Contents

User talk:Orangemarlin

Make Perfect

• Permian–Triassic extinction event - Petey's been waiting for you since last time.

Some other shit I guess....

Cas...you forgot to sign?  :) These extinction event articles are difficult to write. I've done some work on it, but maybe when I have a few hours to focus.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it was suggestbot, honest. Yeah, hard maybe but as hard as medical articles? They start to get a lot less fun when you reach the 3rd FAR... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I got Katie to FA, and I remember the long lists of things that needed to get fixed. Third FAR? I think I'd just surrender after 2. You can just go back to editing your shroom articles.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Medicinal mushrooms desperately needs some wisdom applied. Not that it's an either/or proposition. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemarlin,

Just met you on the Camping talk page, and looked at your edits if you don't mind. one of them, is a bit confusing for me. And I mean I am confused, I'm not trolling here. "[..] push a right wing agenda, including publishing AIDS denialism". What exactly is "right wing" about AIDS denialism? I'm not American, so I'm probably missing some major cultural things, but "our" right wing does not "deny" AIDS. Could you elaborate a bit more? What agenda do right-wingers have that is helped by denying AIDS? Joepnl (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camping? You mean the dude that fucked up the prediction for the end of the world? LOL. Anyways, our right wing denies anything that has to do with science. Global warming. Evolution. AIDS. The journal has an awful anti-science bent with an agenda. It's against the CDC, for example, for some very odd reasons. The problem with the journal is that editors here will use it to further their POV edits, but it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Anyways, you'll not that anyone who tries to use them will probably get their edits reverted, so I'm just helping the editor understand that AIDS denialism has absolutely no real science behind it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, the right wing is generally skeptical of any claims that have government support and especially government-industry cooperation. The left actually shares this in some spheres as well, though the left usually points to military-industrial rather than medical-industrial issues. The AIDS hypothesis resonates with some on the far right because it tells a story which smacks of government hyping an answer, directing gobs of funding at it, and generally not being successful despite other promising research avenues which are usually pursued by an iconoclastic scientist somewhere outside the US where regulation is more lax. That's the story. The far left also has some sympathies with AIDS denialism, but in a much less conspiratorial vein, and not dissimilar from the Austism denialism dynamic. The only remotely plausible (I mean remotely logical not remotely supported) alternative to the HIV-AIDS connection involves environmental-species factors such as nutrition, inflammation, and immune response. Those are themes that the left loves since it suggests we can control our illnesses with more tai chi and organic food. I'm sure a few fringe homosexuals also find it a liberating notion that the 'Gay disease' (circa 1980) was not so much about unprotected anal sex, but unprotected sex mixed with vicious cocktails of drugs. That changes the story from 'we were immoral' (the old canard) to 'we partied too hard', which the left finds easier to swallow. 2c. Ocaasi ^c 16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't conflate "skepticism", which is based on a scientific analysis, with "denialism" which is based on politics, personal beliefs, and malformed logic. The US right wing are denialists on a wide range of issues, whether it's global warming, evolution, or gays are incapable of raising children. The left wing has it's own group of denialists, including the anti-vaccinationists, new age believers, homeopathy, and a wide range of other things. Of course, these are highly generalized, as I know a few right wingers who consider evolution and global warming to be well-supported by science. I've never heard of this Autism denialism, but I tend to ignore conspiracies. And there is no evidence for alternatives to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. You're using the logic that denialists always use, that is, say something and state that it may exist. Sure, maybe the teapot floating on the far side of the moon is putting out some chemical that causes AIDS, and ask me to disprove it. Yes, I've seen on Wikipedia people who are afflicted with diseases become advocates of many wild ass theories of their disease and treatment I know there's a psychiatric term for these people, but for me, it's advocacy over evidence. One more thing, don't excuse the wild right wing denialism by stating the existence of a left wing denialism. In general, as shown by polls, Republicans believe in Creationism by a huge majority. In general, most lefties, though they have their own crazy beliefs about science, accept the biggies like evolution, global warming, etc. The right wing is far worse in it's anti-science attitude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the right wing is more anti-science than the left wing is. I don't know about AIDS-denial in the US, but here it's a fringe thing (adoption by gays and evolution too btw). I can't imagine that pretty much half of the US population, "the right-wingers", don't believe AIDS exists. Global Warming might be a valid scientific theory. In my experience, right-wingers are usually pointing out that there are certain obvious flaws in it. Though I'm not an expert in this area, I'm convinced that the embracing of this theory by the left has more to do with prior thinking about policies about cars etc. than a sudden insight. After the earthquake in Haiti, a left wing member of parliament tweeted "we should really do something about climate change now". Another example is nuclear energy where the discussion is not scientific at all. Scientific would be: how many deaths per joule, where nuclear energy wins by a landslide against any other method of producing electricity. Left-wing response: you can't use that. Nuclear=scary, that's enough. That doesn't sound not very scientific to me. I'm not going to spell out the tens of examples I know of, but my gut feeling is that if you would actually measure the scientificness of arguments used by both left and right, the right would win. Apart from that, I'm curious about the US mindset, so to speak. Could you tell me what your wildest guess is how many people in the US don't buy Global warming, evolution or AIDS? Joepnl (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism means denialism in this context, though it's on a spectrum. Also, I wasn't saying 'this could be true', just 'here's the story they tell, it's not impossible on its face'. Don't be afraid of speaking about ideas; ideas are different from valid theories.

