User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Orangemarlin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Election 2008 Day After Analysis Edition

President

My prediction

Obama/Biden 382
McCain/Palin 156

Or in terms of popular vote

Obama 54.5%
McCain 45.0%

What actually happened

Obama/Biden 349
McCain/Palin 162
TBD 26 (15 will go to Obama, 11 to McCain, probably)

Or in terms of popular vote

Obama 52.4%
McCain 46.3%

I'd say I did kind of well here. I was a little too high on the spread between Obama and McCain, but a 6% differential made for the largest Democratic win at the Presidential level since Lyndon B Johnson wiped out Barry Goldwater in 1964. What really made me happy was the fact that Virginia, Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina (probably) switched from Red to Blue for the first time in a long one. Virginia hasn't voted Democratic since the same 1964 election. That's 44 years ago.

Senate

My Prediction

Democrats 57
Republicans 41
Independent 2

What actually happened

Democrats 54 55
Republicans 40
Independent 2
TBD 4 3

I think the 4 3 undecided elections ~~are going to end up 1 for the Blue's (Oregon~~), 2 for the Reds (Alaska....Stevens convicted of felonies, and still wins, and Minnesota) and one is going to a playoff...I mean runoff in Georgia. This will be fun, every single politician will be doing everything to get their man elected in the state. So, I didn't do so well here, falling 2-3 short of my prediction. I really thought Stevens would lose in Alaska and Al Franken was going to win in Minnesota (falling a few hundred votes short).

House

My Prediction

Democrats 260
Republicans 175

What actually happened

Democrats 254
Republicans 173
TBD 8

I actually didn't do so bad here. Based on current results, it should end up 259-176. I'll take it. One small note, New England now has no Republican representatives. Amazing. When I was a young snot, following politics, there was a whole class of liberal northeastern Republicans. I actually voted for one or two when I lived in New York.

California Proposition 8

My naive prediction

Yes (that is, we deny civil rights to a group) 45
No (that is, everyone is treated equally) 55

What really happened

Yes 52.5
No 47.5

How can a state that votes 61-37 for Obama, yet allows this horrible proposition to pass? Could it be the millions of dollars from the Mormons? Could it be that liberals didn't do their job? Meh.

Your thoughts here

Virginia is a funny state. The southwest is extremely conservative (almost West Virginia-like) but it continually elects Rick Boucher. You can live in the district for years and never admit a person who will admit voting for the guy, but somehow he keeps getting elected and he wasn't even opposed this time. The Virginia Republican party has serious issues right now and is extremely fractured. Bob Marshall, a little known loony delegate, almost won the Republican nomination for Senate simply because his name wasn't Jim Gilmore. Combine that with an ultra-popular former governor (Mark Warner) on the ballot and you had a recipe for a loss. But I don't think it stays that way forever. Much like Gilmore, whose biggest offense (among many) was following the popular George Allen, Tim Kaine has proven himself to be a shadow of his predecessor, the great Mark Warner. He mildly embarrassed himself on national TV when he declared that Delaware and Virginia border each other (they don't). Not unlike Gilmore, he presides over an economic slowdown and is making quite a few unpopular cuts. Barring a shock, in next year's gubernatorial race, Republican Bob McDonnell is probably going to be a heavy favorite over almost any Democrat. The 2010 congressional midterm elections will have several vulnerable Democrats. So the point is, the state is the Republicans' to take back if they could quit the infighting, come up with some coherent proposals, and nominate electable people once in a while. Glenn Nye, who knocked off Republican Thelma Drake in a heavily Republican district, is going to be about as vulnerable as they come, but finding the right person is a challenge. That district - which contains the Naval Air Station Oceana (or, to Sarah Palin, the "Oceana Naval Air Force") - absolutely needs a strong leader that will be able to resist efforts to take military resources out of Virginia, but it hasn't had that leader since Owen Pickett retired. --B (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Virginia is no longer a guaranteed Red State. Neither is North Carolina or Indiana. And it's clear that states like Michigan and Minnesota are no longer battleground states, they're just Blue. What the Republicans haven't noticed is that they're becoming like Democrats of the 80's, they're base of states is shrinking, while the Democrats base is growing. The Northeast and Pacific West are solid Democratic states, so Democrats start out with 170-200 electoral votes. Throw in the liberal midwestern states, and the head start is huge. And I'm going to contend that other big red states such as Georgia and Arizona (without McCain) are going to be battleground ones. Also, rural districts are becoming less important, as Democrats start a stranglehold over urban AND suburban districts. This map shows how Republicans are just becoming a regional party. Don't worry, I know it's not permanent, 20 years from now, you and I will mind meld over the super-internet, and you'll be laughing because the Democrats can only hold Puerto Rico, Guam and Quebec. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Virginia has changed a lot since I was growing up there (right after the update from candles to kerosene lamps, according to my kids). The media say the shift is mostly because of the growth in the D.C. suburbs and exurbs. But on my visits back there I've noticed that even people in the Old Virginny parts of the state have mellowed a bit; you'll see blacks and whites in the same church, for example.

Anyway, for no reason other than idle curiosity I took the well-known Morgan Quitno state educational rankings and colored each state by whether it went with Obama or McCain. The Morgan Quitno rankings shouldn't be taken too strictly. Among other things states can switch by several places from year to year (especially in the middle part of the rankings) and I doubt that their education systems really change that fast. But anyway, here are the results. Make of them what you will. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
1. Vermont
2. Massachusetts
3. Connecticut
4. New Jersey
5. Maine
6. Virginia
7. Montana
8. Wisconsin
9. Iowa
10. Pennsylvania
11. Nebraska
12. New Hampshire
13. Minnesota
14. Rhode Island
15. Kansas
16. New York
17. South Dakota
18. Maryland
19. Wyoming
20. Idaho
21. North Dakota
22. Missouri
23. North Carolina
24. Indiana
25. Texas
26. South Carolina
27. Colorado
28. Delaware
29. Florida
30. Tennessee
31. Kentucky
32. Arkansas
33. Washington
34. Ohio
35. Illinois
36. Oklahoma
37. West Virginia
38. Utah
39. Michigan
40. Oregon
41. Georgia
42. Hawaii
43. New Mexico
44. Louisiana
45. Alabama
46. Alaska
47. California
48. Mississippi
49. Nevada
50. Arizona

An unexpected outcome, though clearly a vote for change. Comrade SBHB should be impressed. . dave souza, talk 10:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw the Prop 8 results about ten minutes ago. Wow, my faith in democracy was restored for all of 34 hours before being mercilessly crushed once again. :/

FWIW, I've always thought that letting voters decide on actual specific issues was folly. We have a representative government for a reason, and that's because the electorate is only capable of making the coarsest of decisions. I mean, my faith in democracy was restored the other night because I saw that the electorate *as a whole* caught on to what the GOP had been selling for eight years and didn't like it. Still, the percentage of usually-Republican voters who realized the GOP no longer was the party of Reagan was woefully small. Democracy works because, after enough bullshit, just enough of the electorate will get a clue in order to put an end to it. So it's unusual to have really bad people in power for more than 5-10 years or so.

Luckily, a representative government does not rely on the majority of voters know what the fuck they are talking about -- only just enough of them have to. But having voters decide on propositions like this assumes waaaay too much good faith. IMO. --14:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysweet (talk • contribs) 07:12, 6 November 2008

Well, in California, the state Supreme Court can and has overturned constitutional amendments that conflict with other ones. It is my legal opinion, and let's remember I don't ever pretend to be an attorney on Wikipedia (I mean if you're going to fake your background, fake something honorable), that the new amendment violates the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution. I still can't believe that it appears that 25-30% of Obama voters voted for this amendment. What were they thinking? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comrade Boris--Are you telling me that California ranks below Alabama? Alaska??? No fucking way. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The thought that Louisiana could rank above six other states does boggle the mind. But the rankings make some sense if you look at Morgan Quitno's criteria. These include things like percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade students who are proficient in reading and writing. So a state that includes a fairly large immigrant population, like California, will get dinged on those criteria compared to one with a smaller immigrant population, like Louisiana. So a higher ranking doesn't always mean that one state has better or worse schools, or is "smarter" than another (as the survey is often hyped). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OM, I was not aware of that. That does give me some hope. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a conjecture from far away, but is it possible that the Cal Dems were so sure of winning the state for the Presidential campaign that they were focused out of state, thereby weakening the Prop 8 campaign? Just musing.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure on contributing factor was California's large Catholic Hispanic population, which has a tendency to be values voters (and which some foolhardy Republicans thought they would handily pick up as a result). Obama won convincingly among Hispanics (I would provide a NYT exit poll to support this, but I currently am at a Sun terminal ssh'd into another Sun terminal sending the display back, with the 2nd terminal VNC'd into my Windows machine, so... switching windows is painful) but that does not mean that they all suddenly decided that gay people weren't going to burn in a lake of hellfire...

