Misplaced Pages

User talk:Orangemarlin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:26, 1 January 2008 editTheresa knott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,922 edits →Please justify revert← Previous edit Revision as of 22:29, 1 January 2008 edit undoJim62sch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Contacting people's employers in real life: replyNext edit →
Line 221: Line 221:


Never forget that there are thousands of U.S. and NATO soldiers putting their lives on the line and living lives of forced celibacy over this New Years' holiday protecting your right to shag sales reps in luxury hotels. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Never forget that there are thousands of U.S. and NATO soldiers putting their lives on the line and living lives of forced celibacy over this New Years' holiday protecting your right to shag sales reps in luxury hotels. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:huh? relevance? Being in the military is not a free pass.
:In any case, I can clearly see that any attempt to explain or clarify is only going to be seen as compounding the problem; people have really read this wrong and I'm sorry about that because no threat or harassment was ever intended. It's time to write this one off to experience. ] 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


== Please justify revert == == Please justify revert ==

Revision as of 22:29, 1 January 2008

* Click here to leave me a new message
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Archives


Scary articles

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

tools for checking refs?

Hi, I think i saw some back 'n forth between you 'n Sandy 'n Colin about tools for checking references... I would be very interested in learning anything you've learned (both now & in the future). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here. There are two great tools for checking references. The first, older one, is user:Gimmetrow's Reference Fixer, located here. The talk page has instructions on how to install and use it. It is a wonderful tool for fixing the punctuation so that it precedes the footnote. It also moves citation needed and other such tags to the end of a sentence, all automated. The second, brand-new tool is Dispenser's Linkchecker, which is causing quite a stir on FAC. It uses spider software to search for dead links and references in FACs. It can also be used manually to check individual articles. The link to the spider version for FAC is here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We didn't know you had a sense of humor?????  :) OrangeMarlin 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

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


Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us

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

Cool, I will do it. Great book!!!! OrangeMarlin 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

creationism edit

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

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

He may have a point. Faith in invisible pink unicorns will not produce creationism. It requires faith in a creation story, and the creation stories in question are ubiquitously contained in scriptures: notably the Old Testament, the Koran and the Vedas. HrafnStalk 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, since I know you're one of the good guys, I'll agree. But as I look at it, to believe in the scriptures requires some sort of faith. The scriptures themselves don't create faith. I read the scriptures and laugh my ass off regularly. OrangeMarlin 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.

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

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

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

Spare me your life's story. Please go elsewhere. OrangeMarlin 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my intrusion as an outsider, but that did not sound like a very nice thing to say. Remember WP:NPA 172.209.232.81 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OM, don't take the bait... Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The big hook was a giveaway. This fish is moving onto better morsels. LOL. OrangeMarlin 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contacting people's employers in real life