The left is just as bad when it comes to skepticism about corporations and corporate medicine, especially with homeopathy, vaccines, and autism, as you mentioned. Some might also say that the left is deluded about prospects for peace through diplomacy, though I think that's more of a philosophical than scientific subject. The right you are referring to is not the 'far right' but the 'religious right', which denies science for its own reasons and just finds overlap with the far anti-government-power right on issues of regulation and funding. Conservative/evangelical Christians are the lurking variable in 'far right', so better to pinpoint it. IMO, it's not much use to try and blame bad thinking on groups. Ideas should succeed and fail on their own merits, not the proclivities or affiliations of their adherents and detractors. Ocaasi ^c 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS denialism appeals to extreme elements from both the political right and left. On the right, a lot of the (initial) denialism wasn't anti-science, really, so much as homophobia. Essentially, the argument was that AIDS was caused directly by what people on the right like to term "the gay lifestyle", rather than by a virus that could also infect heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, and children. Duesberg himself was initially treated as a hero by the gay community, for standing up to a scientific establishment which (it was felt at the time) hadn't adequately prioritized HIV/AIDS research. But Duesberg's support quickly dried up as he made a series of statements perceived as homophobic, at which point he became closely identified with a subculture of right-wing ideologues. The best description of the relationship between AIDS denialism and the political right is in Impure Science, by Steven Epstein. On the left, it's the usual blend of muddled postmodernism and knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism. To be clear, most people in America understand that HIV causes AIDS, regardless of their political orientation. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your interesting information. If you really want to know something talk pages are way more interesting than the official namespace. I can imagine a meta-wikipedia listing all dissenting opinions which are much more interesting than the official article but can only be found on talk pages since "consensus", NPOV and "Original research" is such a major censor. Joepnl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

First, I agree with you in principle on the underlying issue: extended demographic data doesn't need to go in the Utah article unless it's supported by reliable sources, and even then it might not warrant inclusion.