That's not nearly enough to account for all the Obama voters who decided that discrimination based on race is bad but discrimination based on sexual preference is good... but it accounts for some, I figure. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a simple answer for what happened. I'd like to say that every Democratic voter in California was smoking a joint walking into the polling booth, and our short-term memory failed us in distinguishing between "yes" and "no". So, I think it's a lot of things. First, though the rest of the world thinks that California is made up of said joint-smoking surfer dudes, who are bluer than blue, it's a mischaracterization of the state. First of all, California didn't really become a Democratic state until the first Clinton win in 1992. Bet you all didn't know that. Next, if you look at the state, almost all of the votes for Democrats come in a narrow band of counties ranging from Los Angeles county up the coast to Marin County. That's a lot of people, but the rest of the state isn't just slightly conservative, but it's about as progressive as Utah or Alabama. There are large counties in California's bible belt that voted for prop 8 by a 3-1 ratio. LA County didn't vote against 8. See this map for a better understanding of the state's vote. Simply put, LA County, which has very conservative residents in the outer parts of the county, are no different than your typical right-wing nutter from Utah, voted for 8, which was enough to make it happen. But wait there's more. The liberal base of California just didn't think it was going to pass, so they focused on electing Obama, keeping the Assembly solidly Democratic, and ousting a few right-wing congressmen. I hardly saw a single commercial against 8, and all I saw was pro-8 commercials. And if you watched them you'd think that schools would have to teach their students how to become gay or lesbians. Or that churches MUST perform gay marriages. And they used this highly inflammatory homophobic commercial which highlighted the gay mayor of San Francisco. You can watch the obnoxious thing here. So, it's a lot of things. And I'm going to light up a bowl on my bong purchased in San Francisco, adjust my pink tie, and grab my surfboard. After eating a salad with low-fat dressing and drinking a bottle of Evian. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time crediting any evaluation system that lists my state as first among all in education... And I don't think the outcome of the vote on Prop 8 was all that unpredictable or difficult to explain. You basically have something that has little to do with government (marriage) where governments and courts are getting into defining it in specific detail. Folks don't like the idea of that, aren't terribly interested in the impact, and vote to prevent government from getting further involved in "redefining" marriage. Of course, the contradiction is that to do this they need to define it themselves. In Vermont we got around this problem by creating civil unions. I understand a lot of people hear civil unions and think separate but equal, but most of the gay people I know (and, being in Vermont, I know a lot) are fine with equal treatment and benefits even if it isn't legally called "married." Avruch^T 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If I Were King(TM), it would be civil unions for everybody, and whether or not to call that "marriage" would be up to individuals to decide for themselves. In fact, I could even see some people choosing to consider themselves "married" but choosing not to enter a civil union for legal or financial reasons.

My 2nd choice would be marriage for everybody. My 3rd choice would be the Vermont compromise, which I do think is a bit of "separate but equal", but hey, you know, Jim Crow was probably a big improvement over slavery I suppose... My 4th choice would be to have some states recognize it and some not based on their respective legislatures and constitutions (although DOMA needs to be revised so that it just says that no state has to recognize another state's marriage if it would not be legal there, because by specifically calling out same-sex unions it violates the 14th amendment IMO). My 5th choice would be these terrible state constitutional amendments, and my absolute last choice would be a federal amendment.

So even though the Vermont compromise isn't great, it's far better than the other alternatives on the table.. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the "if I were king" option, and I think someday that is where we will be at. In the mean time, the only solution is to do it state by state. And state by state, it will be much easier on everyone to stick to advocating civil unions. Civil unions essentially eliminate legal differences between any type of marriage, without the cultural and religious baggage of forcing people to change their definition of the word. Even in Vermont there never was a successful legislative initiative that resulted in gay marriage or civil unions - it was a court decision requiring a legislative solution and threatening a judicial one. Avruch^T 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Go get a marriage license, which makes the marriage legal. And if you want to have a religious celebration, go for it. Keep them separate.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So, theoretically, are celibate married gay catholics now allowed to get a church sanctioned divorce in California even though they can't get a marriage license? Inquiring minds want to know!LeadSongDog (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good news for pigs, according to an interesting analysis which notes a rather familiar name providing funds... and also discusses what's being done about it. . dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with gays marrying, again? I seem to be missimg thr pseuso-religious point. Oh, yeah polygamy is cool. Weird. Jim62sch^dissera! 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing

Hello Orangemarlin

I would like to discuss the colon cleansing article with you. The level of bias in it goes way above and beyond the necessaries, and is in urgent need of a balanced view and rewrite. The previous incarnation was a little better - as it stands it sounds like it has been written by one of Big Pharma's loyal henchmen.

Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniolus (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Henchman yes. Not so loyal. Article looks fine to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, reads fine to me too. Could use some more criticisms from the scientific mainstream if we can find more. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing? Take a dump. Jim62sch^dissera! 03:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I enjoy the mental image of the CEO's of Pfizer, Ortho Biotech, Merck, and Glaxo sitting around a table chomping cigars, swilling single-malt, and muttering: "Gentlemen, you've been summoned today on a matter of grave importance. We must discredit colon cleansing; it is the greatest threat our profits have faced since laetrile. Summon our henchmen." I find this scenario entirely plausible, and suspect that drug companies spend a great deal of time and effort trying to convince people not to give themselves enemas. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They've been hiding a Cure for Cancer? Jerry would be furious. Anyway, never mind the enemas, what of the leeches? . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

Good morning. If you have some time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on an exchange between SA and I here and here. Perhaps I'm missing the point, as SA says, but I'd like to hear it from someone other than him. Thanks. ABlake (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it

I left a response for you. I was hoping for some follow-up. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Orangemarlin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Firefly322_again. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RFCs

Just a note that any user, heck even IPs, are allowed to make viewpoints and endorse positions at any RFCs, it is after all a community dispute resolution process on A WIKI! MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much, but I just was wondering if it was an all-admin wiki-drama. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please exhale. diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim's right. You don't want to get called Bluemarlin, now... ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are too funny. Based on these comments, I fart in your general direction. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do anything for comic relief. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, m'boy, I never take anything you say seriously. ;) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Grrrrrrrrr. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole RFC has a strangely familiar flavor. I think it's because it's very close to a pattern I see a lot when I help out at WP:WQA: An IP or a brand new account feels they have been slighted, and sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but in any case the event is already in the past and no ongoing disruption is taking place. But the complaining party feels they are owed an apology, and the other party refuses. After awhile, we convince the IP or new account that Wikipedia has no way of making people apologize, and that we don't block people for failing to apologize, and then it goes away. Only difference here is that instead of a new account, it's a couple of admins...

Or, to put it another way: "Slrubenstein was a big meanie, and he won't say he's sorry! Mom? Maaaaaaaaaa-om!! Make him 'pologize! He was such a meanie!" --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly he did apologize back then but with a but to the apology attached. I was watching this a bit at the beginning and stopped when I thought enough time had passed for things to have calmed down. I have to say I was surprised to see this RFC ongoing. Refresh my memory, what is the purpose of this RFC other than drama and hard feelings? I think it should be closed but who am I but I lowly editor. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess my opinions here was wrong, I guess things are going to get hotter before the light will shine, sad. [1] --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. All of the tools that are used for drama should be thrown out. RfC's, ArbCom, blah blah blah. I get sick of it. All admins should be desysopped, and only ones with credentials (academic ones preferably) that are not anonymous can admin. Anyone can edit either anonymously or not. And throw out any editor that doesn't adhere to an NPOV, and when I mean NPOV, I mean no support of fringe theories. None. Oh, that's a real encyclopedia like Brittanica. Never mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to CG. Elonka getting involved? I'm shocked. Just shocked. Didn't I say that before? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I never expected to see myself say this. Some common ground between us at last? ElinorD (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, is the comments made a little off with what the RFC is actually discussing? I only see the friendship card being played out by specific people more or less. I see a lot of things being discussed but that is not the way it says it at administrators board. Shouldn't that post at least mention the other comments coming in? I'm not sure ElinorD, I hope so. OM, I was going to tell you that you were dreaming about changing administrators and losing the drama fest boards but then in the end you woke up on your own. ;) Oh well, I guess it's not closing anytime soon huh! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 responded to my Request for Comment by assuming control of Dignity. If you know editors who are acquainted with Ludwigs2 and who might be willing to watch the article, please let them know Dignity would welcome some constructive attention. Thank you. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no real involvement here. Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week for personal attacks and uncivil behavior, so he's not going to be bothering you for a few days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested...

I know you are a good editor for watching out for racism on Wikipedia. I made some changes to Black pride recently because the article was carrying with it some extreme racist connotations. In particular, it looks like people were copying white pride wholesale and simply replacing words mad libs-style. As you are no doubt already aware, the two topics are completely incongruous with completely different histories, academic definitions, and cultural contexts. If you could add it to your watchlist and maybe see if we can cobble together some good African-American Studies sources for use in that article, I'd be most appreciative.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should leave the two articles as mirror images of each other. What better proof could there be that on Wikipedia, black is white? </sarcasm> MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to OM and assorted talk-page watchers

I'm posting this here since I know how many people have this talkpage watchlisted. I recently finished drafting a new article here: Autism's False Prophets. I'd like some feedback, so anyone who wants to drop by and chip in their 2 cents is welcome. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

above and below

If I thought what you wrote would make any real difference I would not have commented at all. Anyway, I appreciate the gesture of support. it is hard to know how to deal with someone who cannot accept an apology or assume even the minimum amount of good faith .... Slrubenstein | Talk 01:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, certain admins and editors are using this RfC as their revenge, I suppose. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reached the point where I no longer have any faith at all in Wikipedia process or governance. This includes RfCs and the other bureaucratic trappings along with arbcom both as a collective body and in terms of the conduct of some of its members. And I don't see things getting any better -- the current slate of arbcom candidates mostly ranges from uninspiring to outright horrifying (again, with perhaps a few exceptions). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OMFG. There's at least 4 of them that would cause me to give this place the finger. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You (and Boris?) would be interested in the statement Durova just added. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris can only read Russian. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

regarding the mathsci comment

fyi, I emailed Mathsci at the time I removed the edit, alerting the user about my action, and the requesting that the potentially libellous comment in it be substantiated if at all possible. I havent had a response yet. Treating my BLP removal as vandalism is seriously uncool - if you need to be convinced of my edit, please come and talk to me about it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What in hell are you talking about?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to these two diffs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you fail to read either diff? Firstly, I self reverted. I was reading what Mathsci wrote, pushed on the wrong button, and accidentally reverted your edits. Secondly, I never accused you of being a vandal, because you're one of those all-power admins who can block me. I shiver in my boots. Get over yourself, and get your facts right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He probably just missed that you reverted yourself immediately. He didn't threaten to block you -- I know a lot of crazy stuff is in the air at the moment, but John is a pretty reasonable and respected guy. Take it easy on him, please? Avruch^T 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what upset me. It's that he thinks I would consider him a vandal or even accuse him of such. I know he's a good faith editor, but make that accusation about me deserves an apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he was just referring to your use of the Twinkle rollback -- its generally supposed to be reserved for vandalism only, and some people find it insulting to be reverted using a tool. I personally don't care what tool people use to revert me, effect is the same either way, but I know some people do. Avruch^T 23:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an urban myth. Every time someone makes that particular accusation, I ask for policy, and wait....there is none. The use of Twinkle is NOT an accusation of vandalism. I'll tell you what it is for me...the easiest way to make changes and put in commentary. Until someone says see WP:TWINKLEIMPLIESVANDALISM, I don't buy it. When someone is a vandal, I state it very clearly. Again, he needs to apologize. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