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

There was no threat (and "here" would be the incorrect word as I contacted him via e-mail). I asked a question -- "what is the AF's policy on personal use of government computers?" Also, ask yourself this, "if VO felt so threatened, why did he wait until now to go to arbcom?" The reality is that he saw the Thumperward issue as an opening. VO and I have had content arguments since he went on a deletion rampage a while back, that is all. Oh, yes, this diff might interest you .
Please make sure that you have all of the info before you chastise one editor and impugn another. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Both you and Orange Marlin have stated that you simply have to tell his employer, and you've stated it here on the Wiki. Dou I need to remind you of the diffs? Or can I simply ask you to please just stop it? Orange Marlin I replied on my talk page but the above was intended as a warning not a personal attack. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand, so let me walk you through. 1. I was never involved with VO. I don't think I've interacted with him in the past, but after 11,000 or so edits, I might have, I just don't know. 2. I never sent him an off-wiki email, never knew about it until yesterday. He mentioned that he was threatened, then stated that the email discussed his military situation. 3. As an inactive reserve officer of the United States Navy, I am obligated by several articles of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to inform his superior officers of his activities. If he has explicit permission to do what he has done here (and I doubt he has, but the United States Air Force is run by a bunch of technocrats, so who knows), then everything should be fine. 4. VO has violated many articles of the UCMJ. I doubt we tolerate illegal activity here (shall I provide the diffs about pedophiles), and IF (and I'm no lawyer or a JAG officer, so this may be minor) he is using Air Force computers for posting here without permission, then he could be reprimanded or even court-martialed. 5. I believe that Jim is an employee of the United States Government, and as such, also has an ethical, moral and legal obligation to prevent abuse of United States property. 6. I've got to ask why VO doesn't have a home computer (cost is not an excuse), and if he's using AF computers and internet service, why isn't he performing the duties of an Air Force NCO?
So, I'm in an ethical quandary here. I have not made contact with VO's officers, since I have no idea where he's located. But if there is an investigation, and he has done something wrong, and some investigator reads my posting, figures out who I am, I could be in trouble. On the other hand, I explicitly and absolutely agree with Misplaced Pages's privacy policy. I would not want to be "outed" here in whatever way. Someone posted my home address on here, and I had it immediately removed. So, I actually understand the feelings against me on this, but some of you (I know many of you are looking for a way to "get" me, right B?) ought to know that I am in a legal bind here. Lucky for me and everyone involved, I don't know VO's posting, his name, or his commander. But if it comes up, then I'm doing something about it, because it is my legal obligation.
Lastly, after reading Jim's email that VO posted (why no arguments that he posted a private email), I hardly think that's harassment. I think VO probably knew he was doing something wrong, and now is angry about it. I don't care one way or another. But I think VO put himself into this position, regardless of Jim's apparent or not-so-apparent threat.
So Theresa knott, the reason I consider your posting here a personal attack is that you lacked all of the facts, and failed to understand or appreciate my position with respect to the United States Military, my obligation to the United States, or my legal constraints in this matter. I am personally offended by many of you who are US citizens who get on your high-horse about this issue without adequately researching it. I am furthermore offended that VO, who has violated his own obligations to the United States Air Force and to the United States, is using this as a get-Jim issue rather than owning up to the fact that UCMJ specifically prohibits use of USAF computers for private blogging and such.OrangeMarlin 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
OMG you are doing it again. Stop it! It was exactly that post on Mast cell's talk page that lead me to the above warning. Do you understand that you are not allowed to do this. Just stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Theresa, you are wrong. Legal obligations take precedence over Misplaced Pages rules. Privacy rules fail when legal issues occur. Show me once where Misplaced Pages stood up to a subpoena for IP records of someone on here committing a felony. I actually don't have to do anything. Someone will read this, rat out VO, the USAF will subpoena, and the subpoena will stand, Misplaced Pages will surrender all IP records, probably including mine, and he and I will be pretty much screwed in this matter. You're being naive about this situation. OrangeMarlin 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No you are wrong please read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats As a british citizen your legal duty is of no concern to me, however your on wiki harrasment is. Stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
British? Are you kidding? Read his user page: the man is an American. And even if he were British, his legal obligations are still quite relevant. Nice jon insulting the Brits. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No I'm brityish so I don't care about you supposed "duty" but I'm also a Wikipedian so I do care about attempts at intimidation. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(ri)The point being that a legal obligation, a duty, outweighs the purported desires and needs of Misplaced Pages. That's why we have the WP:BLP policy, that's why we're so careful about copyrights. Misplaced Pages does not exist in a void, above the law and isolated from reality. You need to get a firm grip on this concept in order to understand the issues. Misplaced Pages, no matter how much many of the editors wish to pretend it isn't, is subject to the laws of the United States, and if so designated by regulations, the laws of any country from which it can be accessed. That is why Wikimedia must file a Form 990. This is why the French, for example, are free to block WP pages on Naziism. I'm sure that if you check with the Foundation's lawyer you'll find that I am correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(ri)Theresa, it is you who needs to stop. OM is correct in everything he has written, and has every right to write it. Remember that VO created this mess, not OM or I. As OM notes, as a federal employee I am required by law to report waste, fraud and abuse, as is he in his role as a reserve officer. However, rather than do so in VO's case, I asked him what the policies were. Had he responded and noted that he was in full compliance with AF policies, I'd have apologised for assuming otherwise (I could explain the assumption, but comprehension would require an analytical bent).
Additionally, your statement that OM and I "simply have to tell his employer" is a misrepresentation of fact crafted (no doubt) for maximun effect, yet as transparent as a diaphonous wing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


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


I'm seeing an attempt at intimidation. I repeatedly asked these two to stop, they refuse so I removed the offending material. I was reverted. I have no intention of edit warring though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be too much of a readiness to jump to an uniformed opinion, reading implicit threats in a complex situation. Please assume good faith. .. dave souza, talk 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


