User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 4

December 2007

With regard to your comments on User talk:GusChiggins21: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sandstein (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What?????? How dare you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, since you don't like swearing, let me proceed. Fuck. Shit. Ass. Damn. Hell. What the fuck ever. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you're bored...

Check out this edit. It's been fun!!!!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi OM!

Happy 10k! What a great milestone! :)

Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ]]

Congratulations, and, uncharacteristically, it wasn't a vitriolic post to a Christian user on a user or talk page. Make No Name (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? OM's pretty much an equal opportunity editor when it comes to vitriol -- if you deserve it, you get it. While we're at it though, since you singled out the Paulists, is it safe to assume that vitriol leveled at Muslims, Buddhists, Siks, Hindus and so on would be okey-dokey? •Jim62sch• 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, how could someone who registered their account on December 7, 2007, know anything about what I have or haven't done? I actually don't leave vitriol on any user talk page about Christians, unless they try to shove their mythology down my throat. Oops. That might be vitriolic. Does anyone else smell a sock? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's rather pungent and I detect the odor of Trichophyton rubrum: does that make it a sock? No doubt that is it is it's a holey one ... er, I mean holy one. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, let it be noted that our negative namemaker friend referred to "a vitriolic post to a Christian user". Though why there should be any objection to such posts to people who use Christians is beyond me. Wonder who they are – the DI certainly fit the description... Anyway, congrats to OM, relax and enjoy that bevvy. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster

Is a very good article. I learnt something from it and I have been in the business a long time. I thought you might move History back. I put it at the top of Rotavirus and Hepatitis B virus and no-one has told me off yet. (Still time). In my humble opinion, I would get the various names of the wretched virus over and done with somewhere near the top and then just stick to virus from then on. It never changes - always the same virus. The article FA will get my support eventually because it has enlightened me, and, for me, that's more than enough. But I am not going to be first to show support because I am a known Newbie and the Wiki folk who evaluate the article know this. Best of luck to you--GrahamColm^Talk 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I just spotted your discussion on Sandy's talk page. As you may have noticed, I've gone through the refs, adding URLs to free online journals, fixing punctuation, ndashes, etc. I believe the convention is to not add URLs for paid-for journal articles (the DOI or PMID will do). Diberri's tool is great if you like the templates, but I suspect the finer points of URLs are beyond it (e.g., if there are two free sources, as is often the case if the article is also at PubMedCentral). As for DOI, I've always found it redundant if you have a PMID. Following a link to an abstract is more useful than a page demanding money. If I get time, I'll review the article text. I think it needs some work, but nothing you can't fix I'm sure. Colin°^Talk 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

doi's usually just point to abstracts, not paid-for journals. PMID is a very poor tool for non-medical science journals, where I mostly spend my time. That's why I'm looking for a doi tool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

et al

Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Citing medical sources. In keeping with WP's relaxed attitude to formatting citations, this doesn't force any particular convention. It mentions the two common medical styles (AMA/Vancouver), which both limit author lists to six before worrying about et al. I prefer the Vancouver style of six, then et al rather than hacking back to three. Currently, Herpes zoster appears a little undecided, with examples of both. If you really prefer the full list, I can't see any reason to object. A really long list of authors is distracting and hard to read IMO. Whatever you decide, the article should be consistent. Colin°^Talk 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to admit a high level of anality (is that a word?) with regards to author lists. I like knowing if a critical author is involved with the article. In fact, the 9th or 10th author in one reference is a well-known individual in the study of Herpes zoster. But, seriously, I don't think I'd get worked up one way or another.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I only shorten them to conserve space and follow convention; please revert me if you want them back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I revert just to be mean and curmudgeonly? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Reverts must be done with an edit summary that includes WP:Something, and we don't yet have WP:CURMUDGEON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then Wikipedia just isn't very useful. I quit.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

lysine

No, you're not a "complete idiot" but I was surprised that you would use a such a lame and "peripherally related" study.

I've got a whole bunch of comments on the article, and I'm only 2/3 through. I'm unsure whether to add them to the FAC, the talk page or your talk page. I've every confidence that you'll be able to address or rationally ignore my queries/suggestions. Where would you like me to dump them? Can you let me know ASAP? Colin°^Talk 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've dropped them on the HZ talk page. Don't feel you have to cross them all off. A suggestion may be misguided or your different opinion equally valid. Hope you find it useful. Colin°^Talk 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrt your reputation on complementary medicine, I wondered if ref 2 (Weaver 2007) was a private joke? You only use it once and could have used any number of other sources for that sentence. My lay impression from skimming it is that it is actually quite a good and up-to-date review that could have been used more. It is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Colin°^Talk 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit seems to have merged two refs and linked the wrong URL to the ref. JFW has since removed the URL, but I wonder now whether the text<-->source(s) match is correct. Colin°^Talk 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Weaver, Osteopathy, to me, is a perfectly respectable group. They attend a "medical school", are licensed to dispense medication (at least here in California), have to go through residency. I do not consider them "alternative", just plain old medicine. Definitely not a private joke, and actually the article is quite good. With regards to the edit, apparently I was trying to clean up the reference (once again, my anality does not like the vertical references). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You called my lysine reference lame. I'm in tears :( OK, I had a hard time finding anything remotely related to zoster. In fact, the lame reference actually made reference to zoster that it might work too. That was why I used it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a big boy. You can take it. I admit, I didn't read the article, just the abstract. I'm sure you are well aware that a subjective questionnaire is just the sort of "evidence" your friends at homoeopathy like to (ab)use. I had a dig around, as best I could, and found a few reviews in the alternative-medicine journals that, well, I was less than confident in using. I also looked up various clinical guidelines but couldn't find much on HZ. The review I found was just what I was looking for. Evidence based, cited papers that showed positive and negative findings. Didn't say it was all bollocks; just that there wasn't good evidence yet. Your paper's second author was the late RS Griffith, who apparently got the lysine idea from noticing cold sores were more common after Christmas and Easter (chocolate). Lysine was his baby, which is all the more reason to avoid primary sources in this case, don't you think. His opinion that it might work for zoster too would, I fear, be no more than an educated guess, and a tainted one at that. Colin°^Talk 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I got over pretty quickly. LOL. I head over to Charles Darwin and beat up a POV vandal to feel better. Are you serious about what started this whole idea about lysine was chocolate? Does chocolate block lysine uptake? Well, the things you learn on Wikipedia. BTW, I hope you mean my "friends" at Homeopathy in a wholly sarcastic manner? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I've left some comments on Graham's talk page; I assume you're watching. Don't lose heart. I hope I get some time to help tomorrow, but for now, time for bed... Colin°^Talk 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to help, rather than just poking in here and there. It is constantly moving. Just when I sit down to compare some text against the source, or polish a bit of prose, the text changes. Eubulides is still finding issues with text<->source inconsistencies or out-of-date stuff, etc. If you can help with this (either by re-reviewing text/source too, or finding alternative sources for text removed, or changing the text to match, etc) that would be good. I don't think we're there yet. Whether busting a gut under FAC pressure is a good idea, I don't know. Still, there's a team working on the article, improving it, so whether it is this time or the next, it will get there I'm sure. Colin°^Talk 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is getting close but we still can't agree on how to explain the fundamental phenomenon of latency in herpes viruses. Without getting this spot on the FAC might be lost -- for now.--GrahamColm^Talk 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"can't agree" isn't right and makes it sound like we are arguing. Writing the lead, especially the lead sentence or two, is very hard. We're trying out alternatives. All healthy stuff. I'm pretty happy with those first two sentences now. The reason I'm being fussy about the prose in the lead, is that a weak lead (and my failure to improve it sufficiently) was the first thing that the "brilliant prose" FAC reviewers noticed on Virus. Colin°^Talk 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, if we can't get the latency issue right, I think the FAC is irrelevant, it's more an issue of the accuracy of the article. Now, I hate to be silly here, but what if it is impossible to explain it, because it's unknown? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit like Quantum Theory, it can be described, but it's harder to explain. Time for bed. Best wishes.--GrahamColm^Talk 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you in a hurry for some reason? Herpes zoster is beyond fortunate in the level and quality of attention that it is receiving. All to the good. All in good time. --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • No, but I think you've been somewhat disruptive to the process--clearly understood points now are totally confusing. I think you have caused the article to be in much worse shape. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you think that. I think the article is much better now and you are shooting the messenger. --Una Smith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hey, please, please, please, assume good faith, that's not fair. Una has spent a lot of time on this article. I couldn't sleep from thinking about this very good article and all our worries over the FAC and getting the facts and style and all those Wiki things right. So I had to check up on it's progress, (I live in a different time zone - it's the middle of my bedtime). Una, has raised many valid points. Overall, she has been very constructive, (eg. who? why? when? How? etc), and our team member has made us reflect, question, and rewrite. Yes, she can be a pain, (a big one), and I think she knows this. But we all share a common goal. Please don't get personal. The article is clearly in a much better shape than it was when I first read it. To be frank, I don't understand many of Una's edits but they make me think and at my age, this is good. We must not shoot our messengers. If we fail FAC, then we will go for it again - a quitter never wins and a winner never quits. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I thought you had gone to bed. I should be there too. I don't know about you guys but the pressure of working under FAC is getting to me, and I haven't made half the edits of some folk here. Eubulides brutally honest but very helpful comments at FAC have helped me realise the scale of what remains to be done. Real-life pressures are building up and I think I need to take a wee break from HZ. Colin°^Talk 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • My dear Colin, me too. All this is not good for my psoriasis.--GrahamColm^Talk 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I strongly disagree. I'm not being personal, I'm just tired of the tendentious editing on points that were clear 100 versions ago. I noticed some of the editing at Cancer bacteria, which were similar to the ones here. And I'm offended that Una thinks that the article is MUCH better because of her editing. I think it's much worse off. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"because of her editing" is your own spin, Orangemarlin, not mine. As far as I am concerned, the editing was a team effort. --Una Smith (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have had the time to read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_and_alternative_medicine and your comments on Fyslee's talk page. Do you have any idea why this article, since it's a duplication of other articles, has not been deleted? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it. It appears that it is an attempt to start a new article that totally lacks scientific criticism. It's almost like the Creatiionists creating (pun intended) Intelligent design as a method to make it sound scientific. In the case of CAM, they're trying to follow the lead of the new NIH group (I think called NCCAM) which is studying this stuff. What they're not realizing is that NCCAM is charged with making sense of CAM not endorsing it. They might find an herb or two that has some small effect, but most of the studies are going to prove nothing. So CAM is covered elsewhere. It should be deleted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since you brought this article to my attention I have been watching and I think WP:OWN and many other policies fall into this article. A bunch of information that was put in by other editors have now just been deleted and on the talk page other editors are told to ignore it. There are comments about how some editors do not deserve WP:AGF too. What is going on here? I know that attacks happen but this articles talk page is full of it. I am going to stop watching as it is depressing to see WP:GAME like what seems to be happening. I wish you luck on tackling this one. Keep in mind that there are a group that are working together to keep this article as is, this is said in the talk pages. Good luck to you, I'll go back to the IBD articles Crohn's disease and try to make them so anyone can understand what the articles are trying to say (too scientific for someone like me! :) ) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sorry I started watching this page because it is totally getting out of control in civility and ownership. Just to bring to your attentions in case you haven't seen is the following; [1]. Also this lists which to me are notes for attacking editors which isn't Wiki nice. [2]. You may take note that you and some other editors are being 'collected', for what I don't know and I don't think I want to. I am bringing this to your attention because I think you are an administrator and can put out the fire before it spreads. It's seems to be heating up a lot lately in the past couple days since you showed it to me. I was going to read and join but I decided that I didn't want to get burned. I hope you don't mind me bringing this to your attention. I want to state up front that I do know a good portion of the editor's editing there including John Gohde. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you're still watching this page. With respect to John Gohde, you should read the following: John Gohde's sock and rulings. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mail