I don't completely disagree (re Twinkle rollback) but its treated in much the same way as this. I think the sticking point for most people is that its impolite to revert someone without an edit summary (i.e. an explanation) unless you're reverting obvious vandalism or something like that. Implying that you were treating his edit as vandalism probably went a bit far (since you immediately self-reverted, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to explain your initial removal on his page etc), but that notion has a long history here. Anyway, this doesn't involve me at all -- I just didn't want you two to get too heated about something this minor. Avruch^T 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I always use an edit summary in Twinkle. Except when I'm making an error that will be immediately self-reverted. There we go, still waiting for the apology from him! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

All I said was that you treated it as vandalism - i.e. using a rollback like approach. You didnt call me a vandal; I didnt accuse you of calling me a vandal. If it was an accident, that is still uncool. What left me unsure where you were going with that is your second edit summary "I am unconvinced that it should be deleted", which left me wondering what you intended to do, so I thought I had better leave you a note to avoid further complications. I was at the time working that matter out with Mathsci privately, and it has been amicably sorted out I think. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. You're right, I'm wrong, and since you have "the power", if I say anything less than civil, I'll be slapped. But your belief that you are perfect and did nothing wrong here is amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm should be more subtle: "I appreciate yout input" would do. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 22:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Though sarcasm can be fun and if done well, pretty funny, but it's obvious vandenberg is looking for some reason to block me. So I'll just be up front and honest. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on! What gave you the idea I want to block you? I have zero interest in doing that. It takes a lot of nastiness to make me even consider that. I have often told other admins to not block users who inappropriately attacked me.

I do believe I did the right thing here, and the current policy and historical practise seems to back me up. I appreciate that you and a few others don't agree, and I will be happy to hear additional opinions either way - the more the merrier - discussion is good. I can be convinced, either by good argument, or by community disapproval of my interpretation. I am not perfect, and neither is Wikipedia.

Btw, my power is limited to the extremely tight rules at Wikipedia:Oversight - I have not used oversight in this case, because Mathsci declined in the course of another other discussion we were having. (he is the subject; he would need to request it, according to the rules) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion at ArbComm

You may be interested by this RFA. The discussion seems to be addressing some basic issues on fringe science articles.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh this will help (pure sarcasm). The anti-science attitude of certain ArbCom members is well known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching for now. The decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy was somewhat encouraging. -LeadSongDog (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Different group now. There are two-four who are profoundly and obviously anti-science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the best possible outcome would be for ArbCom to stick to their mandate and avoid making any pronouncements, pro or con, about fringe content (to avoid this sort of train wreck). It would be nice to have some clear behavorial guidelines dealing with accounts dedicated to promoting specific fringe agendas, but that doesn't require any sort of pronoucements on content policy. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Elonka's Email

Do not send me a threatening email, even if it is a mild threat. Do not make unsupported accusations about another editor. If you have proof, then make it open and transparent, or go to the secret ArbCom tribunals run by FT2. Leave me out of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing a pattern. Well, at least you got an e-mail, I gt a bald-faced threat on my user-page (it's still there). Jim62sch^dissera! 23:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OM, if you wish all of my future communications with you to be public, I shall endeavor to do so. --El on ka 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Endeavor? Did you accidentally email me? Or did you intentionally choose to threaten me? And defame a fellow editor? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hell, I'm guessing subliminal drama queen. I could be wrong. 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Author has not given explicit statement that it's private. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Emails are implicitly private; this was explained in the last edit summary that removed the contents of the email. see Wikipedia:PRIVACY#Private_correspondence. Please do not restore it again. Send it to an arb, with full headers. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Where were you when I got screwed by VO. My e-mail ws not treated that way. Odd, huh? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are referring to; I wasnt aware of this afaik. Let me know the details privately if you want me to take a look at what happened. Hopefully .. I will be there to help next time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A recently changed [2] policy based a discussion at ANI[3] where there was hardly any discussion, and certainly no consensus? Unless you're arguing that ArbCom can dictate policy changes. - Atmoz (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the introduction of that passage of text into the current policy; it is a month old, and as it was used in the edit summary, Orangemarlin should have either respected it, or disputed it. To simply disregard it is not a good approach.

I've not the time to look into the full history of the policy, but suffice to say there are parts of the community which disagree with being limited from reproducing the contents of email onto Wikipedia. Most times that I can recall this happening, post like this were dramatically removed, and usually ended up facing the wrath of arbcom, for good or ill. I've no intention of making this dramatic, but this is the second BLP fuckup that Orangemarlin has made in the last 24 hours. Whether careless or intentional, it isnt permitted. period.

Irrespective of what the that policy says, the copyright of emails resides in the person who sent the email. Any time someone fixates a scribble, scrawl or doodle, they own the copyright of it, whether it is digital or real. Other people are permitted to duplicate it if it is reasonable to do so under fair use, and I am not disputing that Orangemarlin would be right to invoke fair use in this case, however fair use is not permitted in any namespace other than the article namespace, and this was inappropriate content per WP:BLP. When Orangemarlin posted that, he did not have permission, and so he broke the GFDL when he clicked submit, and also broke WP:BLP to boot. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Elonka I see. She implicitly threatens me and she defames a fellow editor. OK, nice to know where you stand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, where the hell is my apology for making your false accusation against me? Oh yeah, you'd rather quote me some regs. Just checking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OM, the email should not have been published on-wiki, and was rightly removed. It's another issue that the email should not have been sent, and I hope Elonka will improve her behaviour in future. No need to argue with Jayvdb / John Vandenberg. . dave souza, talk 11:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd. thought, I really don't see a BLP violation, and don't recall you being involved in a previous BLP problem. For the record. . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The BLP aspect of this is that it was an unsubstantiated accusation against Mathsci; it isnt OM's words, but he posted it here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then the BLP violation should be ascribed to the original author of these words, right? Not to OM?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The person who posts the material on Wikipedia is the one who is breaks the Wikipedia policies. This is similar to someone copying a trashy blog post onto Wikipedia. It should be kept off Wikipedia unless it is appropriate. Anyway, ..

The problem has been removed, and I'm told the email is being dealt with separately. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, WP:BLP#Project space does seem to cover this, and it's the republication of Elonka's defamatory comment that's at issue. I tend to think of BLP as more to do with biography subjects rather than editors, but the same issues of confidentiality and libel apply – sensible place for it to be covered, really. . . dave souza, talk 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the clarification.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I'm not sure that I am a living person at the moment :-) Mathsci (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is ← thataway. You want WP:NPA, which is over there →. In any event the email should be forwarded to ~~the Keystone Kops~~ Arbcom so that it can be quickly buried and forgotten about through proper channels. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP have any standing with this subject? Mathsci is a nom de plume, so unless there's a Bill Mathsci in the world, Elonka's false and defaming accusations against a user name is more a problem with Elonka's continued personal attacks against good faith editors as opposed to her slandering a real person. (One caveat, if someone has outed Mathsci with a real name, then I would agree it's more of problem with Elonka, but hardly still a BLP problem). Jayvdb's issues are silly and unsupported by the real world. And further reading of WP:HARASSMENT seems to indicate that Elonka should be blocked indefinitely for harassing me. I sent the email to Arbcom, but I got a typical response from FT2 who's vindictiveness against me is well proven (see the secret hearings of FT2). This place is fucked up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Given FT2's history with you, it would have been prudent for arbcom to choose a different messenger. It's hard to see their choice of FT2 to deliver the message as anything other than a deliberate and carefully calculated slap in the face. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. By choosing FT2 to respond to me, what exactly were they thinking? Not only has FT2 run a secret hearing to make me go away, he fails to see how vindictive he's been. Oh well, this isn't about me. It's about Elonka making false accusations and threatening me in an email. Now that should be dealt with. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I apologize for sending the email to you. Not only because I shouldn't have used the language that I did, but also because I was unaware that you would find it so upsetting. To be clear, I did not intend the email as any kind of a threat towards you. Instead, my intent was to send it as a "heads-up" that you were starting to get involved with a user who had a history of behavior that might cause problems for you in the future. But truly, the email was absolutely not intended as a threat of any kind. --El on ka 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Elonka sends OM an e-mail containing unsubstantiated scurrilous allegations about another editor, and then as part of her "apology," rather than retracting the character assassination, she repeats it. Even in watered down form, without a name attached, this is not acceptable. The arguments for not making the allegations public don't really hold up here, because the rule is intended to protect innocent editors from character assassination, but in this case it was used to protect the party who was perpetrating the character assassination instead. Surely when an administrator is using her power to spread lies about someone behind their back, the community needs to know about that. At any rate, most of the people who watch this page are smart enough that if they saw the email, they wouldn't have taken the allegations seriously; after all if they had actually been true, the editor in question would have been banned or in jail by now; that he's still editing seems to suggest that the allegations are false. And if there really were information to support such allegations, the allegations along with solid supporting evidence should have been sent quietly to ArbCom, not to OM, as he said. So while Elonka continues to portray the email as a "heads up" to make OM aware of these serious allegations and the possible consequences to himself should he continue to support that editor (how exactly is that not a threat?), it can't be seen by this outside onlooker as anything but a determined campaign to discredit and marginalize another editor. The damage that was done here was not so much to the intended target's reputation, but to Elonka's, and she did it to herself. That she continues to broadcast unsubstantiated innuendos about the other editor, suggests that she doesn't understand how much she's damaged her credibility by engaging in this campaign to besmirch someone's reputation. If that is the case, she has absolutely no business being an administrator on this project.Woonpton (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OM's talkpage is not the place to go into details, but yes, I have already posted diffs elsewhere, and am staying in touch with arbitrators about that and other evidence. --El on ka 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ri) OM, you win the "Understatement of the Year" award, "This place is fucked up". Jim62sch^dissera! 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not resend it to an impartial arbcom member? I too find it poor taste for FT2 to be the respondent here. Whether or not there is a problem with the email, there needs to be an uninvolved arb to look at what you submitted. Charles said he sent emails to certain people so why can't you send an email to someone specific too to take a look or doesn't it work this way? I'm finding the politics here quite difficult to understand. I know I will definitely be voting when it opens this time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As a technical matter, I don't think the Arbs sit down and choose someone to respond to each email to arbcom-en-l. I think it's just whoever gets there first. Again, better judgement may have suggested that FT2 allow someone else to handle it, but I don't think ArbCom as a whole chose him as their representative in this case. (I could be wrong; this is just my general understanding). In the future, you may wish to email a specific member of ArbCom directly; I know jpgordon has been serving as a mentor, though he's stepping down, but there are many other members you could directly email. They will pass on anything requiring the attention of the full committee, I think. Just a suggestion for more satisfactory results in the future. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is sometimes useful...

