User talk:Orangemarlin/Rules archives 1

Who is Ymous and why should I mediate with him?

I am stunned. Who is this person? --Filll 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to the talk page of evolution and look at the banner at the top of the talk page. Click on the link and you will see he wants your hide but he mis-spelt your name.--Filll 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess it is one of you guys using a strawman sockpuppet. 65.73.80.45 02:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Just a side note: Velvet Elvis (sp?) claims to have been registered since August. If you look at the history on his discussion page; his introductory message from Wikipedia is dated Dec.7. Of course, he deleted that information. His contributions to the discussion have distracted from the process of improving the article. I hope these trend on the discussion page soon dries up. --Random Replicator 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vacuous, you are the resident expert on being a sockpuppet. What IP address are you on now? How many blocks have you avoided? Is it now 3? 4? Orangemarlin 07:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Evolution. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Current status

I notice our creation terrorist is wreaking havoc on the evolution page.

I see we have quite a few on the Noah's Ark page as well from the edits.

• The Evolution support article (I didn't want to post a link to reduce troll attacks) is very well done. I still like my idea of a map that shows everywhere that has scientific societies that support Evolution, but it probably is overkill and could be considered POV, although I doubt it. I wouldn't mind doing it, but I wouldn't even know how to edit such a graphic. By the way, I love graphics.

We can put in a request for a map. I have a lot more information to plot now if you look at the article.

• We probably should do a NPOV article on Creationist Scientist support as a counter that includes a description of who the Creationist Scientists really are.

There already is a creation science article, but more articles along that line might be helpful.

The Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft is well done. It sounds like Margareta will be out for a while, so why don't you set it up as an article, so we can begin editing it publicly.

I want to have more citations/references for that one if we can. It is still available for editing now.

I'm wondering what happened to the Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Was it incorporated somewhere? I see bits and pieces of it in a few articles here and there.

It is still there. I want more citations for it and also I plan to write some text around it for a separate article.--Filll 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule reports

Hi, just to let you know that I've closed your 3RR report because you did not specify how the 3RR had been broken. Specifically, to constitute a violation, there must be more than three reverts within 24 hours. I hope this helps explain things, but if not, please leave a note on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ymous

I think he wants to see if he can get himself banned for fun. He does not do anything constructive. I think if he at least wrote an article it would be a somewhat productive use of his time. But he refuses.--Filll 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who he is???? Orangemarlin 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He appears to espouse the same views as Vacuous poet. I think he is not as educated as kdbuffalo, however.--Filll 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I keep reading about this kdbuffalo character...who was he? what did he do?Orangemarlin 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

kdbuffalo was a very aggressive creationist. He was actually far smarter than most of what I have seen in the last few weeks. He would produce very good references. But he was combative and just caused too much turmoil. I did suggest that he not be banned, but he was banned anyway. Then he violated the ban over and over and over and they kept extending the ban. What happens is if you are too obnoxious, people lose patience after a while. We have had one or two creationists who were able to work constructively with everyone, and people do not mind that. We can all work together, creationist and scientist together to write an encyclopedia. But when they just want to obstruct the progress, then people get annoyed. For example, if vacuous poet WOULD put energy into writing an article about frauds of various kinds, it could be pretty good. There is a lot of interesting material out there. But he doesn't seem interested in doing anything constructive like that. He just seems to want to fight instead and complain. Who needs it? I have even off and on offered to help creationists write their articles, but no one has ever taken me up on it. They would rather fight instead. So, it just gets old after a while.--Filll 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at raspor and his editing history

hmmm...--Filll 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ElderStatesman

Just not seeing it. A minor WP:POINT violation and a minor edit war, slight, but not particularly bad POV pushing, and that's about it. Raspor was prone to be MUCH more dogmatic than that.

I say, keep an eye on him, but unless he starts doing something actually disruptive, best to presume he's a newbie. Let's face it, Rapsor's main notable point was his ridiculous use of bad sources. ElderStatesman... isn't really doing that. He gave too much weight to a POV source for Chinaman, but it wasn't actually off-topic, and it wasn't, in itself, a bad source for that POV.

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but unless he does something more, I don't think he's Raspor, and think you might be being a little WP:BITE-y, though not intentionally. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't care one way or another. I just don't like his reverting the sockpuppet charge (there is a process of course), and leaving stuff on my user page. Otherwise, he's kind of fun to prod. And remember, the charge wasn't made by me, but by FM. Orangemarlin 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:The Nazi

Already indefblocked earlier today.[1] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that at first. I just saw that he had edited some articles. Thanks. Orangemarlin 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

You know, I did wonder if that troll who were going around putting indef ban tags on my page were SABW after he did similar, but I was assuming good faith... What d'ye think? Modus operandi the same? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

May be wrong, of course. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We all assumed good faith on this guy. And then we find out he's a indefinitely banned user. Maybe Estuary ought to be tossed into the sockpuppet charge, because it really reads like he's doing it. Orangemarlin 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* Still, I hope it wasn't him. Estuary happened when I thought we were still on good terms. But it was awfully similar to his later behaviour. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ElderStatesman

