User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 6

prostatitis

I asked for that section, though it needs to be reduced. Please check the talk page. I'll edit it and put it back tomorrow,unless you want to do that. DGG (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No go for it. It reads like cruft, especially when it starts with "proven." And the inline citations were messed up. I don't know much about Prostatitis, I was asked to watch the page long ago with respect to CAM woo. I'll admit my brain shuts off when I read the word "proven." A cursory look at the citations also shows 20 year old research. I'd think we could do better than that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Thanks for fixing all my broken redlinks. Stalker. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proud of it!!!!! Please sir, don't indef me for refactoring your poorly written, useless wikilinks!!!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bay Of Fundy

To be fair, I don't think 69.250.142.218 was vandalising the Bay of Fundy article, it was just poorly worded and uncited. If you look here; Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, you'll see that the events leading to what was diagnosed as polio start with him falling in the Bay of Fundy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Polio arises from falling into the Bay of fundy???? I'm going to check those cites. And if you know anything about me, I give no good faith to anyone, unless I know them very well. Anonymous editors get even less good faith. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not likely, but from what I've read elsewhere the suggestion was (whether accurate or not, and according to the medical knowledge of the day) that his encounter with the Bay suppressed his immune system, leaving him vulnerable to the infection. This could well be a "commonly known fact". My point was that 69.250.142.218's edit was poor, rightly reverted, but not vandalism. The anonymous editor (I suspect there's only the one) has a bad record, but has contributed in the past. So unjust accusations of vandalism are counter-productive. What happened to WP:FAITH? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm getting a little annoyed here. I give no faith to someone who writes this on their user talk page, who has been blocked several times, and who isn't a very nice person. WP:AGF means I assume it until the point the person doesn't rate it any more, and this person does not deserve anything but a permanent block. Onto the medical knowledge, it is an urban myth that being cold suppresses the immune system. If that were the case, the Vikings would have ruled some island in the South Pacific. His immune system could have been compromised by just about anything, but the polio virus is rather infectious, so it's possible he just caught it anywhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is NATURE not RS?

Hey Orangemarlin! You chose to delete my reference to a Nature article that is on the memory of water issue that is neither supportive nor antagonistic (maybe a tad more of the latter). [1] Perhaps it would have been better to ask your GOOD question on the discussion page before deleting it...still, I too will be curious what others have to say. DanaUllman^Talk 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nature is a great source. It's just that it's a "letter", which are not usually peer-reviewed and are almost always "opinions"; moreover, unless you have access to a paid subscription, it is impossible to read to full meat of the article. And I'm not sure why you used it as a source, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't say what you think it says. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<EC>Moreover, I do NOT engage in discussion sections with POV-warriors, which are rampant in this article. NO good comes from it. Tell me what you're trying to show with the article, and I will re-read it again. I cannot post it here, because it is not in the public domain, but whatever you're trying to say, I will see if the article supports it. But it is an opinion piece, not very reliable or verifiable.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be accurate it's not a letter but an editorial column. Simon Ball writes many of these for nature in as a consultant editor. As to whether Nature is a reliable source, that depends. I have seen a few examples of editorial decisions that ether go against the reviewers or use tabloid like titles and content that are inaccurate to sensationalise an issue. At the end of the day Nature are media whores and they love to publish science that hits the NEWS headlines. Consequently, anything published in Nature (or Science) needs to be viewed with a more critical eye, IMO. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's harsh. Good science can be newsworthy. Science and Nature are both peer-reviewed, which is the gold standard. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly good science can be newsworthy. But there have been bad editorial decisions, for example, a Nature editor used "Genetic Pollution" in the title of a similar op ed piece to describe hybridisation between dogs and wolves. Looked great, but is a disservice to use it inaccurately. The paper on GMO contamination of maize in mexico was published against reviewers recommendation and had to be retract. There are other examples of this rush to publish or sensationalise. Given this tendancy, I am even more careful than usual to double check incredible claims that I read in Nature.

I agree peer review is the best we have but it is not a gold standard in the sense that bad science gets through peer review. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not everything in Nature is peer-reviewed. Letters, Brief Comms, Articles (in the formal senses) will always be peer-reviewed. News stories and editorials will usually not be. Badgerpatrol (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys...I was trying to be helpful to skeptics here. The Nature editorial is more anti-homeopathy than pro-homeopathy. I used it as a reference to how mainstream science still hasn't accepted the memory of water hypothesis. In actual fact, I was showing you that I am not a POV-warrior (sorry...life isn't always so easy to categorize everything neatly)...and I am amazed that some editors are so so so conservative that they refer to Nature and Science as whores. Wow. DanaUllman^Talk 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure. Like I said, I read the article, and I was almost certain it was representing the science of homeopathy fairly, which is it isn't science.. As for Nature and Science, every single journal in the world has screwed up. I think they're fine reference sources, no different that any other peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure what David is pushing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any agenda, just noting the obvious, that even articles in a peer reviewed journal need a critical eye. That's why single papers are less useful than a body of work. As to the whores comment, it seems to be a recent phenomena and obviously just my opinion. Get a second opinion but I think you'll find many scientists will agree there is a trend towards their editors pushing stories rather than science. As orangemarlin pointed out, this is not always a bad thing. This is all relative, clearly most of the articles and letters to Nature are very high quality. David D. (Talk) 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Every reliable source is not always reliable. I'm the first to criticize NATURE, but I referenced one articulate review of some memory of water work, and even though I didn't agree with many points made, I thought that they were a reasonably responsible viewpoint of the mainstream. So, OM, is it OK for me to UNDO the undo you did? (that was a fun question, and I hope that you understand the question) DanaUllman^Talk 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

I'm now welcoming submissions for my userpage-specific version of "Did you know? If you get 3 items featured there, you get a barnstar and, probably, blocked for incivility. MastCell ^Talk 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I get blocked for incivility, I expect you to immediately unblock. It's only fair!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh... I may have opened a can of worms here. Maybe you ought to keep anything blockworthy off-wiki... I actually had a few that I typed up and then deleted as just too... er... inflammatory. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My archives are full of this type of stuff. I'll keep anything blockworthy safely archived.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how do I ad some of the treasures I've seen? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably regret this... the template is at User:MastCell/DYK, or you can just email me or leave them on my talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

simply too otheaded to o

I was gonna ask for clarification! :( El_C 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking Cockney? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

examples?

