User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 12

Warning

As of this post, you've made 11 posts to my talkpage, and the day is only have over. Using my superior math skills, my unsurpassed intelligence, my intuitive fashion sense, my tasteful sports loyalties, and my infinitely better physical appearance, I've extrapolated that at current pace, you'll have singlehandedly made more edits to my talkpage, today, than I have. Which, of course, is prima facie evidence that you need this warning. Keeper ǀ 76 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm now officially declaring myself a Vandalizing Keeper76's page account. However, I am going to have a secret meeting with myself, and declare some sanctions of Keeper76. This should only take 2 or 3 minutes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for this -- the editor, who is almost certainly User:Firefly322, no more knows when to give up than (s)he knows how to write good prose. I therefore consciously err on the side of caution, rather than allow my frustration to inadvertently drag me into an edit-war. You may find Issues in Science and Religion an interesting example of this editor's unique editing style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

query

[1] Did you intend to revert me? 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was not a personal attack on any editor (It's like saying the "Yankees Suck"). It does not violate ANY guidelines outlined in WP:TALK. I have a singular policy about user or article talk. No censoring, unless it is very specifically a personal attack. Don't censor is my advice to you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And please, don't take what I did as any type of criticism. The statement about Republicans was probably not necessary, but it did not have to be deleted. You may ask the editor who posted it to delete it (which is what I do, depending on the editor, in either or a nice or not so nice way.)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, that's your call. But three specific editors had already opposed, it seemed clear to me that therefore "It's pointless to propose anything as long as the Republicans have their little dwarves around here to vote in mass against" refers to them. Having this kind of talk is going to lead to flame wars, bad faith, acrimony, as well as influence others into thinking this kind of discourse is acceptable, with similar consequences. I don't see how that leads to editing an article well, and in this specific case, the talk page is almost impractically busy enough without it. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I long ago learned if you talk like that, you convince no one of anything. You ignore it. And really, we don't vote around here. It's forming a consensus. Kind of different thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what we do around here, no idea why you're telling me that. Also I made no point that the comment may convince anyone. I did make the point that it was obviously a personal attack on the three editors who already opposed - that's got nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the formatting of the section - and the point that it and your reversion of it likely hurts editing of the article. *shrug* 86.44.27.255 (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take offense. I didn't check out your contributions, I just see you're an IP. You used the word "vote", and I wanted to disabuse you of that particular train of thought. I doubt my reversion does anything of the nature. We shouldn't censor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't think I used the word vote anywhere, OM, except to quote our admin friend of anti-rightwingmidgetshill fame. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No offence was taken, btw, just some mild irritation that you had not been editing the page at a time when it was technically difficult to do so before dropping in, i think. I realize you were being friendly above.

On the wider point, having seen the Ossetia war talk page before this, i think there is a case for somewhat aggressive attempts to communicate an acceptable level of discourse on pages that a) are being read and edited by new users, and b) do not have the space for nonsense. I was not making it here, but the idea did inform my sole edit in this area, since i'm one of those guys who is not an enforcer or quoter of civility or personal attacks policies in any other context. But perhaps in contentious fast-moving contexts there is all the more danger of gaming and tactics and edit-warring being carried over into attempts to clerk, leading to even more fun! 86.44.22.206 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading that page, just out of interest. The edit warring there is beyond belief. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

You've been included in a case at the Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. Feel free to put your two cents in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me there- the user who filed the MEDCAB accused some of the users of being on a "crusade" against them. I was trying to get them reassurance that the other editors were simply of like mind, not a roving gang. My apologies for the confusion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. We've worked together on articles, and have each other's talk pages on our watchlists. Haven't sent armies to the Holy Land or murdered any of its inhabitants lately. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been vandalizing User:Keeper76's page with several other editors. But seriously, there are a very large number of related articles that several devoted editors watch. Is the assumption that we divvy up articles, each editor only editing a few? Or instead, isn't amazing that a lot of smart, devoted, articulate and rational editors find the time and energy to edit these articles? And if someone seriously looks at my contributions, you'd see my editing overlaps with medical editors, science editors, and, in some odd places here and there, history, warfare, baseball, hockey,.....and it goes on and on. Am I in a cabal or "roving gang" in any of those places? I don't think so. Maybe the point is that there are anti-science editors who lack any support for their POV, so without any intellectual backing, they attack a "cabal". We should ignore them. And in the case of this particular mediation, the editor who requested it ought to take an English writing course, instead of causing this dramafest.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of drama, there's been a wee stushie at AN which, in my hopeful opinion, has led to reasonably wide agreement on the way forward.[2] .. dave souza, talk 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True Blood

New vampire series on HBO in the US. I watched the first episode, and it's intriguing, though I'm not sure where the story is going quite yet. Anna Paquin stars in the show, and I believe she's from your part of the planet (meaning generally, not Oz itself). Anyways, I'm not sure when it hits TV in Oz, but you might find the story compelling. I'm not giving it 5/5 stars yet, but having vampires live in public amongst humans is really an interesting premise. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the book of this which was rather fun. Interesting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fungus. Vampires. Psychiatry. You're one strange dude.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I watched 15 minutes of the show last night. Anna Paquin, is um, well. She's hot. No other way to say it on wiki, per BLP. As for the show, it sucked. (pun intended). Keeper ǀ 76 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anna Paquin is hot???? Huh? What are you smoking up there in the Land of 10,000 Lakes? As vampire movies go, Kate Beckinsale in Underworld and Underworld: Evolution is hot. Anna Paquin was marginally interesting in Almost Famous and in The Piano, but hot isn't a word I'd use. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW Cas, I just watched Doomsday on video. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean this one? Hmm, Dog Soldiers (film) was fantastic but The Descent has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Well, that's a sample size of two so I will be 150% better informed after I see that one....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that the pilot of True Blood was awful. I cannot stand bad fake Southern accents. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! It reminded me of Joey trying to sound I-talian. Keeper ǀ 76 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember Anna Paquin is a New Zealander. She's doing the NZ version of a southern American. And also she needs some dental work.  :) I didn't mind the pilot. I'll see if it develops. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dental work? Why might that be? I dunno - it's no Deadwood, and probably not even a Big Love. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, now Big Love, there's a show I can sink my teeth into. (G-dam, I cannot stop the vampire lame jokes). Big Love has a fascinating premise, makes you think. If you are a manslut, and you impregnate lots of girls, you are the man. A stud even. And probably a deadbeat. (Think Maury quality). But if you marry each of the girls, provide them with food, shelter, morals, money, and stability, then you are a felon. Gotta love the double standard. BTW, Jean is my triple, nay, quadruple, horn (y). Keeper ǀ 76 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy Big Love because I lived in Utah for way too long. The takeaway for me is that having one wife is annoying, having several is more annoying. I pretty much destroys any male fantasies I might have for having several gorgeous wives at the same time. I'm cynical. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, I'm married. I love my wife dearly, but I cannot even begin to fathom the lengthiness of the "Honeydew list" if I were to multiply the marriage licenses. That wasn't my point. Keeper ǀ 76 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understood. You were making a social commentary about essential hypocrisy of it all. I see that, I just watch him getting nagged by three women at once. That does it for me! And a thumbs up on Ms Tripplehorn too. I saw her in a Starbucks this summer when they were filming the show (I happen to live near where both Big Love and Weeds are filmed--I've yet to run into Mary-Louise Parker). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Weeds was good the first season, after that, how do you say, jumped the shark???. Jeanne is frickin hot. The other wives, not so much. Either too young (as in wife #3), or two skirty/braidy (wife #2). Barb Hendrickson rocks my world though... Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Next you're going to tell me that she looks like Sarah Palin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a much better thread, for hobby-sake, than the one directly below. Jeanne does not look like Sarah Palin. Jeanne doesn't wear glasses. That's blasphemy for you to say, it's like saying Clark Kent looks like Superman, when, obviously, they look nothing alike. Keeper ǀ 76 20:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now that you guys are discussing which of Bill Henrickson's wives is the hottest, there is officially no difference between this and my day job. I saw Jeanne Tripplehorn on Broadway waaayy back in the day; she played one of the Three Sisters (I think it was Masha). Good stuff, but then I'm a pushover for Chekhov. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We went from talking about a marginal vampire TV show to Chekhov? I always preferred Sulu. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I used a quote from Ward No. 6 in a talk I gave awhile back, and I felt compelled to mention that I was quoting the Russian playwright and not the helmsman of the starship Enterprise. Isn't that sad? MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I wouldn't doubt it, except most individuals now think the helmsman of the Starship Enterprise is Data. Which makes me feel old. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And Seven of Nine trumps everyone mentioned above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This thread hurts my brain. Too many colons. OM, you "claim" to be in the medical field. Any advice you're wiling to give to remove my colon(s)? Keeper ǀ 76 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

←This should work. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont' go overboard...

here. (aka - choose your battles) It's winding down. Both sides seem to be coming together amicably. Don't blow on the embers of the former flames please? Keeper ǀ 76 20:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is being attacked by a group of POV pushers. This place is out of hand. I'm still pissed about the other comment I dropped on your page. Since I've chosen to ignore the immature rantings, I need to stand up for others who are getting hosed (not sure if that's Minnesotan or Canadian) in this project. But I'll lay off.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand your frustration, and I personally think it is justified. However, don't give "the other side" anything to link back to (in, or out of, context). Let the WQA die out on its own. No need to stoke. Keeper ǀ 76 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've argued vociferously for deletion of WP:WQA as actively harmful to the project. I have seen nothing to make me change that assessment. Commenting at WQA only justifies its unjustifiable existence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should give Hafrn the same advice? Both of you? I think he's really pissed about this whole situation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c re to basil)I completely agree that WQA is completely useless as a form of "dispute resolution". It only provides a place to release steam against someone else, usually one-sided, and almost unanimously without results (aka a block, admonishment, etc). It's almost as useless as RFC. That said, it is a goldmine for finding diffs to "fight your enemies" in escalated arenas, whichever side of a dispute you happen to land yourself on. I've been the subject of a WQA myself. It's icky and embarassing. It worked itself out okay, but had it not, what were the repercussions? Nothing, dare I say. Nothing. Keeper ǀ 76 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This was just stage 1.[3] WP:NAM springs to mind :) dave souza, talk 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Literally and figuratively

In case you had any doubt, the Department of the Interior really has been in bed with the oil industry for the past 8 years. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I've been doing that for years. The Pharmaceutical Industry has been supplying me with money, wine, and sex, allowing me to retire with a villa in Tuscany. I get a new Ferrari for every 10 articles that I clean up removing all mention of Alternative Medicine. If I had known, I would be doing the same for the oil industry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

dlph-4Kkkkk'kk oook reeeee eeee'kk squeek ack.

Multiple sclerosis

I have rewritten the genetics section. I have simplified it a lot, first because it can be more easily read as it is right now but second because my genetics knowledge is not very good. However I believe that now covers in a NPOV most important facts about genetics in the disease without much overlapping with the epidemiology section. Would you take a look at it? If I have time I will attack the other parts of the section next week.--Garrondo (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido

I've just put a comment here. I have tried to work with him, but it's just impossible. If the problem isn't sorted by tomorrow I think I'll start a thread on the administrators notice board about him. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mango's response to my suggestion was less than helpful. But I agree that AN/I might be the next step. Many of these articles were peaceful until Guido's return. Also, I'm a bit confused. I thought he was blocked (before the NLT block) for edit-warring in these specific articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at Guido's block log and you'll see he's been blocked for edit warring 5 times, and for legal threats another few times. 3 of the blocks say he was edit warring on CFS, and I think one or two of the others were also on CFS. I'm going to make an attempt to work with him, but if it doesn't work I'll post a new section in the admin's page. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand this place. GdB can be helpful to the project, but his editing degenerates into edit-warring quickly. He files frivolous complaints when things don't go his way, or he makes legal threats. How many chances do we expect he gets? Another 8 or 9 blocks? He has used up AGF long ago. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR assistance

Thank you! I'll try it out next time. Most wiki-stuff has been fairly straightforward, but the 3RR report template is a headbanger, heh! cheers, --guyzero | talk 09:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I find some of the wiki-stuff to be so complicated. I have three screens going from my computer, cutting and pasting to get something done right. If you look on my user page, I have some helpful links to things I've discovered. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to your info, I was able to easily file my first 3RR (actually, a 15RR(!) [4]) on an article that really needs it this morning, thank you! regards, --guyzero | talk 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll send the bill to your email address. Please pay within 15 days.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up your report. That would have taken an hour without the tool. I'm doubling my bill. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

SO I went looking, and saw, and thought, "Oh I'll try the nth edit one." And lo, my 15k edit is me fixing a horrid grammatical error (of mine own, mind you.) [5] I don't think I'll forgive you anytime soon. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What tool? Keeper ǀ 76 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're a tool. But that's beside the point. It's the 3RR tool. See my user page. I have a collection of cool tools that help out editing. You know what editing is? Do you? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I think he was talking about the milestone tool, not the 3RR tool. Since I had a post about it and all. Maybe not though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Milestone tool.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)3rr tool is useless to me, I just block em. What's the milestone tool? That's the one I was talking about, as I thought was obvious by my colon-ized reply to killer chihuahua, who obviously was not talking about such non-adminny trivialities like 3rr reporting..Keeper ǀ 76 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that you're a lazy ass. Of course, you'd never use the 3RR tool. Just try the milestone tool. It's kind of useless, as things go around this project, but fun. You can find your nth edit on this project. Like my 1000th edit. I haven't a clue why I was editing that article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Following KC's lead, I checked my 15000th. (yes, I have that many...). It would have to be to my own talkpage. Dammit. The world is cruel and relentless....I'm wondering how many random nths I'd have to try before I found a mainspace diff.... Keeper ǀ 76 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And it mentions the mysterious admin paycheck.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no admin paycheck. Actually there is. It's exactly a million times greater than your editor paycheck. Keeper ǀ 76 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I've heard it said that you pay $5.00 for GA's and $10.00 for FA's, that means you make a lot. And underpay us editors. (BTW, you're not going to win, especially if I have to keep seeing that damn orange banner at the top.)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure that your 20,000th edit is to your own talkpage, or perhaps more statistically feasible, mine. Be careful, you're getting close to Keeper zone, you only have 42 percent mainspace, along with 32% usertalk. Heh. Myspacer. (of course, my usertalk and my "Wikipedia:" edits are both higher than my mainspace....) Keeper ǀ 76 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(It should also terrify you that, according to the above linked SQL report, you've made 102 edits to User talk:Keeper76. Keeper ǀ 76 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that the User talk list would indicate that whatever "cabal" I belong to, it's an odd one. And of course, my article edits indicate that I actually contribute useful articles to this project. You know what you have done? Pissed me off about this cabal bullshit again. Now I have to drink and take a few valium. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, when the pill bottle says: "Alcohol may intensify the effect of this medication," it's meant as a warning, not a suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

L. O. L. Keeper ǀ 76 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the point is what? LOL. Kind of like ED medication with a black box warning that "if your erection lasts longer than 4 hours, please see your physician." Every guy is thinking, "give me 10." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't worked in an ER since the advent of widespread recreational Viagra use. Once you've had to call down a urologist to aspirate blood from the corpus cavernosum of some unfortunate victim, you'll look at those warnings with more respect. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(Goes through his medicine cabinet while he waits for OM's bill) --guyzero | talk 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When I worked in the ER, we used leeches.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

After 4 hours, I'd gladly go see my physician. Considering, of course, who my dream physician is.... Keeper ǀ 76 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What is it with you and these blah looking women. I mean Jane Seymour was all right in her day (25 years ago), but this physician is one that would turn me into a corpse. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Physician? I thought she was a pathologist? Next you'll be trying to pass radiologists off as doctors. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you go to Medical school, get a medical license, and wear scrubs and/or lab coat, you're officially a physician, even if all you do is look at dead people or pictures of bones. I know, I wouldn't trust them to treat a cold. But Jordan is hot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that milestone tool is amazing - it really captures major milestones

• 5,000th was the creation of Spilotes pullatus, which is an article I created as part of the process of getting List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago up to an FL
• 10,000th was a revert on the ID article
• 15,000th was to List of trees of the Caribbean - one of my great failures, but still, the article that spun off my second FL
• 20,000th was tagging an article with the banner of the Caribbean WikiProject
• 25,000th was the creation of Coccothrinax fagildei, which is an article I created as part of the process of getting my second FL, List of palms of the Caribbean up to FL status.

Sweet! Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That tool is getting more hits from this page than it's probably gotten in the last month from everywhere else. Considering the number of people who watch this place, it could be fun. Now for real fun, I'm going to take a close look at Keeper's contributions. I'm going to see what he really does around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<Runs and hides.... Keeper ǀ 76 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm so ashamed:

• edit number 5000: talkpage of another admin (during his RFA)
• edit number 10000: talkpage of an article (a little better I suppose)
• edit number 15000: my own talkpage
• edit number 20000: hasn't happened yet, but my money is on a talkpage...

I hate that tool. Lying milestone bastards. Here's hoping for a good 20K. Keeper ǀ 76 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But you sure have a fancy-brand way with your edit summaries. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

He's colon obsessed. I think he needs more fiber in his diet. Oh, I was wondering when Ray Ray would show up to this conversation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I looked up his 10000th edit. It was some minor housekeeping, not even a real contribution. Who voted for him in his RfA??????? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I passed RFA by fluke and circumstance, and I've said it before. I'd never pass in today's vitriolic atmosphere. If anyone is looking to run, run in January. Most RFa regulars are hibernating then it seems, or are too cold to give a shit regardless. Hell, I wasn't the only one to sneak through in Jan 08.... :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that it was a rhetorical question, the answer to which I already knew, not a real question. Trying to be funny and all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um yeah, I knew that. Mine was a rhetorical answer, one you weren't supposed to question....Keeper ǀ 76 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Keeper's RFA—Well I didn't vote for [him]. :) Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Herpes Zoster:

• My 5000th edit was about getting GA status for the article.
• My 10000th edit was removing an image from the article.