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

If that's true then that is exactly we we cannot have people threatening to contact an editor's employer here. People need to know that as far as we are concerned they are safe here. We will not harrass them by informing on them. Now if people feel that they simply must inform on them there is nothing that can be done to prevent that, but they cannot threaten to do so here. It's just like any other type of legal threat. If you want to pursue the matter legally you can do so but you cannot remain an editor on wikipedia. If you want to rat an out someone to thier employer you may but you cannot edit wikipedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. TK, I'm going to try to walk you through this carefully, because I think it is a disservice to all of us if you misunderstand me and I you. First, I made no threats to VO publicly, because there was nothing to threaten, until he attacked Jim62sch by publicly reproducing an email from Jim. In fact, to Jim's credit, he was making a legal inquiry to VO PRIVATELY, which is specifically requested in WP:NLT. Up until that point, everything is fine, and really all VO had to do was answer that he had permission, then nothing more would have happened, and we wouldn't be arguing here.
  2. Once VO made the email public, then I took on another obligation. And yes you are a citizen of the UK, but I am not.
  3. I have made no threats to VO, because I have no method to threaten him. I have no clue who he is, I have no clue where he is, and except for his comment that he is in the Air Force, I don't have any definitive proof that he is in the military.
  4. Once he made mention of his military posting, then I am obligated by law to discuss his situation with his superior officer. I have not done so, because I don't know who he is. But I made mention of this fact not to threaten him, but to defend what Jim had done, which is to private email VO with his concerns.
  5. Although you deleted it, I cut and pasted to User:MastCell's page UCMJ regulations with regards to computer use.
  6. I do not intend to rat out VO, as long as everyone, including himself, keeps his personal information private. I have consciously not gone back to the AN/I involving VO and Jim, so that I do not know what is going on. In fact, I am putting myself at risk but keeping myself out of the fray. I am such a privacy freak, that this is disgusting me in so many ways, it's unbelievable. VO should not have posted that email, because once he did, all bets were off. He should have kept that information to himself, because we could move on.
  7. You're attacking me (and I accept it, because I understand your passion on this matter). But you do not know how many documents I signed making me legally obligated to do things.
  8. Lastly, and most importantly, this isn't about me. It isn't about VO's own issues with the USAF. It is about VO's attack on Jim that doesn't make sense.

Happy New year all OrangeMarlin 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Obtuseness will get you nowhere. It's pefecty possible to threaten by asking a simple question as you put it. And yes I am. saying that id you threaten to inform an employer about wikipedia editing then you are not welcome to edit Misplaced Pages. That is not saying that members of the military are not welcome to edit, only those that threaten others. It's very simple. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "Obtuseness will get you nowhere". I'm sorry Theresa, but it is you who are being obtuse. It is obvious that you have already decided in this matter, and yet you do so without knowledge. So be it; you are entitled to your opinion, whether informed or not. And yes, I know that you have some insider info on this, and you may be playing the role of "hit man" (we all have our sources), but again, so be it. That you see a threat where none exists is more indicative of your biases and personality than it is to mine. And yes, legal obligations outweigh wikipedia obligations (as OM noted). Sad that this is so hard to understand.
Oh, while we're here, I assume you've looked into VO's conduct, yes? No, this is not misdirection, but, rather a point related to UCMJ. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No I did not look into VO's conduct. If you have a complaint about that feel free to bring it up, and yes the only info I have is the email that was posted on the AN/I and jour later attempts to justify it. Do I need any more? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

And I did not see anyone here make a legal threat. Did you? I did not see anyone contact someone's employer here either. Did you? I did not see anyone threaten to contact someone's employer here even.--Filll (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I see them as threats and intimidation which you could argue violate WP:LEGAL and certainly violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you do. However, WP:LEGAL, WP:CIV and WP:NPA do not apply to off-wiki e-mails (it's a simple concept, but it seems to be incomprehensible in most cases) . I will note however, that e-mails are copyrighted, and in the case of the e-mail I sent to VO, I clearly specified a copyright. I'm sure you understand. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about the emails at all - I'm referring to the comments on WP:ANI. violet/riga (t) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Explain. Diffs? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry but you are being told by two users that have been admins here for many years that there is a violation of you policies. You are focussing on the wrong issue here - neither of us are commenting about whether or not VO has violated the computer usage policy, we are simply stating that the comments made on WP:ANI are not appropriate according to our policies. violet/riga (t) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What AN/I comments? Please elaborate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Those that Theresa correctly removed. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So a statement of fact is a legal threat? Odd, very odd. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No it's not up to a court to decide it's up to the wikipedia community. Get this into you head. We don't care about the the defense department or the media. They don't decide wikipedia policies the community does. Our No legal threats policy was formulated so that people can edit Misplaced Pages safely without harrasment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out that those seeing implicit threats are clearly jumping to conclusions which are not set out in the words used, and are ignoring the legal obligations others have been placed under by their positions. Such posts violate WP:AGF and so breach WP:CIVIL, and border on being personal attacks... .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the way to solve that is simply to delete the things we are taking as tyhreats above and that would be the end of the matter. I did try to do that but Jim62sh reverted me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're an admin. If you truly believe in what you're saying, then you can permanently delete what's written, can you not? However, I don't think there is a lot of consensus here. OrangeMarlin

