User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives May 2011

Pigzilla

"Pigzilla"? [1] Do you mind, little orange user? Keep civil tongue in head! [Bishzilla shakes the little user gently, then less gently, for emphasis. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

ROFLMFAO. Someone got my irony. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

be afraid, be very afraid...oink Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my another Australian horror movie. And I thought Australia, the Movie was bad enough. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Couldn't find a reason to go and see it, nor even when it was on TV.....just so...vanilla.Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to see it because it was an incredible cast. I just wanted to believe that it would be great. Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman? That should have been an Oscar winner. It told me nothing about Australia. Well, except that the Japanese bombed Darwin, which I hadn't known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is as always very interested in potential additions to her harem: ] Come here little Gigantic Razorback! You pretty cute! bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Hmm, Hugh Jackman was a Wolverine not a Razorback...oh wait...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The things I find on Wikipedia

I did not know that Lynn Margulis, AIDS denialist, was married to Carl Sagan. Obviously, something did not click. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

She's been wading in the deep end for a while now; the Discover article is, frankly, beyond embarrassing. — Scientizzle 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just read it, in response to someone posting her AIDS denialism theories. HIV is a spirochete according to her. When I was in grad school, we were just starting to learn the evolution of organelles, and she was a rock star. Not so much anymore. I guess she's not only denies the HIV cause of AIDS, but also evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, she's one of those 'I've always been right so I can't ever be wrong' types that has a massively overinflated ego. This is worth reading, too. — Scientizzle 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm speechless. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In his book Why People Believe Weird Things (which should be required reading at the high-school level), Michael Shermer has an afterword on why smart people believe weird things. Shermer calls this the Hard Question: we usually think of intelligence and academic achievement as antidotes to nonsense, yet "the problem of smart people believing weird things is a genuine one that is quantifiable through measurable data." Shermer's answer is as close as anyone has come to nailing it: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll need to add that book to my reading list. I'm such a skeptic that I barely believe the sky is blue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The chapter on smart people is excerpted at the author's website ([2]). Another snippet relevant to Margulis, Duesberg, and their ilk:

A community of scientists read the same journals, go to the same conferences, review each others' papers and books, and generally exchange ideas about the facts, hypotheses, and theories in that field. Through vast experience they know, fairly quickly, which new ideas stand a chance of succeeding and which are obviously wrong.

Newcomers from other fields, who typically dive in with both feet without the requisite training and experience, proceed to generate new ideas that they think — because of their success in their own field — will be revolutionary. Instead, they are usually greeted with disdain (or, more typically, simply ignored) by the professionals in the field. This is not because (as they usually think is the reason) insiders don’t like outsiders (or that all great revolutionaries are persecuted or ignored), but because in most cases those ideas were considered years or decades before and rejected for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Again, I think this is as good a summary of the phenomenon as anyone has written. These people act like no one has ever considered alternative causes of AIDS besides HIV. In fact, Duesberg's ideas were tested quite thoroughly in the 1980s and early 1990s. They turned out to provide an extremely poor description of reality, as opposed to the HIV/AIDS model, which has led to effective diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive approaches.

This is Science 101: you don't just talk out of your ass. You make testable predictions, and then test them and revise your hypothesis. Let's say AIDS is a spirochetal disease, just syphilis in disguise: what testable predictions flow from that assumption? Galileo isn't famous because he was persecuted - he's famous because he made testable predictions about objective reality which turned out to be correct. But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule about people jumping into new scientific fields. Luis Walter Alvarez is probably the most famous. And he was ridiculed extensively in the early 80's. Now, he and his son are heros of sorts. Maybe his son, being a geologist, helped out. Anyways, I remember going to some meeting and listening to various paleontologists argue about it. Anyways, the problem with these silly ideas (not Alvarez) is that people grab onto them like they were the truth. Whether it is Andrew Wakefield (not the best example) or some random scientist who claims that there is no global warming, they become an issue with public discourse. Now everyone of the AIDS denialism articles are going to be filled with "Lynn Margalis, esteemed evolutionary biologist, widower of Carl Sagan, says that neo-Darwinism is wrong, spirochetes cause AIDS, and Carl never said 'billions.'"OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

?

Hi, if you sent me mail recently, I did not receive it. Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm. You already replied, and I replied back to your reply.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That old tabloid

Damn the New York Times, that rag. Doesn't anyone know it's not reliable? Seriously, thanks for your support of the Old Gray Lady. You'll be thanked for it, I'm sure, by a sockpuppet filing that claims you and I are the same person based on:

1. overlapping editing patterns or
2. non-overlapping editing patterns. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and this is us trying to throw everyone off the trail, but talking to each other. Hey, don't forget to pick up some beer for the weekend, we're out. And if you don't clean the toilet, I'm going to not let you use my computer ever again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forget what kind of beer you like, wink, wink. Won't you tell me what it is again? I was going to get some Pipeline porter, but let me know. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's cold and wet, I don't care. I'll order the pizza. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)K's comment about socket puppetry is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the history of this dialogue on the WPI talk pages over the last 15 months. So I ask you to familiarise yourself with this by reviewing the talk page archives, and the arguments that have been raised by all of the editors involved? No one other than Keepcalmandcarryon has even raised the issue of whether the NYT can be deemed RS, so this is also entirely irrelevant. There are two moot issues here (i) the level of interpretation that can be placed on the various versions of content based on this RS wording and whether it is safe to include content on this basis, and (ii) the view by the remaining editors that what is surely relevant to the content of the WPI article is Mikovits professional training and background, and the quality of her MEDRS publications.

If your judgement is that any NYT content is sufficient in itself to determine a precedent for inclusion here, then any content from such an RS should be unchallengeable. As I said in my comments there is an important difference between necessity and sufficiency. Maybe I am confused, but I thought that WP was aiming to be encyclopaedic in its articles rather than parrot incidental anecdotes of a (albeit renown) newspaper. -- TerryE (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this discussion is at the article talk page, but since you've kindly followed me here: as both OM and I have said, the professional status of Mikovits is an important piece of the background to the controversy. There is nothing interpretable about the clear wording in the New York Times piece. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I rarely, if ever, reply to condescending strawman arguments about editing articles which appear on my talk page. And this is one of the most ridiculous strawman arguments I've read in a long time. Take it to the talk page of the article. If I choose to respond to the strawman, I will. Don't bet on it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you

Great to see you back! Sorry I missed your return (haven't edited since mid-Feb). Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and good to see you. This place is raising my blood pressure. I'll have a stroke soon.  :) Sadly, I see too few editors left, and the same old POV-pushing fringe crowd still causing trouble. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude

You really need to see The Big Lebowski. I think it would be right up your alley (no pun intended). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't picture you using the moniker "dude" with anyone. I, on the other hand, use it all the time, but I'm a native Californian. I will watch it. Netflix here I come (no advertising intended or otherwise). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me second Boris' recommendation. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you're missing something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Attention all science editors