ElderStatesman (talk · contribs) reads like Raspor. Should we request a checkuser? Guettarda 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This sounds like one of the same old creationists, back as a sockpuppet.--Filll 02:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting to be an expert in filing these complaints. But let me read his contributions. Orangemarlin 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Hassour Zain feels the same way: [User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Possible_sock_of_Raspor.2FEverwill]] Guettarda 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The guy starts out the same way each time, so you'd think he'd figure out that we're not complete idiots. Also, note how ElderStatemen and PaulB are playing good cop/bad cop! Orangemarlin 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I hear someone say "I'm not a Christian but..." I get suspicious. Half the creationists claim not to be religious. Check your email. Guettarda 18:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Already did. This confirms my suspicions on this crowd. Whenever I read that "I'm not a Christian, but...", it reminds me of the people who say, "I'm not a racist but...." That's the point where I assume I'll see the KKK appear. After reading your email, it convinces me that Wikipedia has become a bastion of right-wing Christian dogma, and is not what we thought it would be. It's going to take hard work to keep the Christian bias out of the well-written Evolution and Creationism articles. Orangemarlin 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia articles have gotten a lot better - have a look at the earliest version of the ID article. It's always a battle to keep evolution/creation-related articles accurate and balanced - we have the same problem with global warming-related articles. Still, NPOV is on our side. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to make your case, but the truth is that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are reasonable people. (Also, I'm of the opinion that it isn't "Christian" bias, but rather, anti-science religio-political bias...but that, of course, may reflect my own religious biases). Guettarda 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know as left wing, anti-religious, and pro-environmentalist as I am, I am awfully suspicious of Global warming. It's not that I don't think we've done bad things to the planet. It's just that the earth is still cooler than it was 2000 years ago. One good volcanic eruption, and we'll be complaining again about the cold. But I live in Southern California, where we're one good rainstorm away from disaster. Orangemarlin 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cooler than 2000 years ago? Are you sure about that? Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png; Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png Guettarda 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical of our side, we make rather unimpressive and confusing graphs. I've looked at that graph 100 times, and it never makes sense. Is each data point the annual change or the absolute temperature? If its the annual change, sure it does appear that change is getting greater, but against what relative point? If its the absolute temperature, then it's seriously difficult to interpret. There's a book I've read Guyton, Bill (2001). Glaciers of California: Modern Glaciers, Ice Age Glaciers, the Origin of Yosemite Valley, and a Glacier Tour in the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520226838. that describes most, if not all, California glaciers arose in the historical era, some less than 1500 years old. Setting aside other climatic events, then these glaciers exist because we're cooler now than in some fairly recent period of time. I remain skeptical of Global Warming, but I know my side of the political fence would ostracize me for doubting the dogma. Orangemarlin 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I never knew you could look that far back in an article's history. That article was not only POV, but it was just plain bad. Orangemarlin 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edits before the end of 2001 have been lost, but just about everything since that time still exist. The fact that the oldest versions don't exist probably violates the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. You might also get a kick out of http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org

Most articles started out really bad. Early on they didn't have policies like WP:V or WP:NOR, and people used to write things off of the top of their head. When I started editing in mid-2004 (and probably for about a year after that) I wasn't really aware of WP:V, and no one was really saying all that much about citing sources. The Verifiability rules were only written down in mid-2003, while the idea of "no original research" originates with a listserve post by Jimbo in Sept. 2003, and made it into Wikipedia in Dec. 2003. [7]

NPOV seems to be a bit older - see [8] and [9]. Guettarda 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in userspace

Please do not use fair use images, like Image:HillaryClintonLogo.jpg, outside of article space. Thanks. Picaroon 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Never knew this. Now this I understand. Orangemarlin 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

OM, I've really been getting the feeling that you're reverting my edits because you feel some sense of ownership of the edits you've made. Please humor me and have a look at WP:OWN. Oftentimes, you seem to revert a number of different changes while giving a reason that only applies to one of them. In cases like that, I think you'd do better to change the specific things you disagree with instead of simply reverting everything. Otherwise, it looks like you're just being defensive. Assuming you don't think my edits are gross vandalism, you could at least show me the courtesy of explaining yourself on the talk page. I get the feeling you're just looking at the logs, noticing I changed something you've edited, saying to yourself, "Nah, I liked mine better," then reverting. Wikipedia improves over time because editors continue to make the changes they see fit, assuming good faith of other editors who do the same. You seem more interested in defending the status quo. Gnixon 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded. I do not follow anyone, I follow articles. I could care less who edits any article that I'm following, and I certainly don't care whether you do or not. Your lecturing me about what to do either shows your feeling of ownership of these articles, or a certain level of defensiveness that borders on hysteria. Let's talk about Objections to evolution. I didn't like your edits, because they sound like a creationist wrote it. "Many religions accept at least a theistic form of evolution" implies that most do not accept evolution. In fact, a survey of Christian and Jewish religions will show that most accept evolution period, end of sentence. If you cannot understand what I wrote, maybe instead of violating WP:CIVIL with your uncivil comments, you ought to ask me what I meant. For now, I'm reverting your changes in that article, because your description is just plain POV and incorrect. Orangemarlin 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think I've been uncivil. My point is that you seem to be so worried about letting Creationist POV into the articles that you end up taking an anti-Creationist POV and resist any attempts to tone down that POV. Please explain to me how "many religions accept at least a theistic form of evolution" implies most do not accept evolution. If 100% of religious people accepted evolution exactly as defined by biologists, my sentence would remain correct. I used "at least theistic" because an older version thought it was important to mention theistic evolution, but I was trying to keep sentences in the intro concise. The version written by you, to which you continue to revert, is both far too bloated for the intro and POVish in going out of its way to marginalize religions that don't accept creationism. Many religions accept evolution. Some don't. Period. Someone wanted to mention theistic evolution because it broadened the class of religions that accept evolution in some way. That seemed to make sense, so I made a concise reference to it. You were apparently so shocked by the pro-Creationism of such a sentiment that you replaced the sentence with a much longer version emphasizing how many religions accept evolution, and you resisted any changes to it. Am I wrong? Gnixon 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I probably jumped the gun in getting on your case. My apologies. I'm very sensitive to not letting these articles become battlegrounds for "creationists" and "evolutionists," so I'm anxious to eliminate POV in either direction. I know you're also concerned about keeping POV out. I would appreciate if you demonstrated good faith in my edits by trying to improve them where possible instead of reverting, which can be inflammatory. If you do feel the need to revert an edit of mine, and assuming it isn't blatant vandalism, maybe you could leave me a message on my talk page or the article's so that we'll have a better place than the "edit summary" to debate changes. Regards, Gnixon 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I thought I was improving them, and I held nothing towards you but good faith. I liked your edits on objections to Evolution, I just thought that you had inadvertently implied that Judeo-Christian religions only believed in Theistic evolution, which isn't correct. The little box to explain edits doesn't allow for long explanations, especially since I thought that they were self-evident. Sorry about this misunderstanding on both parts. Orangemarlin 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Foolishness

Filll, your numbers on support for evolution in the U.S. are extremely suspect and highly misleading. According to the Gallup poll referenced here [3], almost 50% of *all* Americans clearly believe in young-earth creationism. I doubt, therefore, that evolution is accepted by the chosen faiths of 77-90% of U.S. Christians. I really don't want to get into a big discussion about the numbers, but it's clear that young-earth creationists are at least a significant minority in the U.S. I see others have commented below while I was typing. Sorry if my comments are in the wrong place or redundant. Gnixon 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were a creationist. First of all, the poll is irrelevant. The religion's faith and dogma is separate from what individual members may or may not believe. Second, the poll is irrelevant, since this is not an article about polls. Orangemarlin 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Above is quoted from Talk:Objections to evolution.)