FYI, your mail is bouncing: Reason: Illegal host/domain name found Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's possible it's a plot by the Republican Party. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just tested it, and it's working perfectly. In fact, I received an email from someone else on here. It might have been a temporary issues. I hope. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You know you've been on Wikipedia too long when your first response to any setback is to blame a vast conspiracy. That sort of reasoning never fails at AfD, does it? MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true. Aliens from the Planet A47382ZZ are controlling Wikipedia through the Trilateral Commission and the Republican's Military Industrial complex in league with Fundamentalist Christians and Homeopaths. Didn't you know? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was more surprised. MastCell ^Talk 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy "revert war"

Please be advised that the "edit war" you are alluding to consists of my reinstating an {{NPOV}} tag that some editors are removing - in clear violation of the text on the tag and arguably policy itself - without a resolution of the issue. And in most cases even without even attempting to engage in a constructive discussion. It would be really really helpful if you actually reviewed the matter before issuing warnings.

In short, I categorically reject your baseless accusation that I am engaging in an edit war. --Leifern (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll be reverting your baseless tag too, and file a 3RR ANI. I'll have fun doing it too. Makes my day!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, good to know what maturity level I'm dealing with here. --Leifern (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you mean your childish commentary above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I do not get the impression you have consensus for an NPOV tag. All I see are some people who do not understand what NPOV means. I have explained it over and over on that page. Somehow you are not getting the message. ACCORDING TO WP RULES, the article is allowed to be 99% negative to Homeopathy. That is what NPOV means on Wikipedia. Get it? If you do not, you better read the WP policy. I would be glad to give you directions.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP policy states that WP:NPOV is an inviolable policy. When the NPOV of articles is in dispute, we are supposed to tag it accordingly. There is no quantitative measure along the lines of 99%; what is clear is that there's a very high burden before anyone can state a scientific opinion - no matter how well-founded as an undisputed fact. The hurdle is that the topic must clearly and undisputably be branded a pseudoscience. If Lancet publishes articles about the topic and calls for further research, it is by definition not pseudoscience, though I can see why many would call it questionable science. --Leifern (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how people abuse NPOV to fit their needs. Giving undue weight to fringe theories that are not back up by verifiable and reliable sources is not neutral. So, what this POV warrior wants us to do is give undue weight to unverified and unreliable claims, while completely ignoring peer-reviewed and reliable science. Just like Creationists these CAM nutjobs want us to BELIEVE in the magical power of the faith instead of science. Homeopathy is bullshit not because I think it's bullshit, but because it violates the basic principles of science, for example, water does not have "memory" of the substances within it. I don't BELIEVE in anything that I cannot test through scientific method. Faith, whether in some alien gods of Alpha Ceti 3 or in faith healing, is best left to the religious nutjobs.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If I were a POV warrior, I'd really want you to continue along this vein, as you're completely discrediting yourself. I would really like to arrive at a decent wording for this article and put these kinds of strawman arguments and other fallacies behind us. --Leifern (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> And not only is a claim of water memory, but what about sugar memory? You can triturate substances down to very very low concentrations, in the same way as you dilute them down, with sugar particles, instead of water.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Leifern, but you're throwing around Wiki-terms very poorly. 1. I haven't discredited myself, because I am a strong contributor to the project. I have a bombastic attitude to counter the bombastic crap flung by Creationists like you. 2. There's no strawman anywhere. Homeopathy lacks evidence, lacks support, etc. Water memory is so bogus because it relies on magic. 3. I do agree with you that Homeopathy is a fallacy. Finally, we speak the same language. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are putting up arguments that I have never made and arguing with them as if I have made them. That's what a strawman argument is. Excellent example in this very message, where you label me as a Creationist, although a) I have never written anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion; b) it's irrelevant for the discussion on making homeopathy an NPOV article; and c) is patently untrue. So yes, in doing so you utterly discredit yourself and bring shame to the absolutely credible point of view of being skeptical to homeopathy. --Leifern (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you're a few IQ points above the typical brain-dead Creationist. But you missed my point. Homeopathy=Creationism, because they are both pseudoscientific concepts, they rely on faith rather than science, they are not falsifiable, etc. etc. etc. You may not be a Creationist per se, but if you edited the articles, you must wonder if there is any difference. They both require belief in powers that just don't exist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't give a flying crap what you think of my IQ, but I do reserve the right to take exception to logical fallacies that wouldn't pass a debate class in a low-end high school. As I have made clear in my comments, I am neither an apologist nor supporter of homeopathy. On the other hand, I would urge you to actually educate yourself on homeopathy before making such comparisons. --Leifern (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On my watchlist

