Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 27 October 2008

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

Elonka comments

Hi there, I've been mulling over your comments on Elonka's talkpage. I'd think that while you see her comments as supporting disruptive editors, Elonka sees it as trying to persuade and encourage people who do not follow our policies and guidelines into being more productive members of the community. Coaching "difficult" editors is indeed tricky, you need to both encourage their actions that are positive and discourage the negative. Elonka and yourself differ in how much encouragement you think is needed. This probably comes from the length of time you've spent dealing with some of the most acrimonious areas in the project - you'd prefer to simply see the back of these people as quickly as possible. Instead Elonka seems (to me) to be trying to treat all editors absolutely equally and to not give a free pass to either side in debates. This lack of content-driven decisions and absolute focus on the behavioral policies can either be seen as a strength (admins are not supposed to decide on content) or as a weakness that can be exploited by editors intent on violating the content policies. These two opposing points of view on the merits of this approach are the reason why Elonka's actions are surrounded by so much drama at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there's a limit to her approach. Her support of User:Jagz went on a bit too long for my taste, as the most apparent example of failure of an excessive-AGF policy. Yes, you are correct, I'd prefer that these individuals just let the door hit them in the rear end as they are tossed out of the project on their tush. But I just don't think there should be even handed treatment between the two POV's. One side should be shown the door if they can't use NPOV correctly. OrangeMarlin 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A difficult situation, well described by Tim. Keeping polite when dealing with persistent WP:Civil POV pushing is difficult and possibly even counter-productive, but always desirable. Elonka is right to draw it to your attention, and you're to be thanked for continuing to deal with persistent attempts to water down or evade core policies. Guess the struggle will continue. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that "she treats all editors absolutely equally." She often gives lots of leeway to abusive editors (e.g., Jagz) while coming down harder on constructive editors. I'm convinced she intends to work for the good of Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't mean her approach does work for the good of Misplaced Pages. Her methods and logic often leave me totally puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a block of a science editor. Why should I give good faith to an admin that makes no sense? I reported her block here. OrangeMarlin 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

QED. Levine2112 gets friendly advice and pleasant conversation, as does Ludwigs2; NJGW gets a block with no warning. Technically the block is justified, but this is one of those cases where the intent of policy -- avoiding edit wars and creating a constructive environment -- is not served by applying the letter of the law. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think the problem is not just people having different "points of view on the merits of her approach;" it's that she's trying to transport an approach, which for all I know may have been very effective in areas of ethnic strife, into areas where it is not appropriate, not useful, and almost certainly guaranteed to erode the quality of the encyclopedia.

With ethnic strife, there are different points of view that have to be accommodated somehow, and probably reliable sources backing up those different points of view, and the task of editors is to reach a compromise that presents all points of view in a neutral fashion. But in areas where science and fringe theories intersect, to treat the editors who are trying to accurately represent expert opinion as given in reliable sources as just another viewpoint, just another vested interest, just another political group that needs to be forced to compromise in the interest of harmony, is to disregard the fundamental goal of the project: to produce a serious, high-quality reference work. I've been watching fringe-type articles for several months, and wherever I'm familiar with the literature on the topic, it's very easy to tell who is accurately representing reliable third party sources and who is bent on introducing dubious material into the encyclopedia, or keeping criticism of fringe theories out, by citing unreliable sources or by misrepresenting reliable sources. The latter group are the people Elonka invariably champions and encourages, and who rush to her defense whenever questions are raised about her actions. I don't doubt that Elonka means to help the encyclopedia, and that she may actually be "trying to treat all editors positively equally" but people who are following core policies and people who are not, should not be treated equally. Content does matter. Woonpton (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Health care

← See, only in the U.S. would the idea of a national health plan be considered "liberal" or "ultra-liberal". I can't generalize about how physicians feel, but I have noticed a significant generational difference. Older physicians, around retirement age, are much more likely to be opposed to "national" health insurance for a variety of reasons. Medical students and recent graduates tend to be much more sympathetic to the idea. I think an earlier concern was that the government would constrain the autonomy of physicians and their ability to exercise their hard-earned judgement. However, anyone who's ever spent an hour arguing with an 18-year-old insurance company frontperson about medical necessity realizes that this problem is not unique to the public sector.

On some level, it's a matter of economic competitiveness. Our big employers, like GM, are burdened with massive expenditures on health plans for their employees. Businesses actually bear part of the burden - they can either cripple their competitiveness by spending on a good health plan, or go the Wal-Mart route and deny those benefits entirely, socializing the cost of caring for their uninsured employees. Companies in other countries don't have to worry about providing healthcare for their workers, and they're more competitive as a result.

Rationing is an ugly word, but it's time for some reality. We cannot afford to extend the sort of healthcare which the privileged enjoy to every U.S. citizen. It just isn't economically feasible. On some level, tough decisions have to be made. What's being ignored is that we already ration care - we just do it in haphazard, unplanned, non-systematic, and grossly unfair fashion. Look at the use of advanced treatment modalities among various ethnic or socioeconomic groups. These therapies are being rationed. Them's the facts. We need to figure out to ration them more fairly and thoughtfully.