And I've yet to get that article to FA status. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You want me to help you get Shingles to FA? Do you not know who I am?  :-). Seriously, what does it need? I need a good project. Keep in mind that I don't edit weekends, I don't have access to scholarly sources, and I'm in general, a complete dumbshit. But I knew someone once that had shingles. Perhaps I could copyedit as a "subject expert" :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you do on weekends? Fishing? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Weekends are mine. Wife. Life. Dog. Yard. House. Chores. Drinking. You know, suburbia. Keeper ǀ 76 00:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah... suburbia. MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And this is precisely why this boy is not married, does not have a dog (in fact is a cat person), rides a motorcycle to the office (because, unlike the the Land of 10,000 ice covered lakes, I can ride 11.5 months per year), and occasionally edit this damn encyclopedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Some light reading

It's not very often that "Minnesota" and our "niceness" are the subjects of an article in the Jerusalem Post. Not very often at all. Yet, I have a hunch you still wouldn't vote for Mr. Coleman :-) Keeper ǀ 76 16:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a great article. I never thought about the "Jewish" Senate seat until I read it. Actually, when I lived up there in the Land of 10 Trillion Mosquitoes for one winter, there were a couple of very good Jewish delis in Golden Valley (I believe, since it's been about 15 years). And yes, Al Franken is the man. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Franken is single handedly losing the election, without coleman's help. Shame. Keeper ǀ 76 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a shame. I won't go into my personal feelings about Norm Coleman, but his career arc is curious. The guy was a roadie for Ten Years After, which is badass, and opined in his college newspaper that "these conservative kids don't fuck or get high like we do." He was a committed DFL-er who idolized Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern, Warren Spannaus, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and probably a bunch of other America-hating pinkos. And then Karl Rove whispers in his ear and he's suddenly a party-line, the-Senate's-job-is-to-make-end-of-life-decisions-about-Terri-Schiavo culture warrior who voted with Bush 98% of the time? I must be missing something. Are these the negative long-term consequences of marijuana use that we hear so much about? But really, the biggest problem I have with him is that his staff tried to whitewash his Wikipedia biography. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently grasshopper, you're too young to remember the The Manchurian Candidate (1962 film) (and not the crappy remake). It's the right-wing's plot to control our hearts and minds. And Ten Years After? I have to light a bong to think about that! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise that; their music already seems to go on interminably as it is. MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find one Ten Years After song that I actually recall. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that rather proves my point. In any case, I think they used I'd Love To Change The World in Fahrenheit 9/11, and I'm sure you've seen that like a thousand times. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, you don't remember the infamous "I'm Going Home" from Woodstock? Kids these days... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(re to mastcell ec with OM)Everything else aside, you do realize that the Wikinews article starts with the Joe Biden staffers, right? That's blockable on OMs page to slight Joe Biden indirectly or directly. And Boeheim is a genius. Keeper ǀ 76 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight. And Biden/Boeheim. Tell me you've seen them in the same place at the same time. Hmmmmmmm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My biggest problem there is that Biden's staffers should have had the ironic sensibility to replace his Wikipedia article with plagiarized biographical material. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think politicians get irony. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The last 8 years have been filled with examples of irony. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because they were ironic, doesn't mean that they actually understand it. I believe that the right wing wasn't being ironic, just cynical. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You say potato... MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I say tomahto. Keeper ǀ 76 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of books, now chuckling out loud reading the third vampire/detective book by Charlie Huston, shipped fresh from the yew ess of aye...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is like crack for me. Democratic political commentary, medicine and vampire books. Throw in a few jokes, a pharmacy budget or two and maybe a Deathstalker reference, and this page could be the real world projection of my mind. Avruch ^T 03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but wait, there's more. We have Jewish politicians, baseball, bad 60's music except no dope, and analysis of Wikipedia editing habits. It's a fine, aged crack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Single malt. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool things one learns from updating DYK

Got lumbered with refreshing the main page a few times...but looky..this film looks cool --> Homam (film), a bollywood remake of The Departed which itself borrowed heavily from the really cool HK film Infernal Affairs...must have a squiz at it some day...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just saw The Fearless Vampire Killers by Roman Polanski--I didn't know the director of the Pianist, a movie that just brings me to tears every time I see it, made comedy. Anyways, sticking to the blood drinking theme, it would be an interesting addition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of hammer vamp films, amusing in retrospect. I made sure Alfie Bass's bit remained in his bio article.. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Polanski is a comic genius. Chinatown was a laff riot. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, for a young tyke, you certainly know a lot of old-timer stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm almost ready to be Vice President. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Been to Canada? Heck, they speak two languages there - you can call it TWO countries!! Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the equation is simple. Physical distance from Washington, DC is the best indicator that someone will fight entrenched corruption. Physical proximity to Russia equals foreign-policy experience. I am running for city selectman in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, which will logically be the best possible preparation to lead an incredibly diverse nation of 300 million people. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell put Sarah Plain on my user talk page???? Those stories belong at User talk:Keeper76. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I intiially thought The Pianist musta been a comedy from the way you worte it above..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question...

Why does the link in your user box in the right corner of your user page (The "Suggestions are welcome." one) direct you too KrakatoaKatie's talk page? :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I ripped off her page, and didn't know the code was hidden in there. Or, better yet, I don't want to answer questions, and she should. LOL. Well, let me find that, and fix it. Good catch. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha I thought it was pretty funny that you would direct comments to others' talk pages! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit, it's a bit devious.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Now I know what it is. That box is created by KrakatoaKatie with useless but humorous bits of trivia for the day or week. I believe once it had be kind to sheep week or something. There's probably a thread about people making rude and crass comments. So anyways, it's a userbox that she maintains, and if you have an idea for today, it does redirect to her. So, not only did I steal the format of my page from her (and frankly a few others), I stole the userbox.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you are definitely devious! You would think at some point KrakatoaKatie would start wondering why she is getting random messages on her talk page! :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ewww

Last time I stalked you, I got an amusing Creationist Museum in a double-wide trailer. This time I get a kooky 1930's Sex Magic err, philosophy, and you haven't even bothered to post on the talk page. Seriously, OM, next time you're neck deep in a content / NPOV dispute, after the first couple of edit summaries have no effect, you ought to try the talk page. It can be far more productive and effective, and makes it much easier to work things out than carrying on a discussion via edit summaries. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for weenies. "Never apologize, never explain." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kooky 1930's Sex, Magic, and philosophy, and you didn't tell me? Want me to miss out on all the fun? Now you've got me thinking of getting ahold of the DVD of W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism, and I certainly advise you young'uns to watch it, assuming they didn't do re-runs when you were old enough to be allowed into the cinema to see it. Hrumph. dave souza, talk 06:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Post on a talk page, when a short edit summary is sufficient? As a firm believer in WP:TLDR (and I replied to an email from a subordinate with that tag...I wasn't thinking), I choose to read the long-winded diatribes found on talk pages. Have any of you noticed that there are editors, who if they don't get their way, they discuss it with slight variations of verbiage to say the exact same thing. And of course, when 5 words would do, they require 273? I don't have time to read that crap. Bullet point. Give a source if necessary. Move on. Wait a minute. I'm ranting. And Dave will next be bringing up "Ten Years After" the early years. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a common response; when off wp, the correct syntax is "tl;dr". HTH. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You mssspelled it's. HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<UD> HTH = Internet slang for "How The Hell?", "Hope This Helps", "Hope That Helps", "Happy To Help", "Hit The Hay", or "Hand To Hand". WTF? . . dave souza, talk 08:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Why does your userpage "remind" me that today is Rosh Hashanah? RH is September 29, fella. Get with the program - it's not 5761 anymore. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I stole that userbox from KrakatoaKatie. Serves me right I suppose. Except I fell out of my chair, wondering how I was going to be ready for guests. You're not bad for goyim.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear Christmas is on December 25 again this year. (Apparently the date for RH wasn't updated from 2007. You'd think people would understand how these things work.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But is New Year's Day still on January 1? I get confused so easily these days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not if you're using the old calendar. Well, it's still Jan. 1, but Jan. 1 isn't Jan. 1 Guettarda (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may be an Israel-hating anti-Semite—why else would I object to IronDuke's editing?—but I do try to keep track of the High Holy Days. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should stick with something safer like Global warming.  :) I always celebrate Darwin's birthday pasting the Darwin Fish sticker on all the cars parked in the local church's parking lot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone used to ask my dad where he was from and he'd say, "earth"...I just love the materialism of most of them (holidays that is... :)) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode at DOS AfD

Catherineyronwode has removed upon request the offending remarks from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society. I doubt that we can get through this without some degree of rancor, but I would at least like to get the worst of the sniping off the AfD page. Would you be willing to strike or remove your off-topic comments? I am making the same request of Malcolm Schosha. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the discussion is closed now. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ernie Davis

I guess they had the world premiere in Syracuse eh? Glad to hear that they did a good job with the movie, although it's hard to imagine that it's going to sell a lot of tickets... By the way, I still have the header for the 78-79 basketball season in my sandbox if you're interested in creating the page. GoCuse44 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctor, doctor!

Send me some pills,[6] or perhaps not.[7] Essential reading for the woo fighters around here. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't even get me started. A bunch of vitamins do nothing more than give you really expensive urine. And in some cases destroy the liver. And let's hope the AIDS denialists in South Africa get a brain. It's too bad it did not go to trial, so that Rath would have no plausible deniability, "the courts decided nothing."OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should be happy that Ben Goldacre won the libel suit, since I've also been "outed" and been the subject of what I consider veiled legal threats from the good Doctor Rath. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They finally figured out that you are Elvis????? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do like meatloaf and watching TV, but the similarities end there. MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Elvis listened to Meat Loaf? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it deep-fried peanut butter sandwiches or somesuch? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

At his rather rotund BMI at death, let's assume it was all of the above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

<--- Don't knock them till you try them (in moderation ;) ). spryde | talk 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deja moo all over again

See here, although I don't want to take over his page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, can you remind me which FAC that was, and point me to the talk page sections where the drama unfolded? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The only FAC where I crossed paths with UnaSmith was Herpes zoster, and I believe she derailed the FAC, but I could just be cranky. Otherwise, I'm not sure what this is all about.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Equine Project has similar: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I'd give them moral support, but maybe they'll distract her. Check the edit history (last week or so) for Alzheimer's disease. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

depressed

Been working on this baby which has, ahem, grown a bit. Recently been given a high colonic by delldot and looks the better for it. I have gone goggle-eyed at it and am aware of the likelihood of oodles of glitches in the mammoth prose. Luckily is 46 kb of redable prose so we are under...Whaddya reckon? Any major logic flaws before FAC? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me blunt. It needs work. There are a lot of "bullet points" which are not very encyclopedic. Bullet points are great in a memo to a subordinate, but in an encyclopedia, I think we can do better. And then there's the alternative medicine section. Way too much weight is given to frankly bullshit. DHEA, for example, has all kinds of evidence that it does nothing, especially in the elderly. And long-term safety and efficacy is unknown. Now that you got me involved, I'm attacking that section. All of the Alternative medicine hooey is going to be condensed into one small sentence. Take a look at what we did with Alzheimer's disease. Alternative medicine crap is concentrated into a couple of sentences. Remember, and I hate lecturing a fellow doc, but as long as the masses of humanity come to this article for their first medical information, you don't want them heading down to the local drug store to buy up DHEA to fix their depression. In fact, on a slightly related point, St. John's wort, does not work definitively. In fact, everything I've read is that the quantities necessary to have a clinical effect has not been determined, and at those high levels required to have an effect, it may be toxic. So, please don't regret that you asked, but I think the article is close to being FA worthy, but give me shot at cleaning up some of the prose. Oh, as a favor, go fix hypertension with me! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh fuck....hypertension is one colossal headache....you planning on making that your next magnum opus....I started reading but my blood pressure rose and I got depressed...will look again but where to start???? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the stalkers, vandalizers and various other ne'er-do-wells who watch my page

True Blood Episode 2 wasn't so bad. It brought in some Vampire mythology that was interesting. Although I don't get the inviting into the home thing. I'm sure our resident shrink can help me out there. Of course, the only reason I watched it was it follows Entourage, which is just like a good chocolate...I shouldn't but it's just too good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have seen User:ArielGold, at the bottom of this thread I mentioned entourage but she hadn't heard of it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse the above summary

1. Support per nom. Keeper ǀ 76 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Marklar per marklar. --B (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with the above summary

1. First of all, anyone who's seen the best vampire movie of all time understands the invitation thing. Secondly, the episode retained the pilot's major flaw: bad fake Southern accents. And poor pacing. And one-dimensional and somewhat unlikeable characters. The batty grandmother is kind of like fingernails on a chalkboard. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per anti-nom. Wooden staked my previous !vote. Keeper ǀ 76 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I feel so influential. Or maybe I just canvassed you off-wiki... MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I just replied to your email. Oh wait....I don't have email enabled....Keeper ǀ 76 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   MC's vote should be disqualified for being a sockpuppet master of Keeper76. Anyone who thinks the Lost boys is the best vampire movie of all time is smoking something noxious. The best vampire movie of all time is From Dusk till Dawn. Give me a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hey! I'm nobody's sockpuppet! Keeper76 ^Talk 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Go vote at the Rfa for Cirt. Depending on your vote, you should be accused of being a sockpuppet in about 10 minutes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Um, Cirt's RFA is closed dude. Yesterday's newspaper, today's catbox liner. Get with the program! (and I'm pretty sure I supported that one, but meh, I support nearly everyone that has the balls to go to RFA....) Keeper ǀ 76 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I bet you don't have the balls to vote for me!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I would vote for you. The final tally of course, would probably be 1-8457-8. Me as support, 8,457 as uncontestable opposes, and 8 people that are perennial fence-sitters, including MastCell. Zing! Did that get you going MC??? Did it? 'Cuz I don't mean it, just want you to get zinged....:-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   You mean, I can't vote for myself? That sucks. And I beg to differ. It would be 1-8452-16. MastCell will canvass all of his buddies to vote neutral. Just so I don't feel so bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Are you saying that MastCell only has 8 buddies!?!?!? That's a personal attack!!!!. He cleary and without question has at least 11. Keeper ǀ 76 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   MC's socks cannot be counted. And besides, his socks are bit daft, so they may just randomly vote to support. You just never know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   8457??? You should go for it - you would be the only member of WP:8000. --B (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who can't comment on the above summary 'cos they don't live in the Yew Ess of ^%&^$$&%*$& Ay.....

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who can't comment on the above summary 'cos they don't have HBO

1. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Your vote should be deleted per WP:VERIFY. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   How about <ref>My cable bill</ref>? Guettarda (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC) You people are all nuts. Vampire movies are: Nosferatu, the Bella Lugosi Dracula, Love at first Bite, and Shadow of the Vampire. finis.
3. Two Words. Perfect Creature, Dougray Scott. Awright, four words. But well worth a look. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, are you recommending this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The vampire books are always better than the visual stuff, but both suffer from an overabundance of crap. Unfortunately, supply is limited so I've both read and watched my fair share of crap. How does True Blood stack up against Moonlight (TV Series) and Kindred: The Embraced? Avruch ^T 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

multiple sclerosis

Since I work with MS patients I know it much better than Alzheimer, with the only big exception of the pathophisiology, but I think I can fix it with some reading and asking some of my companions, but copy-editing would be great. For the moment I have finished with all sections but prognosis, pathophisiology and causes. It needed some rewritting and a lot of referencing, but I won't be difficult to maintain the FA status. Of course if you need some help for any other article (about neurology or psychiatry) just ask and I'll see what can I do.

User:Hrafn

Thanks for commenting at ANI/User:Hrafn in the Can we just drop this matter? section. I really hope that Hrafn does come back and resume the good work, but even if he doesn't the issue is hardly moot. There was a massive personal attack on Hrafn and on the principle of WP:V that disputed unsourced material can be removed at any time. Sure, it's good to give some time for sources to be found, and Hrafn was doing that, but we can't have text lacking a reliable source being kept in just because someone likes articles based entirely on the publicity blurb of non-notable organisations. The principle has to stand for whoever is doing clean up, and the threat of accusations like those made about Hrafn has to be lifted. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually appalled that individual editors, for whom personal attacks are combined with a lack of understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR. They then attempt to drive off the Hrafn. Someone needs to stand up to them. Please note the additional personal attacks. It appears that a group is joining together to attack several editors, such as myself, who's involvement has been minimal. It's very frustrating to do good work around here, and get constantly attacked by editors who don't understand the principle of WP:NPA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment, after review of the history, regarding Hrafn, at ANI (or was it AN?). Same thing. Just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 23:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all Minnesotans are just too nice. One day a coworker and I were rushing down 169 from Plymouth to get to the airport. There was this huge line of cars going on 35E. And every freaking one of you dutifully got in line at the back. I thought that was ridiculous, and knowing the nice nature of the Minneapolis driver, I sped down the left lane, cut in right before the turnoff, and someone let me in. Probably thought I was a lost soul or something, but I had figured out how to manipulate Minnesota drivers several years back. So that's my story.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those rare Minnesotans that refuses to "get in line", and usually I will be the one following you (and other tourist) down the left lane. I've yet to be honked at, yet to be refused entry. So yeah, you're right (this one time...). I take advantage of Minnesotans as often as I can, which is usually daily. Keeper ǀ 76 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A sad outcome

A sad outcome as the result of pov pushing culminating in this collection of ludicrous allegations. . . dave souza, talk 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse University

Since you are working on the university page, I thought you could use the university's seal. Image:Syracuse_University_Seal.gif Hope that helps your updating of that page. Take Care and Have a Good Wednesday...NeutralHomer • Talk 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for that!!!! Thanks!. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're Welcome, glad I could help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Language of evolution

Hey OM, here is an interesting suggestion. I am throwing this up for discussion for a few of the more evolution-minded editors...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikirelativity

Time is different here than in reality. One can reform from a vandal to admin-worthy candidate in three months (a wikilifetime), yet an article that sits for nearly three years without sources is too speedily deleted (a wikisecond).

