Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:44, 11 October 2008

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

A gift for you!

Enjoy. You will recognize some old friends. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Clinical trials testing the efficacy of all these forms of homeopathic medicines have often reported positive results." So this is the kind of writing we can expect from that crowd? I was going to submit myself to their vetting process to edit there. Not after reading that load of horse manure. OrangeMarlin 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hoped CZ would succeed but prospects don't look good at all unless Sanger does something to keep articles from being hijacked. Their global warming article also had a load of absolute junk added to it until I raised concerns. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth dropping Larry (or one of the constables) a note about Dana Ullman's history here. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He probably knows already. And I'm sympathetic to the argument that someone's problems here shouldn't follow them all across the internet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember when you were mean and cranky. OrangeMarlin 00:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care all that much. I just read two or three articles that I would consider an indicator of the quality of CZ, and they rank far below Misplaced Pages's. We may have new age hippies running about here thinking that New thought heals people, but they have a culture of "different makes us better." No, better makes you better. OrangeMarlin 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The CZ Evolution article is appalling. "Among many reasons, the concept of evolution is attractive to scientists!!!!" Huh? The CZ evolution article is not even 10% the quality of the WP article. You know, I never looked at their articles until now. It isn't even close. OrangeMarlin 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! ROFL at "In biology, the concept of evolution applies to a multi-causal natural process whereby populations of inbreeding living organisms change in their biological characteristics over generations." Looks like they've got inbreeding editors over there, real hillbilly stuff... dave souza, talk 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I read a couple of those. Are you sure those aren't Conservapedia? Keeper ǀ 76 01:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to observe that Citizendium is, to some extent, a refuge for poor-quality Misplaced Pages POV forks. User:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic left Misplaced Pages after being unable to bend our article on Vitamin C megadosage to reflect his Paulingite views, and he's now essentially transferred his evangelical POV fork to Citizendium. Interestingly, he's also been a major contributor to the homeopathy article. I recognize more than a few other names in that homeopathy article history, most of whom retain negative associations. I think this is remarkable, actually: Misplaced Pages's system appears demonstrably superior when it comes to producing neutral, balanced, accurate scientific pieces. Citizendium's reliance on "experts" is undone by their (non-)definition of the word "expert" - it's more like a repository of POV forks that violated our neutrality and accuracy policies than an expertly written and edited encyclopedia. MastCell  21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an outstanding observation. What I see is that Citizendium appoints its scholar-expert-editors based on a system that favors one POV, rather than a broad-base of thinking. Because Misplaced Pages works in a, sometimes difficult, environment of discussion and consensus, many voices rise to the top. It's only articles like Orgone, which isn't watched by enough editors, where a strong POV appears. Misplaced Pages's Homeopathy, though not perfect, is well-written and mostly balanced. OrangeMarlin 21:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they deliberately choose one POV or another. It's more that they're desperately short of contributors so they're glad for whomever they can get. (Hey, they even appointed me as one of their editors.) Since they haven't reached critical mass a few people with idiosyncratic worldviews can have disproportionate influence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) Very interesting exchange here on Sanger's view of neutrality. It seems that fringe views inevitably will be given excessive weight at CZ. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They need to be clearer about who, exactly, is an "expert". Ray, you have academic credentials and a record of research and publication in your area of expertise. On the other hand, I can tell you right away that someone who lists their major academic interest as exposing "the costs in terms of suffering and early deaths of the lack of conscience of many scientists in the life sciences" will be consitutionally incapable of writing a good, balanced, sensible article about Vitamin C. MastCell  21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ray has academic credentials in Monty Python? Wow, didn't know that. I'm very impressed. OrangeMarlin 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to make a lame joke about searching for the holy grail of the climate change problem, but... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ri)Sanger needs to lay off OM's whiskey. •Jim62sch• 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My 20,000th edit

So, I'm accepting nominations for my 20,000th edit. It could be vandalizing Keeper's page, but that's so yesterday. I could vandalize my own page. But I'm looking for something special, something that makes the world a better place, something that cause everyone to break out in song. Or vomit. Either way works for me. The floor is open for nominations. OrangeMarlin 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Clay Aiken could use some BLP violations. Or, for even more Huggle vandalism warnings, edit Wales, or Paris Hilton. Just add whatever "the spirit moves you to add". Your first 19,999 edits have been dreadfully boring. Have some fun! I won't block you, promise :-) Keeper ǀ 76 01:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya could vandalize my page....no one ever does. Or leave me a completely off-the-wall post like this one. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A rewrite of ID saying that it represents the Only Truth, thus destroying the dreaded cab meme in the process. •Jim62sch• 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick: (1) Open a WP:RFC/U on Jimbo. (2) Nominate WP:RFAR for MfD. (3) Redirect Sarah Palin to Schizoaffective disorder. Just trying to be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not start an article on Paul Thurrott's exposé of the iCabal, an evil shadowy group of Apple and Mac users using intrigue to assert an insidious influence over the rest of the world? . . dave souza, talk 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you're a fan of Roughly Drafted magazine. But if it gets rapid deleted, which it will, because of the PC-cabal running Misplaced Pages...ooops....then there will be no record of the edit, and my 20,000th edit will be vandalizing Keeper's user talk. So, I'm going to have to add a BLP violation to Sara Palin. It is my duty. OrangeMarlin 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Drink a fair amount of your favorite adult beverage and let your subconscious move you. spryde | talk 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You type that under the assumption that his first 19,999 edits haven't been accomplished this way....Keeper ǀ 76 16:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but anyone who deals with the topics he chooses to deal with needs a bit of liquid xanex every now and then. spryde | talk 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I told you that in confidence. Now you tell the world. I'm hurt. OrangeMarlin 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't tell the world. Your talkpage has about as many fans as a marl... --- oops! I promised I wouldn't do that anymore :-) Keeper ǀ 76 17:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving when? Please don't let the door hit your ass.  :) OrangeMarlin 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I want the door to hit me.......Keeper ǀ 76 17:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just know that I'll forget, and my 20,000th edit will be a response to one of your inane comments. Just my luck. OrangeMarlin 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But will it be an inane response? An inebebriaticated one? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Inebebriaticated" has a wonderful internal consistency, like when one of my college roommates used to say "mispronounciation." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your old roomie might have been related to an old boss who said (frequently), two peas in a pot, and model role instead of role model. Or the bright analyst on CNN who just this morning said that the bailout was a "fate accomplete". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's too much. Of course, I always say roll model, I never say role model, but no one ever seems to catch it. Keeper ǀ 76 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Shirley it is mute wither it is roll model or role model. KillerChihuahua 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't call me Shirley, ha! Oh, I loved that movie, what was it called? Oh yeah, Heir Plain. Keeper ǀ 76 14:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I could use 9,000 dancing penises on my talk page. If you get blocked, you can be rest assured that I'll just point and laugh. seicer | talk | contribs 00:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