Incidentally, we already have a system of government-sponsored national healthcare in the US, though you have to be a veteran to access it. The VA does some things very well and others very poorly. I think we can learn a lot from that system's successes and failures. MastCell  20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the first clue to the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit the opposition. Next step will be an endorsement of Obama by Rice, then Cheney, and finally by W himself. It'll be the kiss of death.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MC just called me old. Can someone desysop him? OrangeMarlin 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not old, just older. It's a sad commentary on our society's lack of respect for its elders that we consider "old" a de-sysop-worthy insult. :) MastCell  20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When I look at my graying beard and receding hairline I reflect on the fact that I'm getting old, so as punishment for thinking that I de-sysoped myself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You did say "I've been watching elections for some 40 years". Self-outing is no offence.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was a genius...I started watching elections prior to birth. OrangeMarlin 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're also an elitist you McCainaanite. Ha! •Jim62sch• 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, "elitist" (in our current political code) means someone smarter or more talented than you. So say what you will about Orangemarlin, but he is no elitist. :P MastCell  20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Tampa Rays. OrangeMarlin 20:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

←Back on topic regarding health care. I still have a capitalist bent. I want physicians and insurance companies to have high HEDIS and PAS scores. I want to be able to attract employees by offering them better benefits. I want to work for a company with the best benefits. GM isn't going under because of massive health care plans, they're going under because they are poorly run with bad products. Every American deserves the right to basic medical care. Every child should get free vaccinations before entering school. Emergency rooms should accept all traumas, regardless of insured status, and do it for free if the patient cannot afford it. However, I deserve the right to be able to buy the best possible health care for myself. If I want to pay to fly to the Mayo Clinic to try a new cancer therapy on myself or my children, then that's my right. I'm all right with rationing health care, as long as the basics are available to everyone. So, I want a system where the unemployed or the chronically poor have access to medications to treat Type II diabetes. But I want a system that allows me the opportunity to seek out an endocrinologist that has advanced therapies available to treat the same. I'm willing to ration care, just as long as I'm not rationing away my ability to have the best care, because I don't self-medicate. OrangeMarlin 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Australia's medicare system is pretty good in that regard (mixing capitalism and universal healthcare, except that the rebates payable to doctors (from the gov't for services) are not indexed to the CPI and have fallen ~20% in 20 years in real terms (i.e. bracket creep)... :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Back when I went to school, becoming a doctor was a ticket to a Ferrari and the good life. Right now, only Trauma surgeons make really good money. OrangeMarlin 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, situation similar here, it's the proceduralists who can make money, everyone else gets by, unless they get involved in some business aspect or other. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But of course we have the aussie tabloids to keep us honest from todays newspapers here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make money in medicine, it's still remarkably easy. You are basically guaranteed lifetime employment, and your skills are marketable in any number of ways. Incomes may be down somewhat from the mythical "golden age", but I haven't seen anyone going hungry (maybe temporarily Ferrari-less at most). Anyway, you have the best job there is.

Besides, trauma surgery isn't the way to go - you have to work hard, take frequent call, and distressingly often you have to tell families that someone young has died suddenly, violently, and unexpectedly. Plus, the temperature in the trauma OR's is always cranked up to sauna level - what kind of work environment is that? For easy money, the way to go is radiology, anesthesia, dermatology, or ophtho. Right now, people are flocking to those specialities and away from anything that involves patient care, like internal medicine or family practice - 'cause who wants ten times the work and 100x the headaches for 10% the pay? The financial incentives are definitely perverse.

Plus, you have the ultimate fallback plan - you can always become a quack, promote some pseudoscientific nonsense diet or therapy using your credentials, cite the massive Pharma-Industrial Conspiracy to Suppress Natural Cures®, and watch the money roll in. I'm keeping that one in my back pocket, and taking notes here on Misplaced Pages about how it's done. MastCell  03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Money's better shilling for Big Pharm. And I don't know what trauma center you've visited lately, but the one's I've been in have been kept at a blustery 65 or so. And I tell you why, if I was given the opportunity to do it all over again, I'd want to be the Chief of Surgery in a decent Level 1 trauma center--practicing medicine that you just don't get to do very often. How many times do you get to save a life because you think fast on your feet? How many times do you get to try an innovative technique because the M&M geeks aren't going to eat you alive--your patient wasn't going to survive, so you may as well try for the home run? And I wouldn't have to worry about giving flu shots or actually being nice to a patient (don't want to surprise you here, but my beside manner consisted of "would you fucking lose weight and quit the fucking smoking you fat ass lazy sonofabitch"--I'm not a big fan of patients or patience). Oh, so I don't mind the hard work for the $1.5 million annual salary, and a big bonus would be that I wouldn't have any real patients! YESSSSSSSSS. OrangeMarlin 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Awww...I like talking to patients...and you can see some pretty dramatic recoveries in psych...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without a good patient interaction, you probably couldn't effect any therapy. Once again, I'm back to Trauma surgery.  :) OrangeMarlin 06:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think the patient population in trauma surgery is like, but I can tell you that the interactions were not particularly rewarding. Not only that, but the overall mentality is depressing and cynical, rather than uplifting as you suggest. I will never forget one patient I cared for - this gentleman had shot and killed another man in some dispute, and had himself been shot in the head. After an extensive neurosurgical procedure, he was left awake, conscious, but mute, hemiparetic, and ventilator-dependent. As a murder suspect, he was attended at all times by two police officers and handcuffed to the bed. I spoke to one of the officers on rounds one morning - he told me that they were preparing to ship him out to the trache/PEG unit of the local jail, the existence of which is depressing enough in its own right. I asked the officer what would happen to this patient, whom we'd spent an extensive amount of effort and resources attempting to save. He told me that the DA was likely to seek the death penalty.

