User talk:Baegis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please tell me how my edit would be considered vandalism. I am not sure why it would be considered that. Thanks! --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions[edit]

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ohio State Buckeyes football[edit]

Re your message: I think so. =) It took me a bit longer to tag the sockpuppet because I went off to WP:AN to read up on the issue before I added the tag. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Taken care of. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ID articles[edit]

Would you mind explaining how my edits to those two articles violated NPOV. I clearly explained my reasons in the edit summaries. Please go into a little detail about the reverts. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed those two articles to better fit the sources. If you want it to say something else, find sources and put them in. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and Ars Alb[edit]

Baegis, Dana's revision, which you reversed, directly contradicts the sense intended. In his version, he makes it appear that the "high quality studies" differed from the overall body of studies and that for these "high quality studies" "Most of the studies were neither randomized nor blinded" would be an untrue statement. But, my version is factually correct and the implication of his version is just incorrect. It is an "obvious deduction" that my version is true. There were 105 studies. 1.3% were randomized and 7.8% were blinded (Table 3b). There is a problem with Linde in that they vary erratically between describing "studies" "experiments" and "tests", but the most generous calculation is that there were 242 experiments of which 26 were meta-analysed. So, at most 3 experiments that were in the meta-analysis were randomised and 23 were not. That counts as "most" in my book. The blinded experiments might amount to 19 in total and could have been part of the 26, but blinding and randomisation should go as a pair so the maximum number that were both blinded and randomised is also 3. However, the real picture is probably rather worse. The reason for restricting the meta-analysis to only 26 experiments included reasons other than this thing called a "Quality Evaluation>50%". It is this QE>50% (28 studies in total) that Dana keeps equating with "high quality". On that basis, the denominator for our percentages is 105 (studies) not 242 (experiments), so of the studies only 1 or 2 can be randomised and 7 or 8 blinded. Therefore of the 28 the he calls "high quality" at least 24 were not randomised and at least 18 were not blinded. My original wording is consistent with all of this and has the benefit of being verifiable and true.

Just thought you might like to have the background. I have a .pdf of both Cazin and Linde if you are interested. OffTheFence (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick brief on the differences. I'm sorry that you have to continue to rehash all of the information. After all of your work explaining the whole issue on the actual talk page (and the RS noticeboard), I had hoped this issue had been resolved. I guess it had not. Please feel free to come back over to help out when you can. Baegis (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Baegis and OTF, I previously asked for verification, and I consider OTF's above statement to do that. I will not edit war on this issue anymore. I simply asked for verification and finally got it (I am a reasonable man, at least, I think I am). Thanx OTF. By the way, Baegis, because I cannot participate on Talk pages, I can answer your question here about the page # for the Copeland book...and its reference to FDR: page 166. I plan to make an effort to collaborate more once my 7-day prison term is over. DanaUllmanTalk 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I cannot comment on the talk pages at Royal Copeland, but I'm glad that we came to a good compromise. Please note that other editors WERE editing out the reference to the book on Copeland (for instance, see: [1]. I personally like the final result because two references make this point stronger...and they are good references. DanaUllmanTalk 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As the "other editor" (please name people Dana if you're going to link to places where they are easily identifiable,) I feel I should set the record here straight. I did not remove the reference Dana was edit-warring over, if you look here, and scroll down to the reference list, it is clearly still there. I removed what I felt was an unneeded duplicate reference for a statement that was already supported, with a reference that is already used in the article. I still think it is unnecessary but I don't think edit warring is a good thing, and I'm really not that bothered by its presence. I am glad that you are taking this opportunity to work more with people, Dana, and to improve your behaviour, but please don't misrepresent other editors views or actions as you have done here. >>Partyoffive (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)<<


Hi Baegis, B changed the block to indefinite based upon the fact that the username itself violates policy. Thanks for the congrats! Aleta Sing 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply[edit]

Hello Baegis, see [2]. Thanks! Happy Easter. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, please see my talk page for my reply to your statement about my addition of a category to an article. I would appreciate a reply. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Hadn't seen it before - if I still had a user page I'd be tempted to include it. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I lifted it from MastCell's user page. It changes periodically as MastCell tweaks it. I think it is downright hilarious. =) Baegis (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

treading lightly[edit]

Well, what I can say, I guess that treading lightly is not my speciality :D thanks for the advice anyways, I'll try to be extra-careful. However, Jehochman was right in that at least of my comments was off base and not based on actual diffs, and I took it out; so his warning was not just due to Dana complaining but based on real misbehaviour from me. Dunno about what happens to people that disagrees with Dana, but, whatever it is, I think I'm going to learn it soon :P . Mind you, Dana was right on some stuff, like in that there is someone using socks to stalk him, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown, I'm sorry that he thinks that I am one of them. If he didn't, then maybe he would pay more attention to some of my advice :( --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