OM, everything you said there is patently silly, and suggests you hardly even skimmed my comments. I've tried very hard to be friendly with you, maintain civility, and assume good faith, and when I've slipped on those fronts, I've apologized. But I'm really so frustrated now that it's all I can do to stay polite. Speaking frankly, I think you're worse than a creationist, and you're bad for Wikipedia. Please read carefully what I'm about to say. Wikipedia is not for proving creationists wrong. Wikipedia is not for proving creationists wrong. One more time. Wikipedia is not for proving creationists wrong. When you attempt to hijack Wikipedia for that use, you damage articles, the very concept of Wikipedia, and the entire relationship between religion and society, and you do so frequently. The way you are acting now contributes to a huge reason why Wikipedia may fail. I honestly think you're an intelligent person who has good intentions and someone who could make a very positive contribution here, but right now, I think your net effect is damaging. I apologize truly for any rudeness in my tone here, but I stand by what I've said. I hope you'll take what I've said to heart. However you take this, I'll be willing to put disagreements behind us and work with you courteously and professionally on articles in the future if you'll do the same for me. (For a number of reasons, I'll be making no more comments here for several days.) Very sincerely, Gnixon 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Warning

I will continue to remove comments where you label me as a creationist in an attempt to discredit me among other editors. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines for editing talk pages, especially the exceptions to the prohibition against editing others' comments:

Editing others' comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are:

• If you have their permission
• Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
• Removing personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything.

If you continue with such comments, I will request assistance from an administrator. Please feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page or here. Gnixon 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Whiny little creationist. I'm so not afraid of you and your pathetic attempts to frighten me. You have made nothing but POV changes to a whole host of articles. My comments are not uncivil, they are merely honest assessments of your editing style. You were outed, and the best you can do is not explain why you have made so many POV changes to articles, but only call me names. Keep whining. I could care less. Orangemarlin 00:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't get so excited. I'm not trying to scare you. However, I will not stand for your repeated attempts to label me as a creationist in an attempt to affect my credibility with other editors. As I've reluctantly explained, your claims are baseless. My history of edits on Wikipedia shows a consistent effort to combat POV in all its different varieties, whereas yours shows a consistent attempt to use Wikipedia to fight Creationism, pushing the POV that it is wrong. Whether or not I agree with you, I don't agree with your attempt to use Wikipedia in a way that violates long-established consensus. I've explained in detail in a comment in your archives why I think editors like you are bad for Wikipedia. You've responded only by calling me a "whiny little creationist." Gnixon 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be wrong to call someone a 'whiney little Darwinist?' 68.109.234.155 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't whine little Raspor. Orangemarlin 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to label Dawkins, a great evolutionary biologist as an atheist is so POV, it's incredible. You are a creationist, and your edits reflect that label. I am so NPOV that I get nauseous in what I read on here. I think YOU are bad for Wikipedia, because I consider Wikipedia to be a right-wing Christian device that is only barely tolerable because many articles have nothing to do with religion, and are therefore very useful to study. The Evolution and Creationist articles are slanted to your Christian beliefs. We fight hard to prevent that. I have outed you, and other editors should know that you are not providing good faith in honestly stating your opinions. You have done damage to many good articles. And finally, I gave you good faith, until I saw what you had written. Your whole idea of trying to prove that most religions are against evolution was reprehensible. Orangemarlin 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That made absolutely no sense. 68.109.234.155 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick review of Orangemarlin's "discussions" with me and other editors will show that assessment to be frequently applicable. Gnixon 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we 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. Please don't make edits like this. IrishGuy ^talk 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then this editor should come clean with his reasons for his highly inflammatory and POV edits to articles. Orangemarlin 01:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, your attempts at discourse with him/her are often highly inflammatory. Please keep things civil. IrishGuy ^talk 01:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have read my edits, but at first I had a high level of WP:AGF with the editor. Then I noted a huge number of highly POV edits to articles, and then several comments by him that indicated his belief set. I don't like to be tricked. I will take your recommendations, but I'm pretty upset at his methodology. He has constantly reverted my edits. He has constantly inferred that I have "stalked" him. I will continue to revert his POV edits. I'll keep the commentary to myself. Orangemarlin 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Orangemarlin. I assume you are talking about edits like this one. I've seen this kind of issue come up elsewhere, and a too-frank revelation of somebody's religion often sounds awkward in a Wikipedia article, unless it's highly relevant to the context. I'd suggest that you pursue normal dispute resolution on issues like this, since your recent remarks are bound to attract attention in administrative circles. I am used to seeing you and Gnixon active and cooperating in the evolution-related articles, and I hope that can continue. Maybe you should consider dropping out of editing Creation-evolution controversy for a while. EdJohnston 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is precise one of several edits that are highly POV. My recent remarks come from the fact that I had cooperated with GNixon for a while. Then I noticed a pattern of 10-15 edits, some of which created a POV that was either anti-Evolution or pro-Creationism. Like the one that you identified above. I don't mind Creationists discussing these articles, and working to remove certain POV. But when a creationist comes to an article, places his POV by claiming that others are POV, then I have a problem. I won't drop out of editing the article until I see others join in, or Gnixon take a little break with me. However, he is now proposing a major rewrite of a GA article, Evolution. He has effectively messed up the Talk:Evolution page with this weird archiving of outstanding discussion points. It is a trend towards inserting POV. I'm upset because I was fooled by him. Someone has to stand up to the Christianizing of articles on here. Orangemarlin 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually liked his attempt to organize the discussion, but it needs wide consensus to refactor a Talk page, and it sounds like you're against it. I was surprised to see him wanting to do a major rewrite of Evolution, given that I hoped that we were still following Silence's plan to get back the FA designation, but Silence has not edited since 25 February. Do you have an idea for getting back to FA, or was that issue (early February) before your time on Evolution? EdJohnston 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually complained about the organization of the discussion. It used to have archives that described previous discussions, so you could refer back to the old archives. I used them to fight some creationists in my children's local school district, and they were quite helpful. I assume that Gnixon has messed up the archives for some good reason, but I can't tell what it is. All I know is that I can no longer find what is going on. Silence has disappeared, probably because of the frustration in editing some of these articles. OK, probably not, I'm just cranky. As for Evolution, I started editing the article around November, 2006. I saw what Silence wanted to do, but no one followed through. I cleaned up the references, putting them into WP:CITET style, checking for bad links and the such. It was the start of my contributions to get the article cleaned up. Gnixon came forward one day and started making edits that caused me a bit of concern at first. One of his first ones on Evolution was kind of large, and with perfect good faith, I reverted them asking that he discuss such a large revision first. Diff1 He then made an edit that implied that most religions were opposed to Evolution diff2, and left a rather rude remark on the edit summary. His edits were definitely POV. I actually made a couple of attempts to be very civil with him User talk:Gnixon#Evolution. He continued to claim that he was being stalked and attacked. My patience wore thin. I will not be uncivil with him any more, but I will revert his POV edits. I won't violate WP:3RR, because I never have. His resorting to an attack on WP:ANI without all of his attacks on me being referenced is amusing. I have never filed any administrator action (save for a few sockpuppet problems), and I never will. He escalated this situation and was quite uncivil in his escalation by his frantic accusations. Maybe a little lecture on his behavior is warranted. I'm more blunt, because frankly, he has pushed a POV agenda. Regular editors on these articles have recently become quite scarce, so I was leading the charge. Anyways, those are my points. I will continue to work on Evolution, but it's hard doing it alone with all of the vandalizing and POV pushing. Orangemarlin 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been around for a while, so you're surely aware that editors are often blocked for personal attack for some of the things you've said in the last two days. It would be sensible to express your specific concerns on Talk:Evolution but edit carefully where Gnixon is involved. EdJohnston 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