But yes, I participated in thinking fast and saving other lives on trauma surgery. Aside from the above upstanding citizen, we worked hard and managed to save a man who'd tried to inject heroin and drive at the same time, in the process running down and killing two children. That felt great. I also remember a 14-year-old kid who'd been sitting in a restaurant and asked some local youths to leave his sister alone. He was shot and left paralyzed from the waist down, permanently, at age 14. The shooter was never apprehended. I mean, those cases stick out, but there were plenty more along those lines. I didn't sleep well while I was on that service, even when I wasn't on call. MastCell  17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I get your point. Mostly. OrangeMarlin 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Score one for verbosity. :) MastCell  20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, the stars will align (I know a fringe theory), and you will understand why I was succinct.  :) OrangeMarlin 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a debrief MC, crystallizes well most of us who worry about US gun laws...heavy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you do it. I mean, I really can't see how the hell someone can take stuff like that on a day to day basis, or even less dramatic things like having to treat children knowing they have an incurable illness and there's not a thing you can do about it. I could never be a doctor. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, despite what MC said about the negatives, there's balance to those negatives, or no one would do it. I always assume that the world nets out positive because there are physicians willing to try to save a life. I hope that's not some sort of psychological denial. OrangeMarlin 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I've focused on some of the negatives, but actually it's the best job in the world. While I have other interests, I never seriously considered doing anything else, and I've never regretted it. MastCell  21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. You really wanted to play first base for the Phillies, but you couldn't hit a curve ball out of the infield. OrangeMarlin 21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't hit a curveball, period. And growing up, I wanted to play for the Yankees. It took awhile to come to my senses. MastCell  21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. Yankees? I'd rather be a proctologist. OrangeMarlin 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ud)Yet another doc who wants to do eighteen holes a day?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uggggggghhhh. OrangeMarlin 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bowser and Blue's The Colorectal Surgeon on youtube.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Twinkle

You said on talk:Twinkle, that none of your buttons are showing up. You should download Mozilla FireFox. I think it will work on a Mac and your buttons are sure to show up there. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After much work, I figured it out. I had one small error in my monobook. I kind of rebuilt it from bottom up, and there we go, it worked. I don't mind Firefox, but with Mobile Me, I can sync my Safari bookmarks across 4 different Macs. I just can't do that with Firefox. Safari usually works perfectly for me with Misplaced Pages, but I was trying some new Twinkle scripts, and I messed them up. Damn comma!!!!! Thanks anyways. OrangeMarlin 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic?

? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Got distracted. I'll focus.  :) OrangeMarlin 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Right Half of the Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I hereby award thee, Orangemarlin, the Right Half of the Half Barnstar, for willingness to compromise and for nice messages, by thee and by Martinphi, demonstrating co-opero-bridge-ification of a type likely to assist significantly in constructing this encyclopedia. Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For compromise with Martinphi at Talk:Orgone, and for nice messages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I believe I heard a weather report that it's snowing in hell. LOL. Thanks. OrangeMarlin 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Hi Orange! It's been a while since we've talked, and thank you for the support !vote :) I would actually like to work a bit more on ice hockey, but there are just so many Wikipedians who know more about this than I do, so it seems a bit weird really delving into the field. I have very little info on the Israeli hockey teams, and will perhaps look for some in the coming weeks. However, I do have the 'Total Hockey Encyclopedia' from 1999, which should contain some information missing from Misplaced Pages so far. Not much though, because most Wiki articles on ice hockey are better than what I'd write. Tell me what you have in mind and we can start collaborating. -- Ynhockey 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Just in case you thought the days of midwestern Congresspeople calling for investigations of "un-American" activity were over... . Thankfully, after 8 years or so people have gotten wise, and the call to investigate "liberal, leftist, possibly anti-American" members of Congress led to $1 million in donations... for the other candidate. It's almost like people are finally realizing that a simple willingness to stoop to any level to defame a political opponent is not a sufficient qualification for office... but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

Actually, the fascinating thing I learned from our bio of Michele Bachmann is that she was converted to conservatism by reading Gore Vidal's Burr, because she felt Vidal was "mocking the Founding Fathers". That's a curious comprehension of the book, since Vidal is deeply respectful and impressed by the Foundig Fathers achievement, though admittedly it's a mature and critical respect rather than an unquestioning idolization. MastCell  18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain?