That said, I disagree with your style in comments and especially in the edit summaries. Even in the course of kicking somebody to the curb—be it handing out an indefinite block on-Wiki or ejecting a coach from a game off-Wiki—I find it better to treat them with far more respect than they deserve. We may find ourselves dealing the lowest of the low—people on the Group W bench with Arlo Guthrie in "Alice's Restaurant", patrons of the Mos Eisley spaceport, or season ticket holders at East 161st and River Avenue, The Bronx—but there's absolutely no reason to lower ourselves to their level in the course of dealing with them. Besides, the calmer we stay, the bigger of fools they show themselves to be if they go off on a tirade. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Fred (must be what "C" stands for) espouses proper doctrine. Bourgeois stooges will hang themselves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Every good Bolshevik knows that kulaks don't hang themselves. Sounds like Right Deviationism to me. But I agree that C. Fred is giving you good advice as far as Wikipedia goes. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think Utah is a very contentious article, and I wasn't worried about much. All I was doing was supporting the removal of Chamber of Commerce information that the dear Comrade had removed, since it represented the will of the elite. The edit summaries were there as reminder for the local theocracy. It was very passive aggressive.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milikguay (talk · contribs) has written a rather poor article about this man, with at least one major factual inaccuracy—that Shapiro and not Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box. I did a little bit of cleanup; could you take a look at the rest of it? I'm especially concerned about the AIDS Denialism part, because of the sentence that goes "Some websites link him to AIDS Denialism,[13][14]though he haven't took a public stand about this subject." Best, NW (Talk) 13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoiks. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Shapiro is another form of Intelligent design pusher. I'm trying to figure out what he's saying, but it sounds awfully post modernist. It almost reads like he thinks that the design is internal to the organism, but I'm still reading. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) The guy has a solid understanding of modern genetics; (2) he is suggesting the possibility of a kind of "intelligent design" of the genome in which the intelligence arises from biological mechanisms built into the cell rather than from anything external. The idea is a long stretch but I don't see anything blatantly impossible about it. I couldn't detect any religious overtones in his essay; on the other hand it is written at a level that genuine ID proponents would find impossible to understand and no doubt they would be happy to quote-mine it to support their claims. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he speculated on the possibility of a revival of orthogenesis, hinting at scientific examination of "design" in a way that would have pleased Richard Owen. However, it's very tentative and look at the date, when ID was a shiny new pseudoscience which had yet to be exposed in court. We should really find if his ideas have changed, in the interim I've modified the section and emphasised the date. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dave, that's what it does look like. As I always say, science shouldn't be dogmatic, it should be open to other ideas. However, evolution is about as close to a fact as you can get. The mechanisms may be under discussion, there have been a lot of attacks on natural selection and genetic drift, but they seem plausible and experimentally supported. I am concerned when a theory is proposed that makes us think there's a power beyond our understanding, like intelligent genomes. It's just chemistry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Schools can't teach abortion techniques. Well, this law will die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama, but these dumbfuck Republicans are so blinded in their hatred of the perfectly legal and important medical procedure that they fail to understand that abortion is a procedure that sometimes needs to be used to save the life of the mother. Fuck the Republicans. Just fuck them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed law would conflict with ACGME requirements for OB/GYN residencies. Currently, the ACGME mandates that "access to experience with induced abortion must be part of residency education" in order for a program to be accredited. There is an exception for training programs with institutional objections to abortion (e.g. at Catholic medical centers), but even in such cases residents must be allowed to acquire experience in induced abortion off-site if they choose ([2]).