Someone smart needs to splain this to me. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You think I understand this place??? LOL. I see a group of productive, NPOV editors having to deal with a group of whiny, POV editors supported by whiny, POV admins. I'm doing my best to edit, and ignoring the drama. BTW, what's the article? Enough high-quality admins (Keeper76 maybe is close to that point) can help out at times. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just some article that sat for over 1000 days unsourced that not one inclusive editor cared about until after it was deleted. Nothing to worry about. Just thought it was curious. On the RFA page, three months is forever. On AFD, it's a microsecond. These anti-abortionistsdeletionists should take care of the unwanted youngins if they wish to carry on like they do. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

I raised your objection to the article' introduction on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard here [8]. I think that the Fringe theories/Noticeboard a good place to discuss the issue, and you might want to explain your objections there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that noticeboard. Thanks....I'll add my $0.02 there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted your edit. Rather engage in an edit war, I recommend that you discuss your health warning disclaimer on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, particularly here [9]...or you could start a new thread. That would give an environment to discuss your concerns which no one could claim is biased toward fringe theory. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought believes the energy of Spirit, God works through everything so we do believe in the use of medical treatment along side of Spiritual Mind Treatment. Take a look at Faith healing.Thanks74.73.176.161 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But whatever you do, do not look back a year or so to when one of our happy friendly tendentious editors was arguing that every other sentence in Faith healing#Criticism should be But this does not apply to New Thought. Meh. The mainstream should always be yielded the most weight in tone, though not necessarily in word count. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're a Darwinian...

... you probably noticed: the Church of England mentioned that perhaps they owe Charles Darwin an apology, and that a belief in natural selection is not incompatible with Christian faith. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can never be too late on an apology. Apparently, the Church of England read WP:NPA, and decided that they didn't want to be blocked. BTW, please describe me correctly--I am a blood-sucking, virgin-deflowering, Jewish, atheistic, anti-Christian, evolutionist. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought "Darwinist" implicitly covered all of those bases. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Seriously, why the "anti-Christian"? Are you "anti-Christian tenets" or "anti-Christian people". That's really harsh. Keeper ǀ 76 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you failed to note the high degree of sarcasm in my response. I just assembled all the epithets thrown my way for being a "Darwinist." I might have missed something like sacrificing house cats or something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I must protest. MastCell, non-Jewish people can be Darwinists too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All protests must be taken up on AN/I. Them's the rules. And make sure you throw in the fact that Keeper76 contributed to the problem. Just saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My job as an admin is to contribute to the problem. Just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 22:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And Boeheim is the greatest. Just saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Boeheim is a genius. I think he's prolly a Christian though. Just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Boeheim is a Zoroastrian. He's on record as crediting Ahura Mazda for the team's success. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a BLP violation. Anyone wanna step up and block MastCell (again???) Keeper ǀ 76 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source... hold on. OK, I'm pretty sure he blamed Angra Mainyu for ending up in the NIT the last few years... MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he couldn't even pronounce that name. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? But he's a genius! And just so I don't end up blocked and have to unblock myself again, I should clarify that I'm joking and I have no evidence that Jim Boeheim is a Zoroastrian (not that there's anything wrong with that). MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I can verify that Boeheim's wife is hotter than Sara Palin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's supposed to be a contest?LeadSongDog (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be even more evil, could be godless Buddhist Darwinist like me. I'm even so evil as to oppose non-adult WP admins! Bwaahahahahaha.... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not evil. You're just implementing the Four Noble Truths: separation from adminship is suffering (though, to be fair, adminship is suffering too). The root of suffering is a desire for adminship. The dissipation of the desire for adminship is the cessation of suffering. The way to that cessation is to shoot down RfA's 1 through 8 until the applicant finally decides they don't want to be an admin anymore, at least until they turn 17. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what do you read during your spare time MC??? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Er... Eastern Religion For Dummies? :) MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that exists, right? Keeper ǀ 76 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

MC, that's actually a brilliant encapsulation of what underlies "the RFA problem". Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

An apology

I just wanted to apologize if I caused any offence here. You see, I misinterpreted your comment and thought the "Oh, this is too rich" (because it was left right after my comment) was directed towards me. While trying to find reviewers for the page, I've had more than one user say I should work on a more important article, so your comment unintentionally struck a nerve. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. If you notice on Keeper's talk page, whatever opportunity I have to bust him, I will do. He deserves it, since it's well known he's one of the highest paid admins on the project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Question for OM and his TPWs...

I've been toying with the idea of writing short articles for this guy and this guy, but I'm not finding the sort of coverage that meets the guideline (why isn't there an academic-specific subset?). Thoughts? No idea what the h-index of either is - Brenn has 152 hits on Google Scholar, Packard only 37. I suspect they aren't notable enough, but the articles would be handy for the next family reunion... Avruch ^T 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:PROF, which are notability guidelines specific to academics. In practice, I have been told that anyone who reaches the rank of full professor is de facto notable. I don't agree with that view, but it tends to prevail at AfD. Actually, I see someone has codified it in WP:PROF: anyone who has reached "the highest academic rank" (typically professor) at a major university is officially notable, so I seem to be at odds with the guideline there. Packard is a professor emeritus at SUNY, so he qualifies there; not sure about Brenn. Hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Maybe it should be given a header with a link in the WP:BIO article (instead of just in the infobox on the right) for slow people like me who expect to find it mentioned explicitly under "people." According to PubMed, Brenn hasn't really written a lot of individual papers (even the old man wrote more as a fellow in the 70s) - but he's co-author of a textbook, so perhaps that accounts for the Google hits. If you disagree with the de facto notability of professors, what would you suggest? Not amenable to consistent criteria, perhaps? Avruch ^T 18:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could summarise succinctly what key development or piece of knowledge they are notable for with some references you (or they) should be safe. This is actually quite self-explanatory. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Packard isn't an "old guy". But otherwise, I'm wondering how notable they are. I'm wondering if a standard should be whether a bio is linked to another article. For example, if I'm writing an article on Upstate Medical Center, would I even mention "old guy". I might mention Elizabeth Blackwell but not David Packard. Unless Dr. Packard is the heir to the H-P fortune. Then..... OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'd worry about with a standard like that is when you have folks who do their research through a place like the Institute for Advanced Study. With all the luminaries, important but more terrestrial scientists would get left out of the institutional article. Avruch ^T 19:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what's a TPW? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a bastardization of TPS, of which I am one. Keeper ǀ 76 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And not just any sort of TPS - an official one. Though I'm rather curious about how one gets from S to W... Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, d'uh. Just add the prefix "wiki-"... Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you look up Packard's contribs via the ISI index, it looks like his main contributions are to avian development - of the 51 papers listed, the most highly cited (30+ citations) are the chick development stuff...and, incidentally, are the ones in which he is first or second author of 1-4. The problem is that people don't write about academics unless they do something controversial. It's hard to develop a good sense of someone's contributions without searching a citation index, but it's even more difficult to convert something like that into a reasonable article without running into OR problems. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at first I thought it had something to do with a temporary pacemaker wire...then, it didn't make sense. Then I gave up. Talk page Whore, right? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk-page watcher. Thanks folks. And OM - David isn't a spring chicken, but I was referring to my old man (father, maybe its a New England thing?) rather than him. Well, they're both old, but that isn't what I meant! Avruch ^T 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of TPW's....Keeper, I go out of my way to bait you with a Sarah Palin comment or two on this page. You never bite. It's getting boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, who's Sarah Palin? Is she somebody famous or something? Someone from Family Guy? Keeper ǀ 76 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's the name Michael Palin uses in sketches where he's in drag. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Our bios on marginally notable individuals such as this are ticking legal and ethical time bombs. The creators doubtless mean well but in a volunteer project like this people come and go. Such articles are apt to become little watched and thus ripe for any vandal or grudge-holder to get their licks in. Sadly, all attempts to apply sane criteria for notability are fiercely resisted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Boris, you've become cynical and cranky in your old age. Just saying. But you're probably right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A meta view

Since my addition of the subsection above, these have been discussions which you might find interesting about meta views and the like at WP:ANI#Sad outcome, WP:ANI#Massive POV push? and here. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's obvious that Cat hounded Hrafn off the project. I personally won't let this group do the same here. I'm not sure what to add to the conversation. From the beginning, it was clear that this group fails to understand Wikipedia--they want to use original research and their own synthesis to verify statements. Hrafn got frustrated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WERW

The "WERW Radio" and "WERW History" sections on the Syracuse University article are from the WERW page (currently up for deletion). I moved them there so the history of the station would remain intact. You might consider making a Media of Syracuse University page :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Semantic Question of da day...

For all horror buffs, greek scholars, folklore lovers...and does it qualify fer wikifur? Dunno, but anyway biggy today is..........(drumroll)...is the term 'werewolf' synonymous with 'lycanthrope'? Yes, you too can change history today before the morning coffee.. woof :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, they aren't quite synonymous. I can't quite put my finger on it, but one is like a pseudo-clinical term (although I remember something about it from my headshrinking clinical rotation, which might mean it's some real psychiatric issue, but I'm too lazy to turn on the light, pull down ICD-9 or 10 to prove it). Werewolf is more of a general term. I'm more into vampires than werewolves anyways. I am not a dog lover. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aah, you mean Clinical lycanthropy, I was almost going to send this to AfD as I had never heard of it but it has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. Never heard of this in ICD or DSM...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen it written interchangeably, depending on the particular author. It seems like lycanthrope is more often used by authors who like to present it as a virus (as opposed to entirely supernatural), but it seems pointless to have two separate articles because of such a small difference. In Underworld (the movies), they use "lycan" - should we have a third article? Avruch ^T 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Concise O.E.D. treats lycanthropy as a form of madness, "in which the patient imagines himself transformed into an animal with depraved appetites..." Not quite the same condition as being a werewolf, which they treat as mythology. Of course, Warren Zevon wasn't at Oxford, he was in London, so they might not have gotten the whole story. Ahh-Whooooooo!!! LeadSongDog (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That is clinical lycanthropy, discussed above, which you're right is something totally apart from conventional literary lycanthropy or werewolves. Avruch ^T 20:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On a trip to London a year or two I did manage to find Lee Ho Fook, walking through the streets of Soho. I almost regretted that it wasn't raining. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Boris, a fine Warren Zevon reference. You're one strange dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. (Actually there were two Lee Ho Fooks -- the big restaurant on Gerrard Street, and the small one around the corner with the red front and no English sign that always had a bunch of skinned fowl hanging in the windows. The latter was said to be the "real" Lee Ho Fook and seems to have closed down recently. I've seen other "Lee Ho Fook" restaurants in other places; perhaps it's Mandarin for something like Ye Olde House of Good Eats.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't go. I think it's Mandarin for Ye Olde House of Terrible Eats. I'll have to get my Beef Chow Mein someplace else. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I'd always thought Lee Ho Fook was a spoonerism. Yah learn sumpin new ever day...LeadSongDog (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually went there about 10 years ago. The review is a bit harsh, the food's not bad (English Chinese food ranks far below American Chinese food, possibly because the English are not known for sensitive taste buds). The service was horrible, probably because every freaking Zevon fan who visits London has to go there. I once took a one week holiday to London, and I had my picture taken in front of every single location that was referenced in a movie or song that I knew. Hanover Street. A nightingale sang in Berkeley Square. Half Moon Street (of course, any movie with Sigourney Weaver requires attention, even this bad one). And of course, just to be romantic, Notting Hill. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad timing

Dateline: last Thursday. Brit Hume shares his fair and balanced^® opinion that the economy is doing great, and anyone concerned about its fundamental soundness is just a whiny Democrat scared of Sarah Palin. One can only hope he believed his own talking points sufficiently to hold onto his Lehman Brothers stock. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Fox News gives much credence to reality. (yes, I'm a lurking, stalking, ne'er do well.) --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's the same evidence, they just have a different worldview. Possibly Uranus. . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Nas said it best... MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, medicine, vampires and now Nas?? Damn... Avruch ^T 19:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, capitalism as we knew it is dead. Odd that Bush was the one to approve its murder, but ...&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism as we know it? You mean a system where profits are privatized while risk is socialized, and where everyone worships the Free Market with one hand while giving out corporate welfare and no-bid contracts with the other? A system where we have a well-oiled corporate safety net but no social safety net? I'd say it's alive and well. The pendulum's just swinging back: deregulation mania and laissez-faire led to ever-wilder excesses and profits, until the pyramid collapsed and the government stepped in with drastic compensatory countermeasures. It's the story of the 1920's, the Depression, and the New Deal. It's the story of the savings and loan crisis. Different decade, SOS. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend, I was being somewhat sarcastic. Nonetheless, the bailout plan is quite the departure from anything we (as in the USians) have seen before, at least in scope. To me, and to many Europeans based on what I've read, this is looking very much like socialised capitalism. Of course, we don't know where it will lead, but my analysis leads me to believe that it'll be a while before laissez faire makes a comeback. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Only until the public stops thinking about how expensive it is. The political incentives for deregulation are only temporarily outweighed by the risk of public outrage. Deregulation, or lack of effective regulation in the first place at all. The interesting bit to me is that the ridiculously expensive rescue plan is far more sweeping and expensive that it might have been had it come a few months or more earlier. The laissez-faire tendencies of the Bush administration (such as they are) themselves contributed to the severity of the crisis. Of course, they'll fire Chris Cox (and perhaps Ben Bernanke), but ignore the fact that the complexity of the transactions and securities causing all the fear was pointed out as dangerous numerous times - even by the the man himself. As for Europe - most of Europe has been convinced for awhile that the United States is interested in truly free markets only when the risks are borne by others. Avruch ^T 00:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're more or less correct. The political incentives are also driven by the very real possibility of a depression. Bernanke is safe for now -- probably.

Your (to me) biggest point, that the "ridiculously expensive rescue plan is far more sweeping and expensive that it might have been had it come a few months or more earlier" is dead-on accurate. Of course, as all this was predicted in 2003 by an amateur you'd think it would have been bloody obvious to the pros. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 03:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how the rescue plan would have been cheaper if it had come a few months earlier. Housing prices peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since. It seems to me that an earlier rescue plan would have meant more pain for the taxpayers, less for the people who made these investments. Someone is going to have to take the losses. I gather US government has decided that it the private financial system has taken all that it can handle, and it's going to absorb the rest. Hopefully we will be purchasing these mortgage-backed securities at the prevailing market price, which gives us a chance of breaking even or even profiting from them. The market is so illiquid and the flight to safety so frantic that there is a decent chance that these securities are being underpriced. The hedge fund famous for shorting housing, Paulson & Co., noted that these securities are possibly an opportunity of a lifetime.[10] On the other hand, the $700 billion we spend on these MBS could just be gone. In either case, I hope the financial system pays the taxpayers dividends in the future. II | (t - c) 02:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're being optimistic. :) Anyway, it's not just the bailout I'm talking about, it's overall government action. And the crap the Bushites are spewing that no one could have foreseen this mess is demonstrably false: it was predicted by a number of people, most of whom were "amateurs" labelled as Cassandra's, as well as by a few evil liberal economists. The bottom line is that no one wanted to see what was happening, much like in the late 1920's. The irrational exuberance that swept the country very much meant that a belief that the good times would never end proved to be stultifying for so many. In some ways, this response was due to the emotional depression that gripped the US in the aftermath of 9/11, thus, it was in some ways, a "see, we're back on top" response. Nonetheless, the primary cause was greed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

alzheimer

maybe issues are confusing for you between senile dementia and alzheimer's, which isn't, as Alzheimer & Kraepelin defined it. --Jaykb (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck blazes are you talking about? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not British. About the only time I use "blazes" in a sentence is when I look out of my bed room window and say, "oh my, there are three blazes on the mountains this evening."OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're first was more accurate.  ;) What is he talking about? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was being cheeky :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aussies can be cheeky? Is that before or after a Foster's?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! Putrid stuff; that's why we sent it all to the US and to London. Victoria Bitter and Carlton Draught were the better of the mass produced beers by the same company, though there are much nicer ones now...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's happening again

... the Mets are collapsing. I can start the day, every day, with a smile on my face when I read that the Mets have lost again. The smile grows broader when I read the sports page of the New York Times and see David Wright and Jay Manuel talk about how they're not concerned, they're still in good shape, and this choke bears absolutely no resemblance to what happened last year. Nice of the Marlins to do their part by rolling over and playing dead for the Phils. Funny, when you engage a Mets fan on the subject these days, they change subjects to the Giants and Super Bowl XLII pretty quick. MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I smoked a cigar this weekend in celebration of the Mets' collapse. I'm happy. However, don't mention the Twins to Keeper76. He might be cranky and block me just on principle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All's not lost. We split a series at Tampa (how many teams have done that? They have the best homefield record in the majors...), and we head back home for 6 more games. Six home games. The Pales are hit and miss at the dome. One visit, they'll win 2 of 3, the next week, they'll get swept (like this year, we're they lost 3 in a row by 5 runs or more). I'm hoping the good Twins show and the BadPales as well. We could actually come out of the 3 games series with the division lead. So, how are the marlins doing? So wrong of them to have a 10 game winning streak so late in the season. How cruel to their 6 fans to build false hope like that...Keeper ǀ 76 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Optimism. The nice way to say "denialism."  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Last warning". The nice way to say "I'm gonna Indef your ass"....fan is short for fanatic. Why be reasonable? Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Marlins might contend this year, but they faded big-time when it counted. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just rumor. Nobody actually witnessed them fading. As far as anyone knows, they're still contending. Keeper ǀ 76 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 08 was their year. Every 5 years they rebuild a team that wins a World Series in front of 247 fans. Did you note that threat from the involved admin Keeper76? Im going to have to take it to ANI. We haven't had any drama on Wikipedia for at least 3 days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. There weren't 247 people there and you know it. Hyperbole much? Keeper ǀ 76 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I bought tickets for 246 homeless dudes. Get your facts right. What kind of admin doesn't know how to look up facts. Wikipedia only speaks the truth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just love the irony of your Wiki-existence. You are a gunslinger for accuracy, references, accuracy, and references. Except for your baseball team, which really is only rumored to exist as it has never been confirmed by an eye-witness to have played a home game. They are the Washington Generals of baseball, rented by real teams for exhibition and W-L record fluffing... Keeper ǀ 76 17:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I once again remind you. Two World Series titles in the last 11 years. . And what have the Chicago Cubs and Minnesota Twins done in the meantime. Case closed. You may bow at my feet now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bow at your feet? I thought you didn't like religious zealotry. Oh, I see, if you get to be the god, then it's ok. Sheesh. Keeper ǀ 76 18:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude. It took you this long to figure it out???? It's not like I"m hiding out somewhere. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

← Sports teams have a greater meaning that cannot be encapsulated in a simple won-loss record or World Series ring or two. They are cultural signifiers; what existence they have, in an abstract sense, is imbued by the meaning that fans invest in them. If you see someone wearing a Cubs or Phillies hat, you might think: "Poor bastard." A Yankees hat? "Insufferable name-dropper who hopes that others' success will reflect undeservedly on him." Red Sox? "That hat cannot be more than 3 or 4 years old." And if you see someone wearing Marlins gear? Who would know? I've never seen anyone wearing Marlins gear, and I've spent some time in Florida. The team is an existential void. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

L. O. L. Perfect encapsulation of several teams. Keeper ǀ 76 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I'm offended by your evil, despicable, low characterisation of Phillies fans. So there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera!