If you (and the various talkpage watchers) have a moment, maybe you could take a look at this and chime in with any post-mortem views you might have? It's an interesting problem, I think. On the one hand, we want to encourage as many people who can to usefully contribute. On the other hand, there is a disruptive effect associated with organized editing by student groups who are unfamiliar with editing norms. I think we struck the wrong balance in this case, particularly since the lecturers involved (in Scotland and Australia) have sworn off assigning Wikipedia in the future and expressed their dismay with our receptiveness and culture. It would benefit us to improve our response the next time around - we really need as much credibility in academia as we can get, and if we burn off those who are most inclined to support Wikipedia what chance do we have with the rest? Avruch^T 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, incase you are not aware

Since your page is watched a lot and with the thought that you watch things like this I just want to bring this to your attentions incase you would like to comment. [4] I don't know much about this other than the new reading I am doing but it sure looks like something the community should speak up about. I will if and when I understand the situations. If you are aware please feel free to ignore and delete this message. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are editors and admins who are more worried about policy and power than they are about actually creating neutral articles. Shoemaker's holiday is a strongly science editor, and ran afoul of individuals who rather worry about policy than the articles. They invent policies that this place is "collegial", but no respected academic college in the world would accept what is written here as academic. And since I've been in academic research, I know an occasional or frequent "you are fucked in the brain" is part of the discourse. There are individuals who are more interested in drama than anything else. I'd rather write articles, but I get involved in this drama for two reasons: 1) to protect editors who are truly neutral or those editors being attacked by the drama whores and anti-science types, or 2) to stand up to the fake NPOV editors, who pretend they are neutral, but really are here to place their anti-science POV onto the project. So, I'm not sure how much I can help SH, but I'll try. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think he could use as much input from others knowledgable in this situation as possible. I've just read some more things on your talk above that I find very upsetting too. Can you tell me what FT2 said about that email you sent to the arbcom? I found what you posted, now deleted of course, very much not administrator behavior as some other comments in the past which nothing was done then either. You can do it here or of course email if you like. If you prefer not to comment, that too is understandable. I'm just now starting to see a very bad behavior situation on going in lots of different places that are not too cool at all, like the latest RFC that was done. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is probably old hat to you

But in the wake of the "démêlés" you had with the ArbCom, and the recent RfC on Slrubenstein, you might be interested in reading this, if you weren't already aware. Shakespeareanly-speaking, this reminds me more and more of Denmark. :) Cheers! --Ramdrake (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"medical degree" controversy

Hi, I proposed reverting an edit you made on the talk page of the "medical degree" article, and I was hoping you'd chime in on the discussion. I also wanted to ask if you meant the WP:TLDR comment seriously; my understanding is that the term is meant as a humorous response to a verbose post, but you seemed to use it to explain not reading the mediated discussion that lead to a consensus on that page. Look forward to hearing your perspective! Lamaybe (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Common Man's Charter

bkell (talk · contribs) speedied it for a copyvio. No need for the AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he did it while I was nominating it. How do you decide what should be speedied and what shouldn't? And do regular editors have speedy privileges or is it just you all-powerful and highly paid admins? If so, I recreated the page by asking it be deleted.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah. Figured it out! I can nominate. You all-powerful types can delete. Seems like a waste of time honestly. Trusted non-admins should get the power to delete pages. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That has been discussed before, but always gets shouted down for one reason or another. The main issue is that Wikipedia is really really bad at letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". A solution can solve 99% of the problem, but get shouted down because of that 1%. I'm all in favor of a "limited adminship" that can delete pages with under some set number of revisions (like 50), and block IPs and non-established users. Essentially, provide the vandal-fighting tools to every trusted user. But as hard as it was to get non-admin rollback through, I wouldn't hold my breath. Javacript-based rollback has been available for a long time, but there was still weeping and gnashing of teeth over giving "real" rollback to non-admins. If there is a page that urgently needs to be deleted, tag it with {{db-attack}}. That puts it in a special queue - CAT:ASD - that is quickly cleared out. Otherwise, you can tag it with whatever appropriate tag you see at WP:CSD and someone will delete it eventually, but CAT:CSD has been known to sit for 24 hours before. (That's not overly "speedy".) --B (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's odd how things work around here, but I'm not sure your "perfect being the enemy of good enough" actually explains it. It's more like "we believe we're perfect, so shut up". This place is frustrating. And I figured out the whole speedy thing, which is just about the most silly thing I've ever seen. There are editors who spend time watching new articles, and they certainly could be trusted with the speedy tool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you want to power to delete pages? All it generates is grief. Nothing, and I mean nothing, I do on Wikipedia has generated so many impassioned and angry talk page notes, and I'm not that active a deleter. Even when I stop by to clear out a few expired WP:PRODs, I end up with a bunch of unhappy campers. Add the occasional Arbitrator drive-by on the rare occasions I speedy-delete things, and I don't know why anyone bothers. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I troll your talk page, but I missed that one. Can I repeat myself that this place is fucked up? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're lucky that he didn't decide to make an example of you and demand your desysopping for failing to be a mind reader. --B (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh you missed the point that only Arbcom has mind-reading abilities. Geez B, I thought you actually knew stuff around this place. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than letting trusted non-admins delete pages, we should let trusted non-admins be admins. As admin tools go, page deletion is actually the thing that has the most potential to damage the project. Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We even allow untrusted non-admins become admins, even after they promise that six good faith editors can ask them to stand down and go through another RfA. But that's another story. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion is the least drama-inducing of the tools and the place where there is the most needed maintenance. Heck, I probably set foot on Commons once a month, but not having deletion there invariably annoys me. I clean out an uploader's collection of AP photos here, then tag it over there and it takes a week before anyone looks at it. --B (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Drama-inducing, yes. But, when it comes down to it, the latest anguish at ANI over who was blocked, unblocked, and deadminned really doesn't affect the functioning of the project all that much. On the other hand, Ed Poor's disruption of VFD pretty much brought down the whole site. (Not sure if the software is more tolerant of large deletions now). And, unlike all the other admin tools, page deletion gives one the opportunity to do things that are effectively impossible to undo. (No details here, per BEANS). Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The software now disallows deletion of pages over a certain threshold (I want to say 5K edits). I guess that's more tolerant. ;) But I wouldn't give non-admins full delete - just the ability to delete new pages. Come up with a threshold (like 1 month and 20 edits) and let users with the "rollback" privilege delete pages under that amount subject to some sort of throttle. That reduces the opportunity for abuse, but allows non-admins to perform cleanup work. --B (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer

Hello Orangemarlin, thanks for your offer. I've noticed that some websites act a little strangely when they are expecting Internet Explorer, but I would not go back to using Windows just to avoid that. I was using Safari to edit Wikipedia but since installing Twinkle and Friendly, I've been using Firefox 3 because the instructions said so. Have you tried using them with Safari? Thanks again, Loves Macs (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep conversations on one page, so I hope you're watching. I, and others, have fine tuned Twinkle scripts on my user page to work nicely with Safari. I only use safari, and Twinkle works fine. Older versions of Safari don't play nice, but I think the webkit that Safari uses is the best. And of course Internet Explorer is just crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching. I've been watching every page I've talked on or warned, which makes for a large watchlist. Do you know if your monobook also works with Friendly? Friendly's instructions say that it is only designed for Firefox. Thanks, Loves Macs (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't use Friendly, so there are none in my monobook. I don't welcome very often. But I just looked over WP:FRIENDLY, and I don't get the impression it won't work on Safari. I'm sure you can try it out and see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Now, how do I find that monobook of yours? I looked at your page and I didn't see a link. Thanks, Loves Macs (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See User:Orangemarlin/monobook.js. You can copy the script, and paste it to yours. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I tried that and while Twinkle and Friendly work, the user talk window doesn't pop up in a tab automatically as I had hoped. On the bright side, I made a couple of changes to the script so that the user talk window does work that way in Firefox. Feel free to look at my small changes, and thank you. Loves Macs (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are wanting it to do in Safari? I works perfectly on mine, but maybe I'm accepting mediocrity. What are you wanted it to do? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted the browser to automatically open a tab when I click any of the rollback links in article diff view. I have it configured on Firefox to open a new tab on the user's talk page whenever I click any of those rollback links. On Safari, even with your monobook, I have to manually go through the article's history, open the talk page, warn with Twinkle, and type in the article's name. Firefox automatically opens the user's talk page in a new tab and fills in the article name in the warning dialogue box. Loves Macs (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't do that with mine, but I had to shut off the popup blocker. Then it will automatically open the page. That is a quirk that is definitely annoying, because in Firefox, you can allow websites to have popups. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My edit is not a personal analysis. your edit is the personal analysis of another person (a chiropractor). I am an MD and work close with acupuncturists and chiropractors and there is a general consensus on these comments. please see the discussion page. thanks [[Flobmonster]] (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm an IT Spec and work with people who couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag with both ends open. Your point? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Most physicians are pompous, arrogant, obstinate, self-centered SOB's. Oh wait.....never mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's been my experience. But there are precious few who will talk toyou without pretence. Then there are those who get royally jerked off if you understand the Latin or Greek diagnosis. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You got diagnosed with being Latin or Greek? Is there a cure?? . . dave souza, talk 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. Thhe diagnoses were in those linguae. Docs seem to get pissed when you know "rhinitis" is a swelling of the nose. Than there's the macaronic "otitis media". Jim62sch^dissera! 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

bid. bid. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer prn. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found that some people are much happier with a diagnosis of "idiopathic cryptogenic xerodermatitis" than a diagnosis of "dry skin". And whatever convinces them to stop coming to the doctor's office and moisturize instead... MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a fringe theory my boy. Next thing you'll be doing is telling me that ginkgo will help my memory. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. specifically the bit about how you don't believe in CAM or dry needling Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. please put your most recent edits on the discussion page. it is clear that we cannot reach 100% consensus, as you do not believe in dry needling. BUT it is true that the term is commonly used to skirt laws and mislead the public. Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. [[Flobmonster]] (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:DTTR. And what you did here, was not a good move on your part. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Filed

