Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:09, 15 November 2008

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Election 2008 Day After Analysis Edition

President

My prediction

• Obama/Biden 382
• McCain/Palin 156

Or in terms of popular vote

• Obama 54.5%
• McCain 45.0%

What actually happened

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

Or in terms of popular vote

• Obama 52.4%
• McCain 46.3%

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

Senate

My Prediction

• Democrats 57
• Republicans 41
• Independent 2

What actually happened

• Democrats 54 55
• Republicans 40
• Independent 2
• TBD 4 3

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

House

My Prediction

• Democrats 260
• Republicans 175

What actually happened

• Democrats 254
• Republicans 173
• TBD 8

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

California Proposition 8

My naive prediction

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

What really happened

• Yes 52.5
• No 47.5

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

Your thoughts here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colon cleansing

Hello Orangemarlin

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

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

Henchman yes. Not so loyal. Article looks fine to me. OrangeMarlin 04:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Eric Lerner

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

In case you missed it

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

ANI

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

RFCs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grrrrrrrrr. OrangeMarlin 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ludwigs2

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

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

You might be interested...

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

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

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

Note to OM and assorted talk-page watchers

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

above and below

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

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

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

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

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

Boris can only read Russian. OrangeMarlin 23:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

regarding the mathsci comment

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

What in hell are you talking about?OrangeMarlin 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cold fusion at ArbComm

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Elonka's Email

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

I'm sensing a pattern. Well, at least you got an e-mail, I gt a bald-faced threat on my user-page (it's still there). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is sometimes useful...

If you (and the various talkpage watchers) have a moment, maybe you could take a look at this and chime in with any post-mortem views you might have? It's an interesting problem, I think. On the one hand, we want to encourage as many people who can to usefully contribute. On the other hand, there is a disruptive effect associated with organized editing by student groups who are unfamiliar with editing norms. I think we struck the wrong balance in this case, particularly since the lecturers involved (in Scotland and Australia) have sworn off assigning Misplaced Pages in the future and expressed their dismay with our receptiveness and culture. It would benefit us to improve our response the next time around - we really need as much credibility in academia as we can get, and if we burn off those who are most inclined to support Misplaced Pages what chance do we have with the rest? Avruch 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)