BTW, Keeper, I watched the Phils-Marlins game yesterday and there were only five fans. Harrumph. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...of which 4 were probably Phil-fans....just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. I own two Marlins hats, both of which brag about World Series wins, a Marlins leather jacket, and possible a Marlins key chain or two. Once again, there were approximately 47 fans in the stands at the end of the 9th inning. Which is 46 more than at Dodger Stadium at the end of the 9th inning. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you really comparing your fans to LA fans? You may as well brag about being a better driver than Lindsay Lohan. Set the bar lower, why don't you? MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm better looking than John Kruk too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a WP:BLP violation. Consider this your only warning. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the most disturbing thing is the Marlins leather jacket. Who (besides rabid snowmobilers in Northern minnesota) buys a leather team jacket??? Who are you? Keeper ǀ 76 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- leather is too cool to besmirch with a team's logo. OK, I'm not a member of PETA. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In other news: the Mets lost yesterday when the opposing pitcher hit a grand slam. Clearly destiny is at work, or perhaps bad karma left over from the '86 Mets. The Phils and Brewers won - 10 of the last 11 for the Phillies. Cue David Wright claiming that no one in the Mets clubhouse is thinking about last year's collapse. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to let the playoffs pass by in a blur this year. Translation: I'm forced to unwatch Alzheimer's after a miserable day of trying to just keep up with my watchlist and talk page. Ping me if I'm needed, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can only asume that means needed for consensus. But is that the way things are supposed to be? It was the obvious pile-on that got me over-riled. Good to see the intgrity of admin running strong on this strange page, btw! Thanks a bundle, Keeper - we all have bad days. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give you some advice. First, consensus is not a minority of two thinking they can force content into an article. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Second, you weren't invited here to give your opinion on this page. Unwatch it. Don't read. But don't comment on it, if it's going to be rude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the Yankees are eliminated from playoff contention & I'm the only one here, to weep. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

George shouldn'ta oughta fired Joe. Although I'll incur the wrath of fellow Phillies fans, I like the Yankees, hate the Mets though. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Girardi is now managing the Yanks. So, he kinda hired a Joe. And I don't think George is in control of his faculties, and definitely not in control of the team. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Callin' it now: Joe Girardi needs to make sure his resume is up-to-date. Keeper ǀ 76 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably right ... I wonder if Torre will send George a greeting card when the Dodgers clinch a playoff spot. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Amazing Sound of Mets' Choking

←Who else hears the sound of the Met's gakking once again? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all up to the Marlins to close the deal - the Mets have their last 3 at home against FLA. Can they do it? MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, they'll be 40,000 fans there to cheer on the Mets. Seriously, more New Yorkers in Florida than anything! If the Mets aren't up 12-0 in the 7th inning, they have no shot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My favorite metstat of the year: They've lost 8 games this year, 6 at home, when they had at least a 4 run lead in the game. Most for any team since 1894. Go marlins, I love a good flameout crash and burn. I'm enjoying the Palehose's as well. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Met's require a group tracheotomy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another of my fave images from yesterday: David Wright, whilst trotting onto the field, tripping and falling flat on his face, with Jose Reyes laughing his ass off. So symbolic. Keeper ǀ 76 18:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shea it ain't so; oh yes it is. Brewers clinch the NL wild card. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone hates my talk page

This edit cracked me up. And besides, I delete any references to American football. I guess talking about baseball, werewolves, bad chinese food, vampires, Anna Paquin's teeth, etc. etc. are intellectually forbidden on Wikipedia. Of course, the editor who wrote said comment fails to understand WP:NPOV, but I'll discuss it there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, and I was just considering vandalising your page to add "Baseball sucks!" Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I think I gave that guy rollback. If you want to learn about football, come to my page, where I frequently try to predict what new and inventive way the Vikings will find to lose a game. I lost yesterday, couldn't get Carolina to come back in the 4th quarter....Keeper ǀ 76 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about Australian football.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A, a real man's sport :-) Shot info (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

G'day Bruce! LeadSongDog (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, That Day in September is this weekend. Hawthorn Football Club versus the Geelong Football Club. Pundits have the money on Geelong at the moment. But Hawthorn have several freaks-of-nature playing for them. Either way, it's a BBQ and many....many beers to be had :-) Shot info (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

I'm (spring) cleaning closets drawers and other misc crap that has built up around the house. I don't have time to look now, but remind me later if needed that I have Sports Illustrated April 7 and April 14, 2003, SU NCAA basketball champion issues, in case you need them for citing anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You have these issues why? I lost mine in a move, and I had to buy them off of eBay. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have them because I'm a college basketball fan. Not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[11] I thought you might be interested. I know I'm not very active at all on the talk page or the article but I have partcipated on the talk though that is not what this log says. I thought you might want to take a peek too since I know you too have used the talk page and the article in the past. I hope I am not intruding. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WERW (Part 2)

Just thought you would like to know, the request for deletion on Syracuse University station WERW's page was withdrawn. If you want to link to it on the Syracuse University page, you can :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done some updating (mostly linkage and adding an infobox) to the WERW page. I would welcome some edits from you, as I only know the radio part, not the history. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk 03:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going have to break some bad news to you. When I was at SU, WERW didn't exist. So, any history I'd have to find from reliable sources!!! LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When you were at SU, electricity didn't exist. Zing. Are you gonna tell me what the hell's bothering you, or have you let it go already? Hit me. Keeper ǀ 76 17:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Electricity? What's that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Funniest diff of the past 60 days

And it didn't happen on this page (although as a result of one of my requests). Even Keeper76 might wet his pants, especially since the Twins are up 3-2 in the 7th inning. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's golden. Boehiem's a genius, Biden's gotta go :-) I heart SG! Keeper ǀ 76 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To Keeper76

Your talk page is officially off my watch list. If you need to engage with me about anything, including baseball, glaciers, vampires, hot VP candidates, the quality of food in Minneapolis, annoying Yankees fans, beer, etc., I'll be here. Oh, and if there's an occasional real edit...also here. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's probably better for both of us :-) What prompted the shafting? Keeper ǀ 76 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

An immoral, unethical editor showed up on your page. There are no rules that I have to participate in any discussion that they do. I just wanted you to be aware that I might not reply when you toss in a mean, over-the-top, disgusting, angry, passive-aggressive and harsh Marlins comment. That's all.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bummer. When you change your mind (and realizing that all good addictions have relapses), my talkpage will be open if you need admin assistance, or to console me when the Twins lose in the first round of the postseason. I know who you're talking about, and I think you are overreacting, but meh, tis your right. Keeper ǀ 76 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One has to have standards. And your page is like a fine scotch...goes down smooth, makes you feel warm all over, but has its price. And since this is an edit conflict, I'll run right over.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious??????OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First, yes, I'm serious. Wait, about what? The now deleted thread I linked? Yes, that was serious. And second, I knew you couldn't stay off ANK very long...Keeper ǀ 76 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had time (and if I gave up Wikipedia, I would have time), I'd just blog baseball 24/7. If there's a Wiki-baseball, I'd go, but my guess is that discussing the merits of the designated hitter would make the whole Intelligent design discussion seem like brotherly love. Yes, and why would you do the thing. Deleted thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a choice. I can't explain further than that, not yet. Keeper ǀ 76 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just about had you trained into a "Tool of the ID Cabal". Now I have to start over again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm nobody's tool. Well, maybe my wife's. But other than that, nobody! Okay, well maybe my son's.....but other than that, nobody's!!!! I'm not doing the vanish thing, I'll check in once and a while. But real life changes means I will have virtually no wiki-contact for an unforseeable duration. I wish myself that it weren't true, I fucking love this place (call me a masochist, but it's true...) Keeper ǀ 76 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You were called up? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right babe. Going to the majors. $$$$$$. Keeper ǀ 76 01:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew it. The Twins need some additional bats behind Morneau, and they decided you were ready. So, what are you going to do with all that extra cash?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably start a reliable, online encyclopedia, free from anonymous editing. Oh, wait. Keeper ǀ 76 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A gift for you!

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

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

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

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

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

I remember when you were mean and cranky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ri)Sanger needs to lay off OM's whiskey. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My 20,000th edit

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

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

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

A rewrite of ID saying that it represents the Only Truth, thus destroying the dreaded cab meme in the process. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Why not start an article on Paul Thurrott's exposé of the iCabal,[12] an evil shadowy group of Apple and Mac users using intrigue to assert an insidious influence over the rest of the world? . . dave souza, talk 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAC

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

FSC

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

Any comment ...

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

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

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

Your fish...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom

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

Just the numbers. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW

"WTF" was my reaction too. [13]. Good grief. Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

MEDRS

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

Thanks for adding your view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syracuse

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

Thanks. And I never bicker!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

No I don't. It's Duck Season. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

New Thought

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

Request for Clarification on Pseudoscience Category Arbitration

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

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

Buerocratic Fuck

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

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

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

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

Damn, I should have known. I hope someone has a vaccine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDS/OPV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cycling evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFAR

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

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

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

Skeptic

Perhaps, but I think we need to pick our battles for the moment, It's not worth fighting over that when it distracts from fighting this: [14] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

SU

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm starting to get LSD flashbacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ouch... I get this mental image of Walton in a diaper a la Garry Shider. [15] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

And who can forget Roger Murdock? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Walton had his moments too: [16], [17]. Amerique^dialectics 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't changed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Grammar edits to vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are being silly. Here, let me revert my edits, and you can therefore be happy that you are the smartest person on Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

SA

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually thought you might chime in here!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Invitation

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

It looks pretty good in most respects. Is there more that can be added to the history section? It looks like most of the history of Metabolife is the pre-company criminal record of its founders - the personal legal trouble, since it's related to the Metabolife product, is relevant of course... but it may be best to balance that out more with other information if any is available. Avruch ^T 05:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Request

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

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

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

Archiving assistance

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

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

Rosetta@home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

LOL

[18] :)

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

ZOMG!!!!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes

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

Uhh

Erm, its cool. I dont mind, I dont know i was a vandal or something, I was just correcting obamas religion, since he was muslim, but converted to becoming a christian. So yeah. Anyways, I dont mind. ^^ II MusLiM HyBRiD II 13:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

'08 US Election (15 October 2008)--Update

Some of you have mentioned that the Bradley effect, that is that white voter lie to pollsters about whom they'll vote, especially if that candidate is African-American so as to not appear racist to the pollster. The effect probably was more prevalent in the 1980's than it is now. Black candidates seem to meet or beat the pollster estimates in recent elections. And frankly, Obama may be settling the nerves of voters in the US who are now frightened of the economy. Wars, terrorism, crime and other key issues have fallen way behind the economy. And traditionally, voters trust Democrats with the economy (though I'm not convinced that either party has looked past partisan fighting to actually making the right moves on the economy, other than creating corporate welfare). I've archived previous comments to these polls User talk:Orangemarlin/Archived Election Commentary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Bradley effect, but I do think that history tells us that in states where Republicans control the logistical and voter-registration machinery, a slim Democratic lead in polls may not translate into a higher number of votes being counted for the Democratic candidate. It would be remarkable if Virginia and/or North Carolina went for Obama, despite the demographic trends you alluded to.

It will be interesting to see what the McCain campaign does. Right now, McCain clearly has a little angel sitting on one shoulder and a little devil on the other, both whispering in his ears, and he's taking turns obeying one and then the other. You can tell that they were keeping the really ugly stuff in reserve, officially denying that they'd make an issue of it, but then about a week ago things were desperate enough that McCain gave in to the dark side. Hence the McCain-Palin rallies have started to look uncomfortably like the crowd scenes from Triumph of the Will, or at least like an angry mob being incited to burn witches at the stake.

I think that being a fomentor of naked, often frankly racist hatred doesn't fit with McCain's self-image - he was clearly increasingly uncomfortable until this weekend he stepped in, to his credit, to mention that Obama is not an Arab (cue chorus of boos). Now the little angel on the other shoulder has won out temporarily, and they've cut back on the "palling around with terrorists" line and focused more on the economy and things that, you know, might actually affect people's lives. The problem is that it's got to be incredibly frustrating for his campaign staff to deal with such a lack of discipline and with a constantly changing strategy and set of talking points. I was encouraged to see McCain step back from the abyss and allow his fundamental decency to see the light of day, but next week all bets could once again be off. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that McCain/Palin are in trouble. Palin did nothing more than secure the right wing vote. But Republican women are just not interested. And Democrats and independents, male or female, are done with the McCain/Palin ticket. Whether they vote for Obama is probably a bit relevant, but not worrisome. Trends just aren't breaking for Republicans, and despite Republican control over some voter mechanisms in some states, I think that even those miscreants cannot overcome 5-10% deficits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit frightening to find oneself in agreement with Bill Kristol, though ([19]). MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was with him through "Fire his campaign." and then we diverged company after that. The most glaringly obvious flaw of that editorial (glaringly obvious flaws are common to Kristol op-eds, which is at least as important as politics in explaining why the other columnists were so annoyed at his hiring) is that he ascribes every problem McCain is having to his campaign, to external circumstances, to the media, to Democrats, and on and on - but nothing appears to be McCain's fault personally.

McCain has been a mediocre guy, a mediocre politician and a mediocre candidate from the beginning. He graduated barely above last in his class at Annapolis, and I suspect he might not have graduated at all if his father and grandfather weren't widely respected admirals. His record of accomplishment in the Senate, which he points out vaguely as an exemplar of experience, centrist conservatism and maverick diligence, is actually a record of very few concrete achievements.

When you have a candidate with a limited record formed over a long career running against a candidate with a limited record formed over a brief career, the election comes down to which candidate has a compelling message and a connection with voters. You can't get either one from campaign staff or weak but shrill attack ads, and the Democrats finally came up with a candidate who has both. Avruch ^T 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"No hard feelings, right?"

The outline of the story does have tragic elements. In 2000, Bush ran the most disgraceful, despicable campaign in recent memory to destroy McCain in the South Carolina primary. McCain made a calculated decision to swallow his pride and faithfully endorse Bush nonetheless. Now it's McCain's turn, and his support for Bush should be paying dividends, but instead he's anchored to a President who is radioactively unpopular, and whom he's probably always despised on a personal level. All he can do is try to deny Bush 3 times before the rooster crows.

To listen to them now, you'd think that the Republicans had spent the last 8 years warning us what an unfit leader Bush was, and how disastrous his policies have been. Bill Kristol is a prime example. Then again, Bush deserves no better (and probably much worse) than to end his Presidency being spit upon by his own party in a cynical attempt to rewrite history. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to the hated Bill Clinton, who was loved by his party. I'm not sure about the "better angels" sitting on McCains shoulder, but he has all of the attributes of a very weak leader. Strong leaders listen to ideas, incorporate them as their own, then lead the group forward. McCain seems unsure of himself, and listens to the loudest voice, and jumps at it. He would make a miserable president. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated

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

• Obama/Biden: 333 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 155 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 50d Electoral Votes

Well, I don't think the the fat lady is singing, but she is certainly warming up off-stage. The national average of polls is around 50.4% for Obama to 42.2% for McCain. It's actually worse than that, because the Obama has a steady 8-14 lead in every poll. Unless Obama decides to endorse McCain during the next debate, we're done here. Obama is taking traditional Republican strongholds like Virginia and North Carolina. The Republican Party is beginning to pay the price for it's obsession with social issues and terrorism instead of focusing on the country and the world. What all politicians forget is that strong economies = world peace. Free trade and low taxes build economies (yeah, I know, that's not a liberal democratic point of view, but Republicans are socialists of an odd stripe). The world doesn't get happier because of obsession on prayer in schools.

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

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 40
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 3 (Democrats are leading in Minnesota, which should give User:Keeper76 six years of laughter, and in Alaska, meaning Palin is going to have no effect on the country).

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

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

• Democrats: 243
• Republicans: 170
• Undecided: 22

The Democrats have gained 1, and the Republicans lost 3 since the last review. This election is harder to predict in the battleground areas, but about 80-90% of seats are very predictable.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I got your "Go Dodgers" right here...