Notification. Appologies if this in error. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orangemarlin

This will get you blocked. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

your sockpuppets

Orangemarlin, please stop running sockpuppets. I can't keep blocking those who catch you at it forever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I know. It was in my master plan to run Wikipedia, but Firefly uncovered it. I can't believe I was so stupid. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my PayPal account is getting low again. You know what to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you not make this public? They'll be dozens of admins here with their hands out. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was only thinking, I mean, why should I be so selfish about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But if I have divide it up amongst the friendly admins...well, that would be only 2, that would leave $1.50 each. I don't think you can get a small cup of Starbucks coffee. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you mention good coffee somewhere? How does Starbucks enter the game now? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, don't worry, you are too clever for them. They will never get behind your secret, in spite of all the abusive checkusering. [5] --Hans Adler (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That was so subtle, I almost missed it. Hey, I like Starbucks coffee. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya,you and Verbal are socks, just the way Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger are real twins... :) --Ramdrake (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fraternal socks?LeadSongDog (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In a past life, OM was Shari Lewis. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was so subtle, I did miss it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Even your Uncle Sam has ideas on the matter...LeadSongDog (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin here, using one of my other socks from the drawer. I use this account when I wanna block people or cheer for a real baseball team. off season zing!!!' Keeper ǀ 76 03:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

One of my more stinky socks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I went to a party yesterday and only just got up. Did I miss something? (And I'm not sure if saying I'm one of De Vito or The Terminator is a personal attack... maybe the blues brothers??) But honestly, what the hell just happened? Verbal chat 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed all the fun. Nothing really happened, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You sleep. You miss the fun. And I believe the timeline from Firefly's posting to blocking had to be less than an hour. So, I guess the window of opportunity to make fun of the situation was rather small. Sorry. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get much sleep ;) That was fast for wikipedia, do I need to thank anyone? Who shall I attempt to be accused of being next? This guy seems to have a big chip on his shoulder. Verbal chat 20:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He's got a month to stew on his anger against everyone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I just found out, you are on Wikipedia Review's list of Jewish Wikipedians. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. BTW, was the list approved by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me where?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My goof, it is Encyclopedia Dramatica. WP does not permit the link since it is an off-site harassment site and violates our policies. But since it directly involves you thought you should know. The standard line on harassment is not to engage. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been cited...

..here LeadSongDog (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 again. I'm shocked, just shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget your winnings.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnings? I must have bet something about FT2. I just don't remember what. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A Casablanca (film) reference, of course. While we're on the subject you may also enjoy this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that RFAR is hilarious. FT2 files an RFAR against SV for daring to undo a block of his...and then, says he will consider recusing himself? And Charles, fresh off being reprimanded by the community for filing a spurious RFC against Slrubenstein for daring to undo a block of his...trips over himself in his eagerness to "support", even though, as NYBrad points out, there's no motion to support. What a bunch of clowns. Guettarda (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Round up the usual suspects! LeadSongDog (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This will take at least three rings.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of all the gin joints in the world... how did I end up in this one? You know, I would have gone back to the real world a long time ago if it weren't that your talk page is so much fun to read.Woonpton (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Together now: Allons enfants de la Patrie... LeadSongDog (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Now they're making up new policy. Even the ones I thought reasonable. I think the arbcomm has outlived its usefulness. Time for an MFD. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It has become increasingly obvious that arbcom members are largely subject to power trips, burnout, or both. A jury system (cases heard by 12 randomly selected admins) would work far better. You might sit one case a year so there's no burnout. Random selection reduces the opportunity for someone with an agenda to unduly influence the outcome. But whatever the solution is, arbcom obviously doesn't work and hasn't worked in a while. --B (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For a Republican, you do come up with good ideas. Twelve might be unwieldy, unless it's a strict vote (either majority or supermajority), and don't even pretend to go for consensus. Voting and discussion should be transparent, unless there are privacy principles that are apparent (and discussed in the open so everyone knows the reasoning for privacy in a particular case). The discussion pages for these "projects" should be locked to prevent the boring, useless, and destructive discussions about everything in the case. It's not useful. And finally, there must be an appeal system that is simple and transparent (maybe this is where arbcom is used), but like the US legal system and appeal can only be made on the law, not on the facts (well, at least that's what I was taught), meaning you can appeal because four of the admin jury had battled you in the past, and refused to recuse themselves. Oh, and any accusation on the project page has to follow the WP:VERIFY, but in this case the reliable source is the diff. In other words, you can call a "defendant" a "POV-warrior" if you can show it with diffs. Otherwise, their comments are refactored immediately. I have more, but this place needs to change. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note I'm sorry that some more names, like yours, aren't on the list for the election. Reading what is going on is depressing already. There is so much past history going on that I don't know about or understand that it is hard to understand truth from ego riding. There definitely needs to be a change there with new blood and less controversary. What I am seeing is some are behaving rashly, in the heat of the moment, and not thinking so much of the projects well being. It's sad to see what's going on there and it's embarrassing to even watch this behavior from some who are supposed to be the doing the best for the community. Anyways I will be researching the list and voting for sure with hopes that things can change to a more positive arbitration committee with more trust from the community which seems to be sorely lacking. If you, or anyone else who watches here could let me know, can Jimbo deny anyone who is voted for by the community because he doesn't like the pick? I guess I want to know if my vote is going to be counted, I guess I'm a leary of voting systems from the fiascos we've had here in FL elections. :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the Arbcom elections I'll be going live with this sometime in the next few days. In the meantime comments would be welcome. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in your opinion on things. I just got done reading the others that are listed and I have to say that I am very disappointed in the way some are portraying Jerochoman, esp. in regards to the Elonka fiaso. Some of the statements being made about some of the editors that I do see around here are more or less sounding like politics being raised as issues to not support instead of deciding by what the editors can bring to the project. I have my opinions on some already made on a list of my own that is private for me to use. I respect your opinions, even when you were the other name which I enjoyed very much watching and miss. :) So I will keep an eye out for it, hopefully I will see it when you post it. :) Thanks SBHB, you have to get a shorter name! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Boris does have a shorter name, and it's Ray Ray, who, if he would get back to being the Admin which he is, and run for ArbCom himself, we'd be better off. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And seconded!! Come on Boris, Ray was an excellent administrator and you are sorely needed at this time. I can understand why you got 'burned out' I guess but I think everyone will agree we all want you back under your original name, which I didn't say earlier because I didn't know if you used the right to vanish to change your name so I was just being careful. Raymond Arrritt, please come back, pretty please. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's a long story and I needn't go into the details here, but the bottom line is that the only good reason to edit Wikipedia is because it's Fun, and I found that being an admin made it Not Fun. So I turned in my badge. There's also a reason for the name change; again, I'd rather not go into the details here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand completely, I lurked for awhile and I think I have enough of a picture to understand. I still wish though there were more like you who actually remember that this project though is to teach, it's also to enjoy doing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Sometimes, I dream of the same thing happening to ArbCom members as they do to other admins: strip them of their ArbCom seat and make them individually reapply for it, so the community can have an input on whether or not they still have the community's trust. I don't think for a minute there'd be enough support for it, but that's my idea of "poetic justice". :) --Ramdrake (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And I would spend every waking minute pulling together all the diffs that point to FT2's obviously incompetence. But he hasn't the guts to stand for election again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thread mentioning you at major depressive disorder

Hi, letting you know that I started a thread about the errors in the above article: Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#False_statements_in_the_other_treatments_section II | (t - c) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, it would have been much better if you had just deleted the 5-HTP info from the major depressive disorder page. I might not have raised a fuss -- well, I know I wouldn't have, since there would have been nothing to catch my eye when I read that article. Obviously, I do have a major disagreement when it comes to the 5-HTP page itself, because that page isn't long enough to justify removing a bunch of Pubmed-indexed articles. II | (t - c) 08:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, II, so you're the one that added the spurious statement that "Tryptophan and 5-hydroxytryptophan appear to be better than placebo." According to the cited source, better if you want to take a dangerous medication associated with a risk of death. You'd have to be pretty depressed to fall for that – wait a minute... Do please learn to summarise sources accurately. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave, the abstract says that "the possible association between these substances and the potentially fatal Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome has not been elucidated". The full-text of the Cochrane review (which I read -- if you want it, email me) says there "the link remains unproven". Most scientists think the disease was caused by a batch of contaminated tryptophan. Since 1989, there have been no incidents. Since there's no proven link and the article is weighty enough, it's not worth going into depth on a speculative links. However, citing a source which states in the abstract that [a]vailable evidence does suggest these substances are better than placebo at alleviating depression as these substances are no better than placebo is certainly not accurate. Originally this source was cited as follows:

Tryptophan and 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) are obvious candidates for antidepressants, because they are metabolic precursors for serotonin. The Cochrane Collaboration analyzed the combined set of trials for the both of these treatments. Although the results appeared to indicate better than placebo efficacy, only two out of 108 trials were of sufficient quality to be included in the analysis. PMID 11869656

