (and no, I'm not wasting a microsecond finding a diff) about me at the RfA made it appear that I had made a couple hundred edits, that I whine about little things, and that my opinion about RfA's is worthless. I'm not sure I like that. But in the spirit of moving along, we should move along. And supporting the POV-warrior above is more troubling.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to bother (or "blast") you, sorry if it came across like that. I'm not personally assigning less weight to your RfA opinion, neither in general nor in this specific case, and I find your RfA threshold to be pretty agreeable. I wanted to raise awareness that others may see your change to strongest possible oppose on the basis of that (imo rather harmless) notification as diminishing the validity of your comments. It's not however my own opinion.

Wrt to Hardyplants: I'm not trying to support a POV-warrior. But as I said, templating is rarely contructive in my opinion, especially when it concerns a single edit by a regular editor. However, I have now taken the time and looked at his/her contribs, and some of them are indeed of questionable quality (with particular regard to WP:OR). — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hardyplants. OK, maybe I was a bit tough there, but he has been templated a LOT!!!! I agree that regular editors should never be vandalized with a template, unless they have a have a history of getting templates for edit warring, POV violations and the such (I know someone has to be the first, but please Hardyplants has been hit a lot for POV and 3RR violations). I'm glad you understand my points about RfA's. Really, I do not like it when someone comes to my page and tries to "talk me out of it" type of conversation. Now, we have spent a ton of time on this RfA. Really, it's time to move on for all of us.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Thanks to your postings here, I will be modifying my input at the RfA to strongest possible oppose. Good job.--Filll 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd how attempts to argue a vote have a way of backfiring, i'n'it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it offensive. I saw one RfA go from almost total support to an embarrassing oppose based on the applicants (and oftentimes meatpuppets of the applicants) commentary to each oppose. This applicant should not be an admin. Think about it, we lose SlimVirgin and Jzg and others, and we get this guy. How bad is that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad that we lost them. But we cannot replace either of those anyway. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're asking that we lower our standards? I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment. Ronnotel may not be SlimVirgin JzG or any number of admins we've lost over the past few weeks, but that's where we need to compare. We need admins who know how to take several articles in several different areas to GA and FA status. We need admins who can build consensus with POV warriors of both sides. And we need admins who have the balls (or the female equivalent) to make a decision to make things happen. Some of the editors we are promoting to admins are frankly weak. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak maybe, but that's not the worst thing that could happen. Strong with wrong ideas, that's the kind we as a community must be wary of. —(extended after putting more thought into it)— We're not having so radically different stances after all, imo. But I think it not only concerns admins but all of Wikipedia (recently rediscovered this article). I don't believe that "weak" admins do us much or any harm, it's the lack, not proportionate but absolute lack of strong one's that does. Then again, look how people with strong opinions on encyclopedic standards are being chased away (and it doesn't matter if the jackasses who form the mob are wearing tuxedos or rags). The reason why I'm still supporting that guy is: he wouldn't do harm with the tools. But I must confess that my support is the rather everyday "weak support", which probably roughly equals an oppose by people with higher demands. True strong support is rarely appropriate even by my standards. It's merely my personal offset that leads me to a default weak support, and that of others leading them to quicker oppose. Incidentally, I think that all of my opposes are pretty much based on the perception of irreconcilable differences in general wikiphilosophy as evidenced by a user's actions. I try to see the larger context when I judge another user (although I still fail that noble intention too often, esp. in the short run). — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Very bad. I also dislike candidates who feel the need to argue every oppose vote, in essence indicating that the opposer is an asshole. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That too. But the opposer's meatpuppets are particularly annoying. (And I"m not including AldeBaer as one, he's actually engaging in an interesting conversation with me on this topic.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on Mike's RFA, OM. I promised not to pester you about your !vote ('cause I hate it when people do that (especially when it's a neutral of all things!) and your points are no less valid than anyone else's). So no pestering. :) This message isn't about that. You said "Personally, I wish all admins had the experience that Firs has, with Firs' sense of humor and Firs' broad knowledge. All IMHO (or not so humble)." Oh man, OrangeMarlin. You are going to get me into so much trouble. It is a really nice thing to say, but I've got so many fuck ups to my name that they cannot even be counted. Someone is bound to point this out on the RFA page.

In other news, I've just got some shiny books from the library which will help us with Petey. Thanks, as always, for your patience. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Geez Firs, if I believed in perfect people, then I'd believe in Flood geology and Living dinosaurs. You know how much I've fucked up around here (and I'd love to be an admin of the type I think should all be, but I'd be nicer), but I don't think I'd get a single vote. Anyways, I wanted everyone to know what I think are good examples of admins (you, FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, MastCell, KillerChihuahua, and a large number who have left us recently)--there are some marginal ones (are you reading this Banno?). I also picked up some Petey books to help out. I'm trying to negotiate a new property for our company, so that's been taking my time over the past two months (note how my edits have dropped off). But like I said, Mike's RfA concerns me, but I'd support you on any candidate--or at least be neutral.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

I just wanted to invite you to my myspace page again to refute my polonium halos blog. /nothingwilldie I'm not trying to cause trouble. This is simply meant to be invitation to a friendly debate.EMSPhydeaux 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

D. James Kennedy edits

The fact tag is completely appropriate (an assertion is made with no reference to back it up) and the Coral Ridge reference does not bear out the use of "books and DVDs" because (A) there's no ID books there and (B) there's only one video about ID there that's available in both DVD and VHS. Jinxmchue 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Peace offering

I wanted to de-escalate as soon as I saw your reaction to my response at my RfA but obviously I didn't want to compound the situation by what could have been seen as more canvassing. While what I said was in good faith, I can understand how it may have been interpreted otherwise and I'd like to apologize. Hopefully we can put this behind us with no hard feelings? Ronnotel 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