We have been diagnosed. Fuck the world. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was distracted by counting the number of periods in Battle Cry of Freedom. Can you repeat what you wrote above? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirty four, including the ellipsis and the boilerplate text down at the bottom. Yeesh, do I have to do everything around here? - 2/0 (cont.) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The book, not the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, counting the 34 in the article was interesting. LOL OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was "told by email" that I can get 10% of $64 million dollars from a Nigerian prince, just for giving them my banking information. But I fixated on the errors in spelling and grammar and let the opportunity pass me by. Speaking of bullying...I wonder what the excuse was here (see E.2). Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a script being used? This looks awfully familiar, not having chosen his words more carefully. Did any of you notice that no examples were offered when asked for? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Who knows with Cla68 and Ludwigs2. Cla68 is actually a good editor, and I've read some of his FA's, especially on military topics. There is no reason for him to engage in such rhetoric, it makes him look foolish. He had no evidence, which is obvious, and I'm sure he's embarrassed that he made some medical claim without anything backing it up. But emails that no one will ever see. Ludwigs2, on the other hand, just pontificates. I think he gets excited when he maximizes the number of words he uses, so drama is more important than actually creating content. He's had like 14 blocks, I wonder when the patience of community is worn out. I think I'll go back to squashing a couple of sockpuppets trying to screw up some articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Good editor", IMO, requires more than just the ability to write. Accurately representing sources is more important than writing well. (See the second part of the FOF here. Bear in mind that these links are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.) Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 was being phenomenally tone deaf in his remark, but I believe it was meant as a sincere attempt at explaining why some editors can come off as uncommunicative or unable to see other points of view. "Fringe" editors are frequently looking for the inclusion of more information, and they often get responses that immediately tag them as crazy idiots, or just ignore them, or repeat policy at them. So I think Cla's point was supposed to be sincere, that there is a group of editors who are not communicating well and act as if their way is inherently right. This can come off as stubborn or anti-social.

OM, that is obviously not your style; you prefer sarcastic remarks, which are the opposite of an autistic trait, but it's also a kind of unwillingness to engage. Now, should you have to 'waste time with fringe trolls'? of course not, but any editor fails the basic rule of assuming good faith when they determine someone else or someone else's point of view is unworthy of consideration, before it is even made.

Last, as an encyclopedia, we document Fringe views, even if we are not endorsing them. And as an encyclopedia with NPOV as policy not WP:SPOV, we don't even write with science as Wikipedia's voice. Even there, we are representing scientific views rather than declaiming them. That's a distinction without a difference if there are no conflicting reliable sources, but it matters when there are Fringe sources or Fringe topics. Ocaasi ^c 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually SPOV is NPOV. Pretty much. Look at what NPOV was like back in March 2005 when Dunc wrote that essay. Most of what he called for has been incorporated into our sourcing policy since then. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's partly true but not completely, and in a key way. Fringe, Pseudoscience, the intervening arbcom rulings, and MEDRS have gone a long way, but I still think there's a difference, and it has to do with voice. We don't 'speak for science', we just assume scientific/academic sources are extremely reliable, and we don't 'speak against' fringe topics, we just put them in the proper context and give them appropriate weight. Neutrality is still the proper term--science applies to the sources we privilege rather than our point of view. I think WP:MAINSTREAM is closer than SPOV on those grounds but still different. For many topics, experts completely disregard aspects that have a lot of social interest or niche interest, sometimes on the fringe. Plenty of editors think those aspects are worth inclusion whereas those who find SPOV to be the goal think they should not be dignified with mention. There's a reasonable spectrum of approaches there without either side being 'autistic' or 'loonies'. Ocaasi ^c 21:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the problem stems from editors wanting their fringe viewpoint to be over-represented in articles on the mainstream topic, and also wanting articles about the minority viewpoint to be from the perspective of the minority view, without showing the majority view of that topic. Such editors do at times seem to have a conviction but my ignorance of psychology (and psychobabble) prevents me from even suggesting any diagnosis. Equally, I can only note that Cla's efforts in military history are well regarded, but I have no expertise in that area. . . dave souza, talk

Ocaasi, NPOV=SPOV. Case closed. You'll get a better reception over with the editor with 14 blocks to his name. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore Ocaasi, I've never once called you or anyone a Fringe Troll. But you and others seem to hallucinate things like this. Hard to really take you seriously when you make such a personal attack (yes, inventing things that I say is a personal attack, just more passive aggressive). Yes, I know MEDRS and other FRINGE bashing guidelines don't give you enough space to say that Psychic powers exist. Oh well, so sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Say what

Thank you for your comments on my attempted contributions to HIV Test. I am not attempting to break Wikilaw. Amy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoan57 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ani

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your attack on Periannan Senapathy at WP:ANI per WP:BLP. It is absolutely unacceptable to refer to article subjects in such terms, and if you repeat it I will block you. If you continue to be uncivil I will also block you, and that includes gratuitous swearing even if not directly targeted at another editor. "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." Please tone it down. Fences&Windows 20:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you will find that the standards of acceptable behaviour have tightened since you were last here! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Fucking shit they have. Random morons can still run around unchecked for months, wasting competent editors time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

@Michael Price. You're amusing, and I don't mean that in the "ha ha ha" way.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WOW .. gotta say .. I didn't see that one coming. — Ched :  ?  21:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see the enforcement of our WP:CIVIL policy coming? Personally, i'm surprised it wasn't enforced far sooner. Silverseren^C 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ched and Silver. So, you've got nothing better to do around Wikipedia but to make some point? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

SS, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of civility, and I try to remain so. But to be perfectly blunt, this just really seems to be such a mountain/molehill issue that I'm having a hard time reconciling the heat with the light here. First and foremost, the "word" was not directed at an individual. Second, if it really is such a terrible word to be uttered, I'm wondering if we should put this up for AfD so as not to offend people. I don't have any dogs in that particular article's fight, and to be honest, I actually tend to stand on the opposite end of "religious/creationist vs. evolutionist" issues than OM; however, I don't edit those articles either because much of my beliefs require a "leap of faith", and unless we get into using refs from (nevermind)... I digress. I greatly admire OM's dedication to our project, and admire the work he's done on so very many medical and scientific articles. I just don't see this as being worthy of being risen to the level of acrimony that it has. Don't get me wrong, I see it in religious, scientific, political, and nationalistic articles all the time .. but no .. that just was not block-worthy IMHO.