Hi,

Can you explain what I did wrong? You left a message on my talk page. I just did that because someone deleted racist off of a black supremecist group so I decided to do it on a white supremacist group. It should be okay, unless wikipedia has a "whites are racist blacks are not" policy.

Thanks. Ryan1159 (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The KKK is a racist organization by any reliable source. If you want to push a POV agenda, don't even consider bringing it to this page, you will not go far. OrangeMarlin 23:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt about that. It's just that when I put that the New Black Panther Party was racist, I was given a warning. It even says on the new black panther party's page that it was a black supremecist organisation, so that means it is racist. Maybe you can help me out with that, It would make wikipedia look not so biased. Thanks.

Ryan1159 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Without comment as to the correctness of your claim, please see WP:POINT. It is inappropriate on Misplaced Pages to prove your point by making an edit that you know to be contrary to building a good encyclopedia. --B (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (13 12 11 days to go edition)

According to pollster.com we have a slight, very slight, tightening:

• Obama/Biden: 286 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 157 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 95 Electoral Votes

RealClearPolitics has McCain at 160 (giving him Montana, which Pollster.com has as a toss-up). If all of the toss-up states are portioned out to each candidate based on who is leading today, Obama/Biden would win 364 to 174. Obama would win traditional red states such as Nevada, Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, and Indiana. The various national polls of likely voters is staying solidly with Obama, including recent polls showing Obama up by 11 and 13 points. As of right now, an average of nonpartisan polls shows Obama up, 50.1% to 43.1%.

According to pollster.com, the Senate Breakdown (remember, only about 1/3 of seats are up for election every year) should be:

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 38
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 5

Republicans are starting to get into trouble on a number of races. Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Alaska, and Georgia are all toss-ups. And even Texas is getting tighter. No matter what, Republicans need 44 seats in the Senate to filibuster which is the one method that the Republicans can use to defeat legislation.

According to pollster.com, the House of Representatives should fall as follows:

• Democrats: 246
• Republicans: 166
• Undecided: 23

According to this, the Republicans think they're in for a whipping, much worse than what is estimated in these polls. OrangeMarlin 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the above - 41 seats, not 44 are needed to filibuster. 60 seats allow for debate to be stopped. 41 votes can keep it going. As for the House, those races or so wildly unpredictable because of the ability of the relatively small sizes of districts. With only 200K or fewer votes involved, if bad weather keeps 10K people home, that's 5% of the vote right there. My gut says the GOP numbers you gave are way on the high side, but there's a huge margin of error there. What will really be interesting is in two years - just from which seats are up for reelection, the Democrats probably pick up another seat or two (I can't even think off hand of a Democrat that isn't in a safe seat in the Senate next time around). That would mean that the Democrats might get close to filibuster-proof in the Senate for the last two years of Obama's term. --B (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I took that 44 right from the Republican memo (or at least the paraphrasing). I think the 44 got repeated in a lot of news sources. Go figure. Anyways, 41 is probably within striking distance of the Republicans, but it's interesting to see how many races are now in play. Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska and Georgia (all deep Red States) are all toss-ups. If the Democrats take any two plus hold the lead in Minnesota, then it will be only 40 for the Republicans. Depending on Lieberman, who seems to have quieted down with his pro-McCain comments. As for the House, you might be right about the volatility, but I'll bet only 15-20 seats would be affected by that kind of issue, so it would be hard to believe that all 15-20 would have weather problems. And, the problem for the Republicans is that some seats that were safe are moving to non-safe, and very very very few Democratic seats are moving in that direction. OrangeMarlin 22:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republican memo says that they expect to get 44 seats. I think that the wording was fuzzy, but all that they were saying was that 44 (as with all numbers >= 41) will be sufficient for a filibuster. --B (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The wording was fuzzy, but I think I understand your interpretation. I think that this part of the election may be the only thing that might be interesting on November 4. OrangeMarlin 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