I put the article in question on my watchlist. Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now let's go get Medical Creationists (my new term, since Creationists and CAM requires faith rather than science). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, a thought for you regarding the CAM stuff on Zoster: Do you see any benefit in mentioning the CAM material in contrast to acyclovir? That is, state that "acyclovir has X demonstrable benefits. Other treatments, including X, Y, and Z, have never been shown to produce any benefit." I'm suggesting this because I think people may be searching the internet for this info, and I wonder if you think that we should try to pull them into Wikipedia and give them the info they're looking for, or if we should leave the material out of the article entirely and let them get their info from elsewhere. Regards, Antelan ^talk 11:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're giving undue weight to items that have no verification or reliable sources. Actually, the last I checked there were two Complementary therapies still in the article, one about fruits and vegetables (which is just necessary for good health, but as I recall the reference clearly stated that it reduced stress-induced zoster), and the whole Tai Chai thing. To keep this article NPOV, we are not required to mention failures, like lysine (and that bogosity even fooled me). So, my opinion, unless you can verify it with reliable sources that it works, it should be there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm agreeing that they don't work, but I think that it may be useful to note this on the page instead of purely ignoring it. Antelan ^talk 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we have a reliable source that says something to the effect of, "what a bunch of crap."  :) But you're probably right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Walt Brown (creationist)

I've been clearing out quite a bit of unsourced/WP:SYNTH material from this article recently, and given that it doesn't have any reliable third-party sources establishing Brown's notability, I've tagged it for notability. Before I redirected it (most probably to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy‎) I thought I'd give you a heads-up, as you've been active editing this article in the past. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? Hard for me to believe. Surely we can find material to pad this article out appropriately.--Filll (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you've been in the trenches for some time. He's regularly cited by Creationist trolls as an "authority", but other than diehards on both sides of the conflict, he's unknown to the world. Heck, he's not even mentioned in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, which makes it difficult to claim that he's a notable one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's investigate. Let's enlist the assistance of creationists to dig up information.--Filll (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Adriansrfr

Hey Orangemarlin, thanks for your antivandal work. Could you explain to Adriansrfr why you reverted their edits as vandalism? (I think they're talking about this). It wasn't totally clear to me why the external links violated NPOV, but you probably saw something I didn't there. Anyway, yeah, they asked for an explanation so it'd be good if you could discuss it with them. Thanks! Peace, delldot talk 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending this, but you seem to be trying to teach the little troll a lesson, so I'll reply here. In the case of Objections to evolution, he added really only one link that can be somewhat defined as an objection, Intelligent design. But that's mentioned in the body of the article, so by the standards of WP:MOS, it shouldn't be in See also. No matter. The other links were POV links to pejorative terms that are used to attack scientists who accept Evolution as a scientific fact. They're not objections, just POV crap. Adrian now needs to go away and edit Conservapedia or something. Not needed here. Oh, and I'm guessing he's one of the regular socks of banned users who show up on these articles. It's almost amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add this is a ridiculous complaint. World View belongs as a link? Remember, we are not supposed to turn our articles into link farms. If World View is supposed to be a link, about 1 million other links also should be in there. This is pure nonsense. --Filll (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice how fast he whined to AN/I? Sock. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion - edit sumaries

I thought I'd put edit summaries (usually section headings) on all of my non-minor edits. In fact I've just looked at the history and see edit summaries. Most of them are simply section headings because I'm restructuring the article (after a lay-off because I was trying to get hold of some useful material) - is that what got you concerned? Thanks anyway for not reverting! Philcha (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because Philcha is putting his edit summary inside the star and slash points, instead of outside it. I'm testing my theory now. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the problem was. Easily fixed. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL?

Hi, OrangeMarlin. I noticed you made this revert and marked it vandalism. I'm wondering why you consider this vandalism though. It looks more like a content dispute issue to me. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean reverting the edits of a blocked sock is considered content disputing?????? Wow, news to me. You're wrong. Do you feel better coming to my page and abusing me over a bullshit charge? Well, I hope so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My... no need to go overboard. I was simply curious as to how you considered that vandalism--not that you were wrong in reverting him. In future, please avoid personal attacks. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little pissed of about the number of socks attacking articles around here. I think giving good faith is not getting us far. I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it. I guess that sounds a bit fascist of me. Anyways, I wasn't attacking you, I was pissed that I gave AGF to that little sock POS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hrfan, we consistently revert creationists who use blogs, which are not a reliable source. We need to be consistent. The other citations work."

Two points:

1. This original edit was in fact correct. It was not introducing a reference to a blog, it was merely ensuring that the URL in it matched the existing description (which clearly indicated that it was to this blog-post). Even if you do not agree with the reference, the correct thing to do would have been to remove the entire reference (as you eventually did after much edit-warring, and a pointed edit summary from myself).
2. Scienceblogs are generally considered to be WP:RS, and numerous pro-science editors have defended them as such on a number of occasions against Creationist detractors.

I agree that we should be consistent -- but feel that you haven't been demonstrating much consistency in this incident. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Hrafn here. Scienceblogs are notable, and the bloggers there have to be invited. Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula and Aetiology are highly rated science blogs, according to a rating and ranking done by Nature. Usually the bloggers are identified by name, and are notable in their own right, and so by the rules of WP:SPS, are therefore considered reliable sources by WP when they are writing in their blogs, especially on science if they are scientists. If someone is renowned as a scholar in religion, his self published sources on religion are also considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. A person who is renowned as a creationist will be a reliable source on his own views of creationism, but not on science, or many other subjects, as another example. --Filll (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree strongly, but I'll go along with you guys, since I'd rather have fun making certain Guido is not too disruptive an element to the project. Do whatever you want, but blogs are bad reference sources. They disappear after a certain, whereas a journal source is rather permanent. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Guido realizes that in some places in the English speaking world, use of the name "Guido" itself can be viewed as an ethnic slur. Tsk tsk.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a physician?

OrangeMarlin, I didn't realize until I saw your posting at ANI that you were a doctor - I was gathering references on palatal implants as an anti-snoring technique (known by the commercial name "The Pillar Procedure") but all I can find are a few news reports (written for an extremely dumb audience) and some references to clinical studies that I can't access. Would you have any suggestions for finding some good references on the subject? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not my field, but I'll try to help. Are you writing an article? If so, what is it, and maybe I'll help from there. I made a promise to SandyGeorgia to help out on medical articles. It lowers my blood pressure in dealing with trolls and socks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wanting to write the article patatal implant but I haven't put a draft on-wiki yet. (I was actually part of a study and had the procedure done - it worked for me, too. It got me interested in writing an article on the subject.) I did get a get whole bunch of images under free license from the inventor of the process, but I'm discouraged at the lack of real sources out there. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I once considered ENT as a career path so I have some residual interest in this sort of thing. You could try these medical sources (the good news is that they're peer-reviewed; the bad news is they're fairly technical and you may not have the full-text available):

• PMID 17302023 - decent review article on the Pillar Procedure from Jan 2007
• Some primary studies of palatal implants for snoring, all recent: PMID 17453480, PMID 17478222, PMID 17011415, PMID 17599575. Hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism

Hey Orange! Long time no see. I don't know of any YECs or YEC organizations who don't believe that Noah took dinosaurs with him on the Ark (if they believe in Noah, the Ark, Flood, etc). Hence my change from the very weasel-word "Some of them believe" to a more overall "They usually believe". Don't see how that's POV. Feel free to correct me if you know of enough YECs who believe/teach that there were no dinosaurs on the Ark to warrant a "some of them" for those who believe that there were dinosaurs on the ark. While I am happily accepting of the fact that Creationist views do not deserve equal consideration/space on Wikipedia (in accordance with WP policy), I tend to object to mischaracterizations of YEC positions. standonbible^Talk! 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrogance. The one quality of fundies that you can always count on. You see I don't believe in absolutes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be respectful here. I'm not exactly a raving lunatic when it comes to these things - many editors will tell you that. I was just trying to make something factually accurate, not start a POV-NPOV war. standonbible^Talk! 05:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

S.O.B. Just do a google search first. Did you know that there are lots of biblical literalists and other assorted fundies who believe dinosaurs never existed? And it was quite a common, in fact the most common viewpoint just a short time ago? Before you shoot your mouth off, try to learn a bit. And do not revert like that unless you have a WP:RS.--Filll (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but believing that Noah existed or that he took dinosaurs with him on a mythical Ark sounds like a raving lunatic to me. Dinosaurs died out 65.5 million years ago, a fact. To believe otherwise indicates a certain level of delusion, that cannot be treated on a Wikipedia talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My kids aren't convinced dinosaurs have died out -- they think I am one. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My kids think I'm a fossil. Based on how much they listen to me, I may as well be one! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Filll. I did a Google search ("dinosaur noah ark"). In the first five pages of results, there was only mention of some creationist who didn't believe dinos were on the Ark was some comic book author. That sounds like "They (creationists) usually believe that Noah took dinosaurs with him on the ark" rather than "Some believe that...". I'm well aware that a common viewpoint used to be that dinos never existed, but that's no longer a part of the Creation-evolution controversy. Put it in the history section if you want to; it's just misleading to say "some believe" when this is the position of virtually all these "lunatics." Speaking of which, I'm not going to argue about whether Creationists are lunatics right now - that's beside the point - but as long as we are writing about these lunatics, we might as well differentiate between the prominent ones and the unheard-of ones. I may be a lunatic, Orange, but I'm hardly a raving one.

So yeah - come up with some WP:RS of your own showing enough prominent "lunatics" who believe there were no dinos on the ark, and I'll gladly accede my position on this. It's not something to get worked up over - just a question of what most of these "lunatics" believe. standonbible^Talk! 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a novel idea. Why do you not come up with a few WP:RS for what fraction of young earth creationists believe in dinosaurs on the ark, and what fraction believe they never existed? And some of the history for when this happened, and all the different beliefs, and reasoning? For example, dinosaur bones at one time were thought to the evidence of giants that existed after angels mated with human females. And there are lots of other crazy ideas out there, some of which people still subscribe to, to varying degrees Just because you and a few of your friends believe X, does not mean it is true. Frankly, personal assertions do not count for much on an encyclopedia.

You might want to check into the article Young Earth Creationism#Palaeontology and dinosaurs or whatever it was called. It was deleted, although I and a few others voted against it. It might have more information in it. Get it userfied.

I get tired of assorted POV warriors from minority positions asking other editors to do their work for them. Writing these articles is hard work. Finding references is hard work. Why not help out a bit here, instead of just engaging in tendentious edit warring and complaining? You might find a much more welcoming reception if the appearance of a creationist did not mean huge headaches and fights and hours of wasted time. Also, many hands make light work, as they say.--Filll (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to userfy. I found it at [3]. See if it can get you started. But frankly, this is a tempest in a teapot over a tiny non-notable detail--Filll (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by userfy? And are you trying to bring back an article that we killed months ago? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested userfication because it might have some material he could use to write a few sentences or a phrase or two about this topic he seems to be interested. Namely, do ALL young earth creationists believe that the dinosaurs were loaded onto the ark? If not, how many do? Is it more than half? Was there ever another majority opinion among YEC? How have these views changed over time? And so on. What is going on is he is making crazy assertions and unilaterally changing articles on this, based on what he personally thinks, with no references.

And I notice this over and over and over among creationists. They are unwilling or unable to actually write anything, or find sources. That is too much hard work it seems. It is easier to just say "well this part is not what I believe and I am a YEC and all my friends dont believe this either so I will just change it to what I believe" without any more thought that than. Totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

If someone is a creationist, and they want to help instead of being a massive pain in the butt, they should actually help to write the encyclopedia, instead of introducing unsourced meaningless cruft that has to be reverted over and over in a huge edit war until they get banned. That is why it does not appear to me that they are here to write an encyclopedia; they are just here to cause havoc.

I notice when I see one with a "great" idea at the evolution or creationism or intelligent design talk pages, it usually involves "why dont you rewrite this for me or write this new article for me about X". Well if I think it is a reasonable idea, I suggest that they do it. And guess what? They never do it. Because they are not really interested in doing any work. --Filll (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears we are getting close to violations of WP:AGF here. And yes, it is perfectly appropriate to cite WP:AGF if comments like "just here to cause havoc" or "engaging in tendentious edit warring and complaining" or "arrogance" have been made. It's not a big deal to me; just try to watch it and maybe if you AGF then we can have a meaningful discussion rather than a heated argument.

First - sorry I haven't responded sooner; I've got mono and have been sleeping quite a bit.

I wasn't intending to do a "well this part is not what I believe and I am a YEC and all my friends dont [sic] believe this either so I will just change it to what I believe" edit. I ran across the statement "Some believe that {statement of pseudoscientific opinion}", which would lead a reader to believe that only a small percentage (probably less than 50%) currently hold that opinion. And that is, frankly, incorrect. Either examples of YECs who presently believe otherwise should be given, or the text should be changed to reflect the fact that the majority of YECs currently hold that position (rather than only a few). I tried to find examples of the former, and failing to do so I changed it to the latter.

I looked at the article you cited because I thought it might have such examples. However, all the references to beliefs other than Noah-took-T-Rex were uncited. Bummer. Since all the research I've been able to do, even with your help, has failed to provide any examples of YECs who don't believe there were dinosaurs on the ark, I must conclude that the statement "some believe" is misleading and should be replaced with "many believe" or more accurately "most believe".

Again, I've already done research in an attempt to answer the questions "(1) do ALL young earth creationists believe that the dinosaurs were loaded onto the ark? (2) If not, how many do? (3) Is it more than half? (4) Was there ever another majority opinion among YEC? (5) How have these views changed over time?" I've been unable to find any who don't believe it (thus giving evidence in the affirmative for (1) even if it's not definitive), which would seem to indicate answers for (2) and (3). (4) and (5) deal with the history of YEC, not the present positions taught by YEC.

Would "Today, most usually believe that Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark" be alright for you? It's factually accurate and it's not misleading. If no, what's wrong with that? Please, no more ad hominem attacks. standonbible^Talk! 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, get better. Mono can have long-term consequences unless you keep it under control. Yes, I'm a doc. I could get my 18 g needle on a 50cc syringe and inject you with magic Evolution potion. Hehehehehe.

OK, seriously. The problem with us editors with science backgrounds is that we don't believe in absolutes. You might be right that all YEC's believe that dinosaurs were on the ark, but I don't believe in absolutes. Most works quite well. So, see, you're now on my list of Wikipedian Creationists with whom I can have a reasonable conversation. NPOV does not require truth. It just requires verifiability. So if you find a reference that says "we polled 5000 YEC's, and yep, they all said dinosaurs were on the ark." I'm there!!!! Still don't believe in the ark or YEC, but I'd believe the NPOV that all YEC's believe that stuff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL I'm definitely taking Señor Epstein-Barr seriously. 'Tis no fun whatsoever.

I'm glad we understand each other. I'm equally glad I made it onto your "reasonable lunatic" list (no offense intended there; just inserting a bit of self-deprecating levity). I don't believe in (statistical) absolutes either; I never wanted the article to say "all YECs believe", just that most do. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that before. So, to express this, would you say that "They usually believe" or "Most believe" or "The predominant view is" expresses verified fact better?