Well, I had been looking for a reason to stop by and say "Welcome Back" OM ... sorry it comes on the heels of such ... [if I don't post it I won't have to redact it] Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ched...thanks. I know. "Fuck" (note that it's in quotes DGG, not meant as a Personal Attack on anyone on Wikipedia) is just a word. Actually, I wonder what people would think if I were blocked for using "fuck" as long as I don't say "fuck you" to some random editor. Note again DGG, "fuck you" was in quotes, not intended or used as a personal attack on anyone on this project.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• OM, if you want my advice (and there's no indication that you do), just chill. The Ducks are on TV tonight, right? Have a beer, watch the game, and chat with people you consider rational and sane. You can always come back and get blocked tomorrow. :P MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I hate the Ducks! LOL. And the Dodgers are now being run by MLB! Did you see that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Everybody hates the Ducks, but I figured you might root for them out of some sense of shared SoCal identity. As for the Dodgers, they're now the General Motors of baseball. As much as I enjoyed watching them get pwned in NLCS after NLCS, I couldn't even tell you who plays for the Dodgers anymore, now that Manny's gone. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Apparently, they do have some good fighters in the parking lot. Frank McCourt attempted to buy the Red Sox. Not that the Sox are looking that good this year, but they are infinitely better run than the Dodgers. Oh wait? Am I guilty of a BLP attack on McCourt? Please admins, forgive me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• OM, you'll probably find this comment piling on, but it's not intended as such. The tensions between 'fringe' and 'anti-fringe' editors have dramatically reduced in the past few months in my opinion--although admittedly not in the hottest locations--but in some generally better patterns of productive non-accusatory discussions between 'sides'. I found your recent interactions regarding my edits to be pretty negative and unmediated and counter to that generally productive trend. I don't doubt you believe such reactions are your best weapon to protect the encyclopedia, and I don't think you should stop trying to protect the encyclopedia necessarily, but perhaps you could choose a different tool. Ocaasi ^c 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Piling on to what? A couple of Admins that are mad at me? It happens. As for your point, it's dramatically reduced because EVERY good editor gets run out of town. As for your other points, whatever. You haven't earned my trust. Not that you should or even care. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• First a delayed welcome back. You don't know me (I think), but it is good to see you editing again. Next, the policy change to really watch out for is in wp:blp; it has grown and become stricter in recent years. You are reasonably likely to encounter it, because the new expanded wp:blp policy is often used as a weapon by wiki-savvy pushers of fringe POVs, sometimes in coordinated fashion. Cardamon (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cardamon, hey. Actually, I wouldn't have done it, because of BLP, which I actually respect. I should have called the theory names, I suppose. It's interesting because Parallel Genome Assembly is the theory, which I find just weird, has had its contents moved to the author's page. But still, very little is sourced. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A serious welcome back from someone who finds himself arguing with British skeptics who should know better who want akeptics to abandon Wikipedia as the fringe are going to win. We need you, but years of experience here and elsewhere have taught me that personal insults are usually counterproductive although they make you feel a lot better sometimes! Certainly I've felt like making some in the last 24 hours. But it doesn't really help in the long run. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey DGG and Fences&Windows

Apparently, not everyone agreed. What a waste of a day. But the drama was fun. Maybe not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What a day indeed. Jesus fucking Christ six ways to Sunday. Does it entertain you that the shit that comes off your keyboard led to at least 3 fucking threads on ANI in a single day, a few hours of furious typing by pissed off people, and further harm to the constantly sore relationships in this relatively small and emotionally hypersensitive (but exceedingly important) community? Are you doing it for the lulz? II | (t - c) 01:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you and I don't see eye to eye on much. And you nearly messed up my laptop when I fell onto the ground laughing. This was one of the best comments ever. I'm going for the world record tomorrow. Oh wait, I'm traveling. It'll have to wait until next week. I'm going to explore a Holocene volcanic crater in southern california. Maybe I'll take some pictures, write the article, and try not to drop an F-bomb. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you drink like a sailor you won't feel compelled to type like one? II | (t - c) 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the most constructive suggestion anyone has made so far. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way F&W has lost it -- see here where he threatens to block an Arb, in fact an Arb who is actually sane and honest. I think he is cracking under the strain. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

F&W appears to be involved in several drive-by shootings. Threatening an Arb? OK, you have to admire the balls, but how long are they going to be an admin with this. What these admins and other non-contributing editors don't know and should know after my 5 years of doing this is that I'm not a fucking idiot. Not even close.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the more amusing exchanges in this drama.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• DGG is a good person. His take on most things is very different from mine, but his heart's in the right place and he's a good editor and admin. I don't think I've interacted with Fences&Windows much, but he seems intelligent, and someone who likes Naomi Klein can't be all bad. I guess what I'm suggesting is to cut them some slack and just let this die down. There aren't really any bad guys here, and everyone's time could be better spent doing... well, pretty much anything else. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what he wrote? That's not a good person, it's someone who has a closed mind, and who obviously didn't look at the whole situation correctly. Did you notice how they dropped all pretense of being high and mighty once the tide turned against their desire to be destructive? They should have shut down the drama immediately, but DGG didn't. He's now on the list of admins that absolutely cannot be trusted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, you know I respect the hell out of you. But these articles are getting worse, and I know it's just not me, it's the hundreds of editors that I used to see around here watching over the place. I think this place has been taken over by pod people. Why does it matter what I do, as long as I make FA's, GA's, DYK's, etc.? Why do I have drama, and no one is dealing with the over-the-top ridiculous IP editor at Causes of autism???? If DGG had his heart in the right place (and I'd want an ultrasound for verification), why doesn't he deal with the Mr. Tendentious IP? I'm frustrated. And I shouldn't be frustrated, as you are aware. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor is now saying Andrew Wakefield is a victim. And this is what Wikipedia has come to. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think MastCell has a point. Although I probably disagree with DGG on substance far more often than I agree with him, he's an OK guy. Similar for Fences&Windows though I'm not as familiar with him. (There are lots of people around here whom I often disagree with yet still respect, but I'll stop here.) My comment above about F&W "cracking under the strain" wasn't as flippant as it might have sounded. The whole episode had an air of certain otherwise sane people flapping around in a "think of the children" tizzy. Just another day on Wikipedia.

Spoiler alert from The Big Lebowski:

The Stranger: I like your style, Dude.

The Dude: Well, I dig your style too, man...

The Stranger: There's just one thing, Dude.

The Dude: What's that?

The Stranger: Do you have to use so many cuss words?

The Dude: What the fuck you talking about?

The Stranger: (chuckles) Okay, Dude. Have it your way.

The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it. I've got to pick up the DVD this weekend. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, don't get worked up about causes of autism. You're like this guy. Just let it go. The IP is wrong, but Talk:Causes of autism isn't the right venue to challenge his reasoning. If you feel compelled, you can take it up on the IP's talk page, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that it will end happily. Don't keep responding at Talk:Causes of autism. The onus is on the IP to convince other editors of the value of his content suggestions. The off-topic nonsense will die down if no one plays into it; WP:SHUN contains some good advice in this regard.