<ri> As an outsider used to a simpler system where we just put a cross on a bit of paper to choose an MP, this is terribly puzzling. I've been rather slow at getting the hang of it, but from an article in a fairly local paper it seems that you've been misled by those reality-based critics, and have failed to grasp that the real America is supporting Palin, that is, pro-American areas of America, it's just the celebrity land that's givin' her slim pickins. It's those sexist watchdogs complaining about things that aren't even in line with her family's frugal personality, and she hasn't even opened them yet! Hope that's clear, dave souza, talk 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if its the polls from 2004, or the contradiction between the outcome of the election and the actual vote in 2000... But I still have the funny feeling that McCain could actually win. Whether its the Bradley effect, overstated registration numbers (Acorn), overly optimistic likely voter models, similarly optimistic polling data, complacency by voters who think Obama has already won, etc. - there is no way to really know how the election will out until it does. Avruch 15:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not over till it's over, and even then sometimes you have to wait for the Supreme Court. The one sure thing seems to be that the Republican Party is going to reconsider their MO. I don't think I've ever seen a Party suddenly and dramatically decide to repudiate the way it's governed the country in the preceding 8 years. Of course, many aspects of McCain's campaign operations are dishearteningly familiar, but I have to believe that privately (and, after the election, publically) the guiding minds of the GOP have internalized the bankruptcy (moral and literal) of their governance, in the face of overwhelming evidence, and that they'll do things differently next time around. Hey, they suddenly admit global warming might exist - anything is possible. MastCell  21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if its the most dramatic; Gorby after that coup thingy was pretty dramatic turnaround...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken that happened outside America and can therefore be ignored. :) MastCell  22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Although Russia is close to Alaska...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I get so caught up in my anti-Americanism that I forget about "real America"—especially those areas that are so pro-America that they want to secede. MastCell  22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Orangemarlin, I am somehow under the impression that you are an admin (is it true?). I have a request (hope you don't mind). Yesterday I made the redirect Grampian phase to Grampian, somehow I recalled reading an article of the sort. It turned out to be a disamb. page and I can't find the article anymore. I want the redirect to be deleted, but I don't know which template to use (speedy deletion?). Can you help me out? Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want it deleted? Grampian phase is now a perfectly respectable redirect to Caledonian orogeny, as you'll see if you click on the link, just below the article title. I've noted it on Grampian (disambiguation) and since it is also called the Scandian phase, it could be redirected there if an article is created on this specific subject. . . dave souza, talk 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't redirecting there until Hardyplants changed the redirect. That is also a good solution, I have nothing against it. Btw Grampian and Scandian are not the same, the first is about Scotland, the second about Scandinavia. They were just caused by the same thing. Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My misreading of the section heading. Ideally, then, brief articles could be put together as stubs on each, giving a bit more detail than the Caledonian orogeny#Scandian/Grampian phase section and with both linked from that section. Thanks, dave souza, talk 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this got fixed. And your impressions is so wrong, I'm shocked that no one is laughing. I am not an admin. They don't pay enough.  :) Oh, and the fact that McCain has a better chance of winning New York than I do of becoming an admin. OrangeMarlin 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Shows me something is wrong here. Not in New York but on Misplaced Pages. Well, I won't meddle with that. Cheers, Woodwalker (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism on Misplaced Pages