Naturally I understand that one can make NPOV edits on a subject regardless of the position they hold on the issue. I'll try to remember that. After all, even you believe in YECreationists, just not YECreationism. :) standonbible^Talk! 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse warning

Accusing someone of "anti-Semitism" (here) is a violation of our policies on civility. Please avoid such baseless accusations or you will be temporarily blocked from editing and that would be silly. violet/riga (t) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It was very anti-Semitic. I make no secret that I am Jewish, and his use of "chutzpah" was fully intended to insult me and my religion. It was based on MY perception of the use of the word. Unless you are 1) Jewish, 2) have relatives who were killed in anti-Semitic activities, and 3) know anything about me, your attack on me is extremely offensive. I know exactly what Evil Spartan was intending by his use of words, because I have been subject to it frequently. So, unless you are going to apologize for this attack on me, then I would suggest you leave me alone and ponder what it is to be attacked by bigots. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm attacking you? By my perception calling someone an anti-Semite is more insulting than using a word that you don't particularly like. It is an offensive label that you should never throw around, and it would've been far better if you had just ignored anything you thought offensive. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't ignore it. If you can find one edit where Evil Spartan uses a Yiddish word, then I'll shut up. I think he has around 3000 edits, and I looked through a random sample of them, found nothing. He used the word intentionally to insult me in a racist manner. It's obvious. Please, continue your personal attacks on me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's gone quiet there now so hopefully that'll be the end of it from all sides. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone must stop using the c word here at once. It is trademarked by Leo Stoller. StollerTMenforcement (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm grandfathered in. Talk to my lawyers, Epstein, Shapiro, and Rabinowitz. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I have submitted a comment about you, here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Thank you for contributing to Quackwatch. However, I hope you don't mind my reminding you to participate on the talk page rather than just reverting others' edits. Please see WP:EW and WP:3RR for more information. Thanks! [4] --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Participating in talk pages is not my style. Nothing good happens there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I think the version you reverted to is preferable, but it would be nice to see more discussion about it. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that contentious articles end up being yada yada yada, your mother wears army boots followed up with yada yada yada, your mother is ugly. I do participate in discussion that actually build an article. The anti-Quackwatch people will do anything to discredit them. I'm opposed to that kind of thinking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. Best not feed the trolls. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

I'm seeking a pot smoking, merlot drinking, democrate who could care less about anything, to beat us up on the Introduction to Evolution FA Page. I've been attacked by citation hounds, equal time advocates, and those who see errors that clearly don't exist. It would be appreciate if you could give us an informed and honest beating; which would lead to improvement. At present, I will have to cite every word and include a section on Ken Ham! Ahhh let the good times roll and join in here [[5]] Cheers --Random Replicator (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch Merlot. Got the wrong person!!! LOL. Let me see how I might help out. This is obnoxious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken it as far as a North Carolina, bible thumping, moonshine, chugging republican vot'in redneck can... any help is appreciated; especially on citation issues!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am requesting a fresh arbitration case in respect of John Gohde, see WP:RFAR#User:John Gohde. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of personal attacks

You left a message on my talk page, accusing me of making a personal attack by posting this comment on yours:

I really couldn't give a flying crap what you think of my IQ, but I do reserve the right to take exception to logical fallacies that wouldn't pass a debate class in a low-end high school. As I have made clear in my comments, I am neither an apologist nor supporter of homeopathy. On the other hand, I would urge you to actually educate yourself on homeopathy before making such comparisons. --Leifern (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You have since then deleted the entry on your talk page, which I should remind you is usually considered a hostile act in the Wiki community.

Let me point out the following:

• My comment was made in response to your accusing me of being a "Creationist" and your subsequent clarification that: "I actually think you're a few IQ points above the typical brain-dead Creationist." If there ever was a bona fide personal attack, it was this comment of yours.
• The comment I made characterized your logic, or rather lack thereof; and this is not a personal attack. I do not know enough about you to make any judgment on your person; but I can certainly react to the substance of your comments, which in this case was severely lacking.
• I also advised you to get better informed about subjects you write about; in this case, it applied to homeopathy, and it seems this might be useful advice in distinguishing between criticism of your person and your reasoning. --Leifern (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, I can do whatever I want with my talk page, given a few rules. And archiving stuff isn't considered bad form. You better watch yourself when you fling about accusations. Giving you credit for being smarter than the typical Creationist is a compliment--and if you miss sarcasm, then maybe you should read up on it. And saying I should be better informed about anything is about as much a personal attack as I can imagine. I'm fairly knowledgeable about Homeopathy (as much as one can be about a practice that requires belief in magic). You should chill out, because you're not making a case for yourself. This conversation is done. In about 20 minutes, I'll archive this Personal Attack and move it where it belongs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

Hi, I see you did a lot of the recent work on Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and the result is excellent. Of course the better an article gets the more noticable its areas with scope for improvement become. I've posted some suggestions at Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and would appreciate comments from you and those who helped you to get Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to its current excellence. Philcha (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us

I noticed you have The World Without Us linked to your talk page. The article is at FAC with few comments. Would you mind reviewing the article for its candidacy? --maclean 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I will do it. Great book!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

creationism edit

My edit to the creationism article was not based on personal analysis, and was aimed at correcting a violation of the neutral point of view policy. It was someone else's personal analysis stating the basis of creationism as faith. I was correcting the wording to what creationism's actual primary basis is: scripture. Can you fix it? If not I'll see if I can fix it later. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.15.84 (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Non. I'm not going to fix it, because it would then be POV. Creationism requires faith, nothing more. All the other stuff is fluffery. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He may have a point. Faith in invisible pink unicorns will not produce creationism. It requires faith in a creation story, and the creation stories in question are ubiquitously contained in scriptures: notably the Old Testament, the Koran and the Vedas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, since I know you're one of the good guys, I'll agree. But as I look at it, to believe in the scriptures requires some sort of faith. The scriptures themselves don't create faith. I read the scriptures and laugh my ass off regularly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.

I apologize for the removal. I have not been trying to vandalize, and sorry for removing that. I have been on here for a year and a half. I have never tried to vandalize. Can you please work some deal with me if you do wanna block me? Tech43 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't apologize to me. The anonymous editor didn't leave much information to decide what is going on. Is there a diff?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2007

Look, I'm scared right now. I didn't try to do anything. I am on the verge of a mental breakdown. Tech43 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your life's story. Please go elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion as an outsider, but that did not sound like a very nice thing to say. Remember WP:NPA 172.209.232.81 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OM, don't take the bait... Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The big hook was a giveaway. This fish is moving onto better morsels. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contacting people's employers in real life

Stop trying to justify harassment. Contacting employers IRL is despicable and threatening to do so here not allowed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no threat (and "here" would be the incorrect word as I contacted him via e-mail). I asked a question -- "what is the AF's policy on personal use of government computers?" Also, ask yourself this, "if VO felt so threatened, why did he wait until now to go to arbcom?" The reality is that he saw the Thumperward issue as an opening. VO and I have had content arguments since he went on a deletion rampage a while back, that is all. Oh, yes, this diff might interest you [6].

Please make sure that you have all of the info before you chastise one editor and impugn another. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Orange Marlin have stated that you simply have to tell his employer, and you've stated it here on the Wiki. Dou I need to remind you of the diffs? Or can I simply ask you to please just stop it? Orange Marlin I replied on my talk page but the above was intended as a warning not a personal attack. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand, so let me walk you through. 1. I was never involved with VO. I don't think I've interacted with him in the past, but after 11,000 or so edits, I might have, I just don't know. 2. I never sent him an off-wiki email, never knew about it until yesterday. He mentioned that he was threatened, then stated that the email discussed his military situation. 3. As an inactive reserve officer of the United States Navy, I am obligated by several articles of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to inform his superior officers of his activities. If he has explicit permission to do what he has done here (and I doubt he has, but the United States Air Force is run by a bunch of technocrats, so who knows), then everything should be fine. 4. VO has violated many articles of the UCMJ. I doubt we tolerate illegal activity here (shall I provide the diffs about pedophiles), and IF (and I'm no lawyer or a JAG officer, so this may be minor) he is using Air Force computers for posting here without permission, then he could be reprimanded or even court-martialed. 5. I believe that Jim is an employee of the United States Government, and as such, also has an ethical, moral and legal obligation to prevent abuse of United States property. 6. I've got to ask why VO doesn't have a home computer (cost is not an excuse), and if he's using AF computers and internet service, why isn't he performing the duties of an Air Force NCO?