At this point, the IP seems to think that "I read some figures along these lines on ageofautism.blogspot.com" is a reliable source for medical content. If inappropriately sourced inaccuracies start to make their way into the article, then let me know and I will be happy to intervene, but at present it looks like the encyclopedia's normal defense mechanisms against nonsense are functional. So don't get too worked up. It's just another day at the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit As A Basic Human Right. The autism article content has been remarkably stable and high-quality, and there are still people dedicated to maintaining its high quality. It'll be OK. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I need some drugs to be as patient as you are. And yeah, there is some wrong information on the internet. LOL. And we tried his talk page. It didn't work.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

American Family Association 3RR

FYI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know, didn't realize it until after I did the revert—my bad. But the whitewashing (and when I say whitewashing, I'm being so literal) of the article goes on. 3RR sucks when you've got 4 or 5 POV pushers who protect the article, and there's a couple of us trying to make a balanced, notable and well-cited change. They are a hate group, as described by numerous sources.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, they can only revert 3 times as well. :-) It wasn't a 3RR vio in your case -- just the third one, beyond which it _would_ be a vio. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if there are 4 "theys", "they" get 12 reverts. Isn't that called wheel-warring?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Tag teaming", I think. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Nope, just edit warring. This is wheel warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OM, I think you should not try to protect the article through reverts. Instead, make your 3 reverts and then place your own notification at WP:3RRN. If necessary, the page can be locked while discussion happens and more editors come to the page for dispute resolution. That said, 3RR doesn't apply to BLP vios, copyright vios, or vandalism, so if it rises to that you're okay. But if it's just bad editing or POV editing, you should get a few more eyes/admins involved. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between protecting and going against consensus. Ocaasi ^c 17:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on, OM. It's not like there's a central project organized on the basis of political ideology where these editors coordinate their efforts. That would be borderline-inappropriate.

By the way, you're dealing with editors who have accumulated multiple blocks for edit-warring and sockpuppetry in the service of their political ideology. In such cases, it's always best to avoid being drawn in. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought only Boris and Dr. Connelly engaged political ideology. I'm shocked. Just shocked. And it figures that someone with NY Yankees in their name is a tool.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Googled the AFA and found their targets have included Mighty Mouse[3] and SpongeBob Squarepants.[4] I'll sleep better tonight knowing they are watching over our great nation. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Spongebob kind of freaks me out. And why the hell did my spellchecker accept "Spongebob"? The world is coming to an end. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for them to attack Rick Santorum, on the basis of his association with, well, santorum. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OHHHH Man .. that's just nasty!!! ... lol — Ched :  ?  12:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WPI Chit-chat and follow-up

OM, I rarely forget forget to indent. In this case the previous post was mine and my point was a codicil, so there seemed no point.

I don't think that we want to get into a Popperesque debate, but of course one can believe strongly that the scientific method works, that its application has brought great benefits to humanity; that peer-reviewed systemic research will make its way towards a better version of the "truth"; that reference to expert peer-reviewed sources is far safer than making or repeating claims without checking the actual evidence. Can you think of a better label for this attitude? Can you actually find any evidence of where I haven't acted in this way?

If you look at this recent series of changes to WPI and XMRV for example, and there must have been perhaps 50 here: how many have I actually challenged? A couple. The majority needed to be made since the articles were getting a little stale, and I've said that in the talk pages. But I don't think that editors should do "better than" the sources; they should stick to the meaning and where in doubt the actual wording of the RS. I still dislike content which could be viewed as an (implicit) personal attack of any individual in WP unless it has strong relevance to the article and is supported by multiple independent sources, but at least for the first time this "tending bar" wording actually reflects the source wording. I did some background research to get a good idea of the true story and from this I see that the actual wording is a carefully crafted anecdote that just skirts around falsehood. It has been repeat by no other RS. Yes as K says, OR is not admissible, but further "enhancement" of the RS does cross that line, IMHO. As to the actual MEDRS based content, if you look at the recent edit histories you will see that I've done quite a few edits (usually reverts of deletions) against the 'WPI position'.

If I really was a POV exploiting SPA where K was acting as 'the bastion of my corrupting articles with my POV views', then what did I do to these articles during K's wikibreak -- nothing very much other than support the addition of a few new references. Did their slant materially change during this break or did I unreasonably obstruct other edit content? No.

I have done a lot of edits on XMRV and WPI over the last 18 months or so, but the main reason for my high number of edits is that K is prolific editor and responding to these and discussing the reasons and validity in the talk pages generates a lot of edits. It's just that my other interests on WP aren't controversial, so edits stick and comments are accepted with little debate: they generate a low transaction rate. These unsupported accusations of POV, SPA, cabal, ... being littered everywhere; I find this all gets really very tedious. I just don't understand why can't we just stick to the content, or at least have a civilised debate? -- TerryE (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Tyson's & Hawking's Quotes

Hi Orangemarlin, you may not have seen the discussions on the Talk Page re the proposal to replace Hawking's quote with Tyson's that started last month. If you feel there is a good case supporting Tyson's quote, could you please address the various shortcomings that have been have been raised by me and other editors on the Talk Page under the Heading Does Tyson's opinion add to the page?. Robert Currey talk 09:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation science is not science

Oh fuck. How much you want to bet that this degree will be used as prima facie evidence that either a) the Texas legislature is batshit insane, or b) Creationism is a science. Could be both. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

wow, even money on both, tough call.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, Jake. It's Texas. MastCell ^Talk 03:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm ever to play Trivial Pursuit again, you are on my team. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So that was two years ago, did that law go the way of the Indiana Pi Bill? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Give Leo Berman a break. He's been busy. For instance, he's proposing a bill which would allow Texans to arrest and imprison anyone upholding the Affordable Care Act (Texas House Bill #297). He's also angling for the position of birther-in-chief, which is pretty tightly contested these days. After all, "The latest rumor I hear, and I don’t know if this is true or not, is that [Obama] used about 25 different Social Security numbers." According to the New York Times, "Mr. Berman said he got his information from e-mail and online video clips. 'YouTubes [sic] are infallible,' he said." ([5]). He's only one man, so perhaps you can understand if the taxpayer-subsidized Masters in Creation Science program has fallen onto the back burner. MastCell ^Talk 06:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The youtubes are infallible. Well, we've got some work on redefining reliable sources. I will now upload a video to youtube which will say "Wikipedia is a lie". Once that becomes an infallible and reliable source, Wikipedia will implode. It will be legendary! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Stephen Colbert once said: just because the Pope is infallible doesn't mean he can't be wrong. MastCell ^Talk 06:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

^{[Not intended to be a factual statement]} - 2/0 (cont.) 07:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The KKK is not batshit insane

Ku Klux Klan Says It Doesn't Condone Tea Party or Koran Burning. That's it. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Have this...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You really made me laugh out loud with "I'm probably one of the least nice people on Wikipedia, so spending even a nanosecond giving advice is way out of my standard operating procedure." (And on a serious note, it was a great attempt to help) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Boing! Oh, the irony.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Swearing in public