I've requested that you be blocked from editing at WP:ANI. You may wish to comment there. Gnixon 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. You are a creationist, and now you are using an attempt to silence my personal feeling that you are. You are a most amusing editor. Orangemarlin 01:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me just this much space to tell other readers of your talk page that I resent your attempts to label me, and that I believe your deliberate intent is to discredit me among other editors. Gnixon 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What if other editors agree with me??? Orangemarlin 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal!

Me thinks your answer went into the wrong section at Talk:Intelligent design, be assured I agree and your remarks pointing it out to our paranoid friend are entirely appropriate. He or she seems to think there's a conspiracy to block, then makes personal attacks or breaks 3RR and gets repeatedly blocked, a self fulfilling prophecy. As for the rules and policies, FM is right that the article has been very carefully considered to comply with the rules our friends don't seem to quite understand. No doubt the argument will run and run, .. dave souza, talk 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just moved my comment. I must have clicked on the wrong edit button. I'm ready to set up an autobot that just searches for keywords in these discussion, and creates (pun intended) the appropriate reply. This conversation has dragged on for what, 10 days? I have not seen a compelling argument to do anything, but keep the article as it is. Orangemarlin 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative Action / Gnixon

Hey O -- I'm not asking for your help, just wanted you to know that Gnixon's started the threatened "administrative process"... I'm not wiki-savvy enough to know how to insert all the links like he has, but this shouldn't matter to any reasonable administrator. You can find the administrative/mediation discussion by following it from my Talk page. Comment there if you'd like, or stay out of it if you'd prefer. I'm not requesting either one. Advice is welcome too! Thanks, TxMCJ 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Crosspost of Administrative Action request response by Felonious Monk: (crosspost by TxMCJ 07:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here. What I do see is one user, Gnixon, who's been an aggressive and overly assertive editor on a number of topics and all too quick to accuse others and be incivil himself, making allegations that appear to be exaggerated against an editor he appears to be in a simple content dispute with. If Gnixon is genuinely so unaware that he considers the behavior he's described to be harassment and wikistalking, then my advice to him is to become more familiar with the terms and grow a thicker skin (being unwilling to get as good as he gives). But if he thinks he can use this venue find clueless admins to waylay opponents in simple content disputes, then he may find himself hoisted by his own petard and the community's goodwill rapidly diminishing for any future claims he may bring here. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

I am quite aware of the three revert rule and how bullies use it to stop what they see as unsuitable edits. That was not the case with my edit to the Clinton page - but I couldn't really be bothered to argue the toss. PaddyBriggs 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert away, then editors clean up later

You wrote: "ImprobabilityDrive will probably not form a consensus based on past behavior. His MO is to revert away, then editors clean up later." Where did this occur? I am the one doing the clean up on the article (e.g., the unused references). I did not delete the sentences those references went to; you must have me confused with some other person who leaves messes. I try to leave things neat and tidy. If I left a mess somewhere, I really want to know, so I can go clean it up, or just study it and learn. ImprobabilityDrive 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm offended by editors who start an ANI on a whim. You're having a small content conflict, and you immediately make a bogus charge against another editor. That's the mess. I've seen this kind of activity before. Orangemarlin 05:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not on a whim. It was, in my opinion, disruptive editing. I tried to work with the other contributor, but he was very adament in editing a brand new section that was in progress. It did not turn out well. Before and after the ANI I tried working with the other editor. Initially, when FeloniousMonk sided with me, and gave the other editor a warning, it bolstered my belief that I was right. FeloniousMonk even stated that I should have filed the claim sooner, that I had waited too long. You've seen his response. Later, he retracted the warning dismissing it as a content dispute. I am not sure why, because I still think it was IMHO disruptive editing.