Thanks for helping out, but it appears another KKK-apologist has shown up. I'd rather stick with science, but there seems to be only 2-3 editors who have some historical knowledge of the true nature of the KKK editing the article. We have to help the good editors, which removing whitewashing (and what an apt term) of the racists. I need to get some sleep--can you watch over it? Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole mess is surreal. It seems they keep popping out of the woodwork. I really wonder what is going to happen when Gordon comes back, now that he has an ally. It is simply detestable that they make these edits under the guise of "accuracy" when anyone with a history book knows this is wrong. I'm having a hard time understanding which group of editors is more grating (fringies or racism apologists). But I will try to help out the best I can. Baegis (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You do realize the whole lot of them are full of crap. Denialism of science, of history, of logic end up giving us the same list of crap. Homeopathic potions that are essentially water curing cancer. Creationists who think the world is 7000 years old. Racists who rely upon their version of science to support their offensive attitudes. It's all based on anti-intellectuallism, anti-science, and anti-logic. I never understood the ties between these groups until I started editing here. They're all obnoxious. We draw a line in the sand, and we don't let their denialism and anti-science cross it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I just read your deleted section. Even the admins are defending racists only as long as they are civil. Racists ought to be outed from this project and permanently indefed. That admin Hersfold, ought to be desysopped and thrown out of the project for defending a fucking racist. Give me a break. I thought Creationists and Homeopathic potion mixers were bad, but racists are a group all to themselves.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry for intruding)Wikipedia needs to document also the racist POV, so these guys are also needed to the project, if only because they know the racist sources better --Enric Naval (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<RI>Well, I can't take it anymore. See this. GSTS needs to go. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Commented. I love how someone actually questioned if saying "Jew Comedian" was really offensive. Coming from an avowed Klan apologist (and probable member), it is a phrase that is drenched in hate. Baegis (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton[edit]

I watch this article, mostly for vandalism. I noticed today that our racist KKK-apologizing friend, GordonUS, is now editing it. So far not much, but I know how POV-racists like GordonUS work. First they put in little edits. Then comes the bad stuff. Please watch the article too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I like how "copy edit" now means to fundamentally change the entire meaning of a sentence or paragraph. Good solid logic there. Watchlisted. Baegis (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the concern expressed in your note, though I'm afraid I don't understand the last two sentences. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will rephrase it on your talk page. Baegis (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied. Frankly, I find your expressed concern that I am being a "bad wikipedian" by "steering people away" vastly amusing. Please don't hesitate to criticise me further if occasion arises. Have a nice day! --Relata refero (disp.) 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Lovely sentiment. Baegis (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


That last edit to Talk:Water memory might be a bit heavy on the sarcasm - have you considered just ignoring any editors who mock and willfully ignore good scientific process ([3][4][5])? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But remember AGF. We are all here to edit in good faith. There is no way we would ever try to push a veiled campaign to right the great wrongs done to our chosen profession. Surely that would be a blockable offense! Baegis (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

This movie is coming out soon, and the Creationists are out in force whitewashing the article. I'm at 3RR, and you need to read the edits. Maybe I'm a not reading it right, but I'm seeing a lot of BS. Your help is requested. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Just to let you know that you're being discussed there, but I wouldn't worry much - your accuser's grasp of policy is.. um... unique. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah, yeah. I saw that a little bit ago but didn't want to dignify that with a response. I like how that user managed to make that one of his first coupla edits after coming off of a 1 month topic ban. Oh yes, back when the admins who watched the page actually made an effort and didn't try to protect Dana. Baegis (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Club Meeting[edit]

Thanks. I believe I'm scheduled for a session of sacrificing Christian virgins to the Great Altar of Atheism that evening. And I think it's Passover this weekend, so I have further Jewish things to do. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah, classic! I'll toast to that! Baegis (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Homeopathy/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/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

No prob. I personally do not believe evolution is true, I am a Christian. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for arguing about various issues. Unfortunately, my only experiences on this website with people who apparently would claim to be Christians are less than satisfactory [6], [7]. I can easily understand why so many people who believe evolution think all Christians are fanatics *sigh*. J.delanoygabsadds 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I've ever been vandalized by two different people before someone reverted. Thanks for fixing my page. J.delanoygabsadds 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic[edit]