So, I'm in an ethical quandary here. I have not made contact with VO's officers, since I have no idea where he's located. But if there is an investigation, and he has done something wrong, and some investigator reads my posting, figures out who I am, I could be in trouble. On the other hand, I explicitly and absolutely agree with Wikipedia's privacy policy. I would not want to be "outed" here in whatever way. Someone posted my home address on here, and I had it immediately removed. So, I actually understand the feelings against me on this, but some of you (I know many of you are looking for a way to "get" me, right B?) ought to know that I am in a legal bind here. Lucky for me and everyone involved, I don't know VO's posting, his name, or his commander. But if it comes up, then I'm doing something about it, because it is my legal obligation.

Lastly, after reading Jim's email that VO posted (why no arguments that he posted a private email), I hardly think that's harassment. I think VO probably knew he was doing something wrong, and now is angry about it. I don't care one way or another. But I think VO put himself into this position, regardless of Jim's apparent or not-so-apparent threat.

So Theresa knott, the reason I consider your posting here a personal attack is that you lacked all of the facts, and failed to understand or appreciate my position with respect to the United States Military, my obligation to the United States, or my legal constraints in this matter. I am personally offended by many of you who are US citizens who get on your high-horse about this issue without adequately researching it. I am furthermore offended that VO, who has violated his own obligations to the United States Air Force and to the United States, is using this as a get-Jim issue rather than owning up to the fact that UCMJ specifically prohibits use of USAF computers for private blogging and such.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG you are doing it again. Stop it! It was exactly that post on Mast cell's talk page that lead me to the above warning. Do you understand that you are not allowed to do this. Just stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, you are wrong. Legal obligations take precedence over Wikipedia rules. Privacy rules fail when legal issues occur. Show me once where Wikipedia stood up to a subpoena for IP records of someone on here committing a felony. I actually don't have to do anything. Someone will read this, rat out VO, the USAF will subpoena, and the subpoena will stand, Wikipedia will surrender all IP records, probably including mine, and he and I will be pretty much screwed in this matter. You're being naive about this situation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No you are wrong please read Wikipedia:No legal threats As a british citizen your legal duty is of no concern to me, however your on wiki harrasment is. Stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

British? Are you kidding? Read his user page: the man is an American. And even if he were British, his legal obligations are still quite relevant. Nice jon insulting the Brits. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No I'm brityish so I don't care about you supposed "duty" but I'm also a Wikipedian so I do care about attempts at intimidation. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(ri)The point being that a legal obligation, a duty, outweighs the purported desires and needs of Wikipedia. That's why we have the WP:BLP policy, that's why we're so careful about copyrights. Wikipedia does not exist in a void, above the law and isolated from reality. You need to get a firm grip on this concept in order to understand the issues. Wikipedia, no matter how much many of the editors wish to pretend it isn't, is subject to the laws of the United States, and if so designated by regulations, the laws of any country from which it can be accessed. That is why Wikimedia must file a Form 990. This is why the French, for example, are free to block WP pages on Naziism. I'm sure that if you check with the Foundation's lawyer you'll find that I am correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(ri)Theresa, it is you who needs to stop. OM is correct in everything he has written, and has every right to write it. Remember that VO created this mess, not OM or I. As OM notes, as a federal employee I am required by law to report waste, fraud and abuse, as is he in his role as a reserve officer. However, rather than do so in VO's case, I asked him what the policies were. Had he responded and noted that he was in full compliance with AF policies, I'd have apologised for assuming otherwise (I could explain the assumption, but comprehension would require an analytical bent).

Additionally, your statement that OM and I "simply have to tell his employer" is a misrepresentation of fact crafted (no doubt) for maximun effect, yet as transparent as a diaphonous wing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TK, I am completely confused. I see no attempt at extortion. I did not see a legal threat in what you removed (however, I am not a lawyer no do I play one on TV). I think this is getting way out of hand. Try to reign yourself in. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing an attempt at intimidation. I repeatedly asked these two to stop, they refuse so I removed the offending material. I was reverted. I have no intention of edit warring though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be too much of a readiness to jump to an uniformed opinion, reading implicit threats in a complex situation. Please assume good faith. .. dave souza, talk 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. TK, you do realize of course that some editors here are required to be hooked up to the polygraph regularly to try to find out if they know about this kind of thing? And if they lie (or the polygraph purports to show that they lied), they lose their jobs, their clearances and might even suffer more severe penalties? --Filll (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's true then that is exactly we we cannot have people threatening to contact an editor's employer here. People need to know that as far as we are concerned they are safe here. We will not harrass them by informing on them. Now if people feel that they simply must inform on them there is nothing that can be done to prevent that, but they cannot threaten to do so here. It's just like any other type of legal threat. If you want to pursue the matter legally you can do so but you cannot remain an editor on wikipedia. If you want to rat an out someone to thier employer you may but you cannot edit wikipedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1. TK, I'm going to try to walk you through this carefully, because I think it is a disservice to all of us if you misunderstand me and I you. First, I made no threats to VO publicly, because there was nothing to threaten, until he attacked Jim62sch by publicly reproducing an email from Jim. In fact, to Jim's credit, he was making a legal inquiry to VO PRIVATELY, which is specifically requested in WP:NLT. Up until that point, everything is fine, and really all VO had to do was answer that he had permission, then nothing more would have happened, and we wouldn't be arguing here.
2. Once VO made the email public, then I took on another obligation. And yes you are a citizen of the UK, but I am not.
3. I have made no threats to VO, because I have no method to threaten him. I have no clue who he is, I have no clue where he is, and except for his comment that he is in the Air Force, I don't have any definitive proof that he is in the military.
4. Once he made mention of his military posting, then I am obligated by law to discuss his situation with his superior officer. I have not done so, because I don't know who he is. But I made mention of this fact not to threaten him, but to defend what Jim had done, which is to private email VO with his concerns.
5. Although you deleted it, I cut and pasted to User:MastCell's page UCMJ regulations with regards to computer use.
6. I do not intend to rat out VO, as long as everyone, including himself, keeps his personal information private. I have consciously not gone back to the AN/I involving VO and Jim, so that I do not know what is going on. In fact, I am putting myself at risk but keeping myself out of the fray. I am such a privacy freak, that this is disgusting me in so many ways, it's unbelievable. VO should not have posted that email, because once he did, all bets were off. He should have kept that information to himself, because we could move on.
7. You're attacking me (and I accept it, because I understand your passion on this matter). But you do not know how many documents I signed making me legally obligated to do things.
8. Lastly, and most importantly, this isn't about me. It isn't about VO's own issues with the USAF. It is about VO's attack on Jim that doesn't make sense.

Happy New year all OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim sent him an email that he had no business sending. Jim had no intention of actually doing anything about it, the email was a clear attempt at intimidation. Any fool can see that. I cannot for the life of me see why you feel the need to defend such an action. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Jim did not threaten VO with anything. I did not see it. He just asked a question. And TK, are you suggesting that all US government employees and members of the US military and their contractors are no longer welcome on WP? Because that is the clear inference I am drawing from what you are stating. VO is manipulating the system, claiming a threat exists where one does not. And asking others to collude with him in violating US law. And now threatening others who do not want to enable his law breaking, or even caution him about breaking the law. I am sure that the media and the legal system would see this in a VERY different light than you do, don't you think? --Filll (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Obtuseness will get you nowhere. It's pefecty possible to threaten by asking a simple question as you put it. And yes I am. saying that id you threaten to inform an employer about wikipedia editing then you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. That is not saying that members of the military are not welcome to edit, only those that threaten others. It's very simple. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Obtuseness will get you nowhere". I'm sorry Theresa, but it is you who are being obtuse. It is obvious that you have already decided in this matter, and yet you do so without knowledge. So be it; you are entitled to your opinion, whether informed or not. And yes, I know that you have some insider info on this, and you may be playing the role of "hit man" (we all have our sources), but again, so be it. That you see a threat where none exists is more indicative of your biases and personality than it is to mine. And yes, legal obligations outweigh wikipedia obligations (as OM noted). Sad that this is so hard to understand.