Orangemarlin, this is an appalling personal attack, and a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please review Misplaced Pages policies, and adopt a better standard of behavior in the future. If you make any other attacks, your account access may be blocked. --Elonka 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OM, stay cool, man... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated this for all to see and I am cool. OrangeMarlin 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I strongly disagree that this is a personal attack, since an analysis of WP:NPA does not prohibit a characterization of the behavior of certain editors as uncivil. For example, it states "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse"--many of Jagz comments fit this particular description. Jagz' comments found in this discussion or this edit can only lead someone to reasonably conclude that there is evidence of such a characterization. Numerous other editors and admins, many with years of experience have concluded the same about Jagz here, here, here and here. I find racism to be the highest form of uncivil discourse, since it chills the air of a collegial atmosphere. To characterize someone's agenda as being "racist," or "anti-semitic" (which in common discourse can be synonymous with Neo-Nazi) is important to the project, because it is necessary for the project to identify those individuals who bring discredit to articles or to the project. You may disagree with my characterization of Jagz's edits or behavior, but there is sufficient evidence to back that up. If a reasonable person thinks that some of his edits and comments are innocent, which his community ban does not indicate, then I would be more than happy to strike my comments here and elsewhere.OrangeMarlin 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the two links to Jagz' comments. Nothing there merits calling Jagz a neo-Nazi, or even a "racist". Believing that race affects intelligence does not make one a racist. Just because Jagz believes that race affects intelligence doesn't mean he believes in discrimination based on race. Could you produce diffs showing that he believes the latter? All I see is Jagz placidly saying that genetics and race have an impact on intelligence. 23andMe states that 80% of adult intelligence is genetic. Ashkenazi intelligence is not that controversial. Anyway, pointing out that other people call him racist makes it seem as if you don't understand the weakness of opinion as evidence. What are they basing their opinions on? You should know how weak opinions are, since I'm sure if I looked I could find plenty of people calling you ugly names. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . II | (t - c) 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is not shared by a fairly large number of editors. BTW, race is an invention, it has nothing to do with genetics, so even if I believed that 80% of intelligence is genetic (and I don't), it's still racist to contend that race has anything to do with genetics. Let me end this before it goes any further, I have a fairly firm policy of not discussing any article on my user talk page. I respect you, so please take this statement for precisely what I mean it to say--please do not discuss those articles with me here, I'll delete it. OrangeMarlin 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Ashkenazi intelligence is pseudoscientific crap. And the article seems to state the same. And I'm done with that discussion too. OrangeMarlin 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I tried a rebuttal, you'd delete it? Even if you were willing to discuss it, I wouldn't -- because 1) it's too emotional of an issue for you 2) your mind is already made up 3) in case I ever do reveal my real identity, I don't need to be branded forever a racist by the self-righteous masses simply because there is controversial data on the issue. Most importantly, however, I have better things to do with my time. II | (t - c) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of the article, and I'll discuss it with you there. Since I watch probably 4,000 articles, ping me here if you write something. OrangeMarlin 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of the name "racist" is highly inflammatory, though. OM, you're correct. I've seen an academic define "racism" as "belief that race is real, i.e., biological." However, that belief is quite common, so I generally don't call someone racist merely because they believe that, say, race is a factor in intelligence. It's possible to argue that race is correlated with intelligence, because "race" -- that is, the social category -- also correlates with many other factors that can affect intelligence, such as early nutrition, educational opportunities, easy familiarity with the sublanguage of tests, etc., etc. However, genetic testing reveals more variation within a supposed racial category -- as self-identified or identified by some social standard -- than necessarily exists between races. "Race" is identified by markers, i.e., skin color, etc., but is more powerfully identified by ancestry; yet ancestry varies wildly. Why would someone who is majority ancestry "white" be considered "black"? It makes no sense biologically. Africans themselves, for example, see each genetic subpopulation (correlated with tribal identity) as being "different." It's only outsiders who lump them all together, and there are vast differences between these populations in terms of background culture, physical characteristics, etc. Intelligence conveys survival traits almost everywhere, so there is no reason to expect it to be suppressed in some particular population. And apparently it is not. A racist friend of mine claimed that my Ethiopian daughter would "of course" not be as "smart" as my Chinese daughter. Pure prejudice, and, while it's tricky to compare, the former being five and the latter seven, if I had to judge, even though the Chinese daughter is a stellar performer at school, I'd say the Ethiopian is quite possible "smarter." She's certainly quick, she's ahead of where her sister was at five in reading and in playing the violin. (Ethiopians don't see themselves as "African," generally, they are many different tribal groups, something like seventy languages, etc. My daughter is from the Southern Trival Region, Kamabata tribe, physically looks more "African" -- according to my American prejudices -- than the northern groups, who have mixed a lot with Arabs, etc. --Abd (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"A racist friend of mine..." - I find this deeply disturbing. Either there is a misunderstanding, or you keep bad company. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I called him a friend because I don't reject people, unlike some others, because they have ideas I don't like. I confronted him, and, in fact, got him banned from a mailing list for a short while. He hasn't repeated stuff like that for some time. But he may still believe it. I have never met this person face to face. I don't particularly "keep company" with him, but he's extraordinarily smart in certain ways, is an effective political activist, and does, I think, mean well. He simply doesn't see how his personal experiences when he was young have warped his perceptions. Maybe he will, someday. Subtle racism is quite common and, in fact, more dangerous than the overt racism of my "friend." I won't explain it, here, but, suffice it to say, we have a long way to go, including among people who would be horrified to realize that they are, themselves, racist. One of the benefits of transracial adoption, for me, besides getting to have two truly spectacular kids, is that my own racism had to be confronted. I was raised in a different time, folks.... --Abd (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with Mr. Schulz here. I don't even tolerate subtle racism amongst non-friends, I would never have a "racist friend." And no, I do not think there are racial correlations to intelligence, and until I see two things, a reliable source (and I mean sources) that do two things: 1) how to objectively determine intelligence, and 2) how to objectively determine a race, there is NO correlation that can be presented which would support these attitudes. OrangeMarlin 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple, OM. "Intelligence" is measured by an "intelligence test," got any other way to measure it? Such tests are likely to be biased, hence it would be surprising, in fact, to find no correlation between "race," and "intelligence." However, any study which shows this is going to need some careful examination, and probably the public equivalent of a troutslap. Or more. First of all, WTF is "race"? How do we determine it? Is it a biological category or a social one? You can "objectively" determine race, sufficient to do a straight-face study of it, by self-statement of those taking a test. (Absolutely, this is the weakest link in any supposed claim of racial differences for intelligence.) If we define someone as a member of a "socially rejected group," would we then be surprised to find some lower measure of ... whatever, economic status, health status, or intelligence -- as measured by the dominant group. Now, the issue here is whether or not to tolerate "racism" among friends. Perhaps we should not tolerate it, we should shoot, on sight, all racists? Okay? Let me tell you, racism is very, very common. Among people of all "races." Have any racist relatives? If not, how did you get rid of them, or do you have a family that was, just naturally, extremely sophisticated. "Racism" doesn't mean "nasty and full of hatred." It also doesn't mean "represses minorities." Some racists are this way or do these things. Some don't. Most, I'd say, don't see what they believe as racism. It's just, why, common sense. Are you out of your mind? *Obviously,* race is a reality, are you blind? --Abd (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You two are saying with a straight face that you have no acquaintances whatsoever who have expressed any type of racial prejudice in any way, shape, or form? Damn, you guys must not get out much... Not saying I think it's right to just freely tolerate that sort of thing, but in the real world it's kindof hard to entirely avoid every single person who might occasionally make a prejudiced remark. To be honest, I just don't believe you. Selective memory, must be. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Friend" != "acquaintance" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, when this guy made those racist comments, I confronted him, even to the extent of getting him blocked, for a while, from a mailing list, where he was a major contributor. But he stopped making comments like that. Did he change his mind? It would be a miracle if he did. I call him a friend because, for one thing, he probably considers me a friend. He asks me to do things from time to time, informs me of things he thinks I might be interested in, and consults me. Would I invite him to dinner with my family? Not without confronting this issue! I have two little girls who don't need exposure to that stuff at their age. They will have to confront it, eventually, the African girl has already suffered some rejection on the basis of her "race." But it's not a big factor in her life, and, hopefully, it will stay that way. People love her wherever she goes, she is very, very personable at five years old. And smart. And beautiful. And just plain nice. (Ahem, my daughter.) Except, of course, to her sister. In other words, she is also normal. (Actually, if she is offered something like a cookie, she will usually ask if she can have one for her sister, and she then does give it to her. But of course, she says, "I hate my sister," and says to her, "I am not going to be your friend." Except when her sister is being nice to her. --Abd (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you observe my style of speech here on Misplaced Pages, assume that I treat real life people in the same exact way. Given that standard, how many friends do you think would dare say a racist thing around me? That would be zero. And frankly, my friends never utter racist commentary, because at my advanced years, friends become self-selecting. I do have a Canadian friend against whom I make significant anti-Canadian slurs, because he drinks beer and thinks life begins and ends with the Toronto Maple Leafs, and thereby deserve derision. But seriously, no, I do not make friends with racists as an intentional choice, and I do not keep friends who make racist comments for the same reason. So, yeah, I get out. OrangeMarlin 17:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! So you don't actually know if any of your friends are racist, because they are afraid to say anything around you that might be perceived that way ;p