EMILY's List? You could not have provided more irony if you were George W Bush convincing me that WMD's actually caused global warming. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone caught on. I really hope he does donate that money. I might even speak up on his behalf the next time he gets blocked. Well, probably not. But still... Baegis (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to admit something that might get me thrown out of the Democratic Party. I am a fan of The West Wing, and there was an episode where Toby makes a rather critical comment about EMILY's list, saying it had a dumb name. Well, I thought it was just part of the West Wing universe. Until you just posted it. LOL. OK, I promise to make a donation to it as my mitzvah for the week. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it is a horrible name and a horrible acronym yet, it's a worthy cause. The West Wing was a show I was always urged to watch but never really had a chance. I'm afraid if I start watching it now I will just be sad when I see the last episode and know there are no more. Baegis (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Really, you only need to watch the first 4 seasons, which were all produced by Aaron Sorkin, one of the best writers on TV (and who wrote A Few Good Men, which I liberally quote to annoy the civility over POV, racism, and other crap admins). Some of the intellectual rants are my favorites. The last three seasons suck, although there were good episodes here and there.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<RI> Damn. Another classic here. I nearly wet myself. Dr. Cox is my role model in civility. But that line is a classic. We need to put that in every article where the nutjobs are doing their POV-pushing. You know, I've ruined two laptops because of you, spitting up my diet Pepsi all over the screen. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just write off those laptops as a business expense for next year. I sometimes wonder how Dr. Cox would function as an editor here. He would probably have blown a vessel sometime ago. I think his anger would be worse than every other pro-science editors, combined. But that quote should be taken into account on a great number of these articles. To think, we might actually build an encyclopedia that rivals Britannica. I could say with some certainty they (Britannica) would never allow these kinds of problems. Baegis (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

False accusation[edit]

Speaking of something being "not a flattering trait" - that charge that I am following Dana around [8] is not only wrong - but very unconstructive. I currently have 227 articles on my watchlist. When there is a change on any one of those, I take note of it. I await your apology. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling them like I see them, applying WP:DUCK, and being honest. All terrible traits. Baegis (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No need[edit]

Baegis, I don't even know SA, but have been told (and seen in his block log) the shall we say, controversial nature of his stay. Other than that, I'm not even considering briging him to ANI, there's nothing that results that type of attention. I should have separated my comment better; i.e. 1) a quick blurb re: SA, 2) A different perspective of looking at CAM articles and 3) my proposed solution. I really would appreciate your thoughts on issue 2; I believe it to be the crux of a lot of repetitive, problematic issues that should be tackled ASAP, which could be used a 'demo' project on some of the new proposals. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have some thoughts and ideas on the CAM issue, but I really don't know if they will apply to you since you are much more into the Chiro issue and I am more into homeopathy. It all comes back to a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. I have thoughts on the Chiro issue but I will keep them to myself because there is no way I am going to involve myself into that issue. It's just too much and takes the fun (remember that, the reason we want to edit?) out of editing. Homeopathy is enough for now. Baegis (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely understandable, and I want to have fun editing too. I just want to make sure that either some kind of weird precedent isn't set with Homeopathy that will sink Chiropractic with it. Hopefully chiro gets the same attention as homeopathy something that is waaaay more fringe based on regulation and the literature base. Once I'm free of that issue things for many, many editors will get much better (on both sides of the CAM fence). My expertise in CAM is somewhat limited, I practice medical acupuncture and know a bit about naturopathic medicine, but understand the principles behind CAM and the salient developments in the "movement". I also work in an integrative medicine setting and have knowledge of that. That's one article which could really bridge the gap when you think about it. Sorry, too many tangents, going to bed now for sure! Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
<EC>It's all the same. Homeopathy. Creationism. Chiropractic. Intelligent design. Alien abductions. The Loch Ness monster. Of course, I try to relax by editing ice hockey articles, and I get a Slovenian nationalist polluting my page with, well, I actually don't know what it is. SA getting into it with AN/I, etc. is like a day with sunshine. BTW, weren't you once accused of being an sock of SA? Of course, I think I was too. I guess anyone who stands up to these anti-science POV-pushing editors gets accused of everything short of cannibalism.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
EBCDM or whatever his name is, thinks he's like us. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually was accused of being a sock of SA. Of course, it was by Davkal. So, you know, he's special so it doesn't count. Baegis (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Some Creationist/Homeopath/Chiropractic/Area 51 nutjob once actually filed a RfCU claiming I was a sock of someone or another. The other editor was from Australia or something, so we were editing at opposite times, so his claim was that we used different accounts at different times to confuse everyone. He got blocked for being a sockpuppet himself. Actually, I miss kdbuffalo sockpuppets. He would create socks, then edit Buffalo, NY articles, before jumping into Intelligent design. We would make bets to see who could identify him the fastest when he showed up. I miss those days. Anyways, aren't you and SA sort of the opposite gender? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Kdbuffalo. He had everyone going with TableManners for quite a while. I was shocked when it turned out he was a sock. Totally caught me off guard. Actually, I think SA and I are of the same gender. I've heard Davkal refer to SA as a she before, but I always that that was vindictive. But from what I have gathered on SA, I can safely say we are both male. I hope you weren't implying I was a girl, OM. Just because my hockey team plays like a bunch of girls does not mean that I am one. =) We will reach the playoffs before Nash is shipped off! Baegis (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had this vague thought that SA was of the female gender, probably from Davkal, though I barely remember that. So much Wiki-drama, and not enough brain cells still alive to remember it all. Hey, I'm a Los Angeles Kings fan--hence my editing of the Anze Kopitar article, which lead to Slovenian nationalists going wacko on my user page. Good to know that there are other individuals who have interests outside of Creationism/Homeopathy/Chiropractic/Crop circle anti-science POV-pushing.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
At least you guys have tasted glory, albeit briefly. And you had a certified HoFer in their prime not on the tail end of their careers (if Federov or Foote are HoF material) or idling in neutral (Nash). Baegis (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't know of his account name so I cannot attest to any posts he made. But being a member of a forum that attacks WP editors? That is surely a sin. Debating of ideas reaches a point when Ian clearly was not capable of building an encyclopedia and only wanted to further his fringe theories. I think it would be insulting to the myriad of editors who had to put up with him previously to let him back on when he has already abused good faith to the point it no longer exists. Baegis (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I can't find evidence that he has "already abused good faith to the point it no longer exists", and if this request is just a front to cause chaos at Wikipedia, then the conditions (1RR and probation) and reinstatement of the indefinite block will close it down. I'm all for giving people a second chance, especially when they got listed at editors for deletion and banned after five hours. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if you would do a little research into the reasons why he got blocked so quickly. Perhaps look at his previous misdeeds. There is a good reason why he was given the boot and he has had 2 ArbCom refusals to hear the case. He has already had 5 chances. Why give him a 6th? He's clearly not here to help. Some people just can't contribute here and his 5 blocks in 1 year makes that abundantly clear. Baegis (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen diffs of complaints against him, but I don't think I saw a single diff showing any misbehaviour by him leading to any of those blocks. Coppertwig (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the sum total of all the disruption he caused. It still boggles my mind why a rational individual would unblock this person. Baegis (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Potassium dichromate archived?[edit]