Oh, while we're here, I assume you've looked into VO's conduct, yes? No, this is not misdirection, but, rather a point related to UCMJ. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No I did not look into VO's conduct. If you have a complaint about that feel free to bring it up, and yes the only info I have is the email that was posted on the AN/I and jour later attempts to justify it. Do I need any more? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge misunderstanding here. Indeed, Wikipedia rules can never set aside the law, that is true. However, Wikipedia rules can, and do, forbid users to make legal threats. So if you think you should take legal action just go ahead and do it, but don't threaten to do it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And I did not see anyone here make a legal threat. Did you? I did not see anyone contact someone's employer here either. Did you? I did not see anyone threaten to contact someone's employer here even.--Filll (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I see them as threats and intimidation which you could argue violate WP:LEGAL and certainly violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. However, WP:LEGAL, WP:CIV and WP:NPA do not apply to off-wiki e-mails (it's a simple concept, but it seems to be incomprehensible in most cases) . I will note however, that e-mails are copyrighted, and in the case of the e-mail I sent to VO, I clearly specified a copyright. I'm sure you understand. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the emails at all - I'm referring to the comments on WP:ANI. violet/riga (t) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain. Diffs? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and I doubt that you are either. However, I do not see them violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. And sending an off-wiki question about if the editor in question has permission from his CO for his activities or not is not a WP:LEGAL threat as far as I can tell, but then that is up to a court to decide, isn't it? I am sure that the United States legal authorities and the United States Department of Defense and the court of public opinion as represented by the media might see things a bit differently than you or I, however.--Filll (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are being told by two users that have been admins here for many years that there is a violation of you policies. You are focussing on the wrong issue here - neither of us are commenting about whether or not VO has violated the computer usage policy, we are simply stating that the comments made on WP:ANI are not appropriate according to our policies. violet/riga (t) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What AN/I comments? Please elaborate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those that Theresa correctly removed.[7] violet/riga (t) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So a statement of fact is a legal threat? Odd, very odd. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not up to a court to decide it's up to the wikipedia community. Get this into you head. We don't care about the the defense department or the media. They don't decide wikipedia policies the community does. Our No legal threats policy was formulated so that people can edit Wikipedia safely without harrasment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that those seeing implicit threats are clearly jumping to conclusions which are not set out in the words used, and are ignoring the legal obligations others have been placed under by their positions. Such posts violate WP:AGF and so breach WP:CIVIL, and border on being personal attacks... .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the way to solve that is simply to delete the things we are taking as tyhreats above and that would be the end of the matter. I did try to do that but Jim62sh reverted me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're an admin. If you truly believe in what you're saying, then you can permanently delete what's written, can you not? However, I don't think there is a lot of consensus here. OrangeMarlin ^Talk•

Contributions 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it once already, and no I can't permenantly deleted it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So what Theresa seems to be saying is that any attempt at an explanation is liable to be deleted on the assumption that it contains an implicit threat. I'd hope that's not the case, and that everyone can step back and consider the statements openly without prejudging them. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no I'm not going to delete anything now! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you'll read it over carefully with the understanding that Wikipedia policy can not require editors to break the law. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is lame. The email Jim sent was a long time ago, wasn't it? Why has it only just surfaced now? Understand, I am 100% hot on no harassment being tolerated, but it looks to me as if the original email was just a rather testy statement of employment policy from another person with comparable contractual terms, sure it was open to misinterpretation, but if it was that big of a deal why has it waited until now? I'm baffled. If VO has not violated his terms of employment, then he has nothing to worry about, and if he has, surely it's better to get a wake-up call from a fellow Wikipedian than a visit from the snowdrops? I mean, I have a mate who was in the US Army MP, nobody wants those guys on their backs. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why such an email is so creepy., and the comments on the ANI so intimidating. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I am not getting something here. I think people are reading something into the situation that I frankly do not see. And I think the willingness to read negative connotations and implications into things is an indication of bad faith to me.--Filll (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had this much fun on New Years Day since 1993 when I boinked a hot sales rep from my company in front of a window overlooking Times Square at the New York Marriott. That was admittedly much more satisfying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, never forget that there are thousands of U.S. and NATO soldiers putting their lives on the line and living lives of forced celibacy over this New Years' holiday protecting your right to shag sales reps in luxury hotels. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I wasn't in the Navy on January 1, 1993. I was an executive with a major company. And obviously you miss my sarcasm. And more obviously, you're trying to goad me. You failed.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

huh? relevance? Being in the military is not a free pass.

In any case, I can clearly see that any attempt to explain or clarify is only going to be seen as compounding the problem; people have really read this wrong and I'm sorry about that because no threat or harassment was ever intended. It's time to write this one off to experience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, on a more serious note, perhaps Videmus is editing on his off-duty time. When you were in the Navy, were you ever on duty at night and free during "normal" working hours? Stuck on some base or a ship even if you weren't on watch or on duty? My impression is that the U.S. military makes liberal use of computers available to its members in such situations, similar to DVD players, TVs in barracks, etc. If someone's in a BOQ using their own laptop, wouldn't that show up as an edit from a military network?

Since it's impossible to know for sure that this sort of situation doesn't apply, you are probably therefore absolved of any obligation to report Videmus. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a physician in the US Navy. My free time consisted of being on call to treat some bozo Admiral who decided to smoke and eat red meat, getting a heart attack. And besides, in 198?????, there was no Internet. There were no DVD's. We played Bridge.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<RI>A.B., more seriously, the UCMJ makes no distinction between using the internet on or off duty. It specifically states that D-2. Users will employ Internet access for official, unclassified U.S. Government business only. Not sure what else to say? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to goad you -- just trying to get one or more of the editors on this talk page to slow down and smile for a minute amidst all the hard feelings and recriminations.

As for DVDs ... what about VHS (or even Betamax?). Were they Navy-owned cards? --A. B. ^(talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please justify revert