This was changed by OrangeMarlin to [6]: Tryptophan and 5-HTP have no effect beyond placebo on major depression. When a fair summary was added again by Looie496, OrangeMarlin changed it back. When I corrected the error again[7], OrangeMarlin again went back to his summary. II | (t - c) 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the paper. It clearly states that the clinical usefulness of the CAM treatments are limited. And just because they're precursors, from a biochemical standpoint, that's irrelevant. Hell, H2O and CO2 are precursors for everything in the body. This is really a specious argument started by Looie's CAM pushing POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Denialism "see also" on YEC

T-Berg considers the tag "vandalism" for no reason (besides IDONTLIKEIT) I can fathom. It shouldn't be that controversial, really; it's not like we are sticking it into a category. Can you make your presence known on the talk page please? Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You betcha. (I've been watching too many Sarah Palin interviews.) Besides I'm in a very cantankerous mood right now. A good faith editor accused me of being on Arbcom sanctions, which I am not, despite the best efforts of FT2, and of course, it gave a woody to the bad faith editors so that they assumed they could fuck me over. So, if I can right the attitude of some creationist POV pushing editor, I'd be happy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you were mentioned here. Apparently I goaded you into helping me. Funny, since I simply asked you to post on the talk page and you didn't. Some help you are at gaming the system. ;) Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anent the little rammay with Looie496 (talk · contribs), I've been having a little natter,[8] and Looie496 still doesn't seem to grasp the need to assume good faith when you expressed very reasonable concerns about the hazards to readers of misrepresenting dangerous drugs. As I've said in the linked post, my rewording to reflect the source accurately doesn't address the point that other sources should be taken into account and I'll be grateful if you can give that edit a look over. Thanks, dave souza, talk 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert, greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by GdB. I honestly think he knows stuff, but he's so intent on warfare, that we don't get anywhere. Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

His mainspace contributions aren't consistently enough to make me angry, but his talk page contributions are quite literally a waste of time. Ah well, it ups the ol' edit count. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

FYI, in case you are interested, one of the arbcom candidates - Cool Hand Luke - is "One" on Wikipedia Review (a very active user with over 1000 posts). I offer this tidbit as a point of interest and curiosity, not with the suggestion of any particular course of action. --B (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I love interesting tidbits of information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All candidates are asked a question about WR participation, and he openly acknowledged his identity there. Having a username that is also a very common word makes it hard to search for one's (heh) posts -- was this a deliberate choice? Hmm.... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not for that purpose. you can find any WR member's posting history by left-clicking on their username and then l-clicking under "profile options." Amerique^dialectics 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that. FWIW I have no objections to anyone participating in WR or any other external site per se, and it can even be a good thing when they have the guts to call out others on some of the nasty stuff that goes on there. But what bugs the hell out of me is when people play by the rules here and then scurry over to WR to snipe at others from a safe distance. That's just low class. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you got banned for being within 12ft of someone who once heard about wikipedia review.... I was surprised to see how many editors I've come across are there. Verbal chat 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ha ha! the guy who indefed my "meta" only account here last year asked if i would be interested in running for admin! i would support him for ArbCom, but i don't want to seem too self serving. besides, he seems more drama-prone than i was when i was more active on this site! Amerique^dialectics 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like WR's ongoing attempts to out controversial users. Unfortunately, that negates the value that I see in WR, that is pointing out the ongoing issues with Wikipedia. But as long as they willingly violate privacy, WR and all contributors there (save for one or two exceptions) should go fuck themselves. They are a despicable and unethical group of individuals. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I have been a great supporter of yours for the months I've been observing Wikipedia, but the reason you gave for your vote on CHL and your statement above have changed my mind about you entirely. You didn't like it (and rightly so) when people (including a number of people hanging out at WR) lumped science-minded editors together under the label of the "ID Cabal" and attributed conspiracies, intrigues and collusions to the group, but you're doing exactly the same thing here with respect to those who contribute to WR, who are a very diverse group of individuals with very diverse goals for their participation there. A few of them are really awful people who deserve your dislike, but a lot of them aren't. After I saw your vote, I spent a couple of hours I really couldn't spare, reading through "One"'s posts to WR to see for myself if he deserved that "badsites" guilt-by-association tag you were pinning on him, and nowhere in any of his posts did I see anything that merits the bad faith you have attributed to him. Again and again he stands up for people who are being attacked by others there, and when someone accused him of giving FT2 too much of a benefit of a doubt about something, he answered,

"Why do you assume that I'm a great supporter? Yeah, I once called him the 'second best arbitrator' because of some early cases, but has it ever occurred to you that the OM incident shook my confidence in him as much as it did to everyone else? It did. I'm no fanboy."

I think you've done him a great disservice, but more than that, you've shaken my confidence in you as a critical thinker who I assumed would make judgments based on evidence rather than on stereotypes and logical errors. Now go ahead, tell me my post is too boring to read, and you can tell me to go f&^% myself too if you want, but I won't see it, since I'm taking your page off my watchlist. Sayonara, Woonpton (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Harumph. I've actually never seen you before, BUT, have you noticed my change of heart? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, nice to know I've made an impression :-(. You'll find me in some threads on your talk page, like the one on the response to Elonka's e-mail. (I'm a TPS). And we've met in several other places as well. But no matter, thanks for letting me know about your change of heart. I apologize in turn for my outburst; I was just so disappointed in you. I had formed an impression of you that suddenly you didn't seem to measure up to, and I was very ...well, disappointed. I didn't really care HOW you voted, what upset me was the reason you gave for the vote. So okay, you're a Mensch after all. Woonpton (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things, you opposed CHL "Oppose Save for one convincing exception, extensive contributions on WR is prima facie evidence of bad-faith" - can you explain how? Or are you not simply "assuming bad faith here"? I'm presuming the "exception" is St Brad of New York, well as someone who posts to WR, and had invested much of my time wikipedia protecting BLP victims and has roundly condemned all forms of outing, I'm a bit hurt if you are assuming bad faith because I judge it appropriate to post to a messageboard. You may think that judgement "unwise", but how is it evidence of "bad faith"? I'd really like you to explain. Also, you said above "WR's ongoing attempts to out controversial users" - I'd point out that message boards don't out people, attempt to out people, or indeed have any intentions at all. Users do bad things, not boards. Again, you may judge it better to avoid places that bad people might hang out (although, I'd personally stay away from Washington DC on that principle) - but if I, or CHL, or NYB, or Lar, or Alison, or many other long-standing wikipedians make a different judgement, how is that "evidence of bad faith"? You may think us misguided (that's a fair enough position), but are we evil? (And why is NYB an exception to your bad faith assumption and not others?).--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bored with your commentary, I didn't read it. I've said my peace. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, well now I think you rude as well as ignorant. Oh, and that's my piece. Peace.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. We're in agreement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, OM, that is beneath you. (If it makes any difference, you may have encountered Scott before as Doc glasgow). Avruch^T 00:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it honestly. It's not like I'm very powerful around here. I'm not a high-paid admin. I don't have any special powers. I've edited a huge number of articles, but so have many many many others. So, why does my vote matter all that much? I've gotten posts here. I've gotten emails like you can't believe. And actually one persuaded me to think about my vote. But geez, if I vote yes or no or maybe, things are going to happen with or without me. I feel like I've got power beyond what I do by the number of comments here. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a bad thing, it just means people respect your opinion and expect to see one that is well thought out. Votes from people whose opinions are well thought of can sway undecided voters, and you are one of those people (as I can attest to from personal experience). Avruch^T 02:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OM, it's because of all the fluoride in the water that SA has just instigated. It means that now we are all your minions to meatpuppet with at your pleasure..... :-) Shot info (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If I had known I had such power, I might have run for Emperor of the World!!!!! Oh sorry, my megalomaniacal personality just came out. Save for a precious few individuals, most contributors to WR are whiny cowards. They'd rather snipe there than make real change here. So, I stand by the statement that posting there is prima facie evidence of bad faith, but because I'm smart, wise, rational, and quite sweet when I fucking feel like it, I do admit that occasionally, rarely, and once in a while, there are individuals from this project who post at WR to correct the most egregious issues there. Those individuals deserve our praise. With respect to Cool Hand Luke, I read over some votes from individuals whom I usually trust, but I think their opinion was mistaken. Therefore, I change my mind about him. However, like the pundits at Fox News who have been made irrelevant during the past election, maybe we should ignore WR, and they will just go away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've got to ask. How on earth were they relevant before the election?LeadSongDog (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They really weren't, but some people thought they were. Now, no one even pretends that they have anything intelligent to say. I was just watching an interview with Rush Limbaugh (on CNN mind you), where he was praising Obama for choosing Hillary Clinton, because she was going to be a moderate voice. I swear Rush was in love with Hillary--my how the worm turns. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes Fox News is irrelevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, let's talk about cuisine...

Now OM, these - Pleurotus eryngii - are really cool, I fried 'em up tongiht in butter and when I tasted tehm raw I thought tehy reminded me of onion, while my other half thought bacon, and put 'em in a creamy tomato sauce on pasta. They no doubt will be in some yuppy food cuisine store, and I have seen them in korean and chinese grocery stores too. They import them from korea nad china to Oz so I am sure they do to the US too. I dare you to go and get some and come back and tell me they are yuck. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

YUCK!!!!!! That mushroom looks like a used condom. Double YUCK. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

and this is a real horror movie XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many people watch my page? They'll be using this moving to support all kinds of CAM stuff in articles. You've made my life so difficult. I'm retracting my vote for you. LOL. BTW, is that Daryl Hannah?????? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I watched that. :) Verbal chat 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We should change our votes just for that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaawww, try the nice mushrooms first...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Catching up at ArbCom

Goodness, I had a detour to the eye Dr. (finally), my eyes are killing me (I don't think I'm going to be able to do ref cleanup at Intelligent design ... that sort of tedious work is painful now ... I hope I'm better in ten days, but could be six weeks, eeek), and I come back to speed to find my name all over the Cool Hand Luke candidacy! I wonder what I did to make him appreciate me (or what I did to make Majorly dislike me :-) Anyway, I guess that anyone who defends me must appreciate 1) strong sourcing, 2) particularly on science articles, and 3) people who try to keep their noses clean, out of controversy, off of IRC and in articlespace. I think that's what I stand for, but I could be wrong.