D. James Kennedy.

Yes, I protected it because of an edit war, in response to this request at WP:RFPP. I'm just starting to help there, so I've been getting a few protections wrong lately, but I don't think this is one of them (I'll ask an RFPP regular anyway). One POV editor is all it takes for an edit war. I had a few facts: around three people were reverting Jinx's edits, and a few arguments were already underway on the talk page. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The POV warrior editor is the one making the request. The conversation was the said POV warrior against a group of others who vehemently disagreed with him. He had his facts wrong (it took all of two seconds to confirm the fallacy of his edits in the main article). I don't think you want to create a gigantic kerfuffle, but kowtowing to an oft-blocked, uncivil (just read his user page), and rather anti-Wikipedia editor is not good. But what do I know? And once again, for those of you who read my talk section, we spend more time dealing with a POV warrior rather than supporting individuals who contribute to this project. What a sad state of affairs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Hi. I've just been popping around a bit and after a few of your comments on the NOR discussion page, I though that I should probably say that some of your comments there appear to reflect the exact opposite of what you were trying to say on Badgerpatrol's page. I would ask that (even though it's extremely long and convoluted) you at least give us over there the same courtesy that you expected from Badgerpatrol. Many of us (far more than 3 or 4) have been working long and hard in an attempt to make the policy better, not weaken it. To paraphrase what you said to Badgerpatrol, if you can willingly participate in helping to make our proposals better or otherwise more coherent, fine. But please don't pop in occasionally to impugn the integrity of the perticipants just because you either don't understand what we are trying to do (since it is so convoluted), or because you sense that what we are attempting is a weakneing of a crucial policy. Many of us fail to see how a definition of primary, secondary, etc. has anything to do with what OR is, or how moving (not deleting) the problemmatic definitions someplace else would weaken the policy. Any constructive participation in the discussions would be greatly appreciated, but please, don't just come in and criticize the hard work many people have done with false statements just because the issue is so convoluted it takes a while to digess. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please supply diffs. I have no clue about what you are speaking. I do not agree with any changes to this policy, and I fundamentally believe through observation and being a fairly astute individual, it is clear that any change in this policy will be used by POV-warriors to fundamentally change the POV of numerous articles by referring to sources that are neither reliable or verifiable. What this has to do with Badgerpatrol is beyond my concern or knowledge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from NOR:

• • My only problem with changing this policy is Evolution. The second the policy is gone (and it doesn't matter if it's the slightest change), POV warriors will be swarming in, and "upgrading" the article to Evolution is bad theory without any scientific support with references to some Creationist website. Holding this hard-fought ground is fine. So, there are no good reasons to change this policy. None. Yes, I've kept up with the discussion, as convoluted, confusing, and confounding as it is.

followed later by:

• • Without a strong policy and vigilant editors, the article gets messed up. We have to spend hours just finding the crap articles that people try to sneak into the project. So yeah, I am totally worried that POV-warriors will use any change in policy to lead a charge towards complete and utter entropy of the article.

So, we can agree on these statements. Many people (including those proposing some sort of change), are in agreement on this point (POV-pushers), though your wording seems to reflect otherwise. However, I would beg to differ about "no good reasons to change this policy". I would think that sevral good reasons have been brought up, but none of them weaken the existing policy, which is structly NOR. The changes that are being proposed have to do with the "Sources" section, which has been a point of disagreement by policy editors since at least January 2005. NOR can still be strictly enforced and defined without the "Sources" section (more specifically the PSTS section) included in the policy. That particular section has absolutely nothing to do with NOR, though some people seem to think they are instrinsically entwined.

Another:

• • Consensus? It's more like 2-3 editors want some change for some unknown and undecipherable reason, and want us to agree? Uh, but pardon me if I don't agree.

This statement is just blatantly and obviously false. It would be far closer if you perhaps had missed the trailing zero from both numbers, but I feel that was not the case. A simple perusal of the current talk page and the preceeding two archives shows that the numbers of active participants is closer to the 40-50 range, with it being mostly people for some sort of change and additional clarification. The types of source don't clarify any issue, as those definitions can't even be agreed upon by academia, due to the context (discipline) to which they are being applied.

Then, taking an objective look at your comments here (from NOR), please consider how ironic they sound when compared to your commenst on Badgerpatrol's page:

• • "First, I'm insulted by your comments. You wrote on Firs page about confirming the references. Like I'm an idiot and incapable of reading references? I read the references, and I hate it when Alternative medicine fuckheads misquote references in medical articles. I don't misquote references, simple as that. If you want to rewrite your insulting comment about my writing and apologize, I'm all for that. Am I perfect, no, but I'm not exactly an idiot either. Second, you obviously missed the point about K-T boundary vs. the extinction. This article discusses the extinction itself, and only gives brief mention to what causes the extinction, because I don't think it's been figured out, and more than that, it's complicated, deserving its own article. As for not contributing, either help or don't help, but throwing out a bunch of comments without helping is not helping at all. I'd prefer your help, but I don't like your attitude. Yes, you're smarter than me about paleontology, but that's not why we're here. I spent hours upon hours on this article, begging for help from anyone who would listen. You come along, fling a bunch of crap at the editors, and it takes Filll's vitriolic commentary to get you to actually be someone who helps as opposes to someone who complains. Help, don't help, it's up to you. But your attitude sucks, especially for those of us who have contributed to making this a better article. I want it to be FA, and if you can get it there, I'd kiss you. If you're going to be like a few others who drive-by the FAC, and complain without helping then no thanks. Oh yeah, I'm a little pissed, because I've put in a lot of time trying to improve this article (go back in the history and look at it the minute before Firs and I attacked it)--how about a little thanks to us for getting it close, and helping getting it over the top. That's why I'm pissed, not because it was criticized".

The sentiments you expressed so vehemently to Badgerpatrol are how many of us feel on the NOR discussion, with the roles reversed, though as far as I know, nobody has gone to the extreme that you did in trying to get some help with working out editorial problems, which is how I see our discussions progressing on NOR. I haven't seen anybody propose to delete the policy, or allow in any way, shape or form, OR into any article, past, present or future. We also fail somehow to see how moving the PSTS section someplace else (another policy, a new policy, a guideline) would in any way dilute the effictiveness of the current NOR policy. Can you please give some examples as to how that could happen? We do not want dilute the policy, so any concrete examples would help keep us focused on ensuring those specific problems will still be avoided. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings

In Lucky Luc's case; his second captaincy tenure - lasted only 1 game (his last home game before retirement). It was a goodwill gesture by Mattias Norstrom (who resumed the captaincy the next game). GoodDay 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was there. Hold on while I shed a tear.  :) I just wanted to make sure it wasn't inconsistent with the template for the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further review - your point is correct. For consistancy sake, I've listed Lucky Luc twice. GoodDay 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Robitaille's second captaincy tenure. The Kings official website doesn't list it (guess, because it was only 1 game). GoodDay 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was fun while it lasted. However, I was at the game, and he did have a C, but I guess that qualifies as original research.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd follow the Kings official website. Afterall, it was just one game (and Norstrom's gesture). GoodDay 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're putting tears in my eyes again. First, talking about Luc. Now Matty. Let me go roast some duckling tonight, then I'll feel better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You may enjoy this......

here....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note from Wikidudeman