I am not sure if the reversal was because it was a simple content dispute, or due to intimations that I am User:Gnixon. I am not User:Gnixon, and if you review the logs of myself against Gnixon, you might find evidence of this (e.g., at least one of his posts are bracketed by two of mine. I stopped searching after that). Also, after studying your contributions log, I see you have a history of making false accusations of sockpuppetry. Now, I would like to start over again with you, if possible. Please AGF, and let's work together. I'd also appreciate it if you would spread the word that I am not Gnixon. ImprobabilityDrive 07:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One mistake on sockpuppetry, so chill out. And I don't file accusations until I have lots of evidence, and my success rate is amazing. Of course, spending as much time looking through my user contributions, you would have known that. So if you're going to make another accusation that I do something like that, you better have a load of evidence, or my ANI against you will not have a reversal from FM. And trust me, FM knew what he was doing with you. Your ANI was without merit, which is what Gnixon did on several cases. I will not spread any word one way or another, I asked an admin to determine if you were or not.Orangemarlin 08:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Chilled. I am not out to get you. I am just defending myself. I really would like to start over again with you if possible. ImprobabilityDrive 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on my user page, OM was well within his rights. •Jim62sch• 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, huh?

Orange, this was not directed at you: "Planning on starting an edit war? Not a wise move." Why would you think it was? It was a direct response to I-Drive (odd that his initials are ID, no?). To the best of my knowledge I've not criticised anything you've done and think you're a pretty good editor. Deep breath...relax...feel better? •Jim62sch• 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"I-Drive (odd that his initials are ID, no?" Poetic. Actually, it is from a term used in the hitch-hickers guide to the galaxy. Do you know if there is a way to change my account name? It probably is not wise to have a user name with the initials ID, as it leads to this sort of backbiting. I'll have to study up on the issue. I want it to be Infinite Improbability Drive, which is closer to the actual term used in the HGTTG. Are the initials IID approved in this brood? ImprobabilityDrive 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember that IID has a Heart of Gold! It's worth reviewing the articles and getting closer to the most reliable sources, but in this area of discussion there's a danger of overrating the reliability of newspapers and underrating "science blogs", so that's a reason for careful discussion before making edits which can be misunderstood. So, IID's help should be appreciated but not accepted uncritically. Shuffles off clanking, brain the size of a small planet and they leave me here to rust... dave souza, talk 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:68.109.234.155

Thanks much for the heads up and the positive feedback, I had not noticed; but since IP's usually aren't blocked for long in practice, it is not a concern. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Well, ImprobabilityDrive is having a go now at Sternberg peer review controversy which he's completely white washed to repeat the Sternberg/Discovery Institute account of events. Unfortunately I'm at my 3RR limit so am unable to restore the complete NPOV version till tomorrow. Odd nature 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be there to revert any more of his silly edits. I'm exhausted with that guy, considering he called me a troll. I'm at my limit with certain POV-pushing editors. Orangemarlin 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser. If you have anything to add please do so: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, 3RR reports can be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Sometimes, it's best to let the blocks be made by admins that have not previously commented on the situation in any way. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the 3RR, I thought he needed a warning first, before filing a report. He stopped the edit war (although not his verbal abuse), once he received the warning. Isn't that the procedure, or do you report at the third edit? Orangemarlin 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heart attacks

I honestly don't care whether that user has been uncivil or not, I'm not getting involved except to say, you weren't civil yourself. If you truly wanted to defuse the situation, it would have been better to approach the situation on much more neutral terms, not respond in the same vein. It's a very difficult line to walk, and in this case, I don't think you choose the most effective course. FrozenPurpleCube 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Orangemarlin 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm quite serious, especially in this case where you have expressed the concern that the user is a problem. In such cases, it's best to take a non-confrontational approach, and to work extra hard to be polite and neutral. That way, you provide less provocation to what may be an already unstable situation. I think it would have been much better to tone down the level of your comments, and try to take a less confrontational approach instead. For example, you might have simply said to the editor that you believe that the admin's actions were proper without commenting on them in any way at all. FrozenPurpleCube 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we done with this conversation? Thanks. Orangemarlin 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, is there anything else you'd like to discuss? I sincerely hope you consider the wisdom in taking a more diplomatic route in the future, but if you don't, that's going to be your problem to deal with. FrozenPurpleCube 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now are we done with this conversation? Orangemarlin 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive

FYI [10] Guettarda 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. But why was the checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive declined if he is a sockpuppet? I still think he is a sockpuppet of Gnixon too, based on writing styles, so I hope that one day Gnixon is banned. Orangemarlin 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was declined, but probably because it was an accusation of sockpuppetry, but not abusive sockpuppetry - not used to stack votes or create an undue sense of consensus. Jason, on the other hand, is permanently banned, so any sock of his can be blocked "on sight". Guettarda 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your very fair comment here. Our odd natured friend seems to know an awful lot about procedures for someone who only joined up on 27 April 2007, and seems to have edited contentious articles, and... no, that way lies madness. AGF ;) ... Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I do not agree with you on the Sternberg controversy, but I just wanted to say that this and this were honorable. However, I am not so sure about these: [11], [12], [13]. I wouldn't take the bait. Double entendres are done all of the time, and while I do apologize for them, others have done the same to me.

Would you be interested in seeking reconciliation? Maybe we can have Dave S or another more moderate user mediate informally at first. Infinite Improbability Drive 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, given your two honorable posts mentioned above, I do apologize for calling you a troll. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You shouldn't worry about what I email to another editor. As a matter of fact, it's a bit strange that you would worry about it.
2. There's no need for mediation. I have no problem with you.
3. I appreciate the apology. Orangemarlin 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemarlin. With all that has happened recently, I am a bit paranoid. Hopefully, after I have walked away from the controversial articles until my mentorship is over, we all will be able to handle disagreements without making such big deals. Infinite Improbability Drive 05:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this.[14] Infinite Improbability Drive 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

OrangeMarlin, thank you for your kind words on my behalf on Jimbo's talk page. I hope that this can all be worked out soon. Again, thank you. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 04:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am quite embarrassed by how Til treated you, because I think he has lost his cool based on what he perceived to be anti-Mormon comments from me and others. Orangemarlin 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive

Please leave your thoughts Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially now that I've obliquely used your name in vain.  ;) •Jim62sch• 12:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You used my name in vain? How dare you? I'm filing a Request for Slapping Someone About the Head, the infamous RSSAH. Orangemarlin 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have evidence take it to WP:RFCU. Arbustoo 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for what? Orangemarlin 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention what you found about the IP connection, and refile a WP:RFCU. It will likely be approved this time. Arbustoo 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Do you have the link? Orangemarlin 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I started to revise it: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. Yes, I have been following the debate with interest.