I don't pretend to keep up with the issues and controversies and personalities at WR, preferring to keep my head in FAC and FAR business, but I do have an anecdote. At a time when Wikipedia dispute resolution processes left me hanging out to dry, WR defended me. When doing a routine google check on my name, I found that Z had gone to WR to blatantly bash me and tell lies about me, and that WR put a quick end to that, at a time that Wiki let the bashing continue, FWIW. It appears from the links I'm seeing on talk pages that WR has consistently been fair to me, and CHL has, too, even though I don't know him and don't recall ever editing with him. So, I don't think all WR posters should be painted with the same brush.

Strong sourcing for science articles assuredly needs a voice at ArbCom, and has suffered since Raul's departure. I won't support (and have specifically opposed) those parties who may continue the damage we're now seeing. Per User:Shot info/ACE2008 and User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/ACE2008, can you and your talk page stalkers give me more info on the Vassyana comments, the Wizardman comments, and why isn't Short Brigade supporting CHL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I still agree with Boris' attitude (if I am interpreting it correctly) towards CHL. I see no reason to go to WR, since I do consider most of the contributors there (at least the ones that attack editors here) to be utter cowards. They get to make unsource and unsubstantiated attacks on other editors without consequence. I don't think good editors here should go there, even to defend anyone, because by doing so, you give them credence. I don't read WR stuff, unless I click on a link that brings me there. Now, all that being said, there are times that we need to give full-throated defenses there. Off-wiki, several editors and admins whom I respect beyond anything, told me that CHL gave you that full-throated defense, and I accepted that at face value, since I refuse to go to their site. Of course, I have read an equal number of editors and admins, whom I respect beyond anything, have stated that CHL doesn't deserve a support. This was a tough one, but I changed my mind on CHL, strictly on his support of you, although I have grave concerns about any arbcom member participating on WR. So my default opinion remains that anyone who participates on WR doesn't deserve support, although I have made a few exceptions, as if my exceptions really matter.

I don't "vote" for individuals who have not crossed my radar. Interesting, since I edit across a broad swath of Wikipedia, I have this, probably very arrogant, belief that if I haven't run across an editor, then just how much important stuff do they really do. But then I realize that I probably only touch about 2% of this project, so how would I know everyone. That being said, I don't know much about Wizardman or Vassayana, so other stalkers of my page need to comment. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have such a hatred for what goes on behind relatively closed doors at IRC, that I can't uniformly condemn posters to WR, particularly since Cas and NYB are there. I'm much more concerned about backchannel rumors, IRC, and e-mail cabals than I am about WR, where we can at least all read it and know what is being said and what is going 'round. It's those IRC and e-mail cabals that worry me, and that is reflected in my oppose votes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick placeholder re CHL, since this began at 5 a.m. as a really lousy day and has gone relentlessly downhill from there: my impressions are generally favorable, but I like to take a close look at someone's record before supporting. Will try to do that in the next day or two. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SG, in the real world of academia, to which Wikipedia aspires, there are backchannel communications. I'm sure someone was talking behind the back of Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and anyone in academia today. It might have a negative consequence, but it might have a positive one. Cold fusion is a perfect example where back channel sniping, debunked the science behind it. Maybe it works here too. But the most important thing is that as long as we have free speech, I can't see a way that we can stop IRC and email cabals. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt the #admins channel is going to help debunk quasiscentific nonsense, but I suppose anything's possible, having never been there. Regarding Cool Hand Luke, I've had a favorable general impression but little or no direct interaction, which means I have to actually work to decide what to think. His candidacy is on my list to examine in more detail, though I'd say my default leaning is to support, not least because of Sandy's comments. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know we can't stop damage from IRC and e-mail cabals ... that's why I think we can't condemn all WR posters: it's the lesser evil (it's public). I don't know who's bashing me or damaging articles on IRC or in e-mail. Z's WR posts allowed me to see the lies being told about me, and also to see who was defending me with fair and accurate info. I reserve my strongest opposes for those who appear to operate within backchannel, private cabals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I was talking about the real world, not Wikipedia with regards to Cold Fusion. I remember debunking it to a bunch of friends the day after I heard about it, and I basically slept through physics as an undergraduate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SG, I just picture you in a black cocktail dress wearing a Boston Red Sox cap, then express my undying love in private Wikipedia email lists. Just want to fully disclose my perversions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just let me get some popcorn mushrooms... this talk page just got interesting. Do we have the opposite of a NPA policy? Verbal chat 19:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on undergraduate physics ... I can go ballistic remembering the sexism and nepotism that caused me to switch majors. Sorry, but my cocktail dresses are usually red, to match the cap. But since the darn eye Dr. prohibited eye makeup for six weeks, no parties this holiday season. <grrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you dare violate my personal and very private fantasies with red dresses. Sheesh. Physics probably still is male-dominated, and still very boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking of boring, black cocktail dresses? Ha, my friend the Angels fan from that part of LA that you don't like once sent me a pink RedSox cap. I sent it back. Thought he knew me better. Do I look pink? (PS, I picked a grad program more male dominated than physics ... at least they had Sally Ride.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hey my wife's a physicist! And yes it is still male dominated, but it's getting a lot better now (and they're good looking too - but that's a general property of hot young scientists). Only the physics other people do is boring - unless you have a deadline, then everyone else's physics is so much more interesting than yours. I'll stop ruining your fantasy now. Verbal chat 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'll bet your wife is too young to remember Sally Ride :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask her when she gets back from the bloody synchrotron. :(Verbal chat 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hehe yes she is, although I remember her picture from history class in primary school. We have that awful "rapper" at CERN to look up to now. Peter Venkman was my inspiration to become a scientist... Verbal chat 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

History class in primary school?????????????? Oh great. Now I feel OLD. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Verbal, better keep your day job, and stay away from politics and diplomacy :-))) So, how old do we feel now, Orange? And don't even try to talk physics to me, or Orange will have to pull out some stats to to set you straight on memory issues. Tottering off to find my cane, prunes and eyeglasses ... maybe I put them with all those size 4 red dresses ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got my walker. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Verbal: I'm surprised no one has tried to tag Peter Venkman's article with Category:Pseudoskepticism yet. Oops, I see that category is now a redlink... MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That quote, in your edit summary, is one of the best lines uttered in film history. Indiana Jones' "Nothing shocks me, I'm a scientist" is good too. In my defence, the history class was a mistake - looking back it was probably a science quiz. I remember having an argument with the teacher because he insisted the Shuttle Challenger was called Columbus. As a scientist, though, I try not to view it as some kind of dodge or hustle, although I'm often told that I don't have a "real" job, and that I'm in an "ivory tower". Sorry fro breaking my page ban :) Verbal chat 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, when I was in elementary school, we still hadn't landed on the moon, the periodic table was missing about 7 or 8 elements (OK, the missing elements weren't exactly common ones, like say N or O), and we still gave smallpox vaccinations. Sally Ride, to me, isn't history, she's a contemporary. Sigh. I thought you were banned from my page? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So to paraphrase, in the words of C. Montgomery Burns facing an economic downturn: "Nothing scares me. I've lived through 2 depressions, 6 recessions, and 4 years of McKinleynomics." MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not THAT old. I've live through 0 depressions, although I'm not betting on the future right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fuck, you're OLD! - even compared to me. When I was born, we were still two years from faking the first moon landing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, Orange, how are your fantasies doing after all your talk page stalkers have bundled us off to the nursing home to eat our fiber ? <grin> Darn, next time visit my talk page where the fun folk like Moni3 and The Fat Man hang out !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You young'uns, I was well into primary school when Sputnik 1 was launched, remember Telstar as a news item and a hit tune, and watched the moon landing in my last year at college. Still certain that the first words spoken when setting foot on the moon were spoken from near the foot of the ladder – "I can feel it with my foot, it's kinda soft and squishy". There was also a marvellour inset circle top right with Nixon saying "this has got to be the most historic telephone call in all history". Got that one wrong, didn't he. . dave souza, talk 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For your opinion

[9] Please go there and voice your opinion on this, it would be appreciated by lots. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no there there. It's dead, Jim. Non-admin closed in under two hours.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Election challenge

Somebody has got to be kidding.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been a number of similar cases going on (the one by Phillip J. Berg has actually gotten play in the mainstream media). Rightwing blogs have really been the only places giving any credence to the lawsuits. I read Berg's initial filing awhile back. In my (completely non-legal layperson) opinion, there is no merit whatsoever to the claim that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. Think about the vast conspiracy necessary and what would it accomplish? His mother was a US citizen, so if he had been born outside of the US, he could have been fast-tracked for citizenship, so there would have been no reason to engage in an elaborate hoax. Pretty much, in order to believe that Obama was born overseas, you have to believe that 50 years ago, there was a vast conspiracy just in case he ever wanted to run for President. That's utter nonsense. The second part of Berg's filing was a little more interesting, though. He claims that if Obama were born in Hawaii, his citizenship lapsed under the law at the time when his family moved to Indonesia and that, even though it is merely a technicality since he is a native-born US citizen and could re-assert his US citizenship at any time, he did not, so he is currently not a citizen. I don't know what, if any, credence to give to this claim, though it at least has the virtue of sounding less implausible than a vast conspiracy at his birth to falsify his birthplace. Most of the lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing (the reasoning being that only someone directly affected by the alleged fraud could claim a harm as a result - Berg wasn't directly affected, so he has no standing to bring suit.) Personally, I am hopeful that the SCT will make a ruling on the merits of the case - don't just dismiss it for lack of standing. It is of obvious benefit that the question not be hanging out there. I don't for a minute believe that Obama isn't a citizen, born in Hawaii, legally able to assume the Presidency, and I would love for the SCT to explain the facts, explain the relevant law, and that's the end of it. --B (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think Bill Ayers forged Obama's birth certificate while singing the Internationale and bowing towards Mecca - that's what I read on Conservapedia, anyway. :) It's one thing for the Supreme Court to steal an election when the Republican candidate only lost by 500,000 popular votes, but even our current Court seems unlikely to overturn the will of the people made this manifest. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what Berg would get out of this, even if he wasn't 8 cards short of a full deck. The 375 electors are all Democrats, and guess who they'll choose...Hillary? That would be funny. The Supreme Court may be daft, but they're not that daft. And I'm not sure about B's technicality, since I thought it took an action by the citizen to renounce their citizenship. But I think the Supreme Court should clear this up quickly, and we can end this crap. Of course, maybe Hillary is behind this effort, since I see where Rush Limbaugh thinks she's a right-winger. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the law is (or, more specifically, what the law was in the 1960s or 70s or whenever it mattered) but I would think/hope that the SCT could look at the law, make a quick determination of whether or not whatever standards existed for citizenship existed and continued to exist, and make a 9-0 ruling. There are several alternative possibilities for the law and I have no earthly idea which of them is the case. Would an affirmative action on the part of Obama once he reached an age of majority would be required to lose his citizenship? (That obviously never happened.) Would an affirmative action on the part of his parent(s) at any point prior to majority be required? (No evidence that ever happened.) When he moved back to America while still under age, was his citizenship automatically secured? (Rendering all of this moot.) Or, as Berg is claiming, was an affirmative action required to NOT lose his citizenship? (Doubtful, I would like to see someone point to chapter and verse of the law and say here's where it says Berg is wrong.) I don't think anyone (other than disappointed Hillary supporters and crazed lunatics) is hoping Obama would lose the battle, but I do want to see the SCT rule on it (preferably 9-0) just so we can move on with life until Bobby Jindal's campaign begins. --B (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