In any case, I still think it's weird you're jumping on Abd because he knows one person who is maybe a bit racist. I'll give you an example in my life: I know a guy, used to actually be a real close friend, who lives in the city. He probably has more black friends than I do, since I live in a pretty white area of the burbs, but every now and then he goes on a rant about the people he feels are ruining his neighborhood. You can fill in the blanks. I don't like it, and I make it clear I don't approve. And these little rants are one of many reasons why he's not so much my friend any more. But I still see him now and then, and you know, I actually don't think he really means it (it's weird, he is prejudiced in theory but not in practice... if that makes any sense...). Are you really questioning the integrity of my character just because I occasionally still speak to this person?? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not questioning your or Abd's integrity or character. I really think Abd doesn't mean what he said, and I doubt you would invite your prejudiced friend to a social gathering at your house if you thought he would be telling racist jokes all day long. But your point really is a bigger issue--yeah, my friends may be wise enough not to share their racist attitude to me, which is actually more disruptive and harmful than overt racism. OrangeMarlin 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is just something different meant by the word "racist friend." I did not take Abd to mean a "card-carrying white supremacist friend." :D Yeah, I would not have someone to my house where it was a likely bet they were going to tell a racist joke. But I would be lying if I said nobody has ever once told a racist joke at my house. It's just hard to avoid, realistically speaking.

I agree with you about subtle racism sometimes being worse than overt racism. In the case of the guy I was referring to, it's weird because even though I really resent when he goes on those little rants, when I see him actually interact with someone whose skin color he is supposedly prejudiced against, I see no hint of bias or disrespect or anything. On an individual basis, he appear to be almost entirely without prejudice. On the other hand, I've known people who proclaim to be quite open-minded who suddenly start acting all weird when they get around someone with a different skin color than them. So which one is really the "racist friend"? And no, this is not a rhetorical question; this guy I am talking about, his rants are extremely offensive... so I really don't know the answer to that question. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Things like telling racist jokes reflect socialisation more than deep-seated racism. If it's in your house, it's your job to say "I'm not OK with that". If it isn't your house, then it's a different matter. As for the other question...there are different types of racism. I recently came across a distinction between northern and southern (US) racism: in the north, we don't mind how high you rise, as long as you don't get too close; in the south we don't mind how close you get as long as you don't rise too high. Or, as a South African "coloured" woman once told me, she preferred the open (and honest) racism of the Afrikaner to the pretend non-racism of the liberal Anglos. Neither "liberal" racism nor "conservative" racism is acceptable, but the solution is the same - make it clear to people that neither form is acceptable. While there are situations in which it's worth keeping your opinions to yourself, that's actually true a lot less often than we tell ourselves... Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(od)As a purely practical matter, how does one change racist behaviours and attitudes without ever talking to racists? Or is this an "Only Nixon could go to China" matter?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not for wikipedia to dialogue with rascists, we need to just block them. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, we are talking about whether it is questionable that Abd referred to his "racist friend." Obviously Misplaced Pages is not the place to try and change people's opinion.