Contributions 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it once already, and no I can't permenantly deleted it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So what Theresa seems to be saying is that any attempt at an explanation is liable to be deleted on the assumption that it contains an implicit threat. I'd hope that's not the case, and that everyone can step back and consider the statements openly without prejudging them. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh no I'm not going to delete anything now! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope you'll read it over carefully with the understanding that Misplaced Pages policy can not require editors to break the law. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this is lame. The email Jim sent was a long time ago, wasn't it? Why has it only just surfaced now? Understand, I am 100% hot on no harassment being tolerated, but it looks to me as if the original email was just a rather testy statement of employment policy from another person with comparable contractual terms, sure it was open to misinterpretation, but if it was that big of a deal why has it waited until now? I'm baffled. If VO has not violated his terms of employment, then he has nothing to worry about, and if he has, surely it's better to get a wake-up call from a fellow Wikipedian than a visit from the snowdrops? I mean, I have a mate who was in the US Army MP, nobody wants those guys on their backs. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why such an email is so creepy., and the comments on the ANI so intimidating. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

huh? relevance? Being in the military is not a free pass.
In any case, I can clearly see that any attempt to explain or clarify is only going to be seen as compounding the problem; people have really read this wrong and I'm sorry about that because no threat or harassment was ever intended. It's time to write this one off to experience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please justify revert

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

Whig, you've reordered the paragraph for no other reason than strict reorder, without synth, and OM evidently feels that the previous order was more NPOV. Please explain your reasons for the change on the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hell, it would be more fun discussing an article, even if it's with Whig, than it is to discuss the crap about legal issues. Sheesh. But Whig, Dave is right. The order you chose was POV. OrangeMarlin 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take it back to the talk page, I have no interest in your legal issues. —Whig (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
OM please read the comment above again. I realise my thread above is stressing you out but Whig has not made a personal attack here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm hardly stressed out--I don't actually think Misplaced Pages is a real place. Please do not make those type of medical analyses over the internet, it is inappropriate. As for Whig, "your legal issues" is most certainly a personal attack. He's on the short leash for his activities on this place (as documented on his user talk, you just have to dig it up, because he keeps deleting it), and so I have the absolute right to tell him to back off. OrangeMarlin 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What? You are the one who mentioned legal issues. Read the thread. You have no right whatsoever, Read the thread again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You really have an unusual way of interpreting things. He said I had legal issues. I don't. NO government in the world is after me for any legal problem. I don't even have a speeding ticket. Therefore, Whig has made a unjustified personal attack. Case closed. OrangeMarlin 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly mate you are ready way too much into his comment. I know you are mad at me at the moment and probably don't want to hear what I am saying because it is me that is saying it, but tomorrow, when our spat is over I hope you'll reread his comment and see that he meant no harm. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

But being on probation does not give you cart blanche to accuse him of a personal attack where it is clear none was intended. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, if you're going to stand on technical grounds, you need to be absolutely fair. He said I had a "legal issue." I don't. That's an attack. OrangeMarlin 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. Wow, I've never dealt with you before so I came here with an open mind, but you astound me, you really do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Just one thing to note on this question: while military members have a responsibility to obey their officers, they don't have a responsibility to edit Misplaced Pages. If relations with other people affect your editing, that's a conflict of interest — if obedience and editing can't exist together in harmony for a certain period of time or on a certain question, please refrain from editing during that time or on that question. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Please just take it to the media already, give them a laugh. Bold and all caps - classy Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Er, guys? I have a nagging suspicion that this is just making matters worse. I believe the attitude is this: if someone wants to break their employment contract, it is indeed their own funeral, but we should not be there actively offering to serve as undertakers. If anyone is that concerned, email ArbCom and ask for advice on how to handle the situation. I bet you the price of Jimbo's fancy flashlight that they will not recommend the approach taken in this case :o) Guy (Help!) 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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