You should stop asserting that I claim to be an "Owner" of the Homeopathy article. I have explained in detail how nothing I am doing is anywhere near exhibiting ownership of the article yet you continue to refer to me as the "owner" of the article. This is counter productive and it needs to stop. Secondly, You need to read the talk page prior to making anymore revisions. Ignoring the discussion on the talk page and persisting in making controversial disagreed upon edits does not help anything either. The information that you keep moving from the Clinical trials section was actually written for that section. It fits nowhere else and without it, The clinical trials section starts off by talking about "later" trials without ever elaborating on earlier trials. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should I? You act as if you are the owner of the article. You never allow any changes to be made without YOUR permission. Have you noticed that? So let's discuss the clinical trials. The way YOU have written it, it's as if Homeopathy created clinical trials. Not relevant to a section that is in essence a critique of Homeopathy. Your attitude towards this article is reprehensible. Back away. Let others edit, without your reverts on it. But as long as any time someone walks into the article, you have to revert it back to your perception of perfection (nice alliteration I admit), then I'm going to state that you are exhibiting ownership. The funny thing I don't believe you are a POV-warrior. But note that ALL of your support is from POV warriors who have been the subject of a number of blocks, AN/I's, RfC's, whatever. What does that tell you? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, 95% of the edits that are made to that article are NOT reverted by me nor are they disputed by me. Please explain how this is ownership like. I am an active editor to the article and thus bring up what I disagree with. That's how wikipedia editors are supposed to work, bringing up things they disagree with. I'm Pro-active.

Secondly, The sentence SIMPLY says that homeopathic provings were ahead of their time at the turn of the 18th century and they were among the first to use clinical trials with control groups, quantitative procedures and statistics in their experiments. It does not say that Homeopathy "created" clinical trials anywhere. Please respond. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to agree, but it does look like Wikidudeman has a WP:OWN problem in this case.--Filll 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with trying to AFG with WDM. I wonder if he sees why his RfA went down in flames? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As well as a bit of a problem apprehending NOR and the subtleties of English. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear this up right now. According to WP:OWN, examples of Ownership are:

• Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)
• Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)
• An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.

Please give me an example where I have done a single one of these things. The VAST majority of the edits made to that article are undisputed by me. Please review the history of the article as proof of this. Long strings of edits made by other editors are undisputed by me. Only a small fraction of the edits made are disputed in which case I generally revet to the older version, make a change that I think might solve the problem, and then wait to see if it's changed again. If it is then I bring it to the talk page for discussion. I don't engage in edit wars. Any comments I make on talk pages of other users are not made to discourage them from editing. I simply make comments (like the one made here) to try to help solve a dispute. Never have I attempted in any way to discourage any editor from editing the article. WP:OWN gives further examples of comments usually made by editors exhibiting ownership of articles:

• "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
• "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?"
• "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets."
• "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
• "I/he/we/ created this article"

Please give me one example of where I have made comments such as this or even similar to this concerning the Homeopathy article. The fact is, I do not exhibit ownership of the article. I follow policy to the tee when editing the article and I am simply proactive. If I dispute an edit made by an editor I will quickly try to resolve the matter following WP:CCC. As explained above, If an editor makes an edit that I disagree with, I generally revert to the previous version, make changes that I think might solve the problem, and then wait to see if another edit is made by the same editor of the same kind. If it is then I will bring the discussion to the talk page so that we can determine what the problem is and solve it. This is how Wikipedia works, This is not ownership in any sense of the word. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I expect those accusing me of exhibiting ownership of this article to respond to all of my points and explain in detail how I am exhibiting ownership. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Best way to do this is an RfC. I will be asking that you be removed from editing this article. Expect it in the next couple of days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you "expect"? An excellent way of making sure that I do not respond to the points. You "expect"? ROFL. Hell, dude, I expect you to comprehend that Morrell is significantly biased toward homeopathy, and that ProfG has no clue what he's babbling about, but you don't. So much for expectations. Hell, Dickens wrote a book all about Great Expectations. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, I thought you were responding to my "expect." I was going to file an AN/I, RfC and whatever else the POV-warriors use :) Maybe I'll just let WDM prove his case in the discussion section of the article instead. He's done a poor job. I can't wait until he tries again at admin status.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An RFC isn't necessary. I've asked you to detail how I am exhibiting ownership of the article and you have not done so. You can't just force a user to stop editing an article when he has done nothing wrong and you can't give a single example of him doing something wrong. The article is GA status. That's the first time it's ever been at GA status. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Barely GA status -- I've seen the comments, consider GA an act of kindness. Want to try for FA right this minute? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm done commenting here. I've tried to get you and OrangeMarlin to help improve the article when It was being rewritten, I've tried to get you and OrangeMarlin to help with the article after it was rewritten, and now I try to have a rational discussion with the two of you but all I get in return are insults and accusations. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you really just scoffed at the input. Look, you believe as you wish, I don't really care, but in pushing a paper by an astronomer, two veterinarians and a bloody PhD, your credibility is shot. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WDM, don't comment here if it annoys you--I am not stopping you, which is my right. I'm pretty certain I'll still sleep tonight whether you do or not. However, I have responded to your comments, and I have not insulted you even slightly. Have I accused you of ownership? Damn straight I have, because you act in that manner. Remember, I only have to assume good faith as far as it is observed that you deserve it. It is obvious that you have joined sides with notorious POV-warriors because you are trying to get GA and FA's. You're going to have major pushback. You belittle my and Jim's efforts--unfortunately for you, that isn't the best tactic.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Plant and animal names

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms The genus and species name should be initialized. Taxa above genus are not. Hardyplants 05:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. I assumed anything we would write about would be at the family level or above. I don't think genera-level extinctions are very useful to the article. But you are correct. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Saving space?

Hey Orangemarlin,

Why are we saving space? I think we have normally included as much information as possible in the references in case people wanted to look up the references themselves. A Digital Object Identifier is obviously superior to a normal web-link (because it's permanent), but not everyone will know what a DOI is. I've only been leaving a field blank if there's just no information for that field. Do you think I should switch to the "minimal information is better" style? Suggestions welcome, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries don't give me much space to comment. DOI's are almost always accurate, meaning they rare go dead. URL's can change. Also, the size of the article can get big with excess information. I think we should strive to be as efficient as possible. But also, I'm just cranky editing in WP:CITET for the citations when this new editor comes in with the ancient way of doing references. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with efficiency! OK, I'll try to watch out for DOI/URL duplication. As far as CITET goes, "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines." I actually prefer CITET, because it automagically fixes my fuck-ups (puts everything in the right order), but the templates are sometimes a pain... Not to mention, they don't go red and flash ALERT! ALERT! when someone changes the content of the cited sentence without modifying the citation. Now that would be awesome! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If only it did that. I'm in favor of CITET because it makes all references nice and neat. And frankly, it forces weak editors to start reading the references and using them properly. I hate seeing Geology 1996, some page, don't know the title, and the author was somebody. Yes, it's never that bad, but..... AS for the citation templates, you're right. Except FA articles are almost always consistently and perfectly cited. Forcing consistency and high-quality is critical for this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Homeopathy