We are both listed as "oppose" to East's proposal. I am still sounding for around[2][3] positive possiblities, trying to develop worthwhile elements that might be synthesized into a real proposal. 1. I am not sure that I am familiar with example articles & specifics you may have in mind. A few wikilinked articles or debates, por favor? 2. Do you have any thought that there is a workable neutral structure and set of criteria that would break the logjam? Thanks.--I'clast (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not give specific examples, since those anti-science admins will come down on my ass. Mostly I leave them alone, and they leave me alone, which is a perfect situation. Just look over what certain admins have done to articles like Homeopathy, Water memory, and Thuja. With regards to #2, I just don't know. The logjam should be indef banning of anti-science POV warriors, but that's harsh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Courland Pocket

I have undone your removal of Soviet operations from this article. If you would like to discuss the rationale for their inclusion, please feel free to do so in the article talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

)

Conflict of interest?

I think it was rude of you to suggest that I had a “conflict of interest” in writing Drug-eluting stent. It’s not as if I am some anonymous user or hastily created account that could be a public relations representative from a pharmaceutical company; I’ve been an administrator here for three years. Nor did I ever try to exert control over the article or dissuade anyone from adding information. Back when I wrote that article a couple years ago, there were little data showing the risks of drug-eluting stents that we know today.

Couldn’t you just have worked to balance the article or tag it in a way without casting aspersions on my motivations? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Better reply. First of all, I know who you are, and I will be honest, I did not look over who wrote what. In fact, the review I did do, I found anonymous IP's from Miami Lakes, FL, home of JNJ-Cordis, which, of course, is one of the largest promoters of this product technology. The COI tag was placed because of that, not because of other editors like yourself. The article did read of advertising by JNJ, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and others. I myself cleaned it up from what I think is an NPOV nature, and from a scientific perspective. Moreover, the suggestion for the tag came from a discussion about this article specifically at WP:MEDMOS. Sorry, if I offended you, but it was not even close to intentional, and I would hope that someone would with my number of edits in medical articles would rate some level of good faith from you, as much as you from me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are pharmaceutical companies who stand to profit from promotion of these devices, and I’m sure that they will be editing the article. But that really is a horrible tag to place on the article. It might work if only one person has worked on an article (though I still think it is a terrible violation of assume good faith) but using it on an article like that is insulting to me and the other WP:MED editors who worked on it. And the accusation was hurtful precisely because it came from a user of your caliber, not from some new user upset with me removing his pseudoscience. I also note that you’ve made no move to remove the offending template, which I find disappointing. Anyone following the link from my user or talk pages, for instance, will find a large banner questioning my judgment. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove it, but I think you're overreacting considering that tag has been there for about a month, and I wouldn't intentionally insult you. It's done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

M, please be good enough to apologise to Knowledge Seeker. When he had more time he was a featured articles monster. JFW | T@lk 09:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind apologizing to anyone whom I offend. However, can someone explain to me why he's overreacting to this? Would you like my apology to be insincere, just to keep the peace? I had to go back several years to find his edits, and frankly his edits weren't the issue. There have been SEVERAL editors who do appear to have a COI. The tag does not give me the option to say, "that editor has COI and that one doesn't." I did not intentionally, unintentionally or subtly insult KS. If you want a sincere apology given to him, someone has got to explain why KS is taking this personally, when there are obvious edits to the article (which i spent time cleaning up) that are COI. This is probably THE most ridiculous discussion I have ever had on Wikipedia, and as you may know, I have had dozens of those, but usually it's with CAM or Creationist nutjobs. I ought to get good faith that I would never try to attack someone like KS. I'm really pissed about this conversation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I immediately take your word that your every move was with good faith. But I also know the feeling of getting something I wrote, even months or years later, tagged with something; feels like a punch in the solar. Call it the human side of WP:OWN. I have to agree that the discussion is approaching full marks for inclusion on WP:LAME. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are editors that I treat with disdain, and KS isn't even close to it. I guess, in my simple mind, the COI tag would be used where I see editors with a serious COI are involved. The diff between KS' last edit and the current state is rather huge. KS hasn't edited the article in over 18 months. IMHO, KS is a long way from being involved in the article anymore, and shouldn't even feel a minor flesh wound from my COI shot. In fact, if someone threw a COI tag on it, I'd take it personally, except I don't have a COI (although 10 years ago, that would be a different story). Anyways, I'm still shocked and angry about this discussion. I'm willing to take bitter medicine when I mess up. This isn't one of those times. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercy. Can I offer a bit of advice which I've found tremendously useful when working on Wikipedia? Don't take it personally, whatever "it" is. People are going to say or do things that weren't meant to be insulting, but nevertheless can be perceived that way because of the limitations of written communication -- much less the limitations of templates and such. Even when dealing with an obvious troll, taking things personally only raises your blood pressure (and your reaction delights the troll). It's not healthy to take it "like a punch in the solar" whether the offense was intended or not. Just ask "what did you mean by that?" in a non-confrontational way so that you can either debate the issue on its merits, or leave it be. There are enough stressors in life without adding a silly website to the list. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that maybe this message should be left with KS? I'm really over it. And I hope you didn't mean to imply that KS and JFW are trolls? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Maybe I should just give up writing altogether... Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, don't do that. It's cool. Let's all relax. It looks like the tag is off the article. Let's leave it off; we can deal with edits that appear obviously promotional or inaccurate without the tag. I mean, there are 5 of us commenting here, including 4 admins. Let's not get caught in friendly fire. MastCell ^Talk 03:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MC, moving back to the article, an editor has removed the tags, and is adding garbage to it. I got rid of the COI, but it is nothing but advertising. In other words, the article needs some protection, and the 4RR editor needs his butt kicked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

JFW, thank you for helping to clarify. Orangemarlin, thank you for removing the template; that was all I was asking from you, though I see that several editors whom I don’t know have continued discussing this anyway. Now I have to work on getting that template changed or deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

marlin see my talk for response. Donsmokem (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not waste time going back and forth to people's talk pages. You obviously missed my warning at the top of this page. You are also making a comment in an on going conversation, to which you are not a party. Please try to learn the etiquette of Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My my. I responded to your inquiry on my talk page. I left a breadcrumb here for you. And since this conversation seems to be entirely about the exact issue of our current edit war (ie, conflict of interest vs. neutrality and your repeatedly undoing my efforts towards that goal)... this seems to be exactly the right place to point out the appearance of a strong bias in your editorial direction on this topic. Let us take this to the discussion page of the article, if you will, and you can tell us your point of view. I think that is the proper etiquette, no? Donsmokem (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I totally lack a POV on drug-eluting stents. I firmly follow WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Second, per the previous sentence, I have no bias. Please don't attack me personally again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was busy with..