They may lose a few more: "Dow closes down more than 700 after bleak report on retail sales." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When people are under significant stress, they tend to fall back on coping strategies that have been successful for them in the past. The Republican machinery responds to bad news by attempting to Swift-boat the nearest Democrat. While this is a notably poor solution to the actual problems facing the country, it has been remarkably successful in getting them elected. It does seem that this particular dog isn't going to hunt anymore, though, since you can't smear your way out of an economic collapse - not for lack of trying. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a strong economy = national security = world peace. I just hope Obama can right the economic ship. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, when I'm watching McCain talk, I just get the impression that he's not interested anymore. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or else he's horribly confused. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's that too. Maybe one too many bad landings on a carrier. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way to the two of you. GO DODGERS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr.....  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I guess alot of us non-americans worry that when it comes to the crunch and folks are getting off their proverbials and going to vote, the race card becomes an issue that folks were't willing to declare previously, resulting in a massive republican swing :((( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alot of us non-non-americans worry about that as well. I've heard lunatic-town stuff come out of people's mouths right here in "enlightened" Los Angeles. (GO DODGERS!) --guyzero | talk 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for the Bradley effect article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It it were close, like 3 or 4 points, then I'd worry about the Bradley effect. But right now with the economy in a complete and utter destructive pattern, no one trusts McCain or the Republicans. I think this will be the big change in the American political arena. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. These last two threads are so serious. Get a blog. No wonder the best admins keep disappearing, reading all this boring stuff. Ick. Go Rays. Keeper ǀ 76 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, watching grown men chasing each other around on a patch of grass is so much more exciting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea-but, sometimes they slide in the dirt. Nah, I got nothing. Baseball is a ridiculous sport, and probably the most boring one, except all the others. Keeper ǀ 76 02:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that anything that gives you an excuse to sit in a large crowd of rowdy people eating unhealthy food and drinking beer can't be all bad. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You would enjoy my family's Thanksgiving dinner then...Keeper ǀ 76 02:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you indef'ed or something? I have no clue who you are. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

However, Mast Cell's creative images do take the prize this week. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sporting topic is much more fun. Must say I've always rather enjoyed a game of rounders. .. dave souza, talk 10:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the sport's original name: stool ball. So dignified. Besides, rounders and baseball are totally different. One is a boring, interminable, obscurely complex, anachronistic quasi-sport played in a once-dominant but now faded former superpower, and the other... OK, maybe they're not that different. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, they still play Cricket. They say things like innings, batsman, and pitch, and have umpires. But, it's boring, interminable and obscurely complex. But I beg to differ on baseball. It's played by a still-dominant militarily, but incredibly faded economically, yet very arrogant superpower. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

<ud> Bartender shows good sense.[20] Go Phillies! . . dave souza, talk 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this thread got hijacked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Señor, this thread is going to Cuba now! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Awww, the good old days, when hijackers took us to Havana for some rum and a good cigar, or just jumped out of the plane. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to non-Americans worried about the election

Don't worry. Obama has this in the bag, and the US will strive to be good neighbors again. However, please note that Obama is against Free Trade, one of the pillars of world peace. He'll learn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, a German economist once described Free Trade as the replacement of cleverly disguised exploitation with direct, naked, shameless, unapologetic exploitation. And that was before outsourcing. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but Free Trade allows the US access to markets to buy and sell goods without tariffs. And since Germany is a huge exporter of goods, I'm not sure that they followed his advice.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this particular economist was most popular outside his home country. He's even buried across the Channel. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that you're a KGB stooge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping you were referring to Friedrich List, who said that the free trade dogma was a way for rich countries to "kick away the ladder" to progress for primary sector-based nations. We're lucky that Alexander Hamilton didn't take Adam Smith's advice that the United States pursue its comparative advantage in agriculture and avoid industrialization seriously. II | (t - c) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I heard him say he wanted to add worker protections to NAFTA. Not sure what good that'll do for the children in Chinese sweatshops, but a real nice sentiment anyhow. Perhaps he might start by leashing Walmart, who just decided to close another operation when a union was organised.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm never sure what to think of Wal-mart. I think they're no better or worse than any other capitalist endeavor. In a weak economy, they need to do what they need to do to maximize their profits, since as best as I can tell Wal-mart is not incorporated as a non-profit, altruistic organization. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not a McCainaanite? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly left-wing on health care, on social policies like school prayer, abortion, and education, on the environment, not because I am comfortable with the science behind global warming, but because I like clean air, water, and land, on defense issues, though I believe in a strong military, and on almost all other issues of the heart. With regards to economic issues, I am a capitalist, with a strong belief that each individual is responsible for their own well-being. If Wal-mart wants to increase profits by locating in areas where it can reduce labor costs, then so be it. I suggest that following a rigid economic model of forcing corporations to do what is required by the government is doomed to failure. I don't go to Wal-mart because I find their social policies in third-world countries to be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Don't patronize them if you don't like them. That's what I do. But the funny thing is that Wal-mart is patronized by a lot of lower-income individuals, so they must be doing something right. And no, I will not vote for McCain, and only vote for Obama because on social policy I agree with him (save for his in your face Christianity, which is highly annoying), but economic policy, I think he's a noob, with no experience or skills. Lucky for Obama, McCain is even less competent in the area. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that experience and "skill" are highly overrated when it comes to economic issues. Henry Paulson had plenty of experience. Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt had little to none. On paper, our most accomplished President in the economic sphere should have been Herbert Hoover. He almost single-handedly managed the rescue of Europe from mass starvation after the First World War, and he'd been a remarkably experienced and successful economic titan before his election. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Professionals of economics allowed this crisis, and most haven't seen it coming, with the exception of a few such as Nouriel Roubini, who was somewhat scorned. Economists are notorious for being terrible economic forecasters. Do a Google search on it. Alan Greenspan (who is not really an academic economist, but certainly a professional) cut rates far below what would have been dictated by the Taylor rule, and nobody even raised a fuss. Most are too busy doing equations to see beyond the piece of paper in front of them. The Fed was optimistically projecting that we'll have strong growth in '09 even a couple weeks ago. Since most economists believe in a fairly strong form of the efficient markets hypothesis, they figured this was all fine (if it wasn't, the market would have been discounting it) until the market fell off a cliff. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the housing markets still have a ways to fall.[21] It'd be interesting to hear about what you think makes Obama a noob at economics. I've read his blueprint.[22] Some of the proposals are surprisingly savvy, and heavily information-based, which is the focus of good 21st century economics. II | (t - c) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

About Wal-Mart - yes, I think Americans instinctively value individual responsibility. But at the same time, people have a deep instinctive and cultural need for fairness. I think many people sense that Wal-Mart's practices, while they may be strictly legal and in keeping with free-market fundamentalism, are intuitively unfair. You and I have economic choice, because we can afford to buy from Whole Foods instead, but not everyone can exercise the kind of free choice that theoretically sustains the free market. In any case, Wal-Mart benefits massively from corporate welfare, and it socializes the costs of its business practices - uninsured patients being the tip of the iceberg - while jealously privatizing all of its profits. That's actually not consistent with honest capitalism, as far as I'm concerned - it's more like a cynical hybrid that exploits both capitalist and socialist elements in the quest of more money for fewer people. But now I'm starting to sound like a German economist. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. And what politicians say to get elected isn't what they will do when they see the vast issues presented to them once they're in office. Presidents can't be micromanagers, they need to set policy and strategy. I'm just hoping that Obama has that particular skill-set in his brain.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Trader Joe's fan personally. Whole Foods, in my area, has this hot food area that is just too destructive to my waistline. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

<ud> "Obama has this in the bag"? That's rather like what Neil Kinnock's supporters sounded like before John Major got on his soapbox. The repubs are sounding so defeated, it makes me wonder if they're trying to pull the complacency trick. Admittedly McCain's no Major. As for capitalism and social responsibility, this recent blog is rather relevant. Good luck with the election, anyway. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, "you're no Jack Kennedy" was one thing, but "you're no John Major"? Ouch. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what happens in a country that drinks warm beer.  :) Some of these manipulative strategies might work in a close election, but not in one where Obama has a 7-14 point lead. And remember, the US doesn't work on a popular vote, but in a state by state election, and Obama has nearly an insurmountable lead. McCain's lead is bolstered by irrelevant leads in the right-wing states of Alabama, etc.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So who's lined up for the new Galbraith? As for warm beer, it at least has the merit of not paralyzing one's taste buds ;/)LeadSongDog (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably Maria Bartiromo. And British beer is my favorite. They think a "pint" is 20 ounces -- every time I go over there I feel bad about taking advantage of foreigners, but it passes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I never understood the Sarah Palin fawning amongst guys, but Maria.....sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I never have either. BTW, Britain is parliamentary, so it's not truly a popular vote the way you're thiknking. And I hate the electoral college -- I once did the math and it's possible to lose the popular vote by tens of millions and still win. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Olivia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you happy now....

...with the monster major depressive disorder article? i.e. is it ready to be taken to the snake pit? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention that this looks good? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't, but i bit the bullet anyway, so any help in dealing with the issues is much appreciated. I was supposed to be doing my tax last night but got distracted (possibly a very dumb thing to do...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

brain

Hi; per SandyGeorgia if you have any time it would be great to have your input on the brain article, which I've massively reworked and sent in for FA assessment. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

AAAARRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH. I already have a headache.  :) I'll give it a shot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look today too. (cool, 3 bio articles in a row at FAC...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Great -- I'd have contacted you too but I thought MDD would probably keep you busy. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) it will, but even a quick look-over by a new set of eyes can be very valuable, hence my offer. Will have to see how today pans out (bad case of monday-itis :( ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To MastCell and Jim62sch

Go Rays. Note: All rude, suggestive, and otherwise passive-aggressive images regarding this statement will be deleted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the Bloom County charcters used to say, "pbbbtthhhh". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (Two Weeks to Go Update)

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

• Obama/Biden: 313 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 157 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 68 Electoral Votes

There's been a slight, and I mean slight, shift to McCain in the Electoral vote, but given that four traditional Republican states, Virginia (leaning to Obama), North Dakota and North Carolina (both have Obama in the lead, but officially up for grabs), and Montana (slight lead for McCain, but officially up for grabs), are not safe for McCain does not bode well for his campaign. In fact, Obama was in North Carolina this weekend, which is a rarity for a Democrat this late in the campaign. What really should be troubling is that Obama has 234 strong electoral votes. McCain has only 137. With 272 needed to elect the President, and so many states leaning towards Obama, it would really be a miracle for McCain to pull this one out. Again, it's not over, but this is almost turning into a blow-out. Right now, the national trends are about 49.5% for Obama, 44% for McCain.

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

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 39
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 4

It's looking like there will be a huge Democratic majority in the Senate. Right now, only 4 seats are really undecided, in Minnesota (Al Franken is leading in a three-way race), Alaska (Democrat is leading over Ted Stevens, who's in big legal trouble), Georgia (a Republican state with a Democrat with a tiny lead), and Mississippi (a right-wing state with a Democrat slightly behind).

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

• Democrats: 245
• Republicans: 167
• Undecided: 23

The Democrats have solidified their gains here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On the presidential election, between the debate and the Powell endorsement the news for McCain was unambiguously good. A lot of the "chattering class" somehow thought that Obama won the last debate, either on the merits according to them or with voters. Personally, I thought it was clear that McCain achieved his primary goals - showing some energy in attacking Obama (to prove that McCain actually wants to win this election), preventing serious injury from Obama's response (easy because there was very little), separating himself from Bush in the minds of voters (done) and clarifying the difference between the two candidates (he hammered on the tax and spend mantra, which has been effective for a long time). The result is that his standings improved by virtually every measure, and the election is now barely outside the margin of error in Obama's favor.

By the way, if you haven't already, check out fivethirtyeight.com. Pretty good website. Avruch ^T 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

538 is on my list of websites that I check daily. I've been watching elections for some 40 years, obviously before there were national news outlets or the internet. Usually, about 2 weeks before the election, there is a perceptible change in attitude by the candidates that indicate what's happening. Obama is attacking swing states that really aren't swing states until this year. McCain is trying to defend those states. The candidates have tracking polls that are more sophisticated than the ones we see in the press, and I think they both know what's happening. McCain just can't overcome what's going on in the country. I just hope that Obama isn't too left-wing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The worst of all outcomes, I think, would be Obama wins with a large margin and then proceeds to alienate 60% of the country with ultra-liberal policies. All the middle of the road people will develop a serious case of donkey burn, and the Dems will be the party of jackass for a short 4 years. Still - my main point above distills down to this: It isn't at all a shoe-in, and you only have to go back 4 years (and not 40!) to find an example of polls incorrectly predicting an outcome. Avruch ^T 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

By ultra-liberal I take it that you mean somewhat right wing. It's quite something when a Republican's best chance lies in completely disowning Dubya. . dave souza, talk 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What are "ultra-liberal policies", though? The last President to pursue an agenda that could be called "liberal" in any meaningful sense was Lyndon Johnson. Right now, things have skewed so far that most of Obama's policy positions would be to the right of President Nixon. People consider a progressive income tax to be "ultra-liberal", or even "socialist", these days. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The sorts of things that one of my own senators, Bernie Sanders, would propose. A nationwide HMO, a resurgence in welfare-like benefits, a dramatic expansion in spending and deficits, a significant reduction in the size of the military (note I said size, not budget!), a national educational curriculum (which I'd support, but which Obama should not propose), etc. Since I'm here and it seems like half the people on this page are physicians - my dad, a surgeon, is adamantly opposed to a national health care system (and uses his credential to backup his argument). His sister, an ER doc, has the opposite viewpoint (also "as a physician"). As health care experts, where do you fall? Avruch ^T 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain supports welfare-expansion -- corporate.  ;) I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but some type of national health plan, very similar to Obama's is needed (it's not a national HMO, by the way). I've not seen aything regrading reducing the military, nor do I think a reduction is likely -- we're at the point now where if North Korea attacked South Korea we'd be useless. A "national educational curriculum" would be an extension of "No Child Left Behind". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Obama's plan isn't an HMO at all. As he repeated during the debates, it "preserves and expands the employer-based health care system." Which is fine, but thats the proposal before its proposed - i.e., Congress will tear it apart. If it turns into a single payer system (which I think is the only real solution, even if it will never be perfect) then Obama will still get the blame. What interests me is that there such a wide gulf among physicians on what the health impact of such a system would be - even in my family, it ranges from "medical disaster" to "virtual panacea." (slight exaggeration on panacea, but you get the point). Avruch ^T 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't like our health-care system ending up like Canada's or the UK's. Those who get outstanding health insurance from their employers or through private plans, deserve the opportunity to access the best possible health care. If a national HMO or health care plan was made available to the poor or to the unemployed, that's fine, but it should not harm the competitive system whereby employers attract better employees with health care plans, or if I want access to the top cardiologist or oncologist in my area, I get it. I don't want to be told to use some half-assed surgeon, because we've socialized medicine to the point where we're rationing who goes where. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely a major avenue of criticism, and certainly a single payer system could be structured to create those problems. It could also easily be structured to eliminate them - ideally, in a single payer system, every surgeon is in network. Of course, the UK and Canada have found that the only way to maintain such a system is to prohibit most forms of private (or out of network) treatment and insurance. But as a "back-office" manager at a hospital (in pharmacy), its crystal clear how much time and money (which is to say, money and money) we waste on administrative costs. Medicare accounts for surprisingly little compared to the constellation of private requirements. If you could cut 20% of the costs of health care by eliminating private payers, and another 10% by making everything electronic (reducing errors and administrative costs), it seems like he'd have an enormous amount of money left over to fix everything else. Avruch ^T 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm betting that Billy isn't going to the same hospital as Trevor the plumber in East London. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care

← See, only in the U.S. would the idea of a national health plan be considered "liberal" or "ultra-liberal". I can't generalize about how physicians feel, but I have noticed a significant generational difference. Older physicians, around retirement age, are much more likely to be opposed to "national" health insurance for a variety of reasons. Medical students and recent graduates tend to be much more sympathetic to the idea. I think an earlier concern was that the government would constrain the autonomy of physicians and their ability to exercise their hard-earned judgement. However, anyone who's ever spent an hour arguing with an 18-year-old insurance company frontperson about medical necessity realizes that this problem is not unique to the public sector.

On some level, it's a matter of economic competitiveness. Our big employers, like GM, are burdened with massive expenditures on health plans for their employees. Businesses actually bear part of the burden - they can either cripple their competitiveness by spending on a good health plan, or go the Wal-Mart route and deny those benefits entirely, socializing the cost of caring for their uninsured employees. Companies in other countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their workers, and they're more competitive as a result.

Rationing is an ugly word, but it's time for some reality. We cannot afford to extend the sort of healthcare which the privileged enjoy to every U.S. citizen. It just isn't economically feasible. On some level, tough decisions have to be made. What's being ignored is that we already ration care - we just do it in haphazard, unplanned, non-systematic, and grossly unfair fashion. Look at the use of advanced treatment modalities among various ethnic or socioeconomic groups. These therapies are being rationed. Them's the facts. We need to figure out to ration them more fairly and thoughtfully.