This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, about your vote on the GA/R, normally when people give an assessment, they actually are at least a little specific about their concerns :/. Nothing like a speech or anything like that, but it won't help people who want to examine the situation and give an opinion if they can't see how your views are defended. Perhaps there's a section on the Homeopathy talk page that demonstrates your concerns more explicitly already that you could just link to? I bring this all up because there's been a bit of discussion lately for GA/R archivists to not count votes that don't really demonstrate why an article doesn't meet the GA criteria, sort of like AfD, though not nearly as judgemental about the reasoning. Surely you've got to admit that someone (like me) who knows very little about this article's conflict history won't learn much from "It violates so and so policies, so there"? Homestarmy 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi there. I have to warn you OM that if you continue to push for a highly critical approach, rather than a neutral assessment of homeopathy in this article you may find your arguments dismissed as coming from a POV-warrior. I know you have very strong feeling on this, but we can't take this stance throughout the entire article. This is entirely legitimate in the section on scientific assessment, but this article also needs to give a neutral and accurate account of the history and methods of this pseudoscience. Indeed, condemning the practice with its own words is a very effective approach! All the best Tim Vickers 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Walking the fence as usual diff. Trying to be fair to everybody. Tim Vickers 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're fair, I know that. I just get concerned that a notorious and oft-blocked creationist POV-warrior like User:profg thinks that I've been slapped silly by you or anybody, and I get nice. I typed out the comments to WDM before I even read your comments above. Oh well. Thanks for being fair! I've taken the contentious side, because I get tired of someone saying, over and over again, "There are nucular (sic) weapons in Iraq, so let's invade." Then we find out it's a lie, but it's too late. The right-wing in the US (I believe you're from the other side of the Atlantic, but I'm not sure) have a habit of repeating lies over and over again, abusing Wikipedia to set their agenda, and get crappy articles (see any number of articles). The left-wing has tended be passive. I figure my jumping up and down balances out their jumping up and down, and editors like you can get the good stuff done. It's working :) I sacrifice myself for the cause. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch your blood pressure, for each five minutes exposed to stuff like AIDS reappraisal, I proscribe at least an hour's complete relaxation! Tim Vickers 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not very nice. I actually clicked over to that article. LOL. That was for you. NOT the article. That's vile. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very nice, since I was the one who added a large picture of the virus that they are attempting to deny exists. Tim Vickers 22:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you take the picture yourself? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tim, but what picture? There's not one in the article. Or my browser sucks (which might be the case).OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page, it's back now. Tim Vickers 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You took my "Berlin Wall" out? That was the last bit remaining of the "paper remedies" and radionics section. It was a fine piece of astounding pseudoscience. Tim Vickers 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It worries me that we make it look so silly that no one will believe it. But it was a fine piece. If you think it should stay, put it back, but I usually delete sources like that from articles!!! Peter Morrell might actually agree with me. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't put it back unless I can find a better source. However, you see my point that a direct attack on this pseudoscience isn't the only way of approaching the matter. If we just tell accurately and clearly exactly what they believe that is almost better than using scientific studies, since such descriptions can't easily be denied by proponents. For example, for ages the lead contained a direct quote from Hanehmann as part of this sentence - "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers.". This was in the skeptical section, but was impossible for homeopaths to criticise, since I referenced it to the his "Organon" Tim Vickers 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, It's not much fun your way, you know. But long-term, probably more enjoyable. it's like waiting for that 50 year old bottle of Scotch I suppose. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're thinking. Did he just ban six vandals, or only five. Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is MediaWiki version 3.0, the most powerful Wiki software in the world, and would blow you clean off the site, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? Tim Vickers 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Charlton Heston quoting now. Tim, you need to get a real life. Or something.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your attempt to cool things off a bit on Wikidudeman's talk page. I added some thoughts of my own. Tim Vickers 02:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've finished editing the article, any comments on my changes? Tim Vickers 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer to start the Article with the statement "This is a putrid, festering crock of shit, but if you want to know about this topic, read on." Short of that, it's much better. I didn't notice whether the Berlin Wall had been put back in. I'm thinking your argument above justifies it's being placed in the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Please take a look at Talk:Creation Museum#Recent reversions -- I think some of the recent reversions have been performed under misapprehension (caused in part by misleading difs). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Adolf23653

Hi OM. I share your concern about the username to a certain degree. I don't know if you decoded the number - it spells Adolf again on a standard phone keyboard (I didn't get it at first as we never used the number/letter duality in Germany until the advent of the cell phone and text messages). --Stephan Schulz 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He's asked for a name change, though he's asking to retain the coded string.[1]  –  ornis⚙ 07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

not only one

glad i'm not the only one. i was getting a complex. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a bad Twinkle day. I reverted 5 edits identifying it as vandalism. The editor was one of the better admins on the project, so I'm thankful he didn't banish me to hell. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't say anything nice ...

I'm sure you can find some other unfathomable points to make. I've got better things to do then put up with your unwarranted snippery. Neil ム 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You put an offensive picture of Hitler and someone like me, a Jewish first generation offspring of survivors, is sniping???? Oh wow, that's rich. Thanks however. Glad you're an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Snippery. [2]. My grandfather died at Auschwitz, by the way. Neil ム 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you're a bigger hypocrite than I thought. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gyroomfpov

Hi Orangemarlin:

I'll bite. What is a gyroomfpov?

Thanks, Wanderer57 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked your user contributions. It's best I keep it to myself :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a hint anyway. Don't assume too much based on my contribution list. I like topics that test my ability to keep a NPOV. Cheers, Wanderer57 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check what you're reverting to

This isn't the best version to go back to. Thanks. Richard001 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

evolutionist?

Just curious. Saw on your page that you felt 'evolutionist' was derogatory.

Do you feel the same way about the terms: biologist, geologist, physicist, captialist, marxist, archaeologist, paleontologist, etc?

I really do not understand the differences. Also what term would you give to describe a person who is knowledgeable, or works or studies evolution? Now I would describe a person who studies or a specialist in the branch of biology dealing with animals as a zoologist. Is that derogatory? How would you describe a person who studies or a specialist in the branch of biology dealing with evolution? Imbrella 17:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors--Sm565 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi OM,

Thanks for your continued diligence watching Dinosaur. Over the past few days it's been unprotected, it's been vandalized by IPs a dozen times a day. I noticed your name pop up quite a bit in the recent history of the article, reverting vandalism. I truly don't understand why anyone bothers unprotecting this article; there are never any good IP edits to it, and the unprotecting admin never bothers checking back to see how the unprotection is going, leading to a lot of work for other people. Luckily, the bots caught a lot of it. Thanks again for your help, OM.

(I just noticed the block notice above. I hope everything is alright). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian Orangemarlin,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. I will be sure to prove to you that I am capabale of handling Admin duties. Thank you and good day.