Animal testing, particularly with this rather strange request for mediation that was filed and then abandoned - that might have prompted some rather unusual interests in alternative medicine and microbiology in editors who previously had no interests in these matters. However, even if I bring a little drama with me, I can hardly increase the acrimony on the homeopathy talk page! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which leads me to a thought. I know we lock up articles when they get out of hand, but why not Talk pages. I can't bother with reading a lot of the talk pages for alternative medicine, because there are so many tendentious editors. It goes on and on, and I don't have the time to read one side write, "I'm right and you're wrong," where as the other side, in a fit of wisdom states, "No, you're wrong and I'm right." I just edit where I need to, and I move along. Acrimony at homeopathy? I'm shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have experimented with enforcing the talk page guidelines a bit more stringently, largely by simply removing posts which egregiously abuse article talkspace. It's not particularly successful - the "censorship!" card is quickly played, as if the Constitution forbid any law which abridged the freedom to rant on a Wikipedia article talk page, and there's a significant portion of the community that feels more or less anything goes on a talk page. In the end, ignoring the inappropriateness may be the only solution, though on a project this big, someone inevitably takes whatever bait is laid out. MastCell ^Talk 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rochester

File:~haut-cuisine in-rochester-n-y is-the-garbage plate.jpg

Hi OrangeMarlin...

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Per your request above, I'll respond to the Thera/Minoan comment on my page, but, I thought you might be craving a garbage plate for your page.

Anyway, yes I'm from Rochester, although not originally. I went to RIT, where I had my first Nic's experience and I never left. Alway's nice to meet a fellow Rochestarian... Dspark76 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

I must say, that for having seen 65.5 million years, you are still remarkably functional. J. Spencer (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vitamins. And dinosaur meat is very healthy for you. I bet you didn't know that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But what about clean living? Will that help, or have I been wasting my time? J. Spencer (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean neat living? Antelan ^talk 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fermented ferns. Yum. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shoot! That's where I made the mistake! How does it go with dinosaur? J. Spencer (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Delicious. The aroma of bitters with the sweetness of raspberries and a hint of chocolate goes well with the lean, slightly gamy flavor of barbecued brontosaurus. Right after the K-T event, there were so many varieties of ferns available, I created some fine vintages. However, most of the smoked dinosaur had a bit too much iridium flavor. I moved on to mammals at that time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could summon up a bit more good faith in the article. I find your anger and dismissive posts a bit misplaced. Grow up a little, please. I am disagreeing with your assessment, not calling your kid ugly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can one of the fine admins who contribute to this page block or warn this editor who engages in personal attacks? Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like an ill advised piece of overflow from the article talk page a couple of days ago when things were a little heated. Time for everyone to let it pass, more to the point how do you like the picture options? My preference is for No. 4. ... dave souza, talk 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Arcayne has chased off a few very good editors with his histrionics. He is one of the types of editors that can contribute, but just drives other editors away from the project. We're enabling his bad behavior. With regards to the article, I could care less about images. I like prose and language. Could care less about pictures. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Sorry, not getting you. What did I do?81.159.88.164 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby

Since you've got experience in dealing with Scibaby, maybe you or Raul654 should look at the list of potential socks here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream and see if you think any contrib patterns look like a match. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vomit

I log on from work, so whatever you're talking about that was done to the vomit listing that you didn't like, wasn't me. I've enjoyed Wikipedia for some time, and finally was tired of the inconsistencies and unnecessary garbage that people add to pages, so I created an account so I could do something about it. I didn't see anything inappropriate or unverifiable or whatever you said on there, so thanks for correcting/deleting/whatevering it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirling within (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea about what your stating. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite that please

As per your comment (recently archived to [User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_6#Cretaceous.E2.80.93Tertiary_extinction_event here]), might I trouble you to provide anything in the way of citations - or even examples - of:

• "Arcayne has chased off a few very good editors with his histrionics. He is one of the types of editors that can contribute, but just drives other editors away from the project," (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=next&oldid=198665992 1]) or
• "Can one of the fine admins who contribute to this page block or warn this editor who engages in personal attacks?"(2)

I am not really sure what your problem is, but - as I stated before - I have neither personally attacked or been uncivil to you nor have I done aught but disagree politely with you. Perhaps I am missing where I have "driven editors away from the project" or made personal attacks on you. Take a moment and highlight these examples, as I am quite unaware of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have something useful to say about any article about which I am editing, I would suggest that you should no longer post anything on this page. Any attempt by you to drive me out of the project will prove fruitless. Therefore, your constant personal attacks are no longer acceptable by me, and I suggest that you treat me with civility in the future. Any further personal attacks by you will be addressed by any means I think are appropriate--from ignoring you up through a request for administrative action (which I only rarely employ). Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you enjoy your day. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not attempting to drive either you or any other useful editor from the project. And again, I am unsure how any comment by myself could be construed as a personal attack by myself. In fact, my post to your page (see above) was to ask you to point out where I have done so. You haven't once provided any citation that I have "driven people away from the Project" or personally attacked you. Conversely, I have felt a growing level of incivility by yourself in the CT article that was neither warranted or precipitated by any action by myself.

If you are unwilling to supply this (politely) requested information, I would ask that you refrain from your uncivil, non-AGF commentary; failure to do so will result in my being forced to report you to AN/I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-science allegations

OrangeMarlin, I would suggest you tone down the rhetoric and stop suggesting that the edits I made at Chiropractic were "anti-science". EBDCM (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're lecturing me about rhetoric? OK. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me why you claimed cited material from Spine, JAMA, WHO and others was vandalism. EBDCM (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I've never called you a vandal. I believe I have accused an anonymous editor of such. Curious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing funny about it. Yesterday I added material to the education, scope of practice and history section. It got deleted citing vandalism which resulted in an edit war that you were part of. Why did you claim that the material I added with a)anti-scientific and b)cited as vandalism in your edit summary. EBDCM (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you are mistaken. I have reverted Chiropractic three times in the last month. Edit 1 was a reversion of two edits by an anonymous editor, and the edit summary makes no mention of vandalism. Edit 2 was a reversion of one edit by anonymous, with no mention of vandalism. Edit 3 was a further revision of same anonymous editor, with a request that the editor get blocked for 6RR with not a single mention of vandalism. Therefore, I am posting this statement, your false accusation, and a request to have you blocked from the community. Thank you for your time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all edits on Chiropractic since February and the record shows that OrangeMarlin has never used the word "vandalism" in an edit summary. The indefinite block of EBDCM is therefore reinstated as a result of making false accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer

I simply wanted to thank all those as you that closely review my editions and copy-edit them. I can search for information and summarize it, but I'm spanish, so my english its far from perfect. I also wanted to say that the alzheimer article is greatly improving and its partly thanks to you. I would have never believed a few months ago that there would be a team of several editors improving the article regularily... Well, as I said I simply wanted to acknowledge all your efforts improving science articles in WP. --Garrondo (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to drop you a note. I didn't realize you were a native spanish speaker until I visited your user page. I appreciate your edits. But if you could do us a favor, do a few with your great ideas, and let someone copyedit the language a bit before adding more. It gives everyone time to deal with the vandals and tightening up your language!!! Please note that I really appreciate your efforts. The article is really improved over the past few weeks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Interesting. I was expecting to be criticised in the other direction! (I can't find anything positive about this therapy at all other than the claims of protagonists which don't count). The lead says its non mainstream, criticised by the mainstream, has a non-accepted theoretical base, is a pseudoscience, is antithetical to attachment theory and is responsible for the deaths of at least 6 children. If that is supportive of attachment therapy as you state, how do you think it ought to be worded?Fainites ^barley 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I read it wrong. You know I think anything pseudoscientific ought to be stated as such in the lead. I just thought the lead was, well, weak in criticism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried several different versions of the lead. One criticism before was that I needed to describe what it actually was before plunging into the criticisms - hence the second paragraph of the lead. (Personally I find even the bald description of provoking rage by lying on top of children and confronting them pretty horrific anyway). The mainstream views and criticisms are in the third paragraph of the lead. I could swap the paragraphs around, but I was trying to imagine being a reader who'd never even heard of it. Have another look and let me know what you think. (I added a little for clarity). Fainites ^barley 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's taken a war to get settled, but the lead of Homeopathy could be a standard for pseudoscience articles. State what it is and history. State why it's a bunch of bovine feces (with tons of verified and reliable references), and then state why the pseudoscience is thought to work by it's promoters. Kind of works.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at homeopathy. However, i'd like you take a little more time to read it OM. I'm not sure you got past the second paragraph before tagging it. This is the second time you've tagged it in this way I think. You will see if you read it that it is both thoroughly sourced and almost entirely critical. There isn't a single criticism in there that doesn't come from a good, notable source. I didn't even use the word pseudoscience (even though its obviously pseudoscience) until i found a notable source that said it. (There isn't the sheer quantity of sources as are likely to be found in homeopathy as this is an obscure bit of psychology rather than medicine as such). I haven't found any notable sources in favour of this therapy in any of its forms. The only favourable thing to be said, which is also well sourced, is that after all the criticism in the last few years, some leaders in the field are acknowledging past faults and leading a change of ways, theories, practices etc etc - a point worthy of note surely. Fainites ^barley 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way it took a war to wrest this article from an attachment therapy sock army aswell. Fainites ^barley 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I know yo were involved, I'll de-tag it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've rearranged the lead a bit - what do you think? Another editor and I struggled with this 'mainstream' business. Its often more difficult and takes alot longer to scientifically test things in psychotherapy areas but there are definitely things you can say are mainstream - like attachment theory (on which there's masses of research), and non mainstream -like attachment therapy. However - hardly any of the 'mainstream' therapies count as validated yet because they only invented them in recent years and they are undergoing the process now. Fainites ^barley 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopath

I took a brief look through the AMA website via Google, and I found about 2 distinct scenarios when the term was used:

1. In articles that try to boost alternative medicine (no offense intended vs alt med with that statement; these are literally opinion pieces, not research)
2. In articles discussing enrollment at MD schools vs DO schools

There was even a letter (published in Ann Int Med) When did I become an allopath written in response to one of the former. Antelan ^talk 06:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to that letter? I have access to most journals online. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

KKK

Can you please tell me what is POV? Please do not revert my edits. I don't want someone to make an edit because then I can't revert and I put a lot of work into the article.

GordonUS (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This goes a heck of a lot further than "copyediting." I'll assume for the moment that your edit summary was not deliberately deceptive, pending a closer look at your contributions to the article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Orangemarlin. Please keep watching the KKK article to prevent further whitewashing. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone burns a cross on my front yard, I expect some help. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Arnitt,

Its a lot of copyediting, yes. But copyediting nonetheless.

Darwinek, what is whitewashing? You are making an assertion. Please provide some support.

If you want to ask OrangeMarlin something create a separate box.

Orange, answer my question please. You revert work and can't explain the reasons behind it?

GordonUS (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Take your conversation to TALK:KKK and leave me out of it. I stated my reasons for reverting, and apparently I'm supported by it. Whitewashing and POV-pushing are not acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You never stated your reasons. Tell me.

GordonUS (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He's asked you to move it to the relevant talk page, which is sufficient for this conversation. Antelan^talk 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on Naturopathic medicine

I see that you have recently reverted some edits to the naturopathy page. I note that you have given as your reason that the changes to the lead were POV, but that you have not bothered to explain why you think this is so in the discussion page.

• Could you please explain why you think it is POV for the article to describe naturopathy as an approach to medicine rather than a single proffesion or standard of care? Do you dispute the fact, or the way in which it was written? I am open to rewriting/compromising to get consensus on an NPOV, but if you are not willing to explain yourself, this will be very difficult. Do you really think that the umberella term 'naturopathic medicine' is represenatative of single entity, group or way of practicing medicine? Could you back this up?
• Could you also explain why it would be considered POV for the article to mention that the principles of naturopathy are practiced in multiple settings (complementary, alternative, and primary care) by traditional healers, NDs, MDs, DOs DC's etc...? Again, do you dispute this fact or the way it was written? I have provided citations for this, did you even consult them before deleting my work? Can you provide a citation asserting the opposite (that naturopathic medicine is an exlusive term owned and used by a single organisation to the exlusion of other types of practitioners)?
• Your assertion that naturopathic medicine is 'CAM, not medicine' could be misconstrued to reveal a deep and irrational bias on your behalf. (What do you imagine the 'M' in 'CAM' stands for?) The fact that the term 'medicine' without a modifier is usually interpretted to mean conventional/regular/normal medicine does not mean that the less common practices are somehow not medicine.

I hope that you will take the time to participate in the discussion of the above on the talk page. I will continue to edit what I see as helpful NPOV information about the complex breadth and scope of naturopathy untill you can explain what it is that you do not like about the contributions I have made. On the one hand I can't work in a vaccuum, but on the other hand I won't be bullied into submission either.

One more thought: your vague references to various WPs could be viewed as a form of wikilawyering: I hope that you will consider explaining the violations that you percieve rather than continuing to set up an all out edit war.