←After much deliberation (I actually didn't edit for a number of hours pondering what to do), and previewing a very funny vandalism of Keeper's page, and taking into consideration some of the suggestions above (the Sarah Palin redirect would have been loads of fun, but only those of us here would have understood the humor), I woke up this morning, and just edited like I always do. I hereby present my 20,000th edit. Just cleaned up some stuff on what I think is the best thing I've done here at Misplaced Pages. It was at the top of my watchlist, and I saw what an editor had done, and it was clear that there was a minor error in spelling in the article. Boring. But what I do. I still may vandalize Keeper's page just for fun. OrangeMarlin 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

congrats! And personally, I'm glad it wasn't my talkpage. That could come back to bite you down the road :-) .....Keeper ǀ 76 19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have immediately reverted the vandalism, but left the link for all to ponder. It's only something I would do amongst friends. BTW, all that I've done around here, do you think vandalizing your page would be the biggest bite I'd get? Methinks you think too much of your page--anyone who would see the vandalism would think, "hmmm, Keeper's page again. yawn."OrangeMarlin 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh! You misread. I merely meant that "overcontributing" to my talkpage could easily (and probably rightfully) land you in a crowd that said "OM is a myspacer". You are one of the good guys OM. You mean well (you don't always say what you mean well, but you mean well), and you are intelligent, competent, and sincere. You have passion for this website (some would say that's a detraction, but I say it's a plus), and you do whatever it takes to make this crazy little "💕" stay accurate, precise, sourced, and reliable. And to top it off, you like baseball. The wrong team yes, but at least you like the right sport. My first encounter with you was quite negative. I told you off, then you told me off, and I had a strongly negative view of you and your motives. I was completely wrong. You, and several others, have proved to me that you are here for the right reasons, and for the good of the public/free information that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be providing. Good on you, OM. Don't quit, and don't compromise on your convictions. Keeper ǀ 76 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah heck, I missed it...I am about 70 edits of the meaning of life x 1000, could post here another 60 times I guess as my 31000th was here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell which edit is your 20,000th? - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What a silly question. Go to Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin and start counting from 1. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

hahahahaha! Is ther some easier way for those of us who get easily distrac-....look, a kitty! - NeutralHomer • Talk 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule #47 of my user talk page is: Don't expect to actually get an answer to a question. However, since you're helping on Syracuse University, I keep a link of really cool tools at the bottom of my user page. Milestone tool is what you're seeking. It has no use whatsoever other than to see what you've done in the past. OrangeMarlin 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks dude-...hey, another kitty! - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC

If you're still looking for a place for 20,000, here's an Alzheimer-related FAC: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Rosetta@home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FSC

We could really udse some moe Featured sound candidates nominators and voters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Any comment ...

here? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit more complicated than I first thought. My first read through is I agree with you. But I'm going to take another read tomorrow. OrangeMarlin 05:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Slr, I hope you watch my page. I'm going to respond. I think about 75% of the points were anti-semitic. The others are debatable. However, what a huge mess. I've heard about these nationalistic battles in certain articles, but I've never seen one up close and personal. OrangeMarlin 16:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your fish...

never rooted for them before this weekend, or not that I remember any way. They did what they needed to today, and I thank you for it. At least now NY media will ease up on my boys. Wonder whether Collapse! or Moose (hopefully!) winning 20 will be the back page story. TravellingCari 21:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah for the Marlins. This morning, the Sunday New York Times sports section had an article praising the Mets for all of the "heart" they'd demonstrated in clawing back into wildcard contention. But I suppose people need their illusions. MastCell  21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen today's Times yet, will do that while I go get a pedicure between Yankee games. "Heart" speaks volumes when there isn't much more to say. As the discussion on my talk shows, this one is statistically less painful for Mets fans, but it still hurts. TravellingCari 21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Met's choked, flatlined, and were pronounced. Time of death, 16:09 EDT. Cause of death: Florida Marlins. OrangeMarlin 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*chuckle* indeed. Nothing worse than sitting through a loss and post-game "celebration" in the rain. It's part of why I was so thrilled my boys staved off elimination next Sunday. Nothing to taint the day even though it meant little. 8/10 at home and so far 4/5 on this road trip. Where was this play earlier? TravellingCari 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shea it aint so, oh yes it is. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, we're getting close to the time to start putting some money on the table, huh? Who's it gonna be? You got this disgrace to his country or ... ya know ... The Nation ... but ... it's just really hard for me to figure out how you missed the boat this year when you could take advantage of the opportunities in your own backyard oh, my, they have "multiple issues" ... eek . I say, an LA team is going all the way; you have to save Menstrual cycle from FAR if I'm right. HA HA HA !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there's no official AL Central champion as of this moment, I need time to review my betting choices. Not being much of a La-la land type of person (lacks blonde hair, can't surf, eats red meat, and stays the full 9 innings for a baseball game), my support may be elsewhere at this time. So, I have to save Menstrual cycle if I lose? What do I get if I win? Oh wait, I know. Help make Syracuse University FA.  :) OrangeMarlin 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a smart choice: I would have to recuse at FAC if I got involved, and the last (current) time that happened, the result was not pretty (see User talk:Raul654). You don't want me touching your FAC unless you want to draw the wrong kind of attention to yourself at FAC :-) Are you seriously telling me you think Minnesota might have a chance of going all the way? Then why are they still playing when everyone else is done <duck> ? It takes more than a closer and a catcher to play with the big guys, ya know. (And what's this BS about Californians being all blonde surfers; you're not going to try to push that one by me, are you? Next you'll be calling it "Cali" or "Frisco". And there's more to California than Anaheim.) I'm looking forward to your edits to Menstrual cycle; I may even have to come to a game if it's an LA series. (Eeeek, not that I want a repeat of the SF Bay series ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But you can edit? I don't mean you become a serious editor, just the copy edit, point out badly formatted citations thing. I've always dropped a note at your page about articles close to FAC, and you've dropped in and made comments. That's what I meant. But you'll do that anyways, so this is not a good bet. I'll have to think of something. However, it appears that Keeper76 will be suicidal since his Twins choked. My thoughts are that the Angels are going to win the AL. Your Bosox are not going to make without Beckett. Tampa Bay is good, but the Angels are better. In the NL, it may be a fringe theory, but the Cubs are just jinxed, in a whole different way than the Red Sox were. So, I think it will be LA, who are the Rockies of this year. They have momentum and a hot Manny. An all LA series!!!!!OrangeMarlin 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually very reluctant to edit SU at all for a variety of reasons, Orange. I can make sure someone else helps you. Uh, so we both think LA is going to make it, how am I going to get you to save a FAR? I was so looking forward to posting a note to Marskell to keep the Menstrual cycle FAR open as Orange owed me a baseball bet and was going to be doing the research. If Tampa Bay makes it, we'll both have made fools of ourselves. (I looked up at the TV once in the middle of a Wiki post, and said to my husband, "Is that Kazmir? Why doesn't he go play for a real team ... oops ... he is now.") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes the Dodgers won. The Anaheim Angels of Burbank, Thousand Oaks, Santa Monica, Rancho Santa Margarita, Garden Grove, Pasadena, and Marina del Rey did not. Dodgers/Red Sox maybe? Wouldn't that be cool!!!! OrangeMarlin 01:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr. Have I ever mentioned I hate the Dodgers? One of the Phillies games I went t featured the Phanatic crushing a can of nutri-system (or whatever) junk with one of those tamping things the grounds crew uses. Lasorda was furious. It was hilarious. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yankees, Take Your Tomato; Red Sox West have done it with your guy Torre :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi. I changed the bullet points to numbers. If that's not what you had in mind, I don't have any objection if you want to reformat my comments without changing their meaning. — ] (] · ]) 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the numbers. Thanks. OrangeMarlin 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW

"WTF" was my reaction too. . Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Originally, my "WTF" was "WTF" is going on with a new RfA for Gwen? I thought I missed some Wiki-drama again. OrangeMarlin 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS

The page has been cleaned up for cleaner input on the mediation; pls weigh in? Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your view.

About this, I'm sure you didn't mean to characterize User:Paul gene as being generally disruptive. He doesn't seem to have a future as a policy wonk, but he has done some good work in psychiatric articles, which are not the most pleasant environment for knowledgeable editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

Agreed - I've seen Paul gene fighting the good fight (meaning improving the quality and accuracy of controversial medical articles) quite a few times, which is why it's so disappointing that we haven't been able to more effectively address his objections to the guideline. MastCell  21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. He's disruptive at MEDRS, including edit-warring. If his attitude here is an indication of the quality of his work, then I'm reviewing it with a fine tooth comb, because I find his attitude towards sourcing to border on the ridiculous. At this time, I do not trust him or his editing instincts. OrangeMarlin 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts. I still get the impression that Paul is more concerned that it was made a guideline over his objections rather than what his objects are specifically. Any reasonable medical editor would want this guideline. it's almost that the process upsets him rather than what the guideline is. That's problematic to me. OrangeMarlin 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his objections have been presented well by Paul, but I do understand them. His concern, as best I can tell, is that in the field of psychopharmacology in particular, many lower-profile review articles are written at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry; in some rather well-publicized cases, the reviews have actually been ghostwritten by the drug company, who then handle the submission and revision process while the author simply attaches their name and academic reputation. I think it's a reasonable concern that a reliance on such potentially biased review articles could degrade the quality of medical article somewhat. Unfortunately, the discussion has devolved to an unfortunate degree, and as you mention, there's been edit-warring. I guess all I'm saying is that I think Paul's heart is in the right place and we all probably agree more than we disagree, so it might be better to proceed from that starting point. MastCell  16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have a translation of his concerns, as I Just Have Not Had Time to wade through all of it and have been unable to decipher what his position is. If that is his concern, I can't disagree but, well, we unfortunately can't just do the research ourselves (that's OR, does he want to just write reviews himself from primary sources to overcome what occurs in the real world?). I will try to catch up over there tonight, but what a disruption from the mountain of work I'm falling behind on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to put words in Paul's mouth, but that's my best understanding of his underlying concern. MastCell  17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with SG here. Paul has far exceeded the wayyyy too long didn't read expectations. He needs to tighten up his writing, because if what you've said is true, then I never saw that. But again, he's cutting off his nose to spite his face. Maybe there's been a few pharmaceutical company misbehaviors, but would he rather have CAM cruft show up instead? And do have the investigative tools to figure out if and when a pharmaceutical company has done something wrong? Tell him to not write 47Mb of babbling--he needs to get to the point. OrangeMarlin 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Kim Bruning is dealing with the TLDR babbling issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. He just mentioned that he wants Una Smith to chime in. Paul may have his heart in the right place, but Una...different story. OrangeMarlin 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If so, why hasn't una been banned yet? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I never understand why things are done around here. I gave up even trying. About the only thing that I think works well is the FA process.OrangeMarlin 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice feather in the hat of Raul and Sandy. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Kim Una has periods of productive editing where we may forget or overlook the past issues, thinking it was momentary, until, bam, another one comes out of left field to derail an article, a FAC, a DYK, a GAN. No one else can understand what she's on about, but it still derails the FAC or the DYK equally. Since it's not sustained, rather variable and up and down, it catches me, at least, by surprise every time. But recently I learned that the Equine Project has similar issues, and we're not alone, so ... yes, in all my spare time. @ Orange, I can understand the pharm schill concern. Remember Biederman, Wilens, Spencer and the deception there, and I've seen it up close on TS forums with Strattera and Inversine (mecamylamine); yes, it can be bad. But the facts are what they are; that is the real world, and our role is verifiability, not truth. We can't write the reviews ourselves to right the wrongs in the real world. WP:V won't let us do that, and WP:MEDRS simply reflects WP:V. If that is what Paul gene wants to do, he's going against WP:NOR and WP:V and making himself the Judge of the Truth. It's not our role to right the wrongs in the world, and we aren't the judges of that. Unfortunately, this is taking a lot of our time, and we're all busy. Kim is trying to help us find a way through this; without Kim, Paul gene can hold up our guideline, even though it won't change our article writing, since we follow policy. (I hope he's following policy, because I think he has some FAs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Apparently we're having some trouble communicating what we want from each other. Do you have any means of real time communication we could use? I'll send you an email with details. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would never share my email address with you. Please keep it public. OrangeMarlin 03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please disregard the last e-mail I sent you then. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you're not insulted, what I meant is that I won't share my email with anyone, unless I know them very very well publicly on here. Although I know you about here, I am very careful with my privacy. I hope that's clear. OrangeMarlin 03:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*nod* That's a very wise thing to do. I'm not insulted :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep my email activated so that occasionally someone can drop me an email about any number of topics, usually trash talking my favorite baseball team. It's annoying.  :) OrangeMarlin 04:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OOh! Who's your favorite baseball team, and are they really that bad? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See, Kim; I'm not the only one who doesn't prefer e-mail :-) Orange doesn't know anything about baseball; don't ask him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Kim is from a non-baseball playing country. Probably thinks baseball = cricket. LOL. And I'm sitting here chatting with you guys while watching the Dodgers sweep the Cubs. Really, they are jinxed. OrangeMarlin 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give Kim a hint :-) Kim, the first time I saw this Orange and Teal sig, I knew where he went to school and who his baseball team was. I felt badly for him on both counts :) I'm all red on all counts all the time. I wouldn't mind it if the Dodgers won, just to put it in the Yankees' face. But Philadelphia was seriously robbed by those Colorado Clowns last year, and they deserve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the huge number of points I posted. There's lots of ways to cheat your way through the questions very quickly, to the point where you can answer very succinctly in under a minute. (I actually have the answer to all those questions ready every time I hit submit. Seriously!). That takes a bit of practice though ^^;;