The Placebo Effect

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

RE: Thanks for your support

I appreciate your comments regarding the blank, blank and blankety blank block that was given me over 2RR (yup, 2RR, and I thought I was reverting an edit-warrior, so I thought I was even exempt from 3RR). Anyways, keep up the good work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Np. I also found it rather blank, blank and blankety blank block. Glad we were able to quickly lift it. El_C 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was added to the Chipolll. So, exactly what did I vote on?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted yesterday to another user: look at it as interpretive dance of chiprotest (+peanut!). El_C 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Just letting you know that I reverted your revert of my revert of vandalism - Twinkle has some lag, so I presume that you went to revert the vandalism but got my revert instead. Cheers, Daniel 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having delays fixing one stupid edit. LOL. Sorry. Then I realized it's Featured on the main page. Oh great, here come the nutjobs!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This will be an entertaining 24 hours, or until semi-protection is applied, whichever comes first. Daniel 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember when Charles Darwin was a featured article. So, this will be the same! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ID

By my count you're on 3 reverts, so be careful (god knows you've had enough "fun" with blocks recently). I won't revert back to "assertion", but to assert means to maintain a cause or a claim by words or measures - which is precisely what ID amounts to; it's technically a more correct word. "Claim" is a loaded term that immediately suggests "this whole thing is bullcrap", and is less neutral. Neil ☎ 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha, found it - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim. Neil ☎ 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't counting. There's so much vandalism going on. But, it is a whole load of bullcrap. LOL. OK, but I really think a bunch of smart people should discuss this on Talk. Assertion sounds so....confirmed!!!! BTW, I'm reverting a lot of vandalism. I will try not to revert something accidentally, because right Twinkle is working slowly on this article. I promise to not do anything intentionally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AD/CE

Hi,

I noticed on one of your reverts you said the article didn't need to be converted to an AD date format because it wasn't about a Christian topic. Actually, CE was originally a Christian term, meaning Christian as well as Common Era, and some Christian sects such as Jehova's Witnesses use it in their publications. kwami 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, but that's not what I said or meant. There is no need to change any article that starts using one method or another. CE/BCE, whatever it used to mean (and I actually don't care), means today Common Era. If I owned Wikipedia, AD/BC would be gone completely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? That's a laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.225.246 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copying comments from RfC to Talk:Homeopathy

This is not appropriate. I have removed your edit. Whig 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by ...

"Well, there are other ways to have ProfG removed from the project, that don't rely upon the minority opinions of two admins." Can I trust you are referring to arbitration? --B 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You should put yourself up for recall for going against the wishes of the community, for allowing a POV-warrior to return to the project, and for not accepting responsibility for what you have done. However, since you have not accepted responsibility for any behavior of profg, I intend to ask another admin to reblock this jackass, because he cannot be trusted. If that's not available to me, I will seek other methods. Despite my knowing precisely who profg is outside of Wikipedia, despite observing his commentary about Wikipedia in his postings elsewhere, and despite knowing that he is in fact a POV-warrior, it is clear he has not outed himself, I will maintain his confidentiality and will not avail myself of anything but wiki-lawyering crap to get it done. It's reprehensible that you would imply anything else. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OM, if you want to take this to a venue where a significant number of impartial and uninvolved people will make a fair decision, feel free. I think our point is that that's what should have been done in the first place. --BlueMoonlet 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ban the POV-warrior, stalker, harasser and various-other-violations profg. He was banned by admins who obviously did not share a conflict of interest as B does with profg. Two peas in a pod. Fuck me, this is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, swearing is perfectly legal on my page. I'm not a hypocrite. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

FYI, [3]. Mercury 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Herpes Zoster

I have a username and frequently log in, I must not have been earlier. Thanks and keep up the good work. 67.93.205.78 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on User talk:Laorv

I see that you've been reverting as vandalism the page User talk:Laorv when the user removes the warning. As per user page policies:

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

Just thought you should know! :-) --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I knew you could delete or archive bogus warnings or those that don't assume good faith. he's been blocked, so i'm all right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Based on some real-life information you posted (no need to repeat it here, this is the internet, hotheads & loons abound, etc) I thought you might like this blog. It's a shame it will never count as a reliable source. Yours... Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL, please

You and I are of similar minds on the User:Profg unblock. But I'd like to ask you to back off from the strident tone. I'm as mad as you about the disregard for constructive editors that this move shows, but by descending to his level you're only reinforcing the (mis)perception that Profg was unfairly singled out. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. But I don't actually care all that much about profg any more, since based on his off-Wiki writings, he'll be causing trouble within a couple of days, B will have to ban him, and B will be embarrassed by the whole travesty. My concern is that we set several precedents: 1) we allow a single admin with a major COI to overturn the consensus of a wide range of editors and admins, 2) we enable bad behavior, because someone can whine long and hard so that someone sympathetic to their cause will unban or unblock them, 3) we allow abuse of wiki-lawyering by editors who are not very useful to the project, and 4) we make it frustrating for those editors who actually follow an NPOV. I'm taking the long-term approach here. Again, my viewpoint is that the right-wing lie, whine, yell, abuse rules, and frankly cheat to get their way. Someone has to balance those attitudes with a vociferous argument showing what they have done--it's dirty, but in a war of values and of ethics, it takes weapons of words and logic to overcome the lies of the right. It might be ugly, but it is what it is. Then I count on good people as yourself, to get things done right after the bodies have been buried. I will accept your advice about Profg. In addition, though I think what B did was not acceptable, I will leave him alone, because his decisions will haunt him, I'm certain. I appreciate your comments, and will abide by your recommendations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heard and understood. Check your email, please. Raymond Arritt 00:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that Profg has retired. I doubt if he'll be missed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Even odds says he'll be back under a different name. Raymond Arritt 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll put $50 on that one!!!! LOL. I'll bet he's going to run for Congress again, and wouldn't want some blogger posting about how he got kicked off of Wikipedia for being an ass. But luckily, right-wing Christian nutjobs don't get elected, except occasionally as admins for Wikipedia. Or in Alabama. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Er... what country have you lived in for the last 7 years? MastCell ^Talk 05:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. The drugs I'm taking are great for giving me a new reality. I'm in denial too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I've been thinking about it. About the block, I made an error. I want to apologize. I have made an appropiate note in your blocklog. I'll be more careful in the future. Mercury 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, I'm really appreciative of someone who admits to an error and moves forward in a positive direction. In your defense, Homeopathy is a tarpit that drags people down. There has GOT to be a better way to develop these type of articles. But smarter people than I haven't figured it out.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs

It was merged a month back -- SmithBlue is just belatedly bemoaning the fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't notice the move, because the discussion section still existed. didn't even go over to the article, because I never liked it. Well, am I embarrassed. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow I didn't notice that either!--Filll 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we all lose sight of the article in our talkpage debates now and then (o'course it doesn't help that the talkpage in question is so lengthy that you automatically assume that it must be attached to something more than a redirect). Luckily, having partaken in the debate over its merger, I left it on watch (to ensure it wasn't recreated) -- otherwise you might have demanded all over again that it be deleted (which would have been embarrassing if the AfD lottery had decided to keep it this time around). :D Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there even a vote to merge? Because if there was, I know many of the science crowd around here didn't even know. But I would archive and close the discussion. I try to stay away from discussions these days, as does a lot of editors on these type of articles. Make an edit summary and move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was you, me & Ornis (who tagged & later merged it on the basis of our agreement & the lack of any contrary opinion). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

DUH! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You should also endorse the summary. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fucked up

I'm certainly going to oblige you after speaking like that. It's Cognitive dissonance btw. "My IQ proves that the US Navy recruits the smartest officers" so what's your IQ?Tstrobaugh 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

28. I said we're the smartest, not that we were smart. LOL. I don't talk about my IQ with anyone except say my psychiatrist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "My IQ" so am I your psychiatrist? This is what I don't get, I don't understand any of what you say. You say "I said we're the smartest, not that we were smart", I don't know what you mean. Did you mean to say the Navy is smart but not you personally? Then I don't see how your personal IQ proves that. What are you trying to say? Do you at least see there is a communication problem?Tstrobaugh 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Now you're banned from my page for wasting my time. Please go. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to comment left on User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_2#Fucked_up

You initiated contact on my talk page, I responded. Can't you have a normal conversation? What is it with you and censorship?Tstrobaugh 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What?

Wuzzat s'possed teh mean? Don' be pointin' fingers at guys widout knowin' du whole situation. Got it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnoff (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to editing Petey

Join in when you have time!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got time. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting drunk sounds fun. Crap, it's only Monday. :/ The guidelines on naming conventions are listed here (they are probably also on Tree of Life, but I'm not gonna bother checking right now). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic rule of thumb: if it ends in -saurus, add italics; if it ends in -saur, don't. Tyrannosaurus (scientific name) is an example of a tyrannosaur (informal name). Hope this helps. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, why isn't labyrinthodont not capitalized or italicized? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

'Cause labyrinthodont isn't a genus-level or species-level name. Labyrinthodontia is a formal name for these guys, and so it's capitalized. A labyrinthodont is a less formal name, so it's not capitalized. Actually, Labyrinthodontia is a sort of outdated clade, so we may want to avoid it altogether. Cochleosaurus is a genus-level name. Genus (generic) names get italics. You can recognize generic-level names because they often end in -us. Not always, but usually. Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, Massospondylus: dinosaur names you would recognize are usually at the genus-level. Species-level names also get italics, but the specific name isn't capitalized. Tyrannosaurus rex is a binomial name, composed of the generic (genus-level) and specific (species level) names. T. rex is the species. Take a look at the taxobox on Stegosaurus. It tells you which taxonomic levels get italics (the genus and species levels) and which do not (the rest). There are exceptions to these rules, of course. I hope this helps. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just clicked over to the article (as I fix these articles, I start actually reading the wikilinks to make sure they're correct). Can you change the name to the right clade? I'm still trying to clean up 50 references, some of which actually don't say what they are supposed to say. Other problem is the writing--it is bad in places. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

re: human evolution, adding material

excuse me! i would never add unsourced information! i am a talmudic authority and i quoted exactly what and where it is stated. dont question me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.152.2 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's funny because right here, you added unsourced information. – ornis⚙ 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the finest source of pure irony available today. A Talmudic scholar who refuses to be questioned or engage in discussion? MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not a scholar, an authority. Think Eric Cartman ;-) --Stephan Schulz 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you mean an authori-tah. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what this guy is saying. He's a Talmudic Authority and so, does that from G_d's mouth to his fingers? OK, then I defer to his editing of all articles on Wikipedia. He is now the only and primary source for all knowledge. Can we post a tag on his user page to make certain everyone else knows this? I wouldn't want to offend G_d. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming (schooner) Reference

Greetings, I happened upon the Wyoming (schooner) article you created and saw the "That Boat Won't Float" reference that does not appear to meet WP:RS. I have tried to find a reference that meets WP:RS that backs that paragraph up (I agree with the sound research on that page) but can't. Do you have another source possibly before I go and remove that source (and possibly paragraph)? Thanks for your time! Spryde 12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I see that it has been removed previously. The problem (to me) is that there is no sound sources backing that page up. The fact that it is a humor site in general does not help matters. Spryde 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mac Stuff

Hi there! Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I've been on a knitting bender, making socks for Christmas gifts, then the archiving bot took your post to my talk page archive before I saw it.

Anyway, if there's a program to help lose weight, I haven't found it, but I'm optimistic. When I had my first child, I lost 24 pounds in six days, so I've done it once and can do it again. That was expensive, though. And I had to take a baby boy home with me too. ;-) You could always turn to the myriad 'supplements,' like the ones that use chitin to bind cholesterol or some other such nonsense. (If that really worked, why not just eat lobster shells with a nice sauce and a lot of liquor and be done with it?)

Can't help you with the women, though. OTOH, it _is_ July, and you could always go over to a hospital near you and check out the brand new crop of wide-eyed interns. You know it's July when we have to dust off the "Ventilator Settings and IV Orders In The Real World" class and give it to them every damn morning until it sinks into their skulls. No software to teach them the difference between medical school and reality, and I'm _not_ optimistic about that. I guess I can't have everything.

Seriously, though, the apps/scripts I use most often, besides Butler, for Wiki-stuff (apologies if I've told you about these before):