Naturstud (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From Graham

Hi OM, I know you know Rotavirus is a FAC and belated thanks for your timely edits. "You know who" is fortunately silent at the moment, (but fingers are still crossed). I've been feeling guilty for months over Herpes zoster— I think I caused many problems by incorporating too many primary sources. I've just looked at the article and, having just passed Herpes simplex and Genetics to GA today, (or yesterday, it's getting late in the UK), I can't see why Zoster is not GA. If you are amenable (? spelling), I would be grateful if you would let me collaborate (? spelling again), with you once more. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything you can do to promote Herpes zoster back to GA? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't own the article, and I never had an issue with your edits. I think "you know who" created a maelstrom that caused it to collapse. It needs to get back to GA, because frankly, it should be GA even now. I've played with a few edits here and there to improve it. BTW, if you want to amuse yourself, look at "you know who's" edits to Talk:Alzheimer's disease. Luckily, several people jumped in. But let's HZ one more time, and maybe we can get it promoted to FA. And I'll start looking at other medical articles in the FAC process. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I haven't forgotten your request to look at Alzheimer's disease. Every time I look at my talk page it gives me a guilty feeling. Trying to balance the little time I have at the moment between reviewing and writing my own stuff. I see you have some stability problems, which puts me off doing a detailed review of the prose just yet. I may have some time tomorrow evening, so is there anything you particularly want another opinion on? BTW: I remember you enlightened me a while back about Osteopathic medicine in the United States. This is now at FAC and, although I think the text isn't ready for FA, I wonder if you could comment on the handling of the subject -- something I'm too ignorant to comment on. Colin°^Talk 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that AD is getting close to FAC. When you have a chance, can you jump in? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Graham? Alzheimer's hasn't changed much since I reviewed just the Epidemiology section (which hasn't changed at all). The sort of checks I did need to be done by the editors who have access to all the sources and can rewrite weak text or re-source weakly sourced text. I don't have the time, knowledge, ability or access to the material needed to write Alzheimer's. I'm just about to head off on holiday -- back on the 25th. Let me know which section(s) you think are FAC-worthy and I'll look at them then. Colin°^Talk 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's

Just in case you don't spot it (it is no longer the last item on the talk page), I've added a review of just part of AD. Taking this to FA is going to need a serious commitment of time--doing the sort of text-source checking I've done + actually writing material.

Whichever medical article you decide to concentrate your efforts on, if you are heading towards FAC, let me know and I'll be happy to have a look (eventually :-). Colin°^Talk 07:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease belongs in the FA group of articles. It's a little weak right now, but several editors have gotten involved with it over the past few months and really began a process of clean-up. I've focused on it in the past, but if there are a number of editors ready and willing to join in, it's time to start. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm offering to help in the way I helped Graham on Rotavirus--that is, someone else did the research and wrote the content. My research/content time is committed elsewhere. How about creating a TODO list on the talk page, and ask the editors to take a section each to scrutinize and fix (or, at least, point out what needs fixing). Colin°^Talk 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

See here; you might want to initiate and shephard the WP:FAR. I just don't have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at some of the other FARs at WP:FAR, as well as the instuction page; you're supposed to post the links about the notifications like on other FARs, notify all relevant WikiProjects (I got Med for you), check articlestats for most involved editors, and leave a record on the FAR that notifications were done. That's the kind of time-consuming stuff I used to do on every FAR, and I just don't have time for anymore. In fact, as I recall, when I did the notifications for Intelligent Design, I was, um ... attacked as canvassing :-) See the other FARs on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I did go through the article stats to notify editors. I decided to ignore editors who haven't touched the article in 2 years or so. But how far down the list do I go? Editors that only appeared to revert vandalism don't seem to be too involved. I forgot about the project. I'm learning. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How far to go depends on the article and the stats; you can usually sorta tell where to draw the line by wherever there is a big dropoff in participation. I think you probably got everyone who's interested, but you have to post them back to the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at other FAR's to see how to do that. Oh boy, I just love the cutting and pasting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

You're at 3RR, yourself. I submitted a WP:AN3 report, but I can't block as a participant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of it. It appears that several editors were reverting this character, yourself included. I would hardly consider what we were doing as edit-warring, however. We were just trying to keep the consensus version. Oh well, he's been blocked!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature??

Hey. Are you an administrator? If so, can I get the rollback feature? I'm a good person, I promise. I'll use it responsibly.  :) Saritamackita (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not an administrator, and I have no control over it. Anyone can use it, but it's really complicated to set up--in fact, I did nothing to set it up, someone helped me out. Once you have Twinkle, there is an expectation of using it properly. I got admonished for placing incorrect warnings on many users talk pages, so I've learned to be somewhat nicer. A few times, I clicked the wrong button accusing editors who actually are my friends of being vandals. That was very embarrassing. Anyways, go to WP:TWINKLE for more information and assistance. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why people keep mistaking you for an admin? It must be your air of authority. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of a high level of crankiness that is the major characteristic of all admins. Interestingly, I've thought about being an admin, and despite the fact that it would be the most interesting RfA in years, I can't see what you have that is very useful. I only care about the articles I care about, so I couldn't block anyone on those articles because I'd be involved. I have all the tools of undo, posting warnings, and admonishing anonymous vandals. And I have the pleasure of getting warnings from you, Dave Souza, Tim Vickers, and few useless admins for being a jackass whenever I want. I have the best of both worlds. Though you get paid a lot more for your job than I do.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paid? We (admins) get paid? :LOL: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the rumor. I hear it's around $0.02 US per hour, because everyone keeps giving you guys their 2 cents worth. Was I misinformed? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paid good money grief. El_C 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA often turns out to be a forum where any mistakes one ever made (forgot to pet a cat on Tuesday, etc.) gets magnified exponentially compared to all the good that one does. I was lucky to undergo mine early on, with only 600 mainspace edits! El_C 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to pet your cat??????? You horrible, evil admin. I'm posting an RfC right now to have you permanently banned from editing any cat-related articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an example, I assure you: entirely hypothetical! El_C 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel better. As I recall, I've see that some very cute cats own you.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's only one of me, but I keep him busy! Kitty 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One cute kitty. How is it living with a Jewish Communist? I hope he only lets you eat kosher tuna from a third-world independent fisherman who utilizes sustainable fishing techniques. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

← I was tempted to say it was your more... irascible moments that led people to think you were an admin. But that would have been too easy. I wouldn't let your involvement in those articles stop you; apparently, you can block people with whom you're involved in a dispute, under WP:IGNORE. See, if they're arguing against you, they must ipso facto be wrong. If they're wrong, then blocking them improves the encyclopedia. If it improves the encyclopedia, then you can ignore the blocking policy. QED - or am I missing something important? MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You just gave me a migraine. Thanks. Oh, please see the section below. Talk about someone who both needs to be ignored and blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chickenpox