Since real time comms is not available, I don't know how I can talk you through them quickly either. I'm feeling just a tad guilty. Maybe just answer a couple at a time? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

eeek, I was feeling recovered from the Samuel Johnson fiasco and ready to dig in over there until I saw that long post :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:-( OrangeMarlin was having trouble with the short version. The long version basically just describes how you can make a short version. If you do it right, you end up with like 2 sentences per original question. Maybe I should post my own answers to the questions? <considers>

Do you have any ideas? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Me? My pea brain can't be creative or focused until I get that darn 18th century old and dead writer off of FAC, so I can get back to medical articles, which are much more interesting to me than old dead authors. I still have to read the entire page! Besides, Colin is the real brains of the outfit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I scare you off? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? No. I just am not that interested in policy articles, because they're boring. I care about real articles. I watch every policy article in case certain individuals show up, because they are attempting to weaken policy so that it's easier to write articles without a strong NPOV. I supported MEDRS becoming a guideline, then I moved on, because it was what we needed. Then two editors tried to muck with it. I reverted their attempts, and moved on again. I was dragged back in because of this post and other comments I was reading. But in fact, it's a guideline. Two individuals are complaining because of a misguided sense of what constitutes consensus, which bores me even further. You seem to be sorting out the issues, my voice is not necessary. I despise long-winded discussion pages, you know WP:TLDR, so I always miss key points. If someone summarized it down to 4 bullet points, I could get involved, but really, I'm useless in these arcane policy discussions. There are much smarter individuals there, including yourself. I'm sure there will be a good compromise. I made my points, you didn't seem to like them, which is probably fair, because I can't spend the hour reading the interminable complaints by PaulGene. He could have used that much energy and written 5 articles. So, unless there's another vote on a principle, I'll stick with working on articles and fight the cruft. OrangeMarlin 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse

Yeah, I meant to change that back to "urban" when I added the citation. Sorry about that! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I never bicker!  :) OrangeMarlin 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. I should revert you, and request a block. Meh.  :) OrangeMarlin 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do. That's NPOV. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. It's Duck Season. OrangeMarlin 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya know. Some Los Angeles Orangeperson really should be watching over the Aaron Sorkin mess mentioned on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually have watched the article for a long time. The edit warring was odd, so I stayed out. Now I can swoop in!!!! And the West Wing is the best TV show ever. OrangeMarlin 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy with Homely, OK? I think benefit of the doubt is called for, and I think Steve's moderated position is wisest for now. Did you see the AN/I thread (gosh, I hate digging in to ANI archives, but I'll find it if need be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I know so little about the entertainment industry, I'm just copy editing. I'm not going to get involved in the sockpuppet/ANI/edit-warring stuff. Some of the writing is kind of non-FA-worthy. OrangeMarlin 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

I've started collecting relevant excerpts from reliable sources at User:Vassyana/New Thought. Feel free to make use of the material. Vassyana (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Pseudoscience Category Arbitration

Request for clarification on Pseudoscience Category implementation -- Let's get some expert guidance from the Arbcom on the use of this pejorative category tag.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. It's not pejorative, it's perfect for the pseudoscience that you push. I'm not getting involved with your crap, because it will fail. OrangeMarlin 03:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Buerocratic Fuck

Misplaced Pages is dead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.183.30 (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We know! Misplaced Pages is dead and resurrected as a zombie --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the zombie version also has a spellchecker? You know, bureaucratic. OrangeMarlin 07:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that's how you tell who the zombies are... --Skyemoor (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I should have known. I hope someone has a vaccine. OrangeMarlin 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDS/OPV