What is the hurry? I do not see any obvious reason to archive this dialogue now, especially when there is much older and more "stale" dialogue. I understand your concern here. However, there was some interesting dialogue happening just today. Because we are both appealing to the Arb Committee right now, it is in both of our interests to make this dialogue as accessible as possible and to keep it in the time-order as it is. I hope that you will honor these wishes. DanaUllmanTalk 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Sure will. Anthon01 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Please remain polite and avoid insulting other editors. Comments like this are not at all acceptable and I'm sure you aware of that. You have been informed about the homeopathy probation. You were previously blocked for incivility.[9] Further incidents may result in a topic ban and/or block. Please reconsider your approach. If you're feeling heated, wander away to edit some completely unrelated topic area for a while, or (if necessary) just wander away from the wiki for a while. Do not let your frustration get the better of you. Vassyana (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While I 110% do not agree with the reasons for this warning, I am very happy that an uninvolved admin stepped in and made a great call on that topic. Thank you for immensely helping that talk page and for making a tough call with the topic ban. Cheers to Vassyana! Baegis (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AE thread[edit]

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are in breach of Wikipedia policy[edit]

Change in order to conform to WIKIPEDIA'S NEUTRALITY POLICY

AIDS denialism is a loosely connected group of individuals who dispute the scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).


AIDS denialism is a term that is considered by those calling for a reappraisal of the currently accepted hypothesis of the cause of the 'disease' as derogatory in nature (as it implies that they are denying that which exists instead of opposing what they see as a medical blunder).


I have changed the above which uses a derogatory term to describe a point of view (AIDS dissidents). This is not balanced and impartial coverage of a topic and is in clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. (See below). Even the word 'denialism' is a concoction. I have been unable to find one single dissident AIDS site that refers to itself as 'denialist'. The term thus does NOT reflect a neutral viewpoint. _______

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Aimulti (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC) [edit]EM picture

Electron micrograph of the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.

CHANGED TO Electron micrograph purporting to depict (topographically) the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.