Please avoid that [6] - doesn't help our mission. Veteran editors are expected to be an example. Materialscientist (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "swearing" can be censored. You might have a point about the "mission", but I find it useful to just swear instead of ripping into stupid POV-pushing editors. I consider it a good compromise for my mental well-being around this place. However, I hope that I didn't offend you. That would not be my intent. I spent three hours last night fixing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. I read citations, fixed links, removed dead links, looked up quotes, copyedited, etc. The article may not be perfect, but just do a diff from when I started until the most recent edit. I actually do work around this place, as opposed to a lot of admins (yourself not included in that group) and most of the POV-pushing crowd who seem to sit around ANI or Arbcom whining about the way they're treated, then write long, incredibly boring, dissertations because they're little narcissistic fucktards who thinks they're ramblings on Arbcom make them important. I do the dirty work on articles. I get my fingernails dirty around here. I read articles intensely. So, when I get pissed, I'm not going to use the cutesy, Wikipedia-speak that means nothing to the shitty editor. I'm going to say "fucking bullshit." However, I'll try to keep the f-bombs limited to a few a day. Just because you asked nicely. And please, no one should expect me to be an example for anything around here. Except for actually creating and editing articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we do need to spill out wikistress (I step away from PC and do some sports :). Swearing doesn't bother me personally, but it helps "polite" IPs to look better in disputes. Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think almost everyone around this place is used to me. My real life is 100X more stressed, so Wikipedia is actually calming. Yeah, that might be difficult to see clearly. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Random compliment

I never did get around to taking you of my watchlist after our exchange on the Ian Plimer article. As a result, I've been following quite a few of your exchanges. I get the feeling that you're not the barnstar receiving type, so I'll just leave this as a random compliment on your editing. It's a little unorthodox at times, but that's not always a bad thing. "Grotesque but useful, like a chair made out of antlers." I hope you're around here for a long time to come. --Thepm (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have a few Barnstars. I'm more into getting FA's, GA's and such. Those mean a lot to the whole project. But thanks anyways. Unorthodox? I like that! Now I'll have to look up Ian Plimer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

wth man?

"Bronze Age Book of Myths, Fairytales, and Folklore"? "Jewish Zombie King who never existed"? Wow- those comments are worthy of a religion message board troll! I don't know whether to slap you or shake your hand. Discussing religion on talk pages is completely inappropriate, but deliberately insulting people's religious beliefs? Not cool. There's a place for that and it isn't Wikipedia. Please refrain from making comments like that in the future, as they're inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (I'll leave the moral bit to your judgment). Regards, Swarm ^X 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs fuck up Wikipedia. Evidence counts. Period. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. I probably should be offended that you called me a troll of religious message boards. I don't troll anything. It was really meant as a very nasty retort to the Xtian twit who posted some bullshit about Anglo Pyramidologist's "testimony" and how we non-believers blah blah blah. THAT was offensive to me. Why is it I have to be so nice to Xtians, yet no one has to watch their P's and Q's around us atheists? So, I've decided to screw political correctness. Unless, you want to drop a warning on the religious people to not troll with their comments on Wikipedia? Fair is fair, you know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps wp:CSB can help. I've been noting the uneven hand applied to honorifics in biographical article titles myself. It seems the clearest guideline is wp:Naming conventions (Islam-related articles) and its subpage Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/clergy. The kinda-corresponding wp:Naming conventions (clergy) and wp:Naming conventions (Indic) are problematic. Hence we have "Pope", "Saint", "Sri", "Baba", "Swami" etc cropping up in article titles all over the wretched biography-sphere.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't get worked up about these things. I really find it offensive when someone says something religious me. But, no one cares. So, back to Alzheimer's disease. I'm concerned about that RNA oxidation cause. Not sure it's legitimate, but it certainly seems controversial. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that whole thread that stemmed from your comments was inappropriate. But "being on the side of science" doesn't give you a free pass to insult everyone who believes differently than you. From what I can tell, Baseball Bugs simply suggested that 'Christianity and evolution aren't necessarily incompatible' (an extremely benign statement in the context of religion). There was no provocation for your nasty comments on his talk page. Also, I didn't call you a troll, I was just suggesting that your comments are something you would more likely hear from an atheist troll than a Wikipedia volunteer. Regardless of the merits of your viewpoint, we can only tolerate so much name calling and deliberate insults before it becomes impossible to maintain any collaborative environment whatsoever. Regards, Swarm ^X 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm extremely insulted by all religious comments. It offends me at the core. But I'm a thick-skinned person, so I just ignore it, but going forward, I guess I better not. I'll have to start reporting these insults to you, because you've decided that you're going to be the judge and jury on this point. Again, you're either going to be absolutely fair, or you're not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See, that's the problem: you don't ignore it. If you did, like you should, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your attitude that 'all religious comments extremely insult you' is concerning, but I'll simply leave you with the reiteration of my original statement: please don't insult people, even if you think they deserve it. Thanks. Swarm ^X 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere. So, to save you the trouble of putting up one of those drama-fest AN/I's that just drive all of us crazy, I'll consider your recommendations. Lucky for me and you, I do a lot of fucked up things, but my comment to Baseball Bugs was just making a point. It shouldn't happen very frequently. But honestly, we either apply this political correctness in all areas, or, so that we don't end up censoring each other, move away from it. I'll turn down the volume level of my snarkiness on religion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very cool, I appreciate it. Swarm ^X 00:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, only parts of it date to the Bronze Age, and it's a collection of scrolls that happen to be bound into a book for modern purposes (like I need to tell you that :) I actually got my first close-up look at a Torah scroll last fall. A relatively new one - it was just over a century old, iirc. Very cool, btw.) Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but it kind of messes up my alliteration. Besides, hyperbole is fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole and a Half is even more fun Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Orangemarlin. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease

April 28, 2011

Hi!,Orangemarlin,

I like you to clarify about what do you mean about reliable source.

If you discover or invent something new, you don't have any reliable source except the U.S. Patent Office . They give you a patent after a thorough peer review by their scientist.

Just like mine. I discovered the most important functions of carbonic anhydrase Enzymes. It's role in aging,disorders of aging,cancer,including alzheimer's disease and their treatment.The Patent Office verified it so they gave me the grant-U.S. Patent #7858602

So, How will I get RELIABLE SOURCES in cases of NEW DISCOVERIES and or NEW INVENTIONSVRodrig110 (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Even Legos.