Presumably you understand the theories of the articles you are heavily vested in, such as Alzheimer's and Homeopathy. I simply object to people who do not understand the AIDS/OPV hypothesis pushing their viewpoints. Perhaps someone such as yourself should give the article a look, you seem to be quite reasonable. At the moment it is very much in violation of NPOV. Studies that are more than 15 years old are being cited as though they disprove new theories that have nothing to do with them. A number of well-respected scientists have sided with Hooper, who is himself a published and respected scientist. Vandalism is not my intent, merely fairness.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.226.27.72 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, here we go again. What respected scientists? Evolution denialists, otherwise known as Creationists, say the same thing. Then you find out, nope 99.99% of scientists support the fact of evolution and the fact that HIV causes AIDS. We're done with this discussion. Take further comments to the talk page. OrangeMarlin 16:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are Creationists just as there are those who deny that HIV even exists. To lump those maniacs together with Edward Hooper is incorrect and insulting to boot.143.226.27.72 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Hooper's web site and found that just in the introductory part he hit most of the usual tick boxes: Intimations of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community - check. References to the "vaccination fraternity" - check. "Uncensored" - check. "Cover-up" - check. "Whitewash" - check. And so on. More at Galileo Gambit, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By "15 years old", I think the original poster may have meant 4 years old (PMID 15103367). But then again, the data proving that the Earth is not flat are hundreds of years old, and they're being cited as if they prove that the Earth is round. MastCell  22:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To be quite frank, I would myself do anything and everything to cover this up if I were Kaprowski et al. Unlike most other 'fringe theories,' this one has a definitive target with obvious consequences if it were to become public knowledge. The name Kaprowski would become synonymous with Hitler, Stalin, and other infamous historical figures. Creationists and flat-earthers have nothing but their egos to lose. To be honest I don't blame you, this is pretty much the story of 'the boy who cried wolf.' I can certainly see your side of the story. I must say, though, that Hooper is far more eloquent and far less disparaging of his opponents than proponents of more popular 'fringe theories.' Also, (PMID 1439779) hails from 1992, which is more than 15 years old. MastCell, I am curious. Did you look beyond the introductory page? I should hope that anyone contributing to the article would know both sides of the argument thoroughly, as I do.143.226.27.72 (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing unique about the claims of conspiracy and suppression made by some proponents of the OPV AIDS hypothesis. They are one of the most ubiquitous and depressingly predictable aspects of any discredited fringe claim. We'll have to agree to disagree about Hooper and Koprowski. MastCell  05:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cycling evolution

Given your interest in motorcycles and evolution, you might find these 3-wheeler motorcycle projects interesting, as they (mostly) promote 2 seater, high fuel economy vehicles (via lower coefficient of drag and sometimes cross-sectional area). http://www.3wheelers.com/projgall.html

And see GM's earlier efforts that could have merit today. http://www.3wheelers.com/gmlean.html

And the foremost 3-wheeler on it's way; http://www.aptera.com/

Cheers, -- Skyemoor (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining, though not entirely novel as shown here :) . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

True, follow this link, and you'll see dozens of early 3 wheelers (as well as more recent ones). On the evolution theme, one can use the dolphin/whale as a corollary... --Skyemoor (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On some of my early trips to Europe I recall seeing a few three-wheelers (Messerschmitts, I think). But I've never seen a three-wheeled dolphin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the famous '60s bubble cars. Someone runs a bright yellow Messerschmitt around here, must try to photo it sometime. My preference was for the BMW Isetta which really was bubble shaped, with the front of the bubble forming the door complete with a hinged steering wheel to let the driver and passenger out. . dave souza, talk 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

For your own sake, count to 10, do yoga, whatever it takes to stay cool. I'm flabbergasted that FT2 won't acknowledge (or can't even see) the damage he has done to you personally and to Misplaced Pages as a community, but your getting heated will only serve to give him unmerited credibility. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is drinking allowed? It's just so unfair that he could hurt me without recourse. In the real world, would his accusations been allowed? OK, I'll disengage, as unfair as it is. OrangeMarlin 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I should have come here first. But I'm an optimist. Maybe he'll finally do the decent thing and resign, for the good of the community. I'm not holding my breath, but after four years here I'm confident that "this too will pass". And, sadly, be replaced by something worse. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic

Perhaps, but I think we need to pick our battles for the moment, It's not worth fighting over that when it distracts from fighting this: Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "skeptics believe" is obviously self-contradictory, so guess I'll have to add this to my watchlist. Tedious. . dave souza, talk 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

SU

I've been playing a lot of Velvet Underground lately and noticed you're working on the SU article. I've done a spot of copyediting there (something I actually enjoy, as opposed to Wikipolitics) in honor of Lou and Sterling. Hope you don't mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lou Reed. Nothing better when high. However, if it's more than one sentence, we're giving him too much weight with regards to his importance to the university. OrangeMarlin 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just dusting and polishing, not mentioning VU at all. Probably a couple of alums the adminsitration would rather forget... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Trust me. They've probably asked him to donate a few bucks to the endowment. They're not THAT stupid. OrangeMarlin 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually bought a subwoofer specifically so that the horn parts on "Sally Can't Dance" would sound awesomer. Did you know we have a standalone article for every song on White Light/White Heat? MastCell  03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much. And I've finally learned the bass line to Sister Ray. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get LSD flashbacks. OrangeMarlin 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Try listening to some Jim Morrison while editing the UCLA article. Break on through! Amerique 05:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you will have to include Bill Walton then. UCLA alumnus with a certain affinity to 70's acid rock groups. OrangeMarlin 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, him and Kareem, if they didn't go into the NBA, could have fronted a great folk/funk ensemble. Great as Walton was, it might have suited him better. Amerique 06:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch... I get this mental image of Walton in a diaper a la Garry Shider. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar did collaborate musically with Stephen Colbert in Hip-hopketball: A Jazzebration. MastCell  18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And who can forget Roger Murdock? OrangeMarlin 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Walton had his moments too: , . Amerique 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't changed. OrangeMarlin 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Velvet Underground. I remember having a crush on Maureen Tucker when I was going through my Almost Famous rock phase in the late 60's. Funny. OrangeMarlin 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, but you're old. :) MastCell  04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In my case it wasn't Maureen Tucker but Maureen McCormick. Now get off my damn lawn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Marcia! Marcia! Marcia! Too sweet. I had crushes on girls that, in my perverted mind, gave me some slightly increased statistical opportunity of getting lucky. And yes MC, I'm old. When I started in medicine we had advanced past blood-letting and using ether in anesthesia, but just barely. OrangeMarlin 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'08 US Election (7 October 2008)

According to pollster.com we have the following good news:

• Obama/Biden: 320 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 163 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 55 Electoral Votes

Latest polls put the Democratic team ahead around 50 to 42 (see George Washington University Battleground Poll). I believe that Obama/Biden needs to be ahead by at least 3% in polls to actually be leading, because I think pollsters consistently overestimate Democratic votes. Some surprises are that the Democrats are leading in solid Republican states (although they are considered undecided in the list of electoral votes at this time) like Virginia and North Carolina. The only Democratic state trending Republican is West Virginia, but I contend that WV has been a Republican state since 2000. And for those of you who are interested in these things, McCain's biggest lead is not in Arizona or Alaska, home states of the two nominees for the Republicans, but in Utah. I'm shocked.