____ An EM is not a photograph and simply reflects the particular topography of a specimin. It cannot be said to prove or disprove if the structure detected is benign or infectious or unique for that matter. Aimulti (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What is going on today????[edit]

Please watch AIDS denialism. With MZMcBride's willingness to block me so easily, I think I better stay away from 3RR. I'm now even paranoid about using the Twinkle tool, which I've used on about 10,000 edits with nary a complaint, except from Corticospinal. I'm really tired of this place. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the previous post? LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Man, that guy is something else. I wouldn't sweat what happened today too much. As per usual, the same anti-OM people chimed in and got their weekly dose. You do appear to have quite a few admirers who never stop at a chance to poke you. Between you and SA, you must have a good dozen or so editors that devote themselves to your editing. But, c'mon. Do you remember the last week that there wasn't some big giant flare-up. I don't. And remember when we all banded together to ruin the entire project? That was a cool meeting in our secret lair of evil Darwinism. Baegis (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
SA has the lead in admirers. But I'm trying. I didn't even bother with the ANI, it's the same-old, same-old. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You should weigh in on the AD talk page. Look at the compromise part. Awesome. 2 RFC's as well. It's too late for me to form any sort of a complete thought or wrap my head around those comments. Baegis (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother. Several admins watch the article (including the one that created it on Friday). Let them deal with this guy. He's not making much sense to me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your description of MZMcBride as a troll is unsupported by any evidence as far as I can tell. Please avoid personal comments like that about other editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Carl, can you not read? He's referring to the thread above this one: You are in breach of Wikipedia policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did misread this, and a related comment [10]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, was that comment really that confusing? That it confused two editors? I mean, I don't think this here pond is that well stocked. Baegis (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed this conversation. Wow is right. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up on Robert J. Marks II[edit]

Talk:Robert J. Marks II#Major restructure of Baylor Engineering/Computer Science website makes some sense of, but in no way justifies, ThomHImself's recent edit-war on Robert J. Marks II. He was edit-warring over a bunch of easily replacable broken links. HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Creation Science[edit]

My edit 210894075 was based on reported measurements, and not just to weaken the paragraph. Dan Watts (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The paper "Observation of Bound-State β- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re-187Os Cosmochemistry" Physical Review Letters Vol 77 #26 23 Dec 1996 pp5190 - 5193 describes MEASURED half-life decrease by more than 9 orders of magnitude. Dan Watts (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, this old canard again? yawn.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
At least some things never change, ya know? Oh, nostalgia. Baegis (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Something new for your editing pleasure.[edit]

Health freedom movement. Enjoy reading. Drink a few gallons of cheap beer first. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like Pens vs Red Wings. That will be fun to watch. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Good God. That article is atrocious. Might be worth a serious clean up though. Looks like it was beaten about by zamboni driven by a washed up hockey player. Zing! Hah! Baegis (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to clean it up, but I was like the only science editor on there. There's some vitamin pusher that's owning the article. I think maybe it should be deleted. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account[edit]

Hi. Can you confirm that Baegisthesock (talk · contribs) is you? I wanted to make sure that this is really your alternate account and not someone else impersonating/harassing you. Thanks. --B (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't confirm it right now, but will confirm when I have access to my main computer. Should be later today. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is my account that I will begin to use for public computer edits. Thanks for checking. Baegis (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing all the fun[edit]

I haven't seen you joining in the various activities this week. Let's see, we have a couple of RfAR's, a desysopping of one cranky admin, an outing of an overt racist admin, and various other crap. What's particularly hysterical is that it arose simply because I reverted a pro-Intelligent design edit at Rosalind Picard. Amazing amount of power that one edit. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been a bit busy IRL but I have been trying to comment about the whole Moulton unblock on the AN board. This whole recent turn of events are so unbelievable that there are few words that can properly describe. In fact, I had to invent a new word to describe it. Crapfuckintabulous. I still don't understand how everyone can just ignore the problems caused by Moulton, especially considering the fact he has kept up a constant stream of attacks against a large number of editors on WR. And I do have to question all of this harping that I have been hearing against the infamous ID clique and how they (we, I guess) rule all of WP. Everyone seems so antsy to act against the "clique" that I am starting to wonder if the DI has someone on the inside trying to eventually subvert the articles. Its a crappy spy movie, probably starring a B level actor in the making. And, you have a whole new legion of fans. Gotta love ignorance. Baegis (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeo on the range[edit]

I am way late to the party. I left a question that you might miss otherwise--TheNautilus (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup[edit]

The Pens were too young, too nervous, too inexperienced. Last two games were very exciting however. Maybe next year, because my Kings look to be marginally better. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You alive?[edit]

What are we going to do with out you around these parts? Please check out this. Houston, I think we have a problem. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)