Hi there. I don't believe that the text you removed was a fringe view, per WP:WEIGHT. However, it did mis-state the NHS's published reasoning for not implementing childhood vaccination. I've fixed it and provided two references. BTW, I'm not into quackery and I speak as one who suffered from chickenpox as an adult two years ago ... richi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong wiki recommendation. The problem is that although that might be the view in the UK, it's hardly common elsewhere. And besides, Herpes zoster can be prevented by not getting chickenpox or by adult vaccination if you have had chickenpox. It is a very useful vaccination. What has happened in some places is that there has been a concerted attack on vaccination. This is unfortunate. And I had no idea who had written the comment, so please don't take it personally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. I have no data that says whether the vaccination is routine outside Australia and North America or not. The main article does imply that most of Europe chooses not to. In terms of land area and population numbers, my guess is that routine vaccination is actually a minority phenomenon. I agree with you that anti-vaccination sentiment is usually ludicrous pseudo-science; e.g., the MMR "debate" here in the UK. In this case, however, there are real questions over the overall usefulness of routine zoster immunization. IMHO, bodies such as NICE generally do a good job of weighing up the pros and cons of a complex issue such as this, without being too influenced by a profit motive ... richi (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a fun one....

Infant formula...check out the article history and talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting IP popping up and removing material critical of formula, leading to some page cleanup. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 'fun' by being an amusing edit history with 3RRs etc...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember I ain't been involved with usual trench warfare on med articles...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I saw that. I checked out the IP if it resolved to say Nestle WW HQ!!! But no. Im trying to reduce my involvement in trench warfare. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. My favorite (said with extreme sarcasm) medical editor is involved. That article will be a mess in a few days. Oh well, time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

anti-Semitism at Race and Intelligence and its talk page

I appreciate your comment. Just so you know, I left a message on Jimbo's talk page, and also at AN/I ... no response. It is not that I m tolerant, but I have been so systematically critical of Jagz's disruptive edits, POV pushing, and occasional bullying that most admins will just see this as a personal conflict between me and him. So there is little I can do that would not just feed that view (which of course I think is a misapprehension/distortion) or could even leave me open to charges of abusing my admin. privileges. The fact is there have been many times I have called Jagz on his BS, but he invariably began accusing me of personal attacks. This one is actually mild compared to other things I have said, now archived: [4]; Jagz' first reply: [5]; second reply: [6], and then [7]. So at this point I feel that there is nothing I can do that would not be counter-productive. So I appreciate any ideas you have. If you have time, perhaps you can go over Jagz edits ... unfirtunately, you have to go over all of his edits to the talk page over the last couple of months to get the full undersstanding of how he opperates - he is sometimes subtle, and often akes many inoccuous or semi-reasonable edits between highly disruptive or bullying ones ... there is a pattern but it is visible only over weeks or months, not days. Or perhaps you can come up with an actual strategy for dealing with him. I just feel that because of my history of reverting his edits to the article, and arguing against him, my hands are tied. Minimally, if you can just keep an eye on him for the next few weeks, I would be gratefull. Or maybe you know other editors who can also keep an eye on him and may have better ideas about how to handle the situation. It is evident to me that he is a racist but he never or almost never makes any direct, explicitly racist comments. And he will cite the sentence i just wrote as a personal attack against him, and use it against me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this article to other editors. I consider some of his edits to be horribly anti-semitic (mentioning Hitler's twin was a recent one), so I've asked other concerned citizens to pay attention to Jagz and this article. I will spend some time on this article, despite the fact that I vowed to stay out of some of the crap that I see on this project. I know of a few POV editors who do a bunch of small edits, that individually seem innocuous, but together they're hugely POV. We can't let this go on. There's an MoT and anti-racist admin I'm going to contact. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a different anti-racist admin you're thinking of, but I'm on it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not an MoT, but thanks!!!! :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Qu'est-ce que c'est "MoT"? Probably not "Ministry of Transport"... Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Member of the tribe. If you have to ask... :) In all seriousness, we're way too tolerant of editors who are here primarily to make the encyclopedia express a more racist and/or anti-Semitic and/or homophobic viewpoint. They detract from the encyclopedia and the related process of building it. Yet so long as they're able to put a very thin veneer over their agenda, they can persist virtually indefinitely, because God forbid we "censor" someone. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaa (well you learn something new every day)..I'd never heard of MoT either....and I am off to look at 30 Days of Night: Blood Trails which is the prequel of 30 Days of Night (film) which I also just learnt about from wikipedia (gosh I feel edified today...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, there used to be a novelty hip-hop act called Members of the Tribe ([8]). They were two guys who went by the MC names of Ice Berg and Dr. Dreidel. They sort of followed in the footsteps of 2 Live Jews... good stuff. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to keep this MoT thing secret. I don't want to give away the code to the White Supremacists running around this project. Thanks MC. But, I need to look up that rap group. Sounds amusing. A bit like Adam Sandler's Hannukah song. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm too old for that hip-hop noise but I have some old Kinky Friedman albums. I bet OM would love "They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore." Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean Jesus the myth???? They write songs about that? Who woulda thunk that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> Casliber, one of the better medical editors around here is going to see a bad movie? Of course, I'm into zombie movies. And books, like World War Z. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most recent comment on my talk page. To be frank, I have been thinking of quitting for a long time. I have been one of a small group - sometimes two, sometimes up to four - people who have been fighting for over a year to, blieve it or not, make the article as "neutral" as it currently is and I am weary!!

We now hoave a bunch of constructive ideas out there. i hope other editors such as yourself will be bold and stat taking action, especially given the near unanimity of the RfC (Jagx wanted the NPOV alert tag removed as he thinks it is currently NPOV and Ramcrake and i want to push our own POVs.) Whagtever you and others do i will support! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't quit. I am involved in so many articles (trying to stick to medicine), that I need help if we are ALL going to make this article NPOV. Someone needs to stomp down on POV-warriors and hard. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

whole food supplements

You have removed my referenced corrective edit to Vic Shayne's nonsense. Why?

If you go to YOUTUBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEyozWX3_1o) you will see that he is selling whole food supplements and is entirely compromised.

What he says in what he has been allowed to post on WIKIPEDIA is marketing nonsense. There is no science to support what he says. It contradicts published nutrition science and is erroneous.