• My monobook.js file has Lupin's popups, Misza13's Status Switcher, and Twinkle.
• TextExpander - a preference pane (accessed through System Preferences) allows me to type shortcuts - like "kk" for the four tildes, "citenews" to put in the {{cite news}} template, "oldafd" for {{Oldafdfull}}, and so on. It keeps track of how much time it saves you, and I'm at 2.86 hours of typing time saved. TextExpander was developed originally by the same guy who wrote Butler, Peter Maurer. He sold it to SmileOnMyMac last year sometime.
• PTHPasteboard PRO - Butler allows custom pasteboards, which is good, but I've run into problems with instability if I ask it to save more than 50 pasteboards. PTHPasteboard is another preference pane that holds as many as I want and lets me do more things with them. I can name them, use hot keys for pasting each particular thing, and I can even publish and share pasteboards with other users (I haven't done that yet). There's a free version that I used for a long time, but I'm glad I paid the $20 for the pro version.
• Sidenote - Sidenote is a tiny little memo app that hides on the side of your window and slides out when you need to jot something down. It's freeware, and you can create as many little notes as you like, format them with color, font, text size, and titles, name them, email them, export them, and more. It's very handy for numbers, phrases, instructions, quick reminders, grocery lists, and so on. For admin duties, I use it to hold blocks of text while editing, and for AFDs that I've relisted - each relisted AFD has to be manually removed from the old log and inserted into the new date, and I do that in batches of four or five, so I list their titles there so I can make sure I handle each one correctly.
• browseback - another SmileOnMyMac app that runs in the background and saves my browser history. I used to use HistoryHound, but it didn't save the page as it's viewed, and browseback does. There have been some complaints about the app's CPU usage, but Camino uses more than browseback does, and I'm on a 15" PowerBook G4 with 1.5GB of RAM. If you use Application Enhancer, browseback has to be on its Master Exclude List because it crashes otherwise, but don't worry about it if you don't use anything that requires Application Enhancer to run.
• Saft - I use Camino as my default browser, but when I do use Safari I use Saft. Saft is an input manager that lets me customize features of Safari. There's at least 50 different things it does, so go to VersionTracker if you want to check it out. The developer is a Chinese guy living in Sweden and his English isn't perfect, but he's really quick with support if you need it.

Okay, I'll shut up now. Email me if you have any questions, so I don't clutter up your talk page. It's time to eat some ice cream. See ya - KrakatoaKatie 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You always catch me when I'm gone for a few days. Suspicious minds would wonder if I'm being watched... ;-)

I was coming to recommend Twinkle, but I see you've already got it. You can take a look at my monobook.js page if you want to see how it can be configured, 'cause I don't have the whole script imported like you do. AzaToth is pretty responsive to questions and bugs, and the Twinkle talk page is lively if help is needed.

I must go knit now. Christmas is coming... so much yarn to buy, so much to knit and so little time. I'll be in and out of here, mainly 'out' with brief bursts of 'in', until I'm sure everything will be completed. See ya – :-) KrakatoaKatie 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the piece that gives non-admins the rollback buttons - twinklefluff.js. You can add other modules as noted on the Twinkle page. I try new or revised scripts from time to time to see if I like them, then I remove the ones that don't float my boat. I've decided to test twinkleprod.js, twinklediff.js, and twinklesalt.js for a few days. You might like twinklearv.js, but it's useless to me because I don't have to report vandals anymore.

As for the nice neat edit summaries... it depends on what you're doing at the time. For some functions, the edit summary is given automagically when you use the buttons, and you can have it say whatever you want. When you use the buttons, a dropdown box will appear so you can state your reason for restoration or rollback. You can add the suffix 'using Twinkle' or 'eating Oreos' or whatever by changing the text in the 'summaryAd' line of TwinkleConfig, and you can also customize it for tagging pages for deletion or protection. (I don't use Twinkle for deletion or protection, so 'deletionSummaryAd' and 'protectionSummaryAd' are blank in my config.) For other tasks, like reverting vandalism, the edit summary is in the JavaScript and can't be changed _unless_ you decide to import the script/code itself into one of your subpages, find the text line somewhere in there, change it to something else you like, then use that page as a substitute for AzaToth's page. In other words, it's not easily modified by folks who don't speak JavaScript.

As an example, I futzed a bit with my own user talk page. Take a look at the page history and note the edit summaries.

• First, I reverted your messages to my talk page using the 'rollback AGF' button. The 'reverting good faith edits' is Twinkle automagic. The 'testing for Orangemarlin...' line is what I added in the dropdown box, which will appear when you make this kind of edit, and 'using Twinkle' is the text in 'summaryAd' in my config (and yours).
• Next, I reverted back using the 'rollback vandal' button. The edit summary was provided automagically by Twinkle, and I didn't add anything to it.

Questions, grasshopper? I'll check back later tonight or tomorrow. Play with your own talk page the same way I did to get a feel for the buttons. It's all trial and error. – KrakatoaKatie 02:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions--Yes, I'm about to jump off the roof! What buttons???????? Do you hear that scream of pain from California. That's me!!!!! ArrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhOrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up. I saw Timotab's advice about Camino, which is what I use 'cause I had problems with popups in Safari last year when I first started using scripts. The beta version doesn't seem to help much.

If bookmark synching is the chief problem with switching or simply using Camino for Wiki-purposes, there are some options. First, you could try Bookdog, a nifty little app that does a bunch of stuff – for this particular purpose, Bookdog lets you sync any or all bookmark files from some or all of your browsers. You could sync the bookmarks, then sync that file to as many Macs as you like in your usual and customary manner, be it with .Mac or a simple copy-and-paste of the .plist file. You could also give Google Bookmarks a whirl. I haven't worked with Google Bookmarks, but I have used Bookdog because I have an enormous bookmark file and I like to have all my bookmarks available in each of the four browsers I use. The GUI is terrific and it's easy to use. Google Bookmarks may take too long to set up with all your bookmarks, but Bookdog loads them all in a jiffy.

Also, I took a screenshot a couple of days ago that shows Twinkle's rollback buttons and some of the tabs at the top. I'm thinking about writing a help-type page, which is why I took the shot, but since you're having trouble I uploaded it now.

I hate that my help doesn't seem to help very much, but I'm optimistic. We'll get there. :-) Download Bookdog and give it a whirl, 'cause I think it may be the way to go. Hang in there, and keep me posted – KrakatoaKatie 07:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

It's not a way to censor people…it's an excuse to block them and mar their record! Otherwise the comments which are supposedly so horrible would be deleted. I do believe there needs to be a civility policy, but it should be framed in an entirely different manner, from the standpoint of a publisher, not a prosecutor of our own volunteer contributors. Any bad diff is Wikipedia's, and should be treated accordingly. The questions should be, "Could this needlessly harm someone's reputation?", "Does this bring disrepute upon the project?" etc. If your swear too much (or only when you're upset,) someone should refactor it, not treasure and hoard it for future use against you. That they opt for the latter suggests that these are seen not as genuine offenses, but as "slip-ups" in a game of WP:GOTCHA! The only reasons to block contributors in this context is 1) because they force others to clean up after them too often WP:RESPONSIBLE 2) because they're starting fights with other volunteer contributors WP:AGGRESSOR. What strikes me as very dysfunctional is when one editor initiates a hostile conflict in coolly "civil" language, then uses the angry reaction against the victim: an easy system for dishonest and manipulative personalities to game.Proabivouac 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe, from a psychiatric standpoint, that is called Passive aggressive behavior, which is dysfunctional--which I guess why I ignore it quickly. I do appreciate your comments however. They're something to ponder about this project. It's sad that people like JzG quit--he should have built it much better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