I didn't wikilink anything here, so if anyone wants to, be my guest. I'll update as I see fit. OrangeMarlin 18:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More interesting things. According to pollster.com, the Senate Breakdown (remember, only about 1/3 of seats are up for election every year) should be:

• Democrats: 54
• Republicans: 41
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 3 (but all are in traditionally strong Democratic states, so they'll probably fall into the Democratic column).

Interestingly, both Obama and Biden will need to be replaced in the Senate. Usually, the Governor of the state in which those seats are held choose the replacement until the next election (again usually). Obama is from Illinois, the governor is a Democrat, so will be replaced by a Democrat. Biden is from Delaware, one of the most solidly Democratic states, and the Democratic candidate for governor is leading by a huge margin, so expect a Democratic replacement there.

According to pollster.com, the House of Representatives should fall as follows:

• Democrats: 240
• Republicans: 179
• Undecided: 16

So the Democrats should control all three major elective groups. OrangeMarlin 18:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So long as states use paperless electronic voting systems created by fine nonpartisan individuals, no polling lead is big enough to guarantee that the vote total will go to the Democrats. (Or have I seen Hacking Democracy once too often?) I don't know that it's really an advantage to control both houses and the executive branch... it led to the complete moral disintegration of the Republican party. They tripped over each other in their haste to cash in and abandon their small-government, isolationist, and fiscal-responsibility principles, and now they're left with no intellectually consistent ideology beyond a quest for power and a narrow, often intolerant sociocultural agenda. MastCell  19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I think the Republican Party needs to be eviscerated and rebuilt. According to Brad Delong raze the Republican Party to the ground. Plough it under. Scatter salt in the furrows so it can never grow back. We need another, very different opposition party to face the Democrats. We need it now. I happen to agree. We need the Democrats to run things for a couple of years, clean up a few things (carbon pollution, banking system, war in Iraq). I hope a new party arises from the Republicans...one that stays out of the social issues that only a few Americans care about (religion in school, abortion, gun control), and stick with economic and foreign policy issues. Their pandering to the crazy right has destroyed them. The US needs three solid political parties. A left wing/progressive one, a middle of the road one, and a conservative (economically, not the social issues party we have now). The consensus that would develop in the country would be spirited and healthy. What do I know however. OrangeMarlin 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a viable three party system in the US, but then, dependng on how much the economy falls, the possibility of a third party gaining more than just a few adherents increases. However, so long as we don't use proportional representation as do many democracies, we're unlikely to see a three party system work. The only instance of proportional representation in the US that I can recall was in Alaska in the early sixties, and that ended when the socialists received enough votes to gain a seat in the state legislature. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Bradley effect on the polling numbers of a minority candidate. I strongly suspect that Obama will underperform his polling numbers even more than Kerry did.

While I'll vote Obama (a mostly symbolic action, in my state), the Democratic trinity you point out is pretty strong reason for me to hesitate. I think we've seen in the past that unfettered control of government by either party typically leads to bad outcomes. The simple fact is that most law is more harmful than helpful, and gridlock at least provides for stability and prevents all but the most necessary and bipartisan legislation from passing. I think the most amazing criticism by the Republicans of the Democratic Congress was the disparaging description of the "failure" of the Democrats to pass 100 laws in their first 100 days. No one said "we don't need more than 100 laws in 100 days, the world doesn't change that quickly" - a huge mass of new law was seen by both parties as an achievement. Avruch 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I might agree with these comments in normal times, these aren't normal times. The Republican Party is obsessed with abortion, creationism, and violating civil rights. Until they quit pandering to that group, they won't focus on the big issues, like the economy. Or the lack of oil. Or pollution. So our country needs the Republicans to spend a couple of years in the wilderness. Oh, let us not forget that FDR did a lot of wonderful things for this country because he did have the support of the Senate and House. Of course, I don't think Obama is quite FDR. OrangeMarlin 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole forensic rapekit saga WRT Palin was so repellent to me, but then again I won't be voting as I am somewhere far far away...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's no excuse. You can vote by absentee ballot (assuming you otherwise qualify). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll send him my absentee ballot. I live in a state that may go for Obama by around 20 percentage points. Just randomly pick other individuals, based on any standard you so choose.OrangeMarlin 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To Boris - erm, no, I should have clarified, I am Australian, we had the pleasure of this guy for 10 years :(. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You could still vote in Florida, you know. Or maybe Chicago. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still staring 30 in the eye - but in my own experience and from what I've read of the past I think there are very few elections where the candidates didn't confidently state that "This is the most important election of our era, this decision will irrevocably determine our future." Well, in hindsight, there seem to be few presidential terms where this is actually the case. The extreme right is concerning, but so is the extreme left - and the reality is that even when the Republicans were sipping cocktails on the penthouse portico (as opposed to the wilderness they already now inhabit) the extreme elements of the party never dominated the agenda. In the last 20 years we've had ample opportunity to see how dysfunctional the government becomes if one party has unfettered access to the levers of power. I think its a virtual guarantee that if Obama wins the White House, the Democrats will lose complete control of Congress within the next two Congressional elections - and most likely with good reason. I'll still vote for Obama, but I have zero confidence that the Democrats as a party will be able to restrain themselves effectively. Avruch 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2000 election was the most important of our lifetimes. Period. If you voted for Nader, have fun in purgatory.

Black holes have an event horizon; once you've passed the event horizon, it doesn't matter what you do - you're going to end up in the singularity. If the black hole is big enough, you might not even notice anything different when you pass the horizon, but in fact your fate has been irrevocably sealed.