See: http://www.michaelmooney.net/whole-food-supplements.pdf to clear up the non-science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutrinut (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize

I want to apologize for losing my head. I was rude and that was uncalled for. Please accept my apology for getting out of hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your frustration in the situation, really I do. However, also understand that I take my job as an adminisitrator quite seriously. I try to avoid taking sides in content disputes when I use my administrator tools. The article was clearly being tossed back and forth rapidly between two groups of editors, and there was little productive editing going on. Looking at the article's talk page, at least now there appears to be some constructive work going on to improve the article rather than to just haggle back and forth. The protection is at least having its desired effect, which is to get people to use the talk page to help hammer out the major changes the article needs. As an uninvolved party, I easily agree with the fact that creeping racism needs to be kept out of articles here at Wikipedia. However, as an administrator, when an article descends to the level of an edit war, regardless of the relative merits of the two sides in the war, the war needs to be stopped. I hope you understand... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also want to apologyze

I suppose that by this time you would have red my reply in alzheimer talk (if not, do read it before reading this). As I say there I might have made a mistake with my edition and I am sorry for it, but I hope this serves to upgrade the section. I only want to remark that my editions were on my own. I have no relation with io,io, even if he is also interested in the section. I don´t want that his interest or behavior in this section is mistaken with mine, being my only interesest of creating an stable subsection which summarizes the field in only a few lines. As I have said in the talk section a good begining would be to name the main approaches to the field, what do you think? Can you help with it?... There are no reviews on AD investigation trends... :-). Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you apologizing for? I haven't seen anything you've done that requires an apology. Hmmmm. Should I look for something?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey... I know is hard to copyedit everything I (or other users) do...However be sure that I'm really grateful for all your work in AD in the past few months. Apart from that you can also feel very proud of the job done. Compare this treatments subsection [9] just two weeks ago, and the current section. I added much of the content, but style is as yours as mine, and right now I believe that much of the work in that section is done (only care-giving left to be upgraded). Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much your edits as someone else's who's refusing to listen. Oh well, we'll clean it up!!!! Keep up the great job. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

TPH RfA Talk page

I'm not going to continue any banter on TPH's RfA talk. I thought (and I think you agreed before another editor started going at it with you) that you had one minor sarcastic and borderline uncivil comment. I understand your point regarding details being important to admins, it was just that in my opinion TPH tried to give you a good faith response and you kind of threw it back in his face. I opposed TPH's RfA and I disagree with a crat chat that would involve discounting oppose votes (so we both agree on these two points), I just thought the talk was getting out of hand regarding discussing the topic. I apologize for an offhand accusation of incivility, that probably didn't do much but inflame a situation. That talk page is kind of a mess at the moment and me singling out one tiny comment only adds to that mess. Gwynand (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Those conversations ALWAYS get out of hand. I just want you to know that I can be pretty uncivil at times, and I wasn't trying intentionally or unintentionally to be uncivil. Anyways, we're in agreement on TPH. I think his dismissal of the opposes indicates a couple of things: 1) lack of maturity in trying to improve for RfA #6 (which better wait a year or so), and 2) wanting this Admin thing so badly he just can taste it. But what do I know. I don't understand why anyone would want to be an admin. I have 90% of the tools, a big group of admins trust my opinion on things, so get involved where necessary, and I love editing articles, which might be restricted if I have to be an uninvolved admin. The whole admin structure needs to be reformed and soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I have nothing major against TPH as an editor or even as a potential admin. He was a borderline case, people brought up some tough diffs on him and I went oppose. The worst thing now is how he has gotten involved in discussing--even as just a small comment--how some of the oppose votes are weak. He gave 2 more answers to RfA questions that seemed like he was raising the white flag. He is shooting himself in the foot--I'd say RfA is all but done as a fail and he must know he needs to wait another year to really have a chance. I think he tasted "victory" when he had a huge favorable ratio a few days ago, and now that it has all blown up he is spinning out of control and only hurting his future chances. Anyways... thats my 2 cents on that RfA: I currently just feel bad for TPH and wish he would get his act together and just do his time for another year. I almost reccomended he withdraw in my oppose vote, but that might have been a little much. Gwynand (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he has to mature. I know that there are admins who are <20. But they don't act like they are <20. TPH, on the other hand, can be a little petulant in his responses. And I really believe that any nominee ought to not get involved in responding to anyone. Let supporters do it, or just let it be. He is digging himself a deep hole. And the worst part is that each time he comes forward with an RfA, it ends up in the same way. People remember these things.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was, this culture where we have to second guess every oppose is sort of annoying to me. For example, suppose that I have some sensitive information that I do not want to share with the community, and I want to oppose based on this private information. I might just say "5 RfAs in a year is too many" or "Oppose per above" and not give more detail. It is not that I do not have more information on which I am basing my decision, just that I am not prepared to share it, for any number of reasons (including making the candidate feel worse than necessary, as I have explained at a few RfAs, or maybe not wanting to sway others by my reasoning). But the claim that "well those guys didn't give any reason for their opposes, so they do not count, whereas all these supports count", well that just starts to irritate me a little. --Filll (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if it gets uglier than usual with lots of arguing about every oppose, then feelings get hurt. And it creates bad will, and more bad will than necessary of course. I seem to recall a few threads at AN/I where someone made spurious complaints about someone else, and stated it was to get "even" for failed RfAs. Wow...we do not need more of that. Why encourage this? I am an inclusionist by nature, so I have a bit of a problem with someone who's main stated purpose is to delete more stuff on Wikipedia. A lot of that stuff is something that someone like me has written, or is in the midst of writing. We worry so much about discouraging newbies with WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL, but we do not worry much about what a newbie feels like when they are just trying to write an article and it gets deleted by someone who is a bit too zealous, and they do not understand the rules for speedys and AfDs? A lot of them do not even realize they can retrieve deleted articles. So they are excited about a chance to contribute, and they start writing, and then we drop a bomb on them. Well you do not think that will discourage newbies? --Filll (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For an example, take a look at this.--Filll (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Check my talk

Apparently I upset Mr. Morrell a few nights ago, and he has suggested he's not particularly interested going back to allopathic medicine anytime soon. Now, I'm hoping he'll email me to flesh out what I did to upset him, but in the meantime, if you want his input, you might want to ask him directly. Antelan^talk 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He can get upset fairly easily. I don't particularly enjoy his POV about things, but he's one of the few CAM woo-pushers who actually knows enough to be helpful. In other words, don't worry about, and I'm certainly not seeking his opinion on anything. If he says something to which I agree, I'm fine with it, if I don't agree, I ignore him. I would suggest the same. He is one of the world's experts on homeopathy, and I think in his world, allopathy has a totally different meaning than some people are pushing. But then again, he is so tendentious, it's hard to dig it out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I learn new things here every day (re: his status as a foremost expert on homeopathy). I'll just let things be, then. Until next woo, Antelan^talk 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source that I thought you two may (or may not) find interesting/offensive. AMA Journal of Medical Ethics. Cheers. Bryan Hopping ^T 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

...speaking of vampire movies beyond the Arctic Circle

....I recently saw Frostbiten, which I thought was funnier than 30Days of Night, and probably just as scary (though that wouldn't be hard..). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Watched Blood trails now, thanks to Youtube, feel much better now. had mor plot in 20 minutes that the ^&$%#^# movie did in 2 hours (oh well...). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those mushrooms have gone to your brain. Stick with plants that have pretty flowers, nice smells, and it's not necessary to eat them with my eggs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

............Cryptococcus aaaaargh.......Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed....