Arrrrrggggggghhhhhhh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, market share/diversification yada yada yada....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hasta la vista bin Laden

Well, we're done with that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

?????....(sounds of internetz pages ruffling) oh wow...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

News moves slowly to the Land of Oz apparently. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I'm seeing coverage in UK, Oz, Germany but for whatever reason not the major French papers (LeMonde.fr, LeFigaro.fr). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame.... (said with a Seinfeld voice...) Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have the CBC on. No commercial interruptions. About the only thing to overtake the general election and Stanley Cup playoffs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LeMonde. Not as good as TASS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I found ITAR-TASS' coverage rather cursory myself, although their Russian-language material on Bin Laden's "liquidation" (old terms die hard) is more substantial. The most trusted name in news depicts people reading about Bin Laden's demise in other newspapers, a curiously self-effacing marketing tactic. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Liquidation. Very old school. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Acupuncture

FYI, there's a discussion involving you taking place on the Talk:Acupuncture page. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jess, I appreciate your updating me. However, Ludwig2's obsession with me makes it a very hostile place to edit. His edit warring accusation was bad enough, but his constant badgering, hounding and otherwise uncivil commentary just makes it easier for me to find another place to edit. Frankly, I'm concerned with his obsession with me. I'll edit Acupuncture once he's either blocked, or, if he isn't, I'll actually edit other articles. Which is what I usually do. I'm working on my third FA right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Orangemarlin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— —GFOLEY FOUR— 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Swearing in public, above

Cutesy Wikipediaspeak, huh? That reminds me somewhat of this talkpage thread, where Iridescent defines such speech very nicely. See also Wikipedia:Bradspeak, a short yet incredibly boring dissertation! Feel free to embiggen! :-) Bishonen | talk 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

Iridescent could work for the State Department. Very well crafted, and in the world of Bradspeak, we could translate the question to "are you that daft?" I don't intend to embiggen the conversation at this time.  :) However, any further sightings of Pigzilla, Godzilla, or Bishzilla will require me say: "what the fuck?" OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE RESPECT INUSE TAGS!

Sorry to be shouting, but what you just did is a real annoyance: you edited right into a major edit for which I put an inuse tag on the page, an edit I had announced on the talk page very clearly. That pisses me off, because now I have to go and check if you fucked over any of the stuff I did, or if I have to go back and adapt whatever you did. Can't you be a tiny bit patient? HMallison (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

dinosaur OK, this did not interfere with what I did . Phew! Please do wait until I take off the inuse tag, though! HMallison (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you failed to look at my 30,000 edits and that I probably knew how to work around your edits. Not that I give two shits about your civility (as a matter of fact, I appreciated your brutal honesty), but seriously, why would I fuck up what you're doing? I wouldn't. I only have a limited time to deal with shit, and I knew I wouldn't screw you up.  :) So there. Go back to your work. Looks too hard for me to even attempt. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not fail to look. Your arrogance and condescending tone give away that you (believe you) are a wikigod. However, I have seen such people fuck up as well. Go ahead and blame me for not trusting anyone - I don't trust myself. Also, please remember that you are setting an example for users with much less experience. Users who may NOT be able to make sure they do not fuck up. HMallison (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude. I do not think I'm a wiki-god. I'm an atheist for one thing.  :) However, I can point you to some real arrogant fucktards who think they are Wiki-gods, literally. Really, I'm actually being nice and obsequious to you! I like what you are doing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also...good use of fuck. As you noted, it's well tolerated on this page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A here as well :P And I did not intend to insult you or anything, real sorry if I did! HMallison (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got goofy admins who think they can block me for saying "fuck". I've got a couple of editors who hound and stalk me rather than actually doing work on the project, and file a weekly ANI or something because I reverted their useless POV edits. Your getting pissed because I might have fucked up your editing, well I probably deserved it. It takes a lot to insult me. Now if you said my citations were worthless....well, them's fighting words. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, batch 5 done, rest will get done ASAP ;)

And, being German, I edit here because de.wikipedia has triple (or higher) the rate of the people you describe than this place.... go figure... :D HMallison (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the editors who hounds me is German. Go figure.  :) In the real world, I deal with homeopaths, many of whom are German. Seems like the country that gave us so many brilliant scientists wouldn't believe in homeopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

AARGH! Haunted by a PC-German? That SUCKS! And don't get me started about fraud homeopathy.... I am a biologist and geologist, my wife is a surgeon, I guess you can guess what we think about the topic! The German pestilence! HMallison (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I once told off a German homeopath that their view of medicine was tantamount to murder. They said that physicians were murderers for giving poisons to cure cancer. Well, yes oncology does require cell killing medicines, but water is going to do less. Ummm....it is fraud! I knew you were a good editor! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And now get your ass over the Plateosaurus and do the dirty work for me ;) HMallison (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanna see Plateosaurus at FAC before too long...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cas....Do I get the special Wikipedia FA bonus check for helping? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Whaddya want - a medal or a chest to pin it on?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice inre: pseudoscience arbitration ruling

Orangemarlin. This notice is simply to remind you that acupuncture falls under the broad pseudoscience arbitration ruling to be found here, which places the page under more restrictive editing requirements. Your recent actions on that article and talk page may be subject to sanction or restriction under that ruling; in particular, you appear to have been failing to observe proper talk page procedures, may have engaged in tendentious editing and edit warring, may be supporting the misuse of sources to introduce misinformation into the article, and may have violated policies on civility and personal attacks.

This is simply a notice, as well as a request that you take somewhat greater care with your actions on this article than you might in a more relaxed environment. You may delete it at your leisure. thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I consider this false accusation to be a borderline personal attack. Attempting to remove POV, unsupported edits are not considered tendentious by any stretch of the definition. Your accusations of edit warring were summarily dismissed, despite your numerous attempts to prove otherwise. Your constant personal attacks, hounding my user talk, and other uncivil actions, including threats and name calling, is inappropriate and provides a hostile atmosphere. You have been asked by Arbcom to reduce the drama around here, but it continues. The fact remains that my original edits were solidly supported by reliable sources from medical journals. I respectfully ask you to refrain from stalking and hounding me any further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture is not one of the articles covered by WP:ARBPS, as has been pointed out elsewhere. If he is still confused by all this, Ludwigs2 can seek clarification from individual members of ArbCom or put in a Request for clarification. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

IP

What's up with this edit? I take it this IP is someone we know? Prodego ^talk 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro Acupuncture POV pushing IP. Thinks he's doing a good job. I don't have the patience for POV pushing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