Residencies are, of course, largely taxpayer-funded through Medicare DME payments, so they use "taxpayer money" to train residents to perform abortions. Granted, the bill is a political stunt rather than a serious legislative proposal - after all, the Republicans need to somehow shift the focus off the Ryan budget, so they're going back to the most dog-eared pages in their playbook. Still, I'm curious about the reaction from ACGME (and ACOG, for that matter), since this bill would essentially overturn (on political grounds) the basic training requirements set by the profession. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know it's a stunt, but I'm sure there are true believers out there who think this is the way it should be. I better not tell the pro-abortion crowd on my graduate research, where a research assistant and I would stand outside the medical school's ob department waiting to pick up placenta and fetal material to harvest proteins and receptors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^Agree to all of the above. But the Obama administration hasn't been very kind to the ACGME either: Pediatrics residencies will have fun supporting themselves at their current level with no GME funding (if that plan actually went through). NW (Talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so so glad I practise medicine in Australia...did occasionally think about working in the US.Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, I'm curious about something: The average full time psychiatrist earns between 150 and 170k here, I believe. Is the situation similar in Australia? NW (Talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our dollar, which has zoomed to $1.05 US has changed things a little - the Australian system is a bit weird - consultants in hospital earn anywhere from $140,000 to 240,000 depending on seniority, management, overtime etc. See page 38 of this document...and that is with 5 week's holiday and 5 weeks' study leave, but sessional specialists (called VMOs or Visiting Medical Officers) the rate is $184 or $198 an hour. This is all state goverment based (figures are from New South Wales). The federal government funds the medicare system which runs parallel. This is works like a benevolent insurance company - folks are free to see whichever doctor they like (as long as they have a referral from a GP) - here the rate for a psychiatrist is based on per service. Hence the gov't reimburses (pays) a psychiatrist ~$145 for seeing a patient for 45-75 min (usually 50 min), and it is up to the psychiatrist whether they Bulk Bill (i.e. just claim that and leaving the patient with zero to pay, or charge anywhere from 150 to 300 dollars and the patient pay the excess. However the rates of reimbursement are not indexed to the CPI and so have fallen in real terms since the introduction of Medicare in 1983 (and so have bulk billing rates around the country) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could just up your volume and stop wasting time listening to patients talk about their problems... Anyhow, here you have to take a pay cut to stay in academia, and a pretty substantial one at that, but it's worth it. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, research in psychiatry. That opens up a hole can of worm debate I don't have the energy for right now....interesting article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should be helping save this article..but I just look at it and my eyes just glaze over....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a total mess, and I'm just not that knowledgeable about infectious diseases. I've noticed this a lot with medical FA's. People stop watching it, then it just gets to be a load of junk. I think SandyGeorgia does her best to watch over the medical FA's, but she's just one person. I'll give it a try, but I remember how much time it took for my two FA's. It's like writing a dissertation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit Talk:Lung cancer#Palliative care. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the hit that Scott Cousins put on Buster Posey? I'm not a Giants fan (quite the opposite), but that was painful to watch. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about going to the game, but it was really cold up in the Bay Area. That was just awful, and of course ESPN had to show it over and over again. I hate watching those athlete's legs move in directions that were never meant to be. Like the Joe Theisman leg break. Worse yet, Posey is my catcher on my fantasy baseball team. And it's not like there is a lot of talent out there that plays catcher. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's out for the year, so you might want to start checking the waiver wires. The scariest part wasn't his leg, but rather what seemed like a pretty serious head injury and concussion. Your brain just isn't designed to be bounced around like that. I used to love football - I still do - but I can hardly watch it anymore with the accumulating evidence of long-term neurologic sequelae. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was so focused on his leg, I missed what happened to the head. MLB has one of the best programs for concussions, considering that there probably less chances of head injury in baseball than in hockey or football. They do a thorough baseline for all players in spring, so that they can make a better diagnosis of concussions. I think hockey and football have serious long-term health care issues for their players. I saw a published article a few months ago that described the decreased lifespan of NFL linemen. I think it was over 20 years shorter, but now I've got to find the article again to confirm that. Anyways, it's amazing how long Carlton Fisk played as a full-time catcher. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ran across a link to terrain theory and thought "geomorphology" -- heh, wrong. Anyways thought you'd enjoy applying your vast knowledge there. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you admins drop these notes on my User Talk page in an effort to distract me! LOL Germ theory anyone???? And modern day Terrain theory nutjobs think that viruses mutate into bacteria which mutate into fungus when infecting someone. FACEPALM. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, tho't you'd enjoy it :) Vsmith (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're evil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) will likely attempt Edit warring with me, on Iain Stewart (geologist), anything you can do? 99.181.156.30 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Also, note this IP User may get knocked off-line ... DDOS?99.181.156.30 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope he's knocked off-line; he's clearly the same person who violated 3RR on 4 different IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What's this about? By the way, I'm not an admin. The pay isn't sufficient. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, May 19th on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics). 99.190.80.45 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The irony :-) an IP v an admin Shot info (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, I'm not an admin, and think the world of Arthur Rubin. This because, in a momentary fit of niceness, I put a Welcome Template on the IP's talk page. This is what I get for being nice. LOL. The answer is, of course, not only is there nothing I can do, but even if I could do something, I won't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - being "nice" the overriding and overarching policy here at Wikipedia. And of course, the path the woo and pseudoscience :-) Shot info (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O man - after months of kicking the wiki-crack I've started editing again...................noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Shot info (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it up for precisely two years. Then I read an article, pissed that I wasn't logged on to edit it, then I was mainlining again. I see that you're out of rehab too.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sighhh, It's like I'm reliving the past - I've got another couple of editors trying it on that because Barrett is chairman of QW, anything ever published by him is automatically SPS....jeeze, the more things change, the more they stay the same..... Shot info (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, there are mind-readers. 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no spoon Shot info (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If of interest, more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 99.181.140.6 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries?99.19.42.17 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's June. It's snowing a few miles away. Tornadoes hitting the ground. Sure, maybe in Iowa. But this is freaking California. Yes, Comrade Boris, it is evidence of a Capitalist Conspiracy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist plots cannot overcome revolutionary zeal. Have methods for bringing bourgeois "weather" into doctrinal conformity. Strenuous efforts must continue in face of all obstacles through aid of reliable comrades. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess KGB did control Amerikanski weathermen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, the heat here's been sapping my precious bodily fluids. Of course, it's the first dry week in three months, so I'm not complaining just yet. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the heat; it's the fluoride. That's why I only drink bourbon and rainwater. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon? Is that reb-speak for uisge beatha?LeadSongDog come howl! 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwater? That contains destructive acids and Japanese secret radioactive particles caused by New Zealand's attempt to take over the world.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OM, you're sounding a little stressed. Let me help you with a little Reiki massage .....(waves hands over keyboard and screen and focusses...)......there, how does that feel? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has encountered arbitration up close and personal, you may be interested in opining on the proposed new arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification. --B (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I'm pissed. Actually endorsing secret hearings? Your point made sense too, but I can't get over secret. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether they hear it in secret or don't hear it isn't central to my point. My point is that if some vandal posts my real name and phone number on Wikipedia and then it gets oversighted, from this rule, anyone is now permitted to introduce that personal information as public evidence for arbitration. Ideally, there would be some language requiring that notification be served in public that the private evidence was submitted and then a redacted version would be placed publicly on the evidence page. For example, post the checkuser results with IP addresses stricken. I think that would be a good rule. But the way it's written is terrible - the way it's written is that the default is that you should post it publicly and if you send something privately because you believe that it meets the undefined "compelling reasons" to send it in privately, there might be a secret hearing to decide whether to use it. --B (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point, and I do actually think some things should be kept secret. But it has to "open", in the sense that the Arbcom has to state that it is discussing B's real name and telephone number, and the fact that he's a VaTech guy.  :) It's when you get FT2 using it for his personal vendetta, then I have a problem. So, how do you draw the line? You draw it by stating exactly what can be done in secret. So, Rule #4 gets to be abused from two directions. The FT2's of the world can use it to further their cause, or someone could abuse the system to out users. So it's doubly bad. Another well thought out regulation around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think we've met. I wanted to drop you a line about some of your recent comments at RfAs, which seem unnecessarily hostile to me. You are, of course, quite within your rights to state why you think a candidate is unsuited (or suited) to adminship, but rude or passive-aggressive comments only further the impression that RfA is a very unpleasant place and can diminish the candidate's enthusiasm for editing. Also, I'm sure it's not meant as such, but the lack of pronouns in some of your comments makes them sound quite cold and impersonal. I'd be grateful if you;d take this into consideration in other RfAs. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my original comment, because I just had to read about FT2's bullshit comments, and reminded as to what kind of person he is around here. I'll take it into consideration, but why should I spend a nanosecond worried about these wholly immature and unsuitable candidates? If they can't deal with my kicking them in their whiny asses, then how can they deal with the usual group of trolls around here? BTW, really, you want to call ME passive aggressive? I think I don't make any secret on how I feel about anything. However, why don't you drop by the King of Passive-aggressive narcissists around here.....oh wait, can't mention his name, cause it's a "personal attack". Waaaah. Yeah, that was passive aggressive.  :)OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]