I have had discussions with ImprobabilityDrive via email and informed him that, should be be evading bans, then he will get found out soon enough and be dealt with accordingly. That may indeed be the most probably explanation and the current checkuser may confirm that.

However, it is also possible that he is simply a good faith editor who stumbled into a contentious debate in a clumsy manner. If that is the case, then this checkuser - and any subsequent ones - will validate him. He is indicated to me that is the case, and I'm willing to afford him some good faith, even if it appears unlikely on the face of it. Time will tell. Rockpocket 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpuppet, with all respect, you don't know I-drive like we know I-drive. His use of arcane tags shows a knowledge of having been actively involved in Wikipedia for some time. I have 13K+ edits and I never saw some of the tags I-drive has used. In addition, I-drive has met the threshold for not extending AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

OM, still waiting for the RSSAH. •Jim62sch• 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, sorry, but the rules were far too complicated. I had to find 24 diffs, I had to prove that I gave you at least 3 chances to amend your posts. I gave up. Besides, it's more fun to take on the Creationist cabal!!!!! Orangemarlin 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As for AGF, after I got lectured by Silence for not following all of the arcane points of law regarding AGF, I give up. I'm going to assume no faith, just as a good "Evolutionist" should. LOL. Orangemarlin 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he has edited here before, probably extensively. But that does not automatically make him a sockpuppet, nor does it mean that he was previously banned. I-Drive has indicated to me the reasons why he would prefer not to comment on the issue of previous activity, and that is his perogative. I certainly don't have any problem with your belief that I-Drive is a sockpuppet, nor do I have any objections to your actions to prove it. You are absolutely correct that I don't appear to know him like you guys do. My position is simply that if this he is not a sockpuppet account (however unlikely that may be), and he wishes to ask for advice on how to be a better editor, then I am happy to offer that. If he is a sockpuppet, then you guys will show that and we all move on. Rockpocket 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, ImprobabilityDrive answered "no" to the question if he had previous accounts here. So you think this user might not be telling the truth? Arbustoo 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we move this discussion off of my page, and move it to either the RfC, RfCU or the sockpuppetry page. I'm tired of the new message tags. Orangemarlin 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Level of Acceptance of Evolution among Scientists

OM, thanks for helping keep an eye on this user and this topic. Please keep it up. You may also be entertained to review some of his/her posts over at the Supernatural talk page (which BTW wouldn't be "stalking"), and to know that the user's account was apparently created in early April (with immediate fluency in Wiki editing methods), and that this user loves adding tags, is clearly much more intelligent and knowledgeable than the "high school student from America" he/she claims to be, and ends posts with the generation-anachronistic word "Cheers". If these are truly the writings and contributions of an American high school student, then he/she most certainly deserves a full-ride scholarship to Princeton -- perhaps even to the Physics department. ;-) TxMCJ 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of exhausted from the battle above with ImprobabilityDrive. We'll watch this editor, but for now, he's innocuous. Orangemarlin 17:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ProtoCat

Oh, I quite agree with you: Clear troll. I've thought so since he invited me to his talk page, then accused me of stalking him... because I followed him to his talk page.

I'm not sure if it's Kdbuffalo, but whoever it is is either a troll or mentally disturbed.

Comment amused me, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Having scanned through his talk page, I see that there is definitely something wrong mentally with this individual. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but just to provoke fights.--Filll 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye. I think the best thing to do is archive anything they say that is commented on, delete anything else. Feeding the troll otherwise. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My favourite part is when ProtoCat claims that just because Dembski said that he wants to get rid of biology departments in universities doesn't mean Dembski is anti-biology. (most of it at the heading Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive40#oppostion_to_biology, though it starts a little bit above that.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I've generally avoided any direct interactions with this editor, I'm wondering if an RfC would be appropriate at this time? There's no question that his activities are disruptive and counter-productive; it seems equally obvious that he's not going to change without firmer input than you've given him already. Just a thought... Doc Tropics 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I"m pretty convinced he's a sockpuppet, based on his editing patterns. We've had one Sockpuppet that keeps coming back every week or so. I've caught him every time, except for once, when I was paying attention to ID. What got me is when he brought up a battle where someone was quite anti-semitic in the ID page. To find it requires a lot of searching through pages that have nothing to do with me, but he knew I was a party to it. It happened 2 weeks before he signed up. Pretty much a give away. Orangemarlin 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case no RfC is necessary, but a Request for checkuser might be. I've never been involved in one, but I'm aware that they are not taken lightly. An RFCU would need some significant evidence to back it up, but with so many editors involved, I'm sure a number of diffs could be provided. It seems a bit ironic that sockpuppets almost always give themselves away through their editing habits, usage patterns, etc. Doc Tropics 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

His cases are: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (4th) and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet. I'll need to redo the Checkuser, because I didn't have enough time to provide sufficient evidence. They don't do checkusers unless you can nearly prove that it is necessary. Orangemarlin 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if ProtoCat is Behe?

Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”

Sound familiar? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like ProtoCat's commentary on the ID page. Hmmmmm. Orangemarlin 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility on Talk:Noah's Ark

Regarding your comment on Talk:Noah's Ark:

99.6% of the scientists in the US would say not only is it not true, but Adam never existed, and dinosaurs died out 64.5 million years ago. Typical right-wing press pandering to the Christian right. The Right Wing press gave us Bush, now this waste of good money. I'm still nauseous.