He deserved a better reply than that. Prodego ^talk 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No he doesn't deserve anything of the sort from me. However, if you think you can dissuade him from his pseudoscience POV, more power to you. In my few years of doing this, I predict he will be blocked in a few days or weeks for something. It's how it works. You all think that IP's and new editors deserve good faith, but only a tiny (and when I say tiny, I'm thinking less than 1%) ever become very useful. I guess I'm not the kind of guy who holds hands and helps these editors. BTW, you must know me by now that I'm going to be a snarky little fucktard no matter what anyone says. But I guess you have to try. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You can respond in a way to dissuade POV editing without being outright rude. POV is in the eye of the beholder anyway. AGF isn't a policy because it is fun to indulge ill-intentioned editors, it is a policy because sometimes we see what we want to see when an editor really is just a clueless newbie. And we were all clueless newbies once. Even if he is editing with a POV, you should at least respond telling him what he is doing wrong. Prodego ^talk 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone deserves a chance to prove that they shouldn't have been given a chance. :P Seriously. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true. I'm not sure how you intended it, but everyone does deserve a chance to prove that they shouldn't (or should) have been given a chance. Prodego ^talk 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a serious thought, albeit I expressed it whimsically. It's better to give people space to prove that they're single-purpose agenda accounts, rather than to assume it upfront. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Prodego. I wasn't a clueless newbie. I actually asked questions of other editors. I remember trying to figure out Twinkle. Even a couple of weeks ago, I couldn't figure out how to do a conversion template right, posted a question, got it answered, fixed an article. Some noob who pushes a POV edit on Acupuncture deserves full on derision. I do the same thing to IP editors on Evolution, Homeopathy, everywhere. It wasn't a matter of not doing the edit right. It was a matter that we don't need POV pushing editors running about. We've got enough of those who already cause shitloads of trouble. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. An IP was asking for help. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:DTTR. How dare you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ebe123 has only been around since last year, and so probably hasn't bumped into you much. In his/her experience you wouldn't be a regular. Tea? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Coffee only here. The stronger the better! Well, now Ebe123 is going to get one of my snarky comments on their talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My bet. Ebe123 is going to drop an ANI, or WQA, some admin is going to bitch at me, the POV pushing crowd will cheer, and I will continue to do the dirty work around this place. Or not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not likely, check the rate of contribs. It's (TW) and move on. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. I'm not a big fan of the drama queens around this place. Speaking of which, I don't know if you participate or watch Chronic fatigue syndrome or Whittemore Peterson Institute, but there's been a huge kerfuffle and drama about XMRV's being present in CFS patients (and I'm one of those that think CFS is merely a misdiagnosed something else). So, a few days ago, there was a newly published article in the Journal of Virology which debunked it thoroughly. I mean not with one of those "we need more research to confirm our findings", it was like "NO freaking way." Of course, only one place, WPI, was pushing the XMRV theory, and they were using anti-retrovirals off label to treat CFS. So, the civil POV pushers were there, Keepcalmandcarryon was doing his very nice job in standing up to them, and I was cranky, because I've seen this way too many times. Anyways, check it out. It is a story on how things are done around here, and how mostly, almost always in fact, the scientific paradigm stands. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're edit.

Can you explain how my edit wasn't neutral? I added both sides of the argument by stating the YEC's opinion regarding the theory of evolution, and how they disagree with the theory. We need both sides of opinions regarding YEC in order to make the page neutral. I'm not saying YEC is correct. I just wanted the page to be fair. It sounds like you're the one being biased. Can you explain? Thanks. Give me a message. User:Nashhinton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.129.227 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (Continued)... Nevermind. Take care. User:Nashhinton

OrangeMarlin is edit? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I edit. Therefore I am. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Icahn has cheezburger"? Know, weight: "Get you're haught dawgs' write hear." LeadSongDog come howl! 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Humor

In no way were my comments, in any interpretation, fucking supportive of the New York Yankees. Ward20 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that's funny! Look, my comments were hyperbole at WPI. You missed the point, which was, a bunch of people were getting all worked up about bartending and blah blah blah, but the point was and continues to be....no evidence for a link between XMRV and CFS. In fact, now there is solid evidence against a link. There was a huge kerfuffle, yet the science stood. It's difficult enough to prove that CFS exists, in fact, I'm in the group that thinks it's merely undiagnosed something else. WPI was advocated for whatever nefarious or honorable reasons, but they didn't bring the science. This happens a lot on Wikipedia. A group of people think that Zeus has spoken to the masses, and we must put it in the article. Then, some time later, oops. It's not true. It's Andrew Wakefield over and over and over and over and over. And I've heard that all researchers at the WPI are Yankees fans. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard they were mostly Toronto Maple Leaf and or Boston Bruin fans that stole my baseball team and moved it to Washington. Which of course begs the question 'Washington has a baseball team?'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it used to beg the question of "Montreal has a baseball team?" Leafs fans are actually more annoying than Yankees fans. The Leafs are still whining about some non-penalty on the Great One in the 90's. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, they're Canadian. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadians are so nice. Hard to pick on them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We had a baseball team, but the damned 1994 thing.... alas, I am still pissed by that whole thing. I miss my team (cue violins, or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFX92ALqxlk ...) Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember that season. Damn lockout. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rusty, Pedro and Vlad. Some of my favorites. Nice video. I went to one game at the O in the late 80's. Packed crowd. My Quebecker friend cracked me up with descriptions of the game. As I recall, a pop-up was les chandel. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

La chandelle yeah. Hell I remember games at Jarry Parc too. Damn damn damn. Now all I have is teams to cheer against, not for.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

L'office québécois de la langue française "don't get no respect". LeadSongDog come howl! 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

La/les. I hate languages with genders. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But then, genders and different forms for different persons (Ich gehe, du gehst, er/sie/es geht,.....) can be very helpful! I, for one, just got a scientific publication out of an American not being able to distinguish singluar and plural forms! :) HMallison (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

One's spousen may not always agree that plural/singular distinctions are dispensible. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and let us remember English has conquered the world! Except for Canada. Never understood that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The fans of les bleu, blanc et rouge know why. If they lose on the ice, they just continue the fight in the street. Hell, even if they win on the ice they'll riot just for practice. Where do you think Cap'n Kirk learned that when the game is unwinnable, you change the rules? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

LSD, you surprise me. I thought you were just a medical geek. Now I know you are a hockey and Star Trek geek. What else? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just intonation ('cause physics just demands it), history ('cause repeating it is just dumb),... Hell! I must have some kind of commitment issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think editors should visit and edit a wide range of articles. Not that I could ever understand what JI is. Sheesh. I have a very strong background in cardiology. I think I tried to edit an article in interventional cardiology or something. Just so much I wanted to write. Gave up. Never touch them again. I think Boris and MastCell should edit Manchester United. I'm sure that would be easy. No controversy. Never any edit wars. And I'm sure the article can benefit from their deft touch. Besides a team called "United" sounds vaguely Marxist. The are known as the Red or something.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A yank bought 'em and teh supportes made a protest team instead...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It could have been worse... they were almost bought by some parvenu from the Antipodes. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR

You're currently in violation of the 1RR on abortion-related articles; I recommend you revert yourself to avoid a block. The dispute will be worked out soon enough. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How could I be in violation of something that I never knew existed? I've been warned. I'll stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting a topic banned editor. I think I'm all right.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I came here to warn you about that very same thing. The 1RR is in the article editnotice; please do take the time to read those. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Who reads that stuff? :P OK, I can't self revert, even though I reverted a banned editor, because another editor with an "opinion" decided to revert me. This is kind of silly. Can we just call it a day? Please? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

answered on article talk page. Yes, be done already. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a right wing tool, if no one has noticed. Liberals need a Wiki that actually uses science and knowledge rather than opinion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dombrowski