Incidentally, we already have a system of government-sponsored national healthcare in the US, though you have to be a veteran to access it. The VA does some things very well and others very poorly. I think we can learn a lot from that system's successes and failures. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the first clue to the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit the opposition. Next step will be an endorsement of Obama by Rice, then Cheney, and finally by W himself. It'll be the kiss of death.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MC just called me old. Can someone desysop him? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not old, just older. It's a sad commentary on our society's lack of respect for its elders that we consider "old" a de-sysop-worthy insult. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When I look at my graying beard and receding hairline I reflect on the fact that I'm getting old, so as punishment for thinking that I de-sysoped myself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You did say "I've been watching elections for some 40 years". Self-outing is no offence.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was a genius...I started watching elections prior to birth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're also an elitist you McCainaanite. Ha! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, "elitist" (in our current political code) means someone smarter or more talented than you. So say what you will about Orangemarlin, but he is no elitist. :P MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Tampa Rays. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

←Back on topic regarding health care. I still have a capitalist bent. I want physicians and insurance companies to have high HEDIS and PAS scores. I want to be able to attract employees by offering them better benefits. I want to work for a company with the best benefits. GM isn't going under because of massive health care plans, they're going under because they are poorly run with bad products. Every American deserves the right to basic medical care. Every child should get free vaccinations before entering school. Emergency rooms should accept all traumas, regardless of insured status, and do it for free if the patient cannot afford it. However, I deserve the right to be able to buy the best possible health care for myself. If I want to pay to fly to the Mayo Clinic to try a new cancer therapy on myself or my children, then that's my right. I'm all right with rationing health care, as long as the basics are available to everyone. So, I want a system where the unemployed or the chronically poor have access to medications to treat Type II diabetes. But I want a system that allows me the opportunity to seek out an endocrinologist that has advanced therapies available to treat the same. I'm willing to ration care, just as long as I'm not rationing away my ability to have the best care, because I don't self-medicate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Australia's medicare system is pretty good in that regard (mixing capitalism and universal healthcare, except that the rebates payable to doctors (from the gov't for services) are not indexed to the CPI and have fallen ~20% in 20 years in real terms (i.e. bracket creep)... :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Back when I went to school, becoming a doctor was a ticket to a Ferrari and the good life. Right now, only Trauma surgeons make really good money. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, situation similar here, it's the proceduralists who can make money, everyone else gets by, unless they get involved in some business aspect or other. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But of course we have the aussie tabloids to keep us honest from todays newspapers here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make money in medicine, it's still remarkably easy. You are basically guaranteed lifetime employment, and your skills are marketable in any number of ways. Incomes may be down somewhat from the mythical "golden age", but I haven't seen anyone going hungry (maybe temporarily Ferrari-less at most). Anyway, you have the best job there is.

Besides, trauma surgery isn't the way to go - you have to work hard, take frequent call, and distressingly often you have to tell families that someone young has died suddenly, violently, and unexpectedly. Plus, the temperature in the trauma OR's is always cranked up to sauna level - what kind of work environment is that? For easy money, the way to go is radiology, anesthesia, dermatology, or ophtho. Right now, people are flocking to those specialities and away from anything that involves patient care, like internal medicine or family practice - 'cause who wants ten times the work and 100x the headaches for 10% the pay? The financial incentives are definitely perverse.

Plus, you have the ultimate fallback plan - you can always become a quack, promote some pseudoscientific nonsense diet or therapy using your credentials, cite the massive Pharma-Industrial Conspiracy to Suppress Natural Cures®, and watch the money roll in. I'm keeping that one in my back pocket, and taking notes here on Wikipedia about how it's done. MastCell ^Talk 03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Money's better shilling for Big Pharm. And I don't know what trauma center you've visited lately, but the one's I've been in have been kept at a blustery 65 or so. And I tell you why, if I was given the opportunity to do it all over again, I'd want to be the Chief of Surgery in a decent Level 1 trauma center--practicing medicine that you just don't get to do very often. How many times do you get to save a life because you think fast on your feet? How many times do you get to try an innovative technique because the M&M geeks aren't going to eat you alive--your patient wasn't going to survive, so you may as well try for the home run? And I wouldn't have to worry about giving flu shots or actually being nice to a patient (don't want to surprise you here, but my beside manner consisted of "would you fucking lose weight and quit the fucking smoking you fat ass lazy sonofabitch"--I'm not a big fan of patients or patience). Oh, so I don't mind the hard work for the $1.5 million annual salary, and a big bonus would be that I wouldn't have any real patients! YESSSSSSSSS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Awww...I like talking to patients...and you can see some pretty dramatic recoveries in psych...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without a good patient interaction, you probably couldn't effect any therapy. Once again, I'm back to Trauma surgery.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think the patient population in trauma surgery is like, but I can tell you that the interactions were not particularly rewarding. Not only that, but the overall mentality is depressing and cynical, rather than uplifting as you suggest. I will never forget one patient I cared for - this gentleman had shot and killed another man in some dispute, and had himself been shot in the head. After an extensive neurosurgical procedure, he was left awake, conscious, but mute, hemiparetic, and ventilator-dependent. As a murder suspect, he was attended at all times by two police officers and handcuffed to the bed. I spoke to one of the officers on rounds one morning - he told me that they were preparing to ship him out to the trache/PEG unit of the local jail, the existence of which is depressing enough in its own right. I asked the officer what would happen to this patient, whom we'd spent an extensive amount of effort and resources attempting to save. He told me that the DA was likely to seek the death penalty.

But yes, I participated in thinking fast and saving other lives on trauma surgery. Aside from the above upstanding citizen, we worked hard and managed to save a man who'd tried to inject heroin and drive at the same time, in the process running down and killing two children. That felt great. I also remember a 14-year-old kid who'd been sitting in a restaurant and asked some local youths to leave his sister alone. He was shot and left paralyzed from the waist down, permanently, at age 14. The shooter was never apprehended. I mean, those cases stick out, but there were plenty more along those lines. I didn't sleep well while I was on that service, even when I wasn't on call. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I get your point. Mostly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Score one for verbosity. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, the stars will align (I know a fringe theory), and you will understand why I was succinct.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a debrief MC, crystallizes well most of us who worry about US gun laws...heavy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you do it. I mean, I really can't see how the hell someone can take stuff like that on a day to day basis, or even less dramatic things like having to treat children knowing they have an incurable illness and there's not a thing you can do about it. I could never be a doctor. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, despite what MC said about the negatives, there's balance to those negatives, or no one would do it. I always assume that the world nets out positive because there are physicians willing to try to save a life. I hope that's not some sort of psychological denial. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I've focused on some of the negatives, but actually it's the best job in the world. While I have other interests, I never seriously considered doing anything else, and I've never regretted it. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. You really wanted to play first base for the Phillies, but you couldn't hit a curve ball out of the infield. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't hit a curveball, period. And growing up, I wanted to play for the Yankees. It took awhile to come to my senses. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. Yankees? I'd rather be a proctologist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ud)Yet another doc who wants to do eighteen holes a day?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uggggggghhhh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bowser and Blue's The Colorectal Surgeon on youtube.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Twinkle

You said on talk:Twinkle, that none of your buttons are showing up. You should download Mozilla FireFox. I think it will work on a Mac and your buttons are sure to show up there. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After much work, I figured it out. I had one small error in my monobook. I kind of rebuilt it from bottom up, and there we go, it worked. I don't mind Firefox, but with Mobile Me, I can sync my Safari bookmarks across 4 different Macs. I just can't do that with Firefox. Safari usually works perfectly for me with Wikipedia, but I was trying some new Twinkle scripts, and I messed them up. Damn comma!!!!! Thanks anyways. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic?

? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Got distracted. I'll focus.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

...Nag... [23] [24] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Right Half of the Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I hereby award thee, Orangemarlin, the Right Half of the Half Barnstar, for willingness to compromise and for nice messages, by thee and by Martinphi, demonstrating co-opero-bridge-ification of a type likely to assist significantly in constructing this encyclopedia. Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For compromise with Martinphi at Talk:Orgone, and for nice messages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I believe I heard a weather report that it's snowing in hell. LOL. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Hi Orange! It's been a while since we've talked, and thank you for the support !vote :) I would actually like to work a bit more on ice hockey, but there are just so many Wikipedians who know more about this than I do, so it seems a bit weird really delving into the field. I have very little info on the Israeli hockey teams, and will perhaps look for some in the coming weeks. However, I do have the 'Total Hockey Encyclopedia' from 1999, which should contain some information missing from Wikipedia so far. Not much though, because most Wiki articles on ice hockey are better than what I'd write. Tell me what you have in mind and we can start collaborating. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Orange! Your support was much appreciated :) It's funny you should mention the Kings, man, they're probably the least successful team in NHL history ;) although to be honest, the Canucks have to be the 2nd least successful :( too bad, I really hope they win the cup this time around! 38 years is way too much not to win the cup. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Just in case you thought the days of midwestern Congresspeople calling for investigations of "un-American" activity were over... [25]. Thankfully, after 8 years or so people have gotten wise, and the call to investigate "liberal, leftist, possibly anti-American" members of Congress led to $1 million in donations... for the other candidate. It's almost like people are finally realizing that a simple willingness to stoop to any level to defame a political opponent is not a sufficient qualification for office... but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

Actually, the fascinating thing I learned from our bio of Michele Bachmann is that she was converted to conservatism by reading Gore Vidal's Burr, because she felt Vidal was "mocking the Founding Fathers". That's a curious comprehension of the book, since Vidal is deeply respectful and impressed by the Foundig Fathers achievement, though admittedly it's a mature and critical respect rather than an unquestioning idolization. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain?

Hi,

Can you explain what I did wrong? You left a message on my talk page. I just did that because someone deleted racist off of a black supremecist group so I decided to do it on a white supremacist group. It should be okay, unless wikipedia has a "whites are racist blacks are not" policy.

Thanks. Ryan1159 (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The KKK is a racist organization by any reliable source. If you want to push a POV agenda, don't even consider bringing it to this page, you will not go far. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt about that. It's just that when I put that the New Black Panther Party was racist, I was given a warning. It even says on the new black panther party's page that it was a black supremecist organisation, so that means it is racist. Maybe you can help me out with that, It would make wikipedia look not so biased. Thanks.

Ryan1159 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Without comment as to the correctness of your claim, please see WP:POINT. It is inappropriate on Wikipedia to prove your point by making an edit that you know to be contrary to building a good encyclopedia. --B (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (13 12 11 days to go edition)

According to pollster.com we have a slight, very slight, tightening:

• Obama/Biden: 286 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 157 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 95 Electoral Votes

RealClearPolitics has McCain at 160 (giving him Montana, which Pollster.com has as a toss-up). If all of the toss-up states are portioned out to each candidate based on who is leading today, Obama/Biden would win 364 to 174. Obama would win traditional red states such as Nevada, Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, and Indiana. The various national polls of likely voters is staying solidly with Obama, including recent polls showing Obama up by 11 and 13 points. As of right now, an average of nonpartisan polls shows Obama up, 50.1% to 43.1%.

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

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 38
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 5

Republicans are starting to get into trouble on a number of races. Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Alaska, and Georgia are all toss-ups. And even Texas is getting tighter. No matter what, Republicans need 44 seats in the Senate to filibuster which is the one method that the Republicans can use to defeat legislation.

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

• Democrats: 246
• Republicans: 166
• Undecided: 23

According to this, the Republicans think they're in for a whipping, much worse than what is estimated in these polls. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the above - 41 seats, not 44 are needed to filibuster. 60 seats allow for debate to be stopped. 41 votes can keep it going. As for the House, those races or so wildly unpredictable because of the ability of the relatively small sizes of districts. With only 200K or fewer votes involved, if bad weather keeps 10K people home, that's 5% of the vote right there. My gut says the GOP numbers you gave are way on the high side, but there's a huge margin of error there. What will really be interesting is in two years - just from which seats are up for reelection, the Democrats probably pick up another seat or two (I can't even think off hand of a Democrat that isn't in a safe seat in the Senate next time around). That would mean that the Democrats might get close to filibuster-proof in the Senate for the last two years of Obama's term. --B (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I took that 44 right from the Republican memo (or at least the paraphrasing). I think the 44 got repeated in a lot of news sources. Go figure. Anyways, 41 is probably within striking distance of the Republicans, but it's interesting to see how many races are now in play. Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska and Georgia (all deep Red States) are all toss-ups. If the Democrats take any two plus hold the lead in Minnesota, then it will be only 40 for the Republicans. Depending on Lieberman, who seems to have quieted down with his pro-McCain comments. As for the House, you might be right about the volatility, but I'll bet only 15-20 seats would be affected by that kind of issue, so it would be hard to believe that all 15-20 would have weather problems. And, the problem for the Republicans is that some seats that were safe are moving to non-safe, and very very very few Democratic seats are moving in that direction. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republican memo says that they expect to get 44 seats. I think that the wording was fuzzy, but all that they were saying was that 44 (as with all numbers >= 41) will be sufficient for a filibuster. --B (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The wording was fuzzy, but I think I understand your interpretation. I think that this part of the election may be the only thing that might be interesting on November 4. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

<ri> As an outsider used to a simpler system where we just put a cross on a bit of paper to choose an MP, this is terribly puzzling. I've been rather slow at getting the hang of it, but from an article in a fairly local paper it seems that you've been misled by those reality-based critics, and have failed to grasp that the real America is supporting Palin, that is, pro-American areas of America, it's just the celebrity land that's givin' her slim pickins. It's those sexist watchdogs complaining about things that aren't even in line with her family's frugal personality, and she hasn't even opened them yet![26] Hope that's clear, dave souza, talk 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if its the polls from 2004, or the contradiction between the outcome of the election and the actual vote in 2000... But I still have the funny feeling that McCain could actually win. Whether its the Bradley effect, overstated registration numbers (Acorn), overly optimistic likely voter models, similarly optimistic polling data, complacency by voters who think Obama has already won, etc. - there is no way to really know how the election will out until it does. Avruch ^T 15:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not over till it's over, and even then sometimes you have to wait for the Supreme Court. The one sure thing seems to be that the Republican Party is going to reconsider their MO. I don't think I've ever seen a Party suddenly and dramatically decide to repudiate the way it's governed the country in the preceding 8 years. Of course, many aspects of McCain's campaign operations are dishearteningly familiar, but I have to believe that privately (and, after the election, publically) the guiding minds of the GOP have internalized the bankruptcy (moral and literal) of their governance, in the face of overwhelming evidence, and that they'll do things differently next time around. Hey, they suddenly admit global warming might exist - anything is possible. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if its the most dramatic; Gorby after that coup thingy was pretty dramatic turnaround...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken that happened outside America and can therefore be ignored. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Although Russia is close to Alaska...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I get so caught up in my anti-Americanism that I forget about "real America"—especially those areas that are so pro-America that they want to secede. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Orangemarlin, I am somehow under the impression that you are an admin (is it true?). I have a request (hope you don't mind). Yesterday I made the redirect Grampian phase to Grampian, somehow I recalled reading an article of the sort. It turned out to be a disamb. page and I can't find the article anymore. I want the redirect to be deleted, but I don't know which template to use (speedy deletion?). Can you help me out? Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want it deleted? Grampian phase is now a perfectly respectable redirect to Caledonian orogeny, as you'll see if you click on the link, just below the article title. I've noted it on Grampian (disambiguation) and since it is also called the Scandian phase, it could be redirected there if an article is created on this specific subject. . . dave souza, talk 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't redirecting there until Hardyplants changed the redirect. That is also a good solution, I have nothing against it. Btw Grampian and Scandian are not the same, the first is about Scotland, the second about Scandinavia. They were just caused by the same thing. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My misreading of the section heading. Ideally, then, brief articles could be put together as stubs on each, giving a bit more detail than the Caledonian orogeny#Scandian/Grampian phase section and with both linked from that section. Thanks, dave souza, talk 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this got fixed. And your impressions is so wrong, I'm shocked that no one is laughing. I am not an admin. They don't pay enough.  :) Oh, and the fact that McCain has a better chance of winning New York than I do of becoming an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Shows me something is wrong here. Not in New York but on Wikipedia. Well, I won't meddle with that. Cheers, Woodwalker (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism on Wikipedia