The first sentence is relevant to the article content, but the rest is not and is particularly problematic given the controversial nature of Wikipedia articles on religious-related topics. I'd urge you to re-read the civility and Talk page guidelines and to avoid using article talk pages to present your own political/religious viewpoint or denigrate others, and particularly to avoid this type of language. Whether the museum involved is sufficiently notable, verified, and relevant to deserve mention in the article is something that requires an objective evaluation, based on evidence and the merits as opposed to whether it is consistent with ones own position or even whether it makes one "nauseous". Best, --Shirahadasha 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if a serious sophisticated challenge to creationists is not successfully mounted, then I predict that very bad things are in store for the US.--Filll 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick response to the above comment plus this one you left on my talk page.

The right-wing press does pander to the Christian Right (and unless I'm wrong, you and I should both find that more than frightening)...

I understand my duty as a Wikipedia administrator as requiring me not to feel intimidated or frightened by those I disagree with, and even if I sometimes am, not to act out of fear. I understand it's my job to be neutral and fair to all sides in contentious debates, and to remind people of things like WP:Civility, keeping cool, and talk page guidelines. For better or for worse, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy permits Creationists and others, within policy limits, to use Wikipedia to present their own point of view so long as what they say is notable, a reliable and encyclopedic presentation of the POV, and does not claim to be science or to represent a POV that it doesn't represent. Likewise, the policy permits scientists to note that scientists have found otherwise and to note the evidence they have used to find it, but it doesn't permit an ultimate conclusion about who's right and who's wrong. This requires a certain subtlety of language. The bottom line is that Wikipedia isn't here to help people fight wars or mount challenges. Its policies are designed to help the wrong side just as much as the right side, and are based on an assumption that people, if informed of the various points of view, are capable of making their own decisions. You'll find me reigning creationists in if they claim their conclusions have scientific support based on bogus science, but they are entitled to enforce the WP:NPOV policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a load of hooey. Of course we can say that the scientific view is correct! It's the closest thing to a genuine NPOV you can get in real life. To say that we cannot is to accept fundamentalist conspiracy theories about some hidden agenda within the scientific community. This agenda does not exist. Scientists strive to discover the objective truth about the physical world. Period. You're demanding that we place a literal reading of a garbled account from an ancient book, regarded as allegorical by most of those who hold that book sacred, on equal footing with a conclusion drawn from actual observation of what the world really is like. This is not even remotely comparable to "reigning [sic] in" proponents of bogus science. It's beyond absurd. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My sole intent is to apply Wikipedia policy, whatever it demands, and it indeed demands neutrality. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:NPOV#Scientific v. Religious POVs: What exactly do we mean by pseudoscience. It doesn't demand "equal" footing, there are considerations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight as well, but it gets some weight, and the criteria for determining what weight it gets don't depend on whether one personally agrees with it or not. I don't intend to discuss merits issues here. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please get off your high horse. The fact is that I'm trying to apply Wikipedia policy too, and your voice is hardly sovereign. That discussion looked more inconclusive than anything else to me; participation was rather limited in any event and it cannot represent any kind of consensus.

Plainly this is something that needs to be hashed out. The ArbCom decision referenced was on another topic altogether and isn't applicable here. As long as that discussion went on, I still did not see a single cogent reason given why a scientific viewpoint should be regarded as anything but neutral. It was instead simply assumed that it was not, and those who disagreed with that were shouted down. You have not given any such reasons here or anywhere else where this discussion has touched. Is this one of those questions that I ask that simply will not be answered, and you'll proceed without even acknowledging the problem posed? Or do you actually have an answer? I rather hope you do, because that gives us a place from which a civil discussion can ensue. You behaving as if you had the final word on what constitutes NPOV does not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I appreciate your comments. I understand you have strong political views, but references to ones opinion of the Bush Administration, the Christian Right, etc. etc. in article talk pages can be very distracting. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles that presume faith over science are all distracting. You must have missed the numerous comments over the past few months that attacked me as an atheist, that I'm really not a Jew, or I pretended to be a religious Jew just to have an editor blocked or banned, etc. etc--those were quite distracting, but we focused on the article despite it. The Bush Administration and The Christian Right have induced an atmosphere that is anti-science, generally, and anti-Evolution in particular. Most of the editors who aren't anti-science would not be distracted by my comments, but would redouble efforts to keep the article NPOV. Orangemarlin 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Were OM trying to force his opinion into the article, that would be a problem. He's not. While his comments might be "off-topic", please find me a wiki editor with over 1,000 edits who hasn't posted "off-topic" comments. Generally speaking, all that is required is a simple reminder that the discussion is off-topic. And, by the way, I don't see a violation of WP:CIVIL -- but then, I'm cool with allowing people to blow off steam and am not a fan of officiousness. •Jim62sch• 20:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate all of the support. I have no clue why I was the target of Shirahadasha's commentary. Off-topic, maybe. Uncivil? I don't think so, unless I'm misreading something. Besides, how many times are we carried off-topic in controversial topics? Sheesh. I don't mind being lectured if I'm off-base, but I can't believe that we take up this much bandwidth for my being "off-topic." Orangemarlin 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having difficulties from other editors, and you may be angry at various actions of the Bush administration etc., but this isn't the fault of every newcomer who shows up, and there's no need to take this out on them. A little less bite would be appreciated. Religion and anti-science POVs (not necessarily the same thing) are legitimate subjects of and inputs to the encyclopedia, whether you find them personally distracting or not. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You and I aren't going to agree on this. I don't believe I was uncivil based on the facts or the law. I respect your level of authority around here, but given how vehemently I disagree with your characterization of my comments. I have agreed we went off-topic, but frankly, if we policed on not being on topic, there are going to be a lot of policing to do in Wikipedia. Having difficulties with other editors is part of life with regards to these controversial topics, and I have never ever asked for sympathy on that matter. Orangemarlin 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

I may be a Christian, but I'm as irritated by irrationality as you are so I expect we'll be on the same side of these issues most of the time. It's even worse when delivered in tones of benevolent condescension. Notice how he and/or she got to assume bad faith on our parts without coming right out and saying so? (Actually, traditional Christianity values reason highly. The Fathers couldn't have argued without it, nor did they wish to. It's the more recent sects that want to pretend it's the devil's work.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case notice