"...the privileging of scientific knowledge in our society is not neutral or innocent because it disprivileges other sorts of ‘knowledge’ such as intuitions, traditions, and personal experience." If Dombrowski is correct, and I think he's taken the Post-Modernist meme too far, NPOV on Wikipedia is wrong. So a Homeopath who says his 200C dilution works should be trusted more than real science? And it appears anti-intellectual. Privileging? Does that mean science is somehow immune from criticism? Is it a class war? It almost appears that he's saying that the neutrality and method of science supports the ingrained class. I'm dumbfounded. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, working in a University I hear bullshit like this all of the time. My daughter, 10 at the time, said to me once 'so these people believe there is no truth?' 'Yes honey, exactly', 'so that is their truth then...' and she trailed off. I am not sure I have ever been prouder of the kid. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But if she's a Leafs' fan...well, gonna have to say you failed. Hehehehehe. 01:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Perish the thought..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You should really read Solar, by Ian McEwan. Definitely not McEwan's best work, but it's worth it for the scenes in which the protagonist (a Nobel-prize-winning physicist) is confronted by a postmodernist academic who argues that genes are merely patriarchal social constructs rather than concrete entities:

Beard had heard rumours that strange ideas were commonplace among liberal arts departments. It was said that humanities students were routinely taught that science was just one more belief system, no more or less truthful than religion or astrology. He had always thought that this must be a slur against his colleagues on the arts side. The results surely spoke for themselves. Who was going to submit to a vaccine designed by a priest?

Anyhow, the point (insofar as there is a point beyond justifying the employment of humanities faculty) is not that homeopathy is "better" than real science. It's that science makes certain assumptions about the existence of an objective reality, and about the primacy of logic and empiricism as the routes to understanding.

Personally, I've found that such ideas are most appealing to people who tried but failed to grasp organic chemistry or differential calculus, and are thus best understood in Freudian terms as reaction formation. But, as always, xkcd said it best. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I might have to read this book. Sounds fascinating, even though you give it a marginal review. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Atonement is his best, followed probably by Saturday or The Comfort of Strangers. Don't see the movies or read the plot synopses on Wikipedia. You'd probably like Saturday; one of its major themes is the usefulness (and limitations) of a rational, scientific approach to the world. The Comfort of Strangers is morbid but a good read. MastCell ^Talk 07:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

Hi -- I agree with you that the material you removed was not appropriate for the article, but when you are dealing with an inexperienced editor who is clearly trying to do things correctly, could you perhaps respond a little less coldly? If my first edits, which were equally weak, had met with such a response I most likely would have walked away from Wikipedia and never returned. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually going to file an SPI report. I'm having some server problems on my end, so I'm not getting high speed connection to Wikipedia. They appeared to be 4 socks, all making the same edits to the same section of the same article. Have no clue why. Also, typical of selection bias, you don't scout my edits where I assist editors. Even ones that are bit of shits. In fact, I want a pat on the back one of these days.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider this a pat on the back :-). My take was that it looked like a class project sort of thing, but of course on WP you never know. I'll make some inquiries -- I think an SPI would be premature. (For what it's worth, I'm not a stalker of anything except your talk page, and only see your edits when they show up on pages that I watch.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You know I hadn't thought of the class project thing. OK, got it. Looie, I don't consider you a stalker or anything. You're one of the good guys. Much nicer to the POV types than I'll ever be. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We've finally elicited that they are a group of students from a physiotherapy class at Queens University. Doc James is making an effort to get them a bit more organized. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm. Why did Wikipedia email me that you added this comment? This is the first time this has ever happened to me. Checked the history, nothing unusual. Hmmmmm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmhmmm. I suspect that some developer has been monkeying with Preferences. I just looked at my own, and see that one called "Email me when my user talk page is changed" shows up as checked, even though I certainly never set it that way. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, will have to fix that. Given the number of times that I get warned for something or another, my iPhone will be chiming away for hours! LOLOrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Guerttarda's page

"Yeah, that ANI was lame. Talk about WP:BOOMERANG." Oh please, sir, ya think you could save your professional annotations for some other time?Sleetman (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me a fucking break.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooo, wow swearing, tough guy. Give you a break? Will #@$%ing do. Sleetman (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You apparently failed to read the rules I posted up at the top. "Fuck" is a perfectly acceptable adverb, verb, adjective, noun, pronoun, etc. etc. on this page. And is completely legal on Wikipedia, in case you want to hit yourself in the head with another boomerang. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A-hahaaa, boomerrranng. BOOOOMMEEERRRAAAAANNNNG. You're a funny @#!$ing guy would you like a barnstar award for comic relief as well? Sorry, didn't read your rules, but I just wanted to tell you what a strange attempt at a pile-on your post at Guerttarda's page was.

But seriously, in all seriousness now, fuck thinking about hockey or medical studies or any of that shit and give comic stand-up a shot. I swear you'll be great at it. Sleetman (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So are you done? Good....deleting in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.........OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sugar pills work - some conditions apply

Surprise! LeadSongDog come howl! 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ANDROBETA

Don't bother getting into an edit war with him. He has violated the spirit of the 3RR by returning to the same behaviour that got him blocked, the moment the block expires. Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

n/m, I saw you took it to ANI. Don't forget to notify him. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I notified him. He just got a 31 hour block. It's obvious he's not going to be a useful editor. Why doesn't someone give him the indef? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't time yet. We allow people more opportunities than that to waste our time. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? It's impossible to give AGF to someone who gets off a block for 8RR and immediately goes back to edit warring. Not even creative edit-warring at that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not impossible - anything is possible, if the right person does the block. But making an indef block at this stage is a headache to justify, to defend. Most people would probably take the "give him rope" approach. Guettarda (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From ID talk page

What is "the evil ID cab"?Swmmr1928 talk 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an inside joke that is best left alone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The World Zionist and Darwinist Council comes to order

Well, this is a new one. Or I'm just not aware of the all various conspiracies.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx was a Jew. What more proof could anyone ever want? :) Guettarda (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And so are the Marx Brothers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Order what, a beer? Make mines Belhaven. But, but, they're called www.truthtellers.org so it must be true! . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Beers always. However, they will be cold. None of that warm British swill! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Warm British swill? You're thinking of English beer, the Scottish tradition is pleasantly cool but not over-chilled in that nasty modern way. And non-cooled English real ale is actually very pleasant. One oddity is that here they've introduced the option in some pubs of Guinness at a sensible temperature or excessively chilled, my Guinness drinking friends prefer the first option. Anyway, Belhaven Best suits me. . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that we Americans consider beer to be partially a thirst quencher, so we like it ice cold. I have friends who pour it over ice in the summer. OK, that's overkill. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ice cold may be pushing it a bit, and apparently there are hazards in putting beer outside a tent to cool overnight in sub-zero (Celcius) conditions and forgetting that alcohol is anti-freeze. Anyway, some lagers and the like do suit being very cold. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we Americans prefer lagers and pilsners. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		To date, the only userpage I have read with interest. jorgenev 18:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha. You might be my only fan. I know I piss off the various admins who would rather see me indefinitely blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, you scoundrel.. jorgenev 11:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)