Orangemarlin, this is an appalling personal attack, and a clear violation of WP:NPA.[27] Please review Wikipedia policies, and adopt a better standard of behavior in the future. If you make any other attacks, your account access may be blocked. --Elonka 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OM, stay cool, man... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated this for all to see and I am cool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I strongly disagree that this is a personal attack, since an analysis of WP:NPA does not prohibit a characterization of the behavior of certain editors as uncivil. For example, it states "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse"--many of Jagz comments fit this particular description. Jagz' comments found in this discussion or this edit can only lead someone to reasonably conclude that there is evidence of such a characterization. Numerous other editors and admins, many with years of experience have concluded the same about Jagz here, here, here and here. I find racism to be the highest form of uncivil discourse, since it chills the air of a collegial atmosphere. To characterize someone's agenda as being "racist," or "anti-semitic" (which in common discourse can be synonymous with Neo-Nazi) is important to the project, because it is necessary for the project to identify those individuals who bring discredit to articles or to the project. You may disagree with my characterization of Jagz's edits or behavior, but there is sufficient evidence to back that up. If a reasonable person thinks that some of his edits and comments are innocent, which his community ban does not indicate, then I would be more than happy to strike my comments here and elsewhere.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the two links to Jagz' comments. Nothing there merits calling Jagz a neo-Nazi, or even a "racist". Believing that race affects intelligence does not make one a racist. Just because Jagz believes that race affects intelligence doesn't mean he believes in discrimination based on race. Could you produce diffs showing that he believes the latter? All I see is Jagz placidly saying that genetics and race have an impact on intelligence. 23andMe states that 80% of adult intelligence is genetic.[28] Ashkenazi intelligence is not that controversial. Anyway, pointing out that other people call him racist makes it seem as if you don't understand the weakness of opinion as evidence. What are they basing their opinions on? You should know how weak opinions are, since I'm sure if I looked I could find plenty of people calling you ugly names. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . II | (t - c) 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is not shared by a fairly large number of editors. BTW, race is an invention, it has nothing to do with genetics, so even if I believed that 80% of intelligence is genetic (and I don't), it's still racist to contend that race has anything to do with genetics. Let me end this before it goes any further, I have a fairly firm policy of not discussing any article on my user talk page. I respect you, so please take this statement for precisely what I mean it to say--please do not discuss those articles with me here, I'll delete it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Ashkenazi intelligence is pseudoscientific crap. And the article seems to state the same. And I'm done with that discussion too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I tried a rebuttal, you'd delete it? Even if you were willing to discuss it, I wouldn't -- because 1) it's too emotional of an issue for you 2) your mind is already made up 3) in case I ever do reveal my real identity, I don't need to be branded forever a racist by the self-righteous masses simply because there is controversial data on the issue. Most importantly, however, I have better things to do with my time. II | (t - c) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of the article, and I'll discuss it with you there. Since I watch probably 4,000 articles, ping me here if you write something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of the name "racist" is highly inflammatory, though. OM, you're correct. I've seen an academic define "racism" as "belief that race is real, i.e., biological." However, that belief is quite common, so I generally don't call someone racist merely because they believe that, say, race is a factor in intelligence. It's possible to argue that race is correlated with intelligence, because "race" -- that is, the social category -- also correlates with many other factors that can affect intelligence, such as early nutrition, educational opportunities, easy familiarity with the sublanguage of tests, etc., etc. However, genetic testing reveals more variation within a supposed racial category -- as self-identified or identified by some social standard -- than necessarily exists between races. "Race" is identified by markers, i.e., skin color, etc., but is more powerfully identified by ancestry; yet ancestry varies wildly. Why would someone who is majority ancestry "white" be considered "black"? It makes no sense biologically. Africans themselves, for example, see each genetic subpopulation (correlated with tribal identity) as being "different." It's only outsiders who lump them all together, and there are vast differences between these populations in terms of background culture, physical characteristics, etc. Intelligence conveys survival traits almost everywhere, so there is no reason to expect it to be suppressed in some particular population. And apparently it is not. A racist friend of mine claimed that my Ethiopian daughter would "of course" not be as "smart" as my Chinese daughter. Pure prejudice, and, while it's tricky to compare, the former being five and the latter seven, if I had to judge, even though the Chinese daughter is a stellar performer at school, I'd say the Ethiopian is quite possible "smarter." She's certainly quick, she's ahead of where her sister was at five in reading and in playing the violin. (Ethiopians don't see themselves as "African," generally, they are many different tribal groups, something like seventy languages, etc. My daughter is from the Southern Trival Region, Kamabata tribe, physically looks more "African" -- according to my American prejudices -- than the northern groups, who have mixed a lot with Arabs, etc. --Abd (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"A racist friend of mine..." - I find this deeply disturbing. Either there is a misunderstanding, or you keep bad company. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I called him a friend because I don't reject people, unlike some others, because they have ideas I don't like. I confronted him, and, in fact, got him banned from a mailing list for a short while. He hasn't repeated stuff like that for some time. But he may still believe it. I have never met this person face to face. I don't particularly "keep company" with him, but he's extraordinarily smart in certain ways, is an effective political activist, and does, I think, mean well. He simply doesn't see how his personal experiences when he was young have warped his perceptions. Maybe he will, someday. Subtle racism is quite common and, in fact, more dangerous than the overt racism of my "friend." I won't explain it, here, but, suffice it to say, we have a long way to go, including among people who would be horrified to realize that they are, themselves, racist. One of the benefits of transracial adoption, for me, besides getting to have two truly spectacular kids, is that my own racism had to be confronted. I was raised in a different time, folks.... --Abd (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with Mr. Schulz here. I don't even tolerate subtle racism amongst non-friends, I would never have a "racist friend." And no, I do not think there are racial correlations to intelligence, and until I see two things, a reliable source (and I mean sources) that do two things: 1) how to objectively determine intelligence, and 2) how to objectively determine a race, there is NO correlation that can be presented which would support these attitudes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple, OM. "Intelligence" is measured by an "intelligence test," got any other way to measure it? Such tests are likely to be biased, hence it would be surprising, in fact, to find no correlation between "race," and "intelligence." However, any study which shows this is going to need some careful examination, and probably the public equivalent of a troutslap. Or more. First of all, WTF is "race"? How do we determine it? Is it a biological category or a social one? You can "objectively" determine race, sufficient to do a straight-face study of it, by self-statement of those taking a test. (Absolutely, this is the weakest link in any supposed claim of racial differences for intelligence.) If we define someone as a member of a "socially rejected group," would we then be surprised to find some lower measure of ... whatever, economic status, health status, or intelligence -- as measured by the dominant group. Now, the issue here is whether or not to tolerate "racism" among friends. Perhaps we should not tolerate it, we should shoot, on sight, all racists? Okay? Let me tell you, racism is very, very common. Among people of all "races." Have any racist relatives? If not, how did you get rid of them, or do you have a family that was, just naturally, extremely sophisticated. "Racism" doesn't mean "nasty and full of hatred." It also doesn't mean "represses minorities." Some racists are this way or do these things. Some don't. Most, I'd say, don't see what they believe as racism. It's just, why, common sense. Are you out of your mind? *Obviously,* race is a reality, are you blind? --Abd (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You two are saying with a straight face that you have no acquaintances whatsoever who have expressed any type of racial prejudice in any way, shape, or form? Damn, you guys must not get out much... Not saying I think it's right to just freely tolerate that sort of thing, but in the real world it's kindof hard to entirely avoid every single person who might occasionally make a prejudiced remark. To be honest, I just don't believe you. Selective memory, must be. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Friend" != "acquaintance" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, when this guy made those racist comments, I confronted him, even to the extent of getting him blocked, for a while, from a mailing list, where he was a major contributor. But he stopped making comments like that. Did he change his mind? It would be a miracle if he did. I call him a friend because, for one thing, he probably considers me a friend. He asks me to do things from time to time, informs me of things he thinks I might be interested in, and consults me. Would I invite him to dinner with my family? Not without confronting this issue! I have two little girls who don't need exposure to that stuff at their age. They will have to confront it, eventually, the African girl has already suffered some rejection on the basis of her "race." But it's not a big factor in her life, and, hopefully, it will stay that way. People love her wherever she goes, she is very, very personable at five years old. And smart. And beautiful. And just plain nice. (Ahem, my daughter.) Except, of course, to her sister. In other words, she is also normal. (Actually, if she is offered something like a cookie, she will usually ask if she can have one for her sister, and she then does give it to her. But of course, she says, "I hate my sister," and says to her, "I am not going to be your friend." Except when her sister is being nice to her. --Abd (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you observe my style of speech here on Wikipedia, assume that I treat real life people in the same exact way. Given that standard, how many friends do you think would dare say a racist thing around me? That would be zero. And frankly, my friends never utter racist commentary, because at my advanced years, friends become self-selecting. I do have a Canadian friend against whom I make significant anti-Canadian slurs, because he drinks beer and thinks life begins and ends with the Toronto Maple Leafs, and thereby deserve derision. But seriously, no, I do not make friends with racists as an intentional choice, and I do not keep friends who make racist comments for the same reason. So, yeah, I get out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! So you don't actually know if any of your friends are racist, because they are afraid to say anything around you that might be perceived that way ;p

In any case, I still think it's weird you're jumping on Abd because he knows one person who is maybe a bit racist. I'll give you an example in my life: I know a guy, used to actually be a real close friend, who lives in the city. He probably has more black friends than I do, since I live in a pretty white area of the burbs, but every now and then he goes on a rant about the people he feels are ruining his neighborhood. You can fill in the blanks. I don't like it, and I make it clear I don't approve. And these little rants are one of many reasons why he's not so much my friend any more. But I still see him now and then, and you know, I actually don't think he really means it (it's weird, he is prejudiced in theory but not in practice... if that makes any sense...). Are you really questioning the integrity of my character just because I occasionally still speak to this person?? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not questioning your or Abd's integrity or character. I really think Abd doesn't mean what he said, and I doubt you would invite your prejudiced friend to a social gathering at your house if you thought he would be telling racist jokes all day long. But your point really is a bigger issue--yeah, my friends may be wise enough not to share their racist attitude to me, which is actually more disruptive and harmful than overt racism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is just something different meant by the word "racist friend." I did not take Abd to mean a "card-carrying white supremacist friend." :D Yeah, I would not have someone to my house where it was a likely bet they were going to tell a racist joke. But I would be lying if I said nobody has ever once told a racist joke at my house. It's just hard to avoid, realistically speaking.

I agree with you about subtle racism sometimes being worse than overt racism. In the case of the guy I was referring to, it's weird because even though I really resent when he goes on those little rants, when I see him actually interact with someone whose skin color he is supposedly prejudiced against, I see no hint of bias or disrespect or anything. On an individual basis, he appear to be almost entirely without prejudice. On the other hand, I've known people who proclaim to be quite open-minded who suddenly start acting all weird when they get around someone with a different skin color than them. So which one is really the "racist friend"? And no, this is not a rhetorical question; this guy I am talking about, his rants are extremely offensive... so I really don't know the answer to that question. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Things like telling racist jokes reflect socialisation more than deep-seated racism. If it's in your house, it's your job to say "I'm not OK with that". If it isn't your house, then it's a different matter. As for the other question...there are different types of racism. I recently came across a distinction between northern and southern (US) racism: in the north, we don't mind how high you rise, as long as you don't get too close; in the south we don't mind how close you get as long as you don't rise too high. Or, as a South African "coloured" woman once told me, she preferred the open (and honest) racism of the Afrikaner to the pretend non-racism of the liberal Anglos. Neither "liberal" racism nor "conservative" racism is acceptable, but the solution is the same - make it clear to people that neither form is acceptable. While there are situations in which it's worth keeping your opinions to yourself, that's actually true a lot less often than we tell ourselves... Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(od)As a purely practical matter, how does one change racist behaviours and attitudes without ever talking to racists? Or is this an "Only Nixon could go to China" matter?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not for wikipedia to dialogue with rascists, we need to just block them. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, we are talking about whether it is questionable that Abd referred to his "racist friend." Obviously Wikipedia is not the place to try and change people's opinion.

Although, I do have to say, being a racist is not in and of itself blockable.... At least, not last time I checked. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

n3either is being a rapist blockable. What is blockable is expressing rascist ideology, in the mainspace this is fringe POV pushing of the worst kind and outside the mainspace this is unacceptable personal attacks and bqad faith assertions against people who are the target of the rascists' ideology, ie if someone expresses anti-black sentiments that is an attack on all black editors and their associates. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A reference to a "racist friend" says nothing of itself about the writer other than recognizes racism in a "friend". It certainly does not imply the writer engages in espousing racist POV on WP. Indeed some speakers of a political bent routinely refer to their opponents as friends strictly as an oratorical device, in the same way they call them "hono(u)rable". Barring some direct racist utterance from someone, I'd be loathe to pursue guilt by association.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of how you define "friend". If you define "friend" in a way that separates "friendly acquaintance from work" or "my spouse's friend's spouse", then it's your choice who your friends are...and are not. Having identified someone as a racist, it's a choice to continue to consider them your friend. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason we spend so much time trying to rescue irredeemable miscreants? 02:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just a passing comment, and I don't know who asked the question above, but yes, there is a reason. It's because it is infinitely more dangerous to allow someone to decide who is and who is not an "irredeemable miscreant". If good faith didn't sometimes work, we would have scrapped it years ago. The more people we allow ourselves to label as "irredeemable" the worse and more intolerant we become.

That's my 2¢; take it or leave it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone because they are "racist" is quite offensive. Blocking someone for incivility, personal attacks, etc., isn't, necessarily. The assumption involved in concluding that someone is racist and thus to be sanctioned is actually similar, in a way, to assumptions made by racists. We try to develop editors, to help them become cooperative editors, but, of course, it's useless to try with "those people." I mentioned that my daughter has encountered racism. It was not blatant or open. The people involved were highly educated and would be utterly horrified to be called "racist." They would say that they believe that all people are equal. This was an educator in a preschool that is run by a major college. If a child misbehaves, they, by policy, hire a specialist to evaluate the child and to recommend how the school can best deal with the situation. At least that is what they are supposed to do. Our daughter, fairly fresh from Ethiopia, had some behaviors that were socially unacceptable here, that occasionally came out. Her mother had worked at this school, she knew what happened when similar behaviors were exhibited by a "white" boy. Our daughter was, instead, isolated, effectively banned from being alone at the school, a parent had to be there. They did not consult a specialist. The therapist we hired was horrified, but the school was adamant, they had, they said, to protect the school. From a fairly close knowledge of the people involved, it's pretty obvious what had happened. When black kids behave, it's wonderful. See, "they" are just like "us." But when a black kid misbehaves, well, I guess some of "them" just can't be helped. Once we realized what was going on, even though it was traumatic for her -- she'd been through way too much loss, already -- we took her out of the school and put her in a Montessori school. And she had no problems to speak of at the new school.

So, we'll be patient with blatant vandals, giving them four warnings before blocking them, and then it's just 24 hours, perhaps, at first. But those racists? Not to be tolerated! Absolutely, we should watch someone who seems to have a tendency to post racist comments, and confront them and mitigate damage to the project and other editors by not tolerating offensive comments. But the problem is the offensive comments, not the "racist." The same for "POV pushers." We should even allow "Republicans" to edit! Seriously .... Calling someone "racist," without clear necessity, is a personal attack. If the person self-identifies as "racist," -- my friend did -- it's one thing, but it is usually a deep insult. Want to see some flame wars? Consider "Zionism is racism." Is it? I'm not going to go there! I'm just pointing out that facts won't necessarily count for much! Its disruptive.--Abd (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that rascism is not offensive but trying to block rascists is, even though by asserting that one is rascist is of itself making completely unacceptable attacks and bad faith assumptions against other editors. We all have to work here and it is completely unacceptable that good editors are chased away merely in order to allow the rascist to espouse their hatred of other human beings. If we fail to block rascists espousing their ideology immediately and indefinitely we let down all our good faith editors and create an unacceptable atmosphere on wikipedia, which ultimately would threaten to destroy the project. And for what? A few ignorant, hate filled extremists. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In the context you describe, the editor could be blocked for unacceptable attacks - NOT for racism. Again, who gets to decide who is "racist"? Is Zionism racism? Is advocating a Palestinian state racism? Is Darwinism racism? Is advocating different sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine in the US racism? Is pointing out differences in standardized test scores between different races racism? Some would answer yes to each of those questions. Unacceptable behavior has to be dealt with - using blocks if necessary. Unacceptable beliefs are not something we are in a position to judge and mete out justice for. I don't see anyone arguing that we have to tolerate the behavior. I just see people arguing that we do not - can not, must not - make certain beliefs verboten. Behavior vs beliefs: big difference. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is Darwinism racism?" is a rather bizarre comment. And, going from the ridiculous to the sublime, "Is advocating different sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine in the US racism?".

Nonetheless, beliefs often, if not invariably, drive behaviour. Jagz' beliefs have led to offensive behaviour -- a pattern of offensive behaviour.

That's my two cents -- take it or leave it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

""Is Darwinism racism?" is a rather bizarre comment." Hey man, I didn't make the claim; I've just seen it made. I agree that it's bizarre; that's pretty much my point. I'm just thinking of examples of beliefs that have been labeled "racist", fairly or not. I agree that beliefs drive behavior, and I agree with dealing with people's behavior when it leads to an non-constructive editing environment.

Whether you're agreeing or disagreeing that we block based on behavior, and not directly based on beliefs, I can't tell from you comment. I'm sure as hell not arguing in defense of "Jagz," whoever he is. I hope I didn't come across that way - it would take some creative reading-in to hear that in my comments. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we more or less agree, then. While I know that "racism" (like all other abstract nouns) is subjective, I'd think that there would be logical limits. But, I guess not -- humans are a very weird species.  ;)

I didn't think you were defending Jagz, but I do think there's a point where one has to realise that the malefactions of an editor far outweigh any real or perceived benefits. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked up "malefactions", and I see that it refers to behavior, not to beliefs. Yeah; we're on the same page. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't recall a word for "bad beliefs" ... I could make one or two up, but ...  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah! (and not the crappy band): cacodoxy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I happen to like A-ha, but at you said, we're a weird species. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all good -- I happen to like KISS ... a guilty pleasure.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Asthma site on Wikpedia

I work at azma.com and was wondering if you can leave my edit in place, we have a team of doctors and have been doing asthma trends for a year also run www.pollen.com and are a professional disease forcasting company not spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aczen (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's spam. It has nothing to do with helping further the knowledge of asthma.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

can you add my link to the asthma wikipedia

I work at a Asthma Trends company SDI www.sdihealth.com we do Asthma Trends statistics every day can you please list our website www.azma.com on the Asthma wikipedia? we are have contracts with ABC,NBC,Zircam, Contac and Lysol and are a Professional company who provides Asthma statisticial maps every day. I was tasked with sharing our research data with other internet sites. We study and report these trends every day and could improve the wikipedia page for Asthma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.43.44 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the article. Neither does anyone else. It is several editors' opinion that your website is nothing more than commercial spam. Take a look at the external links there, and compare it to yours. Maybe you should take it to Talk:Asthma and see if you get any support, but I will argue that you're a commercial website. And if you're supporting Zircam, the homeopathic product that doesn't work, I'm less convinced as to your website's usefulness to the article.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The site also appears to include copyright violations; for example, this page appears to be an unacknowledged verbatim copy of this site sponsored by the Asthma Initiative of Michigan, a rather well-regarded public health initiative. Not a good sign. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

<offtopic, but this does seem to be the medical advice centre> Apparently Radio Scotland had a programme about stem cell research where they mentioned its possible use in cases of neuter moron. Listeners have been emailing in asking about this new advance in euthanasia. . dave souza, talk 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research

FYI: Spinal manipulation research resources. You are welcome to contribute with comments, suggestions, and additions at the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (87 days to go Edition)

According to pollster.com, the election appears to be solidly in favor of Obama/Biden:

• Obama/Biden: 306 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 142 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 90 Electoral Votes

RealClearPolitics has McCain at 157 (giving him Montana, which Pollster.com has as a toss-up). If all of the toss-up states are portioned out to each candidate based on who is leading today, Obama/Biden would win 375 to 164. Obama would win traditional red states such as Nevada, Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, and Indiana. What should be troubling to McCain is that a recent poll in his home state of Arizona shows him leading only 44 to 42. Wow. As of right now, an average of nonpartisan polls shows Obama up, 50.8 to 43.5%. As long as Obama stays above 50%, even if every single undecided vote breaks to McCain, this election should go to the Democrats. Also from an Electoral College perspective, there isn't a strategy that makes sense to McCain. If every toss-up state moved to McCain, he would need to win two large states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama's lead in Pennsylvania is well over 10 points, so there's no chance. The Intrade Prediction Market has Obama at 364 to 174 in electoral votes, and the market predicts that there is an 87.6% chance that Obama will win the 2008 election.