Similarly, dominant world powers all reach a point at which their decline and eventual obsolescence is inevitable, though this turning point is often obvious only in retrospect. Interestingly, the fatal blow is usually self-inflicted. The Athenians invaded Syracuse. The Romans allowed barbarian mercenaries to settle within their borders. Napoleon and Hitler both thought they could subdue Russia without winter clothes or antifreeze. All of those things seemed like good ideas at the time. More subtly, the British Empire was finished in 1939, though its actual dissolution was prolonged. It's going to be our turn sometime. I hope I'm wrong and that we can still achieve escape velocity, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that 2000, Katherine Harris, the butterfly ballot, and Bush v. Gore will mark the apogee of the American era. MastCell  04:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka comments

Hi there, I've been mulling over your comments on Elonka's talkpage. I'd think that while you see her comments as supporting disruptive editors, Elonka sees it as trying to persuade and encourage people who do not follow our policies and guidelines into being more productive members of the community. Coaching "difficult" editors is indeed tricky, you need to both encourage their actions that are positive and discourage the negative. Elonka and yourself differ in how much encouragement you think is needed. This probably comes from the length of time you've spent dealing with some of the most acrimonious areas in the project - you'd prefer to simply see the back of these people as quickly as possible. Instead Elonka seems (to me) to be trying to treat all editors absolutely equally and to not give a free pass to either side in debates. This lack of content-driven decisions and absolute focus on the behavioral policies can either be seen as a strength (admins are not supposed to decide on content) or as a weakness that can be exploited by editors intent on violating the content policies. These two opposing points of view on the merits of this approach are the reason why Elonka's actions are surrounded by so much drama at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there's a limit to her approach. Her support of User:Jagz went on a bit too long for my taste, as the most apparent example of failure of an excessive-AGF policy. Yes, you are correct, I'd prefer that these individuals just let the door hit them in the rear end as they are tossed out of the project on their tush. But I just don't think there should be even handed treatment between the two POV's. One side should be shown the door if they can't use NPOV correctly. OrangeMarlin 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A difficult situation, well described by Tim. Keeping polite when dealing with persistent WP:Civil POV pushing is difficult and possibly even counter-productive, but always desirable. Elonka is right to draw it to your attention, and you're to be thanked for continuing to deal with persistent attempts to water down or evade core policies. Guess the struggle will continue. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that "she treats all editors absolutely equally." She often gives lots of leeway to abusive editors (e.g., Jagz) while coming down harder on constructive editors. I'm convinced she intends to work for the good of Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't mean her approach does work for the good of Misplaced Pages. Her methods and logic often leave me totally puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a block of a science editor. Why should I give good faith to an admin that makes no sense? I reported her block here. OrangeMarlin 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

QED. Levine2112 gets friendly advice and pleasant conversation, as does Ludwigs2; NJGW gets a block with no warning. Technically the block is justified, but this is one of those cases where the intent of policy -- avoiding edit wars and creating a constructive environment -- is not served by applying the letter of the law. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think the problem is not just people having different "points of view on the merits of her approach;" it's that she's trying to transport an approach, which for all I know may have been very effective in areas of ethnic strife, into areas where it is not appropriate, not useful, and almost certainly guaranteed to erode the quality of the encyclopedia.

With ethnic strife, there are different points of view that have to be accommodated somehow, and probably reliable sources backing up those different points of view, and the task of editors is to reach a compromise that presents all points of view in a neutral fashion. But in areas where science and fringe theories intersect, to treat the editors who are trying to accurately represent expert opinion as given in reliable sources as just another viewpoint, just another vested interest, just another political group that needs to be forced to compromise in the interest of harmony, is to disregard the fundamental goal of the project: to produce a serious, high-quality reference work. I've been watching fringe-type articles for several months, and wherever I'm familiar with the literature on the topic, it's very easy to tell who is accurately representing reliable third party sources and who is bent on introducing dubious material into the encyclopedia, or keeping criticism of fringe theories out, by citing unreliable sources or by misrepresenting reliable sources. The latter group are the people Elonka invariably champions and encourages, and who rush to her defense whenever questions are raised about her actions. I don't doubt that Elonka means to help the encyclopedia, and that she may actually be "trying to treat all editors positively equally" but people who are following core policies and people who are not, should not be treated equally. Content does matter. Woonpton (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar edits to vaccination

please explain why you think my positive grammar edits to vaccination are vandalism, and what MOS issues are. My edits:

1) Vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by a pathogen. It is considered to be the most effective

It, beginning the second sentence, is grammatically incorrect, because the prior sentence uses a plural (vaccines). This, and the rest of the edits, should be clear.

69.203.83.158 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, when someone starts a sentence "In 1720," you do not use past tense for the rest of the sentence, because it appears that it happened before 1720. Use present tense. You repeat the word "vaccination" in two sentences. The pronoun it works perfectly, since it can only refer to vaccination. I'll have to remove the over wikilinking that was reverted however. Someone might disagree with my grammar interpretation however. OrangeMarlin 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You have only explained reverting one of the 8 changes I had made. 69.203.83.158 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You've tested my patience. I've explained about 99% of them. Now, I'm done. OrangeMarlin 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And you still haven't stated what MOS issues are. Can I assume that its ok to restore my edit? On the issue of grammar, I would suggest that most English textbooks have something similar to the first rule of http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_pronuse.html, which states that Pronouns should agree in number, which vaccines... it fails to do.

69.203.83.158 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking about submitting a request for comment (RFCsci) to discuss this, as we seem to be at an impasse about whether my edits are valid, and you have not responded to my comments. 69.203.83.158 (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are being silly. Here, let me revert my edits, and you can therefore be happy that you are the smartest person on Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Fixing MOS and grammar is not worth my time. OrangeMarlin 23:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 69.203.83.158 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

SA

Though, I do find it peculiar that all of the sudden ScienceApologist says he's not going to log back in until his IP is removed from the system or something? Personally he had to know that Misplaced Pages logs IP's and all he had to do was go back to those edits that he made under an IP and removed the IP and inserted his name for those edits.

I am wondering if he is editing in a place where he shouldn't be using a computer to do so and does not want people, including the wikiadmins to find out who he is or where he works?