JzG was essentially forced out due to real life harassment...the only reason I have endured is because I have covered my tracks better than most...it is sad it has to be that way. Anyway, just stopping by to voice my appreciation for your support.--MONGO 08:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" discussion

I was reediting that particular statement in Intelligent design per what seemed to be a consensus on the talk page. If you have some disagreement with this change, would you mind bringing it up there so we don't end up arguing via an edit war? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:B

Some of your comments on this page have been wildly uncivil. Please restrict yourself to commenting on content and not attacking other editors. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And what are you going to do about the lies that B is saying about Odd nature and Felonious Monk? Oh, nothing? Stay off my page, please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the fucking way, who appointed you god of civility? You get to judge what is or what isn't? And of course, you say shit about B's wild and patently false accusations. Is that not hypocritical of you? Now, since I don't stalk, it is possible you've do give a shit about what B has said, and I just haven't read it. But don't be accusing me uncivil conversations, because that is merely a form of censorship to silence people who disagree with others. My civility is obviously different than yours. I'm Jewish. I'm kind of blunt. So, you must anti-semitic to make such a cultural accusation. Wow. That is uncivil of you. You must hate my people. Fuck. That's sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I decided to check your contributions. First, you have done nothing to reprimand B, so obviously you're attacking me uncivilly. Second, you callously dismissed the anti-Semitic rantings of Karnoff. Interesting. I think your attitude needs to be known widely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what B said, I had a brief look at his contributions but could not find the source of the argument - that said, numerous people have already confronted him about his attitude, so I don't see the need to pile on. The reason you are being warned is because I came across some extremely offensive behaviour from you on his talk page. As I said, please restrict yourself to commenting on content not editors. Viridae^Talk 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your warning. First, that works for articles, with which I completely agree. However, B's motives and ability to do his job have come under fire. There is no content to critique, just him. Your warning has no merit. You will have to get someone who's not part of B's cabal to warn me...that warning I will accept. You are merely protecting him, and that is offensive in itself. My behavior is perfectly warranted by the incredible hostility B has exhibited towards me (and frankly anyone who does not agree with B). I asked you to stay off my page, despite your being an admin, because of latent anti-Semitism I detect in your attacks on me, and your commentary in the unblocking of User:Karnoff. I find your comments reprehensible, and ask that you not upset me further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the warning you were given. "I can't wait to see you get fucked" is certainly one of the most uncivil things I have seen on wikipedia. B is participating in an arbitration proceeding. If he is being bad, the arbitrators will hang him by the heels. It's not your place to try to intimidate him into striking his comments. - Crockspot 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Get bent Crockspot. And quit trolling over all the pages trying to stir up more disagreement. It's strange what with your sudden interest in Tstrobaugh and appointing yourself as his personal defender. It looks like...*gasp*...you have some personal grudge against the OM, FM, and ON. Now why would that be? Perhaps we should look into that. Baegis 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Baegis. But maybe we should have that beer with Raymond.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can all concerned just knock it off? Please? It's Friday afternoon. Have a drink (recommend: Sierra Nevada Pale Ale), crank some music (recommend: good old time blues like Howlin' Wolf), and relax. Raymond Arritt 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Better choice than sending me over to 7-11. Grrrr. Have you ever tried a Duvel? i think it's one of the highest alcohol content beers. And the urban myth is that it contains live cultures, so if you don't decant it, and eat lots of carbs, it actually gets you drunker. When I lived in the Netherlands, everyone said that, but I haven't been able to find any primary sources.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had the tongue to appreciate a pale ale. Guess I will just stick with my Boddingtons and Guinness. But I will raise a pint! Cheers!!! Baegis 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not an American. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is addressed communally to everyone because I know you'll all see it here. If I'm wrong, I humbly apologize. Either way, I realized something tonight ... it isn't enjoyable any more. If you see a photo pop up in a Tech article, you might have found me, but probably not. Take care ... and I honestly mean that. --B 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What a cheap, pathetic way to cop out, B. Be a man and delete your accusations from the ArbCom case. If you are going to be a giant pussy and leave, at least take the last shreds of your integrity with you and delete your lies. Good riddance. Baegis 00:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough. More comments like this and I'm going to start handing out blocks. We do have standards on civility around here. Follow them. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't say anything. I'm not ready to gloat yet, because I've read these type of comments before. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge ArbCom

Hey, OM...Congrats on getting your own little passage in the Ferrylodge case [4]. It's stunning that even though they cleared the CU, this "evidence" is allowed to remain and B gets off free as a bird. Sigh.... Baegis 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just ignoring him--I fucking don't care all that much. And for him to bring me up in the arbcom, when I ignore him and his petty little bullshit, is vile. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

This edit was not only very bitey but your edit summary confuses WP:WEASEL (i.e., an attempt to suggest sources without actually citing any) with qualifications necessary for factual accuracy. It's hard to see how the two could be confused: Removing the "Some" from "Some people in Manchester are criminals" is not de-weaseling, it is turning a true statement into a false one. All the edits by 71.254.7.200 that you removed from Fine-tuned universe seem to me to be obviously sensible qualifications of statements that were originally over-general or making unjustified assumptions. PaddyLeahy 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You owe me an apology

POV? All I asked for is proper sourcing. I commented on the talk page. What is the deal with calling my edits pov. Turtlescrubber 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I owe you shit. I have no clue about what you are whining. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what is wrong? Bad day? Please stop vandalizing the page. Turtlescrubber 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now you're banned from my page. Bon soir. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are whining about. Turtlescrubber 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks

As you have above. I am not a troll and don't appreciate being called one. Turtlescrubber 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop calling me a troll

- I find that unacceptable. Turtlescrubber 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on D. James Kennedy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Turtlescrubber 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Any more of this kind of taunting and you face a block. ElinorD (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, especially since up to this nanosecond, I actually respected you as an admin. On what basis do I deserve this warning? Could it be a personal attack against Ferrylodge. Well, it wasn't unless we have a new definition of personal attacks. Could it be Civility. Maybe, though civility is a judgement call, and I would contend a matter of censorship. Could it be that I'm the worst editor ever, and Ferrylodge is the best? Well, that would be a matter of perspective, but I hardly think a little comment to Ferrylodge is anywhere equivalent to his total disruption of a large number of articles. Well, anyways, I'll do as you ask, but I think that your comment was rude and uncalled for. But whatever. Oh by the way, Mercury, this is precisely why I would never be elected an admin. I can't stand this type of behavior from other admins, and I suffer fools poorly. I don't take kindly to being mistreated by admins, and I don't take kindly to disruptive editors. My history is filled with taunting certain jackass admins and certain POV-warrior editors. And several GA's, FA's and vandal cleanup, but I guess Elinor forgot to give me good faith. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Ferrylodge has done, such gloating is unbecoming and unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)