This revert does not appear to preserve NPOV. Please explain your reason for reverting. —Whig (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whig, you've reordered the paragraph for no other reason than strict reorder, without synth, and OM evidently feels that the previous order was more NPOV. Please explain your reasons for the change on the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell, it would be more fun discussing an article, even if it's with Whig, than it is to discuss the crap about legal issues. Sheesh. But Whig, Dave is right. The order you chose was POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take it back to the talk page, I have no interest in your legal issues. —Whig (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OM please read the comment above again. I realise my thread above is stressing you out but Whig has not made a personal attack here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly stressed out--I don't actually think Wikipedia is a real place. Please do not make those type of medical analyses over the internet, it is inappropriate. As for Whig, "your legal issues" is most certainly a personal attack. He's on the short leash for his activities on this place (as documented on his user talk, you just have to dig it up, because he keeps deleting it), and so I have the absolute right to tell him to back off. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What? You are the one who mentioned legal issues. Read the thread. You have no right whatsoever, Read the thread again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You really have an unusual way of interpreting things. He said I had legal issues. I don't. NO government in the world is after me for any legal problem. I don't even have a speeding ticket. Therefore, Whig has made a unjustified personal attack. Case closed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly mate you are ready way too much into his comment. I know you are mad at me at the moment and probably don't want to hear what I am saying because it is me that is saying it, but tomorrow, when our spat is over I hope you'll reread his comment and see that he meant no harm. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<RI> Once again, you're misinterpreting things. You're not making me mad. You're actually helping me formulate my ideas and thoughts about this episode. You've played a spectacular Devil's advocate in this discussion, which is solidifying a lot of people's opinions about the matter. Whig is irrelevant, and because he is on the Wikipedia "probation", he has limited ability to attack people. And a by-product of this whole thing is that Guido is going to probably get himself blocked from his vile commentary about me. I'm having a great day.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But being on probation does not give you cart blanche to accuse him of a personal attack where it is clear none was intended. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you're going to stand on technical grounds, you need to be absolutely fair. He said I had a "legal issue." I don't. That's an attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Wow, I've never dealt with you before so I came here with an open mind, but you astound me, you really do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing to note on this question: while military members have a responsibility to obey their officers, they don't have a responsibility to edit Wikipedia. If relations with other people affect your editing, that's a conflict of interest — if obedience and editing can't exist together in harmony for a certain period of time or on a certain question, please refrain from editing during that time or on that question. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, a ton of editors I've never seen in my life are here chiming in on this conversation. OK, let's put it this way. I know this is a fact. We will call the police if someone threatens to commit suicide while editing here. We would turn over evidence of pedophilia. IMHO, disobeying the UCMJ is equivalent to pedophilia, in that former destroys the military fabric and the latter destroys the social fabric. Remember this Nyttend. I was merely standing up for Jim, when VO brought it up. Are you saying I must have foresight of knowledge so I refrain from editing the nanosecond someone states they are editing Wikipedia from a military computer? You must be a bunch smarter than me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Nyttend is completely correct. Jim could jeopardize his employment and his career by not cautioning another editor. If Jim holds a clearance, and has to go under a poly investigation and this comes out, and it turns out that Jim did not caution the other editor, then Jim is in trouble. Jim was only being prudent. He did not threaten anyone. He just cautioned them, or made sure they knew. So I see TK's claims to be just bogus and so full of holes it is not even funny. As I said before, I am not sure the legal system and the media would see the situation the same way she does. WIKIPEDIA ENCOURAGES EDITORS TO BREAK LAW TO EDIT, AND PUNISHES EDITOR WHO CAUTIONED ANOTHER TO AVOID BREAKING THE LAW. I am sure that would play well....not. --Filll (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please just take it to the media already, give them a laugh. Bold and all caps - classy Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Er, guys? I have a nagging suspicion that this is just making matters worse. I believe the attitude is this: if someone wants to break their employment contract, it is indeed their own funeral, but we should not be there actively offering to serve as undertakers. If anyone is that concerned, email ArbCom and ask for advice on how to handle the situation. I bet you the price of Jimbo's fancy flashlight that they will not recommend the approach taken in this case :o) Guy (Help!) 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but not in the military. An employment contract is NOT the same as the US Military. I can break my employment contract with no problem. If I were active duty, that's not quite the truth. You'd go to jail. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not be undertakers. But we should not caution them to be careful?--Filll (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No because doing so comes across as a threat. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Filll, read this page. If that doesn't tell you with absolutely zero ambiguity that said approach not only does not work, but also causes a massive shitstorm, then you are a lot less smart than I thought. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for Theresa: see WP:HAR, especially "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." I see a pot callin the kettle black. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to harass anyone, and if it comes across that way then I apologise. Who exactly am I supposed to be harrassing? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling kind of harassed by you. You do not accept my good faith opinion about VO, yet you capriciously dismiss my good faith opinion of a personal attack from Whig. Confusing, but acceptable under these circumstances. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not my intention to make you feel that way. You said earlier that you were having fun. Anyway pretty much everything that can be said has been said, so I'll leave you alone and let the AC decide on the matter. Anyone else who want to discuss the matter please do so on my talk page rather than here. Let's give OM a bit of a rest. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AC? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Point of the above discussions

Anyone who comes wandering over here, ought to know what is really happening, as a matter of fact:

1. As is well-known, I am Jewish (not really relevant, but I threw it in for no particular reason), a physician who no longer practices medicine, an executive for a medical company, served in the United States Navy in the Surface Warfare Medical Corps and in Navy Intelligence (please, I've heard every joke), and went to Syracuse University, the 2003 NCAA Basketball Champions, and way above a pathetic technical school in Virginia.
2. I had no previous experience with User:Videmus Omnia, though it appears the name has relevance to 55th Wing. I made no connection until it was brought up to me in one of these conversations.
3. I noticed this action and I decided to participate.
4. At the time of my participation, VO wasn't involved, but decided to jump in with this point. It was then I determined that VO was a member of the US Military.
5. I object to what VO has done on three points. One, he has release publicly an email between Jim and himself. He should be reprimanded on privacy matters. Two, he has violated the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, although he makes a claim he has permission. That permission is not between me and him, Wikipedia and him, but between VO and his chain of command. He has not explicitly stated that he has that permission, although he has alluded to such permission. If he lacks permission, he has committed a crime and violated United States law. This is not a civil matter, but a legal one. If he has permission, then I'm done. Three, as a inactive reserve member of the United States Navy, as an officer therein, I am obligated by law to report any criminal wrongdoing I might observe by fellow members of the United States Military. Not being a JAG member, nor being in VO's chain of command, I have no authority to prosecute him, no authority to reprimand him. If I knew who VO was, I would report him. Since I do not, I will not.
6. There is no implied threat here. This is my duty as an officer. It does not conflict with my being an editor with Wikipedia, because editing is merely a voluntary activity.
7. I do not intend to converse on this subject any further. I would ask an admin to lock my User Talk for 48 hours to prevent any further discussion of this point. I will archive this discussion immediately after expiration of the lock.

Thanks OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have unprotected this page now - talk pages should not be protected for a long time just to try to stop the discussion of one particular topic. Hopefully all parties involved will have had time to relax and reflect; this does not mean that comments should immediately be made about said topic. violet/riga (t) 12:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the conversation has moved to the ArbCom page, so no problem. Thanks for helping out. I'm going to archive everything in a bit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Orangemarlin, in your evidence at the RfAr,[8] you apparently have the impression that VO stated he had a superiors' permission to use the system to edit Wikipedia, but I've had a look through the last version before it was archived,[9] and can't find him saying exactly that. With this edit,[10] he says "I've only edited while off-duty. I even double-checked following Jim62sch's earlier spurious allegation to make sure." which could give the impression he'd double-checked with his superior, but could equally mean that he'd checked that he'd made no edits when on duty. Presumably when off duty he would have access to a private system. Hope that helps to clarify things, I'd suggest amending your evidence. ... dave souza, talk 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a retraction of your blatant lie

Made here

"...stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off."

I never made any such statement. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I do not deal in minutae. You have to spell it out a bit more clearly for us I guess. Maybe OM can figure out what you mean.--Filll (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a liar imputes motive in violation of our policy on personal attacks. Please refrain from doing so.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and your false statement doesn't violate any policy? Oh, no, of course not. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And you could easily disprove my statement by providing proof - i.e. exactly where I stated that I was "avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off." 67.135.49.211 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that nothing constructive is going to come of this conversation, and suggest allowing it to end. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a Jinxmchue sock. Can he be blocked? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, neither Jinxmchue's main account nor any of his IP's are currently blocked. He's not evading a block and he does have the right to edit from an IP. I would suggest ignoring his attempts to poke you with a stick. Of course, I would also suggest he stop trying to poke you with a stick. MastCell ^Talk 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And what about OM's contributions to the dischord? All I did was ask him to either prove his statement or retract it as false. He apparently cannot do the former and does not want to do the latter. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's all you want, isn't it? You don't care that I've done nothing wrong. You just want me blocked for no good reason. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean nothing good can come from the truth? Fine. Whatever. It's dropped. OM's behavior speaks for itself. Too bad there's no ban for telling lies about other editors. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be a bit more blunt, Jinxmchue. If you continue attempting to provoke other editors, then you're going to be blocked again. It's becoming increasingly clear that you have nothing to contribute here besides vitriol. MastCell ^Talk 06:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)