Just some wondering. Brothejr (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We all know Misplaced Pages can uncover our IP addresses, but only a very limited number of individuals, called checkusers, can do so. So, you or I cannot tell who edits from what IP address. And a lot of IP addresses link to a company, and it would be easy to track someone down. What he is saying is that he didn't want to confirm the IP address, which was posted when he accidentally edited with is IP address, because it would have indicated who he was. Because a couple of admins decided to make it a big issue, his privacy was shot. This wasn't handled well. OrangeMarlin 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

True, very true. Brothejr (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaccination

Looking at the page history, I'd like to hear your opinion on semi-protecting this article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. The one IP dude above is not a vandal, more of attempting to be the owner of the article. It only gets bad when there are editors who try to spread falsehoods about vaccines causing autism and such. I've not noticed much problem with IP vandals. OrangeMarlin 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I value your opinion. By the way, tell me again why you are not an admin? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You apparently don't know me very well. We have estimated that I might lose in the RfA voting by the biggest margin known to Misplaced Pages. I am not very nice to POV-pushers. I stick to very controversial articles, which don't get me very popular. And I'm kind of cranky.  :) Just watch who chimes in here after me. It could be amusing. OrangeMarlin 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks such as calling an editor "not nice" or "cranky" will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! This thread almost got me to log in....almost. Oh wait. Your RFA is now at 2-8467-0... Keeper ǀ 76 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought you might chime in here!!!!OrangeMarlin 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're almost into the 'crat-discretion range... MastCell  05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I generally semiprotect anything over 30kb if it is getting over one vandal edit a day from different IPs - life's too short....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see... very informative indeed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

At the risk of attracting negative attention, I'd like to ask you and the thousands of editors who apparently watch your talkpage to take a look at Metabolife. I started this article as a pet project awhile back, but I'm basically the only contributor. To avoid tunnel vision, I'd appreciate some outside feedback - does it read coherently? Is it informative and encyclopedic? MastCell  05:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good in most respects. Is there more that can be added to the history section? It looks like most of the history of Metabolife is the pre-company criminal record of its founders - the personal legal trouble, since it's related to the Metabolife product, is relevant of course... but it may be best to balance that out more with other information if any is available. Avruch 05:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I should probably retitle that section "Founders", rather than "History". Technically, it's all "history", since the company is more or less defunct at present. I agree that some of the legal detail about the founders is redundant and can probably be condensed. Thanks again for taking a look at it, and feel free to improve it. MastCell  20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read the article I thought to myself, "why mentioned that they met in prison." Little did I know. OrangeMarlin 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Please reconsider this comment with WP:NPA in mind. I can't speak for the other editor, but I certainly don't appreciate being described as "combative". Please consider re-factoring or at the very least striking. Much appreciated. -- Levine2112 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was that you and QuackGuru have a certain animosity towards each other. I think it would be a bit strange of me to think otherwise. But maybe combative was a bit strong. OrangeMarlin 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Strong-willed" isn't great either, but if it is a choice between that and "combative", I'll take it "strong-willed". Generally, I find the whole context of the comment inappropriate. Anyhow, I appreciate the re-factoring as is. -- Levine2112 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

Hi Orangemarlin, I noticed that your talkpage is currently running over 100K... If you'd like, I could set up an archivebot for you? That would automatically archive threads that had gone inactive for a certain period of time (your choice), and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. I could also set up an archivebox for you as well... Let me know, --Elonka 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like to leave certain threads up for a while, some to remind me to do things, and some because I like adding comments. Note that I have numerous subpages of archives. OrangeMarlin 17:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosetta@home

I am very sorry. I should know better than to try to help with an FAC. I will cease and desist, I promise, and never will again. Sorry. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Passive aggressiveness is not required. I dropped you a note in the hope that you can help out. You were making changes to edits that I had just completed. OrangeMarlin 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I had been editing the article for quite a while and did not understand what was happening either, that is, why my edits were changing! Thought my memory had gone bad. I have looked at the citation tool you suggested before and it makes no sense to me. I would just as soon stay out of FAC anyway. Getting involved in FAC always eventually turns out badly. It is best if I copy edit an article before FAC and make sure to stay out of it once it is there. I have learned my lesson. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your opinions of FAC's. Mostly they are run very well, and to be truthful, I've had my one or two bad experiences. I just wanted you to stop edit conflicts with me, especially the name thing. You should keep going. OrangeMarlin 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I truly had no idea that you (or anyone) was also editing, as I did not get any edit conflicts. So I apologize for being an idiot and clueless. As for FAC, obviously your experience has very been different from mine there. I do very well, as long as I am behind the scenes and don't show my face. The mistake is in openly interacting and trying to "be helpful" - always a mistake for me on FAC. I will stay away from that article and all others, except for one or two that I have already copy edited extensively. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be like that. No one called you or assumed that you were "an idiot or clueless." And as for FAC's, I've had a bad experience or two. I had one article that I wrote with another editor that became an FA, then about a week after it became a main page FA, some editor came out of the blue and tried to FAR it. I almost gave up then. So, you should take advice that I had given in formatting citations. Why would you think that's a criticism and not advice? OrangeMarlin 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to you for my attitude. Sorry I was that way. I was not getting edit conflicts so I was taken by surprise that someone else was editing. I guess I was grouchy from all the concentration on the footnotes. Sorry. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

OM, again I come seeking guidance. In the case of an article that has received sudden attention and editing due to blogging or news reports, what is the proper procedure for getting additional eyes on the article? I'd hate for the default route to be semi-protection or canvassing to related articles. Is there a community watchlist somewhere to add such articles that gets a short-term flurry of attention? Do folks use it? thanks in advance, --guyzero | talk 01:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC) refactored --guyzero | talk 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think there was any problem with your original question. I'm not sure how to get a wider watch over articles. This page is sort of the local bar for Misplaced Pages, people come here to chat about all kinds of things, including baseball. I'm watching the article now that you brought it up. I've seen people drop notes on related articles, informing them of something. If it gets bad, write up a quick ANI, that'll get people's attention. OrangeMarlin 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. I refactored my question earlier mainly because I didn't want you or anyone to feel obliged to watchlist anything and I didn't want content stuff to augment the process question. I somehow remember there being some kind of community watch list a couple years ago, and figured you or one of the peeps here at the local bar could point me in the right direction. Of course, that memory may be straight-up false or somehow clouded by interim, uh, "recreational activities". My frustration yesterday stemmed from my view that all Obama (and probably McCain?) related articles have devolved into slow motion edit wars, daily 3RR/ANI reports, talkpages clogged with conspiracy theories that are themselves BLP violations: Farrakhan! Not US citizen! Islamic schools! ACORN! For example not much has changed on Barack Obama despite 98 interim edits in the past few days. I hate to say it, but I really think all Obama (and probably McCain) related articles should be watchlisted by WP:DR and WP:BLP specialists who can care less about the content other than making sure it all fits 100% with[REDACTED] policy. No action needed here, just venting. Thanks again and regards, --guyzero | talk 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL

 :)

Or rather, I mean: You attacked me!! Waa, waa, waa!!! NPA!!!111!! Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG!!!!!!!OrangeMarlin 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes

I do realize, I hope it works (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)