...I hope. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're concerned about page-move vandalism on your user page, I can move-protect (or semi-protect) your user page if you so desire. It might be an inconvenience if you wanted to move your user page, but not a real problem unless you wanted to move it right away!!! :) Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think I'm gonna call you "Elfish" from now on. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And I will begin editing all LOTR articles starting now. Except did he mean El Fish, since I reverted his vandalism on El C's page? Oh geez, now I don't know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict trying to make just that point. The rest of my comment was

If the latter [El Fish], it was pretty clever actually. If the former [elfish], it was just weird. Everyone knows that page move vandalism has to go to [X...on wheels!]

One other point - Tolkien intentionally used "elven" (and dwarves) rather than "elfish" and "dwarfs" to separate the modern "little people" from the "real" elves and dwarves. Guettarda (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And that proves a point. I never read Tolkien, and won't watch the movies. Now Star Trek OTOH. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's only the people who read the appendices obsessively who know anything like that. Sadly, I read them 25 years ago and I still recall them vividly. The movies are crap. The books are incredible. Guettarda (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The movies are crap, but fun and enjoyable all the same. The books are too long. Get them on unabridged books on tape (err... CD). - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm sticking with Zombie movies and Star Trek. This LOTR stuff bores the crap out of me. Kill some monsters and be done with it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you and Jim were friends? I'm not sure if he's going to be able to forgive you if you diss an entire world created so that Tolkien could play with philology. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> BTW, Guettarda, can you do that semi-protect thing? UtherSRG did all of the reverts, and I think I could do them for now, but I can't see why I would ever move my page, unless I think El Fish is a better one. I'm starting to think it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

trolls at Race and Intelligence?

Ho OM, I appreciate your comments at Race and Intelligence and on my talk page. I am concerned about a couple of racist editors - it is evident in one case, and seems to be the case in another ... but I am far more concerned with the discussion turning into an attack of their character, or a debate over their beliefs, which I think will only have the effect of paralyzing any attempt to address the neutrality problems with the article itself. I just left this message on Brusegadi and Wobble's talk pages. I share it with you because I appreciate the comments you have already made, and I hope that you will keep an eye on the article and the talk page and perhaps act as a moderating influence, or just a more objective, sane voice. So I wanted to shar emy concern with you:

With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll. There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV. I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar. My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward. I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward. Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing. The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work. And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death. They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop? I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith.

I know you have not been feeding trolls but I am concerned that a constructive discussion you were part of has been or seems to be in the process of being derailed, and hope you can help... maybe just watch the page and when necessary help keep discussion on track? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. Before I can reply, I'm trying to find where I've ever responded to Confederate till death (and that's one devolved individual). I'm less inclined than ever to feed trolls, especially at this article. So if I did, I won't any more. I think that Jagz is a smart guy who utilizes what I've always called "an intellectual racism." He tries to couch his racism in research and education, but it's racism nevertheless. Confederate guy needs to be blocked for uncivil comments, plain and simple. I don't know what's going on around her, but you ought to just check out Human evolution. We have another one there!!! OK, let me try once again to see what I've done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I do not think you have said anything to Confederate till Death; my initial post wasn't directly addressed at you. I just know you are concerned and attentive to these matters and hope you can help prevent things from getting too derailed through continued participation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just plowed through the talk page, and I see what you're saying. But this comment is so offensive, that I don't think I've ever read anything like it before. Just so you know, I do not react very well or civilly to anti-Semitism, so I'm glad I missed it the first time through. I placed a comment on AN/I with respect to that comment. It is offensive. This article is pissing me off. Between this article and Human evolution, I might need valium. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am with you - but it would take a lot more to get him banned from Wikipedia. If that is what you want, then the only way to win is really to give him enough rope to hang himself with. Stooping to his level (which means almost any comment referring to or directed at him) will only let the average Wikipedian (I am very sorry to say) characterize this as a personal conflict between the two of you. I am glad you did an AN/I but I fear you will get little response. The great enemy here is what I call the Wikipedia time compression effect which makes us think that all conflicts have to be resolved in hours or there is something wrong. If he wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper, there might be weeks of letters in response before the whole thing plays itself out. What I have discovered here is that there is womething about Wikipedia that makes people experience everything as if it were text-messaging-time ... when effective actions, real resolutions to serious problems, actually occur at newspaper/snail-mail-time. Wikipedia attracts lots of hares but it really is the tortoises who will win. Sorry for the overwrought mixed metaphors but you get the idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're depressing me. Stop it. In some cases, the short lifespan of Wikidrama is a good thing. In this case, I think someone like Confed will hang himself without my rope. But, the system does work well. That one comment is so offensive, that he'll get a bunch of nice and not-so-nice warnings. People will watch his contributions and his articles. Then he'll hang himself. It should work well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay - in the meantime, please do not OD on valium! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting cynical my friend. Check the AN/I now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad about this outcome. Not to belittle it, but he was an easy target. At the article in question, we are in for a longer battle Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason to pick off the easy ones. First, they do attract troll-feeders, who then can be legitimately attacked by the more subtle trolls. Second, it takes the focus from the true POV-pushers on an article like that. But he was anti-Semitic, and my tolerance level of that approaches 0. By the way you once called me a troll.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, next time you come across a troll like that you can notify me and I'll deal with it quickly. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought enough people watched my page that someone would have jumped in just based on this conversation. When I didn't see anyone, I went to AN/I. I think I could have found 20 admins who would have blocked and indef'ed--I wanted the community involved. But thanks! I'll remember that. Back to the article. I'm very concerned that editors are lost on the racism--I'm more concerned about pseudoscience (fringe theories really) making it almost sound like racism is supported by science. So, I'm looking at the article as merely a pseudoscience article, fairly similar to Homeopathy (except for being a lot more obnoxious). That's where you can help too. And you'll note the crazy editors there. Don't even think about going over to Human evolution, although I think we've reverted most of the racist ideology that was added to it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your thread at AN/I and just wanted to stop by and wave vaguely in your direction. Hope you're doin' okay after your run-in with the above user. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)