Rbj has filed a request for arbitration which lists you as a party. I'm just letting you know since he's agreed to edit nothing but the arbitration case as a condition of unblock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation, particularly on Rbj's talk page, I find it difficult to have much sympathy for him. He was warned over and over, well over 10 or 15 times, to behave nicer. He just bragged and bragged about how Jimbo would save him the way Jimbo had 3 or more times previously and nothing would ever happen to him and then Rbj attacked others for being ignorant, stupid, lazy, full of crap, phonies, etc. Now Rbj is blocked and he cannot get unblocked, even though he has tried several times. The not so funny part for Rbj is that his place of employment is permanently blocked and others including his boss are complaining apparently (although knowing what I know about Kurzweil, I do find this claim to be a bit difficult to swallow). I remember how unwilling Rbj was to even pretend to be civil for the sake of comity and politeness. If it was up to me, I would say let him sit and stew some more.--Filll 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

just checking

In Bishonen's RfC, did you mean

"which outline a pattern of attempted resolution, but" <-slightly confusing
or
"which don't outline a pattern of attempted resolution, but instead"
or
"which outline a pattern of attempted resolution, and"?

Peace in God. Lsi john 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Now I have to read what I wrote. Grrrrrrrr. I can't do two things at once these days. Orangemarlin 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks. That helps. Lsi john 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

My stating my religious upbringing was solely for context; it does not give me any special "rights" in wikipedia, but would indicate that I may have a specialized knowledge of normative halakha that other editors may not have. I am sorry that you seem to have taken it out of context, and that has caused you some manner of upsetness. -- Avi 19:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion, please? -- Avi 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop me a line if ArbCom takes this case; as of now it appears that they won't and any comments I may make would be irrelevant. Thanks. -- Avi 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but...

...I've been here a while and am well acquainted with the rules. And considering your biased little comment here, I hardly think you are in any position to be handing out warnings regarding that article. Jinxmchue 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you reverted three times. You apparently are not familiar with WP:3RR. And I don't appreciate your personal attacks. FeloniousMonk made three valid points which in hockey IS a hat trick. Therefore, I hardly think that is biased. Good luck in your edit warring. Orangemarlin 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching my edits, thanks. I've actually reverted more than 3 times, but not in the same 24-hour period. Please check your information before you make further baseless accusations of ignorance of and violations of Wiki rules. Regarding your comment, the tone was pretty biased. Finally, it's not "edit warring" when people are making well-based, rational arguments to back up their edits. The sources being provided to support the claim of Kennedy's alleged support of ID are poor at best, and rely heavily on what is being read into them than what they actually say. That's not good editing. Furthermore, the material is highly contentious and poorly supported, thus Wiki rules are on my side. Jinxmchue 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you should thoroughly review the following guidelines, because it might appear that you have misinterpreted them: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:VERIFY, and WP:AGF. I could be wrong about it, but you might be wandering over to the side of violating some of those guidelines. I want to be helpful to you, because it appears you are trying really hard to be a good editor. Let me know if I can help. Orangemarlin 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Orangemarlin/Rules archives 1, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Re:Gnome Week

	Gnomes, unite!
	You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Zacharycrimsonwolf
Edit message

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Orangemarlin. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fatalis

I noticed you warned User:Fatalis. Please note that his edits were not vandalism, and that he was merely archiving the page (which was becoming quite significant in size). Perhaps he should have checked if there were any ongoing discussions, but please remember to assume good faith in future. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about you assume good faith with me. There are very critical reasons why I think it was bad idea, the first of which, two days from now, a bunch of trolls/POV warriors/anonymous twits will come it and make all kinds of changes. And we won't be able to point them to discussion, because it's gone. So, if you spent two seconds to provide some good faith to an editor who's been creating articles, fighting these POV types for months, and looked over my extensive edits on a wide variety of articles, you'd think, "wait a minute, this guy has a point." It was vandalism. And as I said below, thanks for the lecture. Orangemarlin 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

When you were writing this, it was already fixed, and the page is 3 times smaller as a result. It was almost a third of a megabyte before. By the way, I'm very much from the same camp as you, so I don't understand why do you need to be so hostile. –Fatalis 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good spinning there Mr. panty and penis obsessed. You deleted the whole damn thing. Several editors caught on to your behavior and fixed your vandalism. So don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. Orangemarlin 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please don't accuse others of edits that are obviously not vandalism. According to Wikipedia's official policy "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". Also "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Evil Monkey - Hello 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, plain and simple. A POV warrior removed tons of discussion, some of which needs to be referred to keep the POV crap away. How about your providing me with good faith that I think the deletion was a very bad idea. Thanks for the lecture buddy. Orangemarlin 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:VANDAL ("any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."), I'm afraid you're wrong. The user asked on the IRC channel #wikipedia about how to archive a talk page as this was now sitting at 280 kB. When he found out, he went ahead and did. Whether or not you agree with the edit, that one caveat means that you were incorrect. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I didn't know that the IRC channel was an appropriate way to discuss Wikipedia. Let me revert all my edits over the past few months, because I don't engage in discussions there. Now I know that the Talk pages are completely useless, and shouldn't be used for much. Thanks for the update.Orangemarlin 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate he didn't just cut and paste some some old expired threads into a new archive page, but moved the whole damn thing (ongoing discussions included), wiping out the history in the process. ornis 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page does not mean anything gets "wiped", it's just changing the location. –Fatalis 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the history does get wiped (or rather moved over to the new location). It's generally not a good idea to archive pages this way, since it obscures the entire history. Who's going to know that they have to go to Archive 12 to find the history? Silly rabbit 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind next time, but it still doesn't make it vandalism. –Fatalis 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was. I stand by the accusation. If you were attempting what you claim you were, you would have left a message for on the discussion, and you would have selectively archived. Doesn't matter now, you are on everyone's list now. And your rude comments to me on your Talk page, that will make you a hero I'm sure. Orangemarlin 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, since there are probably at least some people who understand the policies. You're also under a faulty impression that I'm a "POV warrior". And I think I've said quite little to you, considering the circumstances. Someone else might have said much stronger words, having had an unstable dolt lashing out on them. –Fatalis 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)