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

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 38
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 5

This poll is unchanged for about the last week. The races appear to be unchanged from last week, so it appears that Democrats will win two of the undecided races, Minnesota and Alaska, the Republicans taking the other three, meaning the Democrats will have a 59-41 majority in the next Senate. However, a huge Obama victory might carry in one or two of the other undecided races. As we mentioned earlier, Senate filibuster rules state that the 60 votes can close debate, thereby ending the filibuster. At 59 seats, the Democrats will have a difficult time blocking it, but not impossible. Several moderate or liberal Republicans (yes, they exist, namely Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republican senators from Maine) can join the Democrats

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

• Democrats: 245
• Republicans: 166
• Undecided: 24

One Democratic seat moved to undecided since the last listing. Not much to say here, because unless a major event happens, the House will probably have around 265 Democrats. There are no special rules in the House that matter (filibusters aren't allowed), so although there are some advantages to the size of the majority (less need to compromise on legislation and committees are set up essentially on the ratio of seats per party), this one is pretty much locked up and not very exciting.

So there you have it. One week to the election.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but McCain has just scored a huge high-profile endorsement. So it's not over yet. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard about this over the weekend, but I thought they were joking. Maybe Osama has a sense of humor that we're just missing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's perfectly logical. Anyone with the ability to think critically realizes that a McCain presidency would serve bin Laden's goals almost as well as Bush's presidency did. Of course, it is McCain's first foreign endorsement... MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

←Moved down, but nothing has changed. Average of all non-partisan tracking polls have Obama above 50% and leading McCain by 7 points. The most important thing is that Obama has solid leads (>50% and over 7 point margin) in states with 272 electoral votes. This one is done, I'm ordering a double scotch (at least 20 years old), neat, a nice cigar, and I'm going to celebrate privately this evening. I'm going to vote in my home city on Tuesday, a city that has been blue since the Civil War, I believe, celebrate with fellow Democrats, and drink another couple of scotches. Right now, I just want a landslide, of Reagan over Mondale proportions with 60 Democrats in the Senate and about 280 in the House. First thing is get the FBI staffed up to arrest the real economic terrorists in this country, banking corporations that just sucked at the teats of the American public with this $700 billion welfare check, which did nothing more than boost the bonuses of the executives and kept their stockholders happy. Oh yeah, and make sure every Creationist leaning politician hides in the hole of their choosing. I'm ranting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am going to cautiously celebrate and hope for the best. I am a Libertarian by heart and think we are pretty much voting for the lesser of two evils at this point. Political parties are the downfall of this nation and every election seems to prove that point more and more with wilder rhetoric, more expensive campaigns, and little positive progress being made no matter who is in power. spryde | talk 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, from this side of the pond, so far so good. However, this suggests caution – some of those votes for Obama may have gone to McCain. The strain is beginning to tell..[29]..dave souza, talk 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your last link is a keeper. Cue Nick Lowe's "Cracking Up."[30] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Portraits in Science

You didn't put a reasoning in this afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot, but then I did.  :) Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop WP:TE and WP:TROLLing my articles. They are notable. Policies such as WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE should be followed and if you lack the discernment to make good calls, I would advise that you stop recommending AFDs. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Orangemarlin. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. -t BMW c- 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot. I'll do so, if no one else has. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

Please see my comments there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep; dave souza and possibly SheffieldSteel may also support such a move. Ludwig2 appears to think you're constantly trying to get him in trouble or blocked or something - is there some other context between the both of you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

OrangeMarlin, I am genuinely sorry if what I wrote insulted you, and apologize for the contentious tone. I regret it. I admit that I feel frustrated because I am trying to acknowledge your concerns (which you present as specific to medicine) and am trying to explain my motives and intentions more clearly. I made the proposals in good faith because I think there have been changes to the policy over the past year that are counterproductive, but my main intention was to open up a dialogue, not close it. I certainly would not want you to stop participating in these discussions. I will back off and avoid th page for a few days, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this. You NEVER have to explain your motives or intentions to me, I assume that you're doing something good for the project. You should assume the same with me. I just didn't want the POV-warriors to use your comments or changes to place some bad stuff in medical articles. And my comments about BLP was a reminder to others, not to you. This is water that's so far under the bridge, that it's flowed to the ocean already. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad. I have to admit - I have been thinking about this since your comment - I think I interpreted your comments as an immediate veto of my proposal. I certainly accept you or anyone else in the discussion having strong feelings, and disagreeing with me. I realize in a week or two all these proposals may be rejected, or accepted in a modified form. But I was hoping for some thoughtful discussion - I really do think there are times and ways in which the policy as written is counterproductive, and even if my proposals turn out not to be helpful I was hoping for a discussion that took my concerns seriously and at least tried to find other ways to address them. This is how I view consensus-building work at its best. And I think I interpreted your comments as simply putting an end to such discussion right out of the gate. Anyway, I have expressed my concerns and rationale, I really will stay away from the page for a couple of days. A real discussion should involve many more people. You should know that I am ordinarily an NOR hawk, and fought many battles for NOR and am often the first to ask "what is your source?" I would never want to discourage an editor from asking that question, or weaken the policy basis for demanding an answer to support an edit, honest. But I do think the policy as currently worded goes too far in the other direction. I do hope we can find a better balance and I do hope you will participate in the discussions. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (8 7 5 4 days to go Edition)

According to pollster.com, the election appears to be solidly in favor of Obama/Biden:

• Obama/Biden: 311 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 142 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 85 Electoral Votes

RealClearPolitics (RCP) has the same EV prediction. When RCP removes all of the toss-up states (giving it to the leader, even if it's within the margin of error), Obama will win in a landslide, 364 to 174. The Intrade Prediction Market has Obama at 364 to 174 in electoral votes, and the market predicts that there is an 84.0% chance that Obama will win the 2008 election (down 1.6 today). The average of all the polls shows Obama leading 49.8 to 43.7--this is a slight narrowing of the vote, which is usual at this point in the process. However, the state polls continue to show a massive lead.

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

• Democrats: 54
• Republicans: 38
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 6

There are six toss-up states as of today: Alaska, Minnesota, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia. Right now, it appears that Alaska and North Carolina will move to the Democrats; the other states are really too close to call. It appears the chances of the Democrats claiming 60 seats is slipping.

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

• Democrats: 244
• Republicans: 165
• Undecided: 26

Two contests moved to the undecided category, one from each party. Not much else to say, except that the Democrats will have close to a 90-100 seat majority in the House.

That's it, just a few days to go. As a progressive Democrat (with some conservative leanings on economic policy), I'm getting confident about this election, although the destruction of this version of the Republican Party apparently is not going to happen. My hope was that the there would be a massive shift to the Democrats, forcing the Republican party to shift to their moderate roots in social policy, and true fiscal conservatism. But we'll see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As an independent with some old-fashioned conservative leanings (fiscal restraint, a strong military sparingly used, etc.) I was hoping for an outcome that would spur a transformation in the Republican party. But the latest chatterings are that SP will be their leading light in the runup to 2012. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then maybe it will take another 4 years to transform Republicans. Until Palin drops the creationism and other right-wing social issues, they're not going to get very far with her. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've read (primarily the NYT and the WSJ) suggests that Republicans see Sarah Palin as spoiled for 2012. I think the Republicans won't change because inertia is against it, for one (for both parties, really) and because they will have a host of reasons that this election isn't an indictment of Republican politics - unfair media treatment, voter fraud, fundraising advantage brought about by rich liberal elites (my how the rhetoric changes when it isn't Bush getting all the cash), etc. Avruch ^T 18:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Four years is a long time, and things can change quickly. If you'd told me 6 months ago that the Republicans would be admitting the existence of global warming (sort of), embracing embryonic stem-cell research (sort of), and repudiating Bush as an abysmal failure (wholeheartedly), I'd have thought you were crazy.

I think there will be a move to the center from the Republicans. The alternative is complete marginalization if they continue to bank on hard-right social issues. Palin is a dream come true for the hard core of the GOP, but anyone with any moderate or independent leanings at all is turned off by her - the numbers are pretty remarkable. That won't translate well. Palin will be dropped like a hot potato; right now a lot of the Republican establishment are being good soldiers and pretending they think she's great, but they'll let loose with criticism after the elction. Sure, in 4 years she might be able to name a newspaper and a Supreme Court case, but still. I remember after the 1992 election, the conventional inside wisdom was that Dan Quayle was going to be a major player in the GOP's future, the probably 1996 nominee, etc - and Quayle had a lot more going for him. He seems positively Jeffersonian by comparison. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

People said the same thing about the Democrats changing after 2000 and 2004 - the party chosen failed miserably, a president they all hated was re-elected by a wider margin than before, and it was widely heralded as a sign of the potentially permanent decline of the party (and ascendancy of the GOP). Everyone said the Dems would need to change in order to return to relevance. Well, they didn't really change - they modulated their electoral appeal to address more of the map, but the actual policy platform of the party barely budged. And, as it turns out, all the Democrats needed to return to power was the implosion of the GOP. More than likely it will be a reprise of this implosion by the Democrats that will return the GOP to power on the next go-round - far more likely than some paradigm shift in Republican politics. Avruch ^T 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the Republicans imploded but the Democrats changed their strategy. First, Howard Dean went on his 50-state attack with strong candidates everywhere. I read somewhere that Democratic operatives thought he'd be wandering around Utah, and everyone was laughing. There's an old Wayne Gretzky saying "A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." In other words, Dean made sure that the Democratic Party could take advantage of the implosion of the Republicans. MC is right however. The Republicans need to rebuild to the center. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was serendipity, rather than strategy, that made the "50-states" plan work out the way it has so far. Without the dramatic implosion of the GOP and Bush administration, and the melodic accompaniment of the economic crisis, the 50-states strategy would probably have worked about as well as was initially expected. The more substantive change was drafting conservative Democrats into running for office in red states, but even that I think had only had a minor impact before the presidential election season rolled around. Avruch ^T 19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But the Democrats never needed to modulate their message - their core policies nearly all have broader popular appeal than the corresponding Republican positions. The Democratic problem in 2000 and 2004 was the messenger. You can take the same message and give it to John Kerry and Barack Obama - one of them can sell it and the other can't. And even with the disastrous campaigns in 2000 and 2004, they did fine - Gore won many more votes than Bush (I won't rehash Bush v. Gore, because I really think it will prove to be a disastrous turning point in this country's overall trajectory and it's too painful). They nearly won in 2004 despite Kerry - a few more voting machines in Democratic neighborhoods and a better response to the Swift-boat crap would done the trick. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always found the "messenger" explanation for the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections to be unconvincing. Obviously both Kerry and Gore had shortcomings as flag-waver in chief for the Democratic platform. On the other hand, I don't find Newt Gingrich or George Bush to be particularly compelling orators either. (Although Newt can be very interesting to listen to in smaller venues, particularly since he left office). And yet both had a high degree of political success - until Bush foundered when the Iraq war turned into a disaster. This goes back to my original point - the policy basis for both parties is more or less the same now as it has been since '92, because at their core the parties are have hardly changed. All that has been altered are details of communication and appeal. The idea that significant change is coming in either party has regularly proven to be untrue - losing elections has not seemed to presage major change. You could argue that Internet politicking has had a much more significant impact. Anyway, sorry I'm being somewhat unclear - in a rush, out the door! Avruch ^T 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

<ri> From a brief beeb news item this evening, it seems that plumbers never turn up when you need them! As to why, this poll analysis suggests some possibilities...... dave souza, talk 23:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The race is now extremely close. I have long thought that Obama would need a lead of at least 4 points going into the election to counter those who switch in the last minute, and his lead is now 5 points. It's not quite a Bradley effect in that people aren't misleading pollsters. It's more that they genuinely are leaning to Obama but when it comes down to the line they can't bring themselves to actually go through with pulling the lever for a black man. I could be wrong, but I grew up with too many of those people to think that it's not going to be a significant effect. See this story. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris needs Radial keratotomy, a much beloved procedure of the Supreme Soviet. Most recent poll of the proletariat indicates a 9 point lead. The moving average of polls indicates 6 point lead. At the state level, unless McCain wins Pennsylvania and Virginia, it's just not possible, with an insurmountable lead. The fact is that the with, at worst, a 5-6 point lead, this is a landslide. The Bradley effect is being disowned by the pollsters for Bradley. Being an avowed capitalist, I have much riding on this election. I've bet my fascist friends (not really friends, more acquaintances) much money. I'm not worried at all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comrade Boris simply upset because McCain strong proponent of Republican War on Socialism, working hard to rid US of socialist programs such as Socialist Interstate Freeway System, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Socialist Security, Medicare and Health Care, and Education. As for Obama... read the article. dave souza, talk 10:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris knowing about numbers, remaining concerned over hidden reactionary elements. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, polls are funny things. After all, Nikolai Yezhov had a 99.97% approval rating right up to the day he was purged unmasked as a German spy. In all seriousness, I agree with Boris - it's obvious that the McCain campaign is banking on latent racism in the rural parts of swing states Real America^®. They've literally hit the bottom of the barrel. I'm optimistic that they've overestimated the level of latent racism, though, and the polls so far seem to back that up. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, my POS sister will votre for McCain because Obama is black and McCain isn't. Weird thatwe were both raised in thesame home, but we are so different on "race issues" (I dislike that term). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Phillies

Ok, so they won the 2008 World Series. I'm a huge baseball fan, and I usually will watch even if both teams are boring. But this just seemed anti-climatic. Playing the last three innings two days later was just annoying. Marlins in 09. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But Orange, you must know by now that the real "World Series" is the AL-East Series ... that's never boring and that's where you see the best baseball :-) But the Phillies deserved it; it was their turn after that Colorado fraud last year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Now the Bosox vs. Rays was an exciting series. I'm guessing we may have 2-3 more years of that rivalry. As for Phils....meh. It's not that I hate them like I truly hate the Yankees, but the don't do anything for me positive or negative. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so they're not quite as colorful as the '93 Phillies, who converted me to fanhood... but they cruised through the postseason with hardly a sweat. They only lost 3 games in total through the NLDS, NLCS, and Series. It was a pretty dominant performance. It still kills me to see a DH out there - I can't get behind any AL team while they won't let pitchers bat. You'd be surprised what they can do. Here's my prediction for next year: Mets lead most of the season, Marlins choke early, Mets choke late, and the Phils win the division. You know, like the last 2 years. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you two Phanatics owe my Marlins a beer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, alcohol freezes up a fish's gills. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthropic principle pseudoscience categorization

Can you provide some references that the Anthropic principle is considered pseudoscience by anyone of note? I believe you're making a mistake here - it's something which has been proposed and discussed and debated primarily among mainstream cosmologists and related scientists, and is clearly of debatable scientific value based on many of their opinions. But it's not a pseudoscience in any of the normal meanings of the word.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Which anthropic principle? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We only have one article covering all of "it" - which is in a sense bizarre, as the strong and weak and major variants thereof are muchly different at many levels. But that's what we have. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My policy on my talk page is that I will not discuss articles. It should be discussed at Talk:Anthropic principle. That being said, per WP:DUCK, we all know this is pseudoscience, but I'll remove the tag to keep the peace.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a gross misuse of the duck policy (which applies to socks, not content), and it's not clear that you are being specific enough about which one you're talking about in calling it obvious pseudoscience anyways (even the more extreme critics aren't that critical about the weak principles, and don't generally describe the classical Carter or Barrow/Tipler strong principles as unscientific). The core principles were proposed by serious cosmologists and are discussed (both pro and con) by serious physicists including refereed journal articles and so forth. I'm as happy to call true pseudoscience a spade as anyone else, but this is at the very least a stretch, and you have to put the effort in to justify it if you're going to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with GWH here. The anthropic principle is one of those unlucky ideas that is a legitimate academic concept with a record of published scientific research, but has also been embraced in perverted form by various nutters. Ideas cannot be blamed for the people who adopt them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

True dat. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez. I said I didn't give a shit about the tag. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

GWH is correct, really, there should be two articles. While I dismiss both the weak and the strong AP, the weak is not inherently pseudoscience, more like not-so-good philosophy. Tbe strong AP, though, leans very close to PS. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

An unusual favor

First of all, let me start by saying that I know that this is outside of your normal area of interest. In fact, that's part of the reason that I'm talking to you. In an ongoing discussion over at Talk:John Wilkes Booth, we are at a standstill over the issue of fringe theories. I've just gone to WP:FRINGE and looked at the user pages of several contributors, until I found two who seemed to have opposite views on WP:FRINGE. You are one of the two that I found. Would you be willing to look at Talk:John Wilkes Booth#Booth escaped theory and the ones below it that deal with this topic, and offer your opinion? I know that this is not the sort of thing you normally do (nor is it for the other editor I selected), but you do appear to maintain an interest in WP:FRINGE, and coming from the outside, you might really be able to help us. Thank you. Unschool (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help with this caveat: I'm not a historian, nor do I play one on TV. Or, Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a historian. Well this is going to fun.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a grammarian, either, I see.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your counterpart has already contributed, Orangemarlin. Now I'm really counting on you. Unschool (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)