An "affirmative action"? Oh no you didn't! :)

You make it sound like "disappointed Hillary supporters" and "crazed lunatics" are two separate groups. :) It will be really interesting to see how Bobby Jindal v. Sarah Palin plays out in 2012, since Jindal is kind of like the anti-Palin. He would have been a much more formidable VP candidate than Palin (actually, though, that could be said of just about anyone). MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a double-take on "affirmative action" until I figured out what B meant. Like B says, unless there's some obscure law (which you would think everyone would be discussing by now), you cannot passively lose your citizenship. My father was a military officer, and I lived outside of the US more than inside--I don't recall ever having to take an "affirmative action" or statement to retain my citizenship. BTW, based on the same logic, wouldn't we have expected the same action from McCain. I think this is all ridiculous. But again, maybe I should go find a bookie to take a bet on Hillary becoming the next US President. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

MC, nothing personal, but Palin is much easier on the eyes than Jindal. AND, this is the most important item, I can watch Tina Fey all day long playing Palin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances under which one can lose U.S. citizenship are very limited, and mainly involve either explicit renunciation of citizenship, or fighting in a foreign army that is at war with the U.S. (see here). Simply moving to Indonesia or even becoming an Indonesian citizen wouldn't be enough to jeopardize citizenship. Not that this whole thing made much sense to begin with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree, but B brings up a narrow issue of whether there were some technical laws in place in the 1960's or 1970's that might have made it necessary for Obama to affirm his citizenship. I doubt it, but it's a valid point. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point that if a relevant law did exist, we would have heard about it by now from someone not wearing a tin foil hat. I still think a court needs to rule on it on the merits, though, just to put the issue to rest. --B (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aluminum foil hats only. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about just about everything. "The effectiveness of the tin-foil hat as electromagnetic shielding for stopping radio waves is greatly reduced by the fact that it is not a complete enclosure." Well ... that and the minor detail that the user is just plain nuts. --B (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That could be cured by making the enclosure complete.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And air-tight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You read my mind! Where'd I leave that hat?LeadSongDog (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to see reliable sources on the tin vs. aluminum controversy for blocking alien brain waves. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that telepathy were to exist and that telepathic brain waves traveled on RF frequencies, I would think whichever metal is thicker would work best, right? But this is kinda like asking what kind of hay to feed to your invisible pink unicorn - I'm quite certain that either alternative will be equally as effective. --B (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Back to the original subject, see [10]. The SCT declined to hear the case. This one is actually different than Berg's case. I didn't realize this, but apparently (according to the WSJ) Obama was a US-UK dual citizen when he was born because of his father's Kenyan (then a British territory) citizenship. This lawsuit's claim is that having dual citizenship at birth disqualifies someone from being President because "natural born citizen" (the constitutional requirement) is different from being a "natural born dual citizen". I give him points for creativity, but there's no way in heck anyone takes that seriously. I would be interested in hearing a ruling on Berg's obscure 1950s law claim, but this case is a non-starter. --B (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

omega oil

It works to lower blood pressure, speaking from personal experience — not that I want to tangle with you in any way whatsoever. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm unconvinced. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I found out I had high blood pressure. Doctor said take fish or flax pill twice a day. High blood pressure went away. Other people take medicine to achieve the same thing. Fish/flax pill works. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not very scientific. Anything could have caused your blood pressure to drop. Of course, without a full clinical picture, I can't show you. I'm rather suspicious of your doc too, but who knows, maybe you also had a prescription for Lopressor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't blame OrangeMarlin for not being convinced by anecdotal evidence, but it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to find recent reviews on PubMed which are not positive on the omega 3/cardiovascular disease connection. Perhaps that's because the woomeisters have taken over PubMed (not entirely implausible, given the interest in homeopathy and faith healing), or maybe it's because the science is quite sound. PMID 16922818 focuses on hypertension. PMID 17966723 also, although conservatively. PMID 12939515 (2003) starts with "[i]t is widely accepted that n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) rich in fish oils protect against several types of cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, atherosclerosis, or hypertension". PMID 17284999 (2006) states that "European and American Cardiac Societies incorporated EPA and DHA into recent treatment guidelines for myocardial infarction, prevention of cardiovascular disease, treatment of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. Physicians need to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease by advocating EPA and DHA to all patients likely to benefit". You may want to consider evaluating your assumptions and doing your research before making strong statements about what the facts are. II | (t - c) 05:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my very strong opinion that the corrupt omega-3 fisheries and producers are leading to the destruction of the menhaden fish stocks. These fish are the key food for much of the Atlantic and gulf fisheries. Setting aside my environmental feelings on omega 3, I have been long convinced that proper fats and oils are important to cardiovascular health. Long-term, these will reduce your blood pressure (if done right). But that protective effect requires years to have a clinical effect. However, I remain strongly unconvinced that omega-3 has any usefulness in MDD. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PMID 16922818 discusses the effect on blood pressure:

Randomized controlled trials of w3 fatty acids in ﬁsh oils or dietaryﬁsh provide unequivocal evidence for a blood pressure-lowering effect. Morris et al.4showed, in a meta analysis of 31 placebo-controlled trials, an overall reduction of -3.0/-1.5 mmHg with a signiﬁcant dose–response effect estimated at -0.66/-0.35 mmHg/g w3 fatty acid. The blood pressure-lowering effect was strongest in hyper-tensives (treated and untreated; -3.4/-2.0 mmHg). Appel et al.3

So not a huge effect, but the law of large numbers means that nonetheless the effect more than likely exists.

As far as omega-3s for depression, I suspect there is an effect (as indicated by the small RCTs and not indicated by the large "fish advice" study), but for those who prefer natural antidepressants which don't have as much the SSRI side effects, SAMe or 5-HTP are better choices than fish oil. Your environmental concern is laudable, but abstaining from fatty acid supplements is not a solution to the problem of overfishing. The solution to overfishing is regulation. II | (t - c) 07:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fish oil is good stuff. The data are pretty solid for lowering the risk of sudden cardiac death, and reasonably good for lowering BP and triglycerides with long-term use. I once worked with an internationally renowned lipid expert who was an absolute evangelist about fish oil, and this guy was as mainstream-medicine as you can get. It's the only supplement I'll spend my hard-earned money on. But I'm living proof that it lacks an antidepressant effect. :) Besides, if it's not as effective as SSRI's, and SSRI's are barely more effective than placebo... MastCell ^Talk 07:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A smiley face as you say that you suffer(ed?) from depression? At least if you have a cheery attitude, you're one step closer to recovery... I was depressed (undiagnosed) in high-school for a while, and it got to the point where my speech was so slurred that my family thought I was brain damaged. The problem resolved after I began forcing myself to smile and think happy thoughts (also took some kava around this time, which loosened me up). I grew up on wild salmon and currently eat it every day, although my consumption probably dropped off in high-school quite a bit. The epidemiological difference in depression is striking and correlated with fish consumption to some degree; for example, lifetime prevalence of 3% in Japan vrs 17% in the USA (from MDD article; there's ecological epidemiological studies if you're curious). Would be interesting to see what the frequency is for Japanese Americans. The evidence against fish oils for depression is in no way conclusive and leans further towards benefits; see, for example, this 2008 Cochrane review. II | (t - c) 09:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A reputable TS researcher at NYU, funded by a TSA grant, has been running a double blinded placebo controlled study on children and adolescents with TS for several years, but curiously, no results yet even though it should have finished up last year (how long does it take to get published)? They got some promising preliminary results. (Scroll to the second page of this PDF for the three ladies who need a new hair salon.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotally (yeah yeah, I know), I've had good results with fish oil for atopic dermatitis as well. 3 important studies, The Lyon Heart Study, the GISSI Prevenzione Study, and in The DASH Study have shown that omega-3 fish oils help to prevent heart attacks and reduce pain and swelling in certain other diseases. There is a lot of research coming out on fish oil supplementation, but I think a lot has to do with ratios of omega-3 to omega-6 in the diet. In addition, cutting down red meat intake can reduce Neu5Gc which might also be linked to inflamation. DigitalC (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no view on fish oil for depression. My doctor is Cuban, so perhaps you can be suspicious there? I went to my (Cuban) doctor who said I had high cholesterol and questionably high blood pressure. I said it is impossible for me to have high cholesterol because I don't eat meat or anything with cholesterol in it. He said you can have high cholesterol if your cholesterol is out of wack - take fish/flax oil pills. I did that. My high cholesterol popped down, as did my questionably high blood pressure. So, OrangeMarlin, are you saying I should cease and desist taking the fish/flax pills? Am I misled in some way? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)