Although, I do have to say, being a racist is not in and of itself blockable.... At least, not last time I checked. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

n3either is being a rapist blockable. What is blockable is expressing rascist ideology, in the mainspace this is fringe POV pushing of the worst kind and outside the mainspace this is unacceptable personal attacks and bqad faith assertions against people who are the target of the rascists' ideology, ie if someone expresses anti-black sentiments that is an attack on all black editors and their associates. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A reference to a "racist friend" says nothing of itself about the writer other than recognizes racism in a "friend". It certainly does not imply the writer engages in espousing racist POV on WP. Indeed some speakers of a political bent routinely refer to their opponents as friends strictly as an oratorical device, in the same way they call them "hono(u)rable". Barring some direct racist utterance from someone, I'd be loathe to pursue guilt by association.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of how you define "friend". If you define "friend" in a way that separates "friendly acquaintance from work" or "my spouse's friend's spouse", then it's your choice who your friends are...and are not. Having identified someone as a racist, it's a choice to continue to consider them your friend. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason we spend so much time trying to rescue irredeemable miscreants? 02:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just a passing comment, and I don't know who asked the question above, but yes, there is a reason. It's because it is infinitely more dangerous to allow someone to decide who is and who is not an "irredeemable miscreant". If good faith didn't sometimes work, we would have scrapped it years ago. The more people we allow ourselves to label as "irredeemable" the worse and more intolerant we become.

That's my 2¢; take it or leave it. -GTBacchus 02:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone because they are "racist" is quite offensive. Blocking someone for incivility, personal attacks, etc., isn't, necessarily. The assumption involved in concluding that someone is racist and thus to be sanctioned is actually similar, in a way, to assumptions made by racists. We try to develop editors, to help them become cooperative editors, but, of course, it's useless to try with "those people." I mentioned that my daughter has encountered racism. It was not blatant or open. The people involved were highly educated and would be utterly horrified to be called "racist." They would say that they believe that all people are equal. This was an educator in a preschool that is run by a major college. If a child misbehaves, they, by policy, hire a specialist to evaluate the child and to recommend how the school can best deal with the situation. At least that is what they are supposed to do. Our daughter, fairly fresh from Ethiopia, had some behaviors that were socially unacceptable here, that occasionally came out. Her mother had worked at this school, she knew what happened when similar behaviors were exhibited by a "white" boy. Our daughter was, instead, isolated, effectively banned from being alone at the school, a parent had to be there. They did not consult a specialist. The therapist we hired was horrified, but the school was adamant, they had, they said, to protect the school. From a fairly close knowledge of the people involved, it's pretty obvious what had happened. When black kids behave, it's wonderful. See, "they" are just like "us." But when a black kid misbehaves, well, I guess some of "them" just can't be helped. Once we realized what was going on, even though it was traumatic for her -- she'd been through way too much loss, already -- we took her out of the school and put her in a Montessori school. And she had no problems to speak of at the new school.

So, we'll be patient with blatant vandals, giving them four warnings before blocking them, and then it's just 24 hours, perhaps, at first. But those racists? Not to be tolerated! Absolutely, we should watch someone who seems to have a tendency to post racist comments, and confront them and mitigate damage to the project and other editors by not tolerating offensive comments. But the problem is the offensive comments, not the "racist." The same for "POV pushers." We should even allow "Republicans" to edit! Seriously .... Calling someone "racist," without clear necessity, is a personal attack. If the person self-identifies as "racist," -- my friend did -- it's one thing, but it is usually a deep insult. Want to see some flame wars? Consider "Zionism is racism." Is it? I'm not going to go there! I'm just pointing out that facts won't necessarily count for much! Its disruptive.--Abd (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that rascism is not offensive but trying to block rascists is, even though by asserting that one is rascist is of itself making completely unacceptable attacks and bad faith assumptions against other editors. We all have to work here and it is completely unacceptable that good editors are chased away merely in order to allow the rascist to espouse their hatred of other human beings. If we fail to block rascists espousing their ideology immediately and indefinitely we let down all our good faith editors and create an unacceptable atmosphere on wikipedia, which ultimately would threaten to destroy the project. And for what? A few ignorant, hate filled extremists. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In the context you describe, the editor could be blocked for unacceptable attacks - NOT for racism. Again, who gets to decide who is "racist"? Is Zionism racism? Is advocating a Palestinian state racism? Is Darwinism racism? Is advocating different sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine in the US racism? Is pointing out differences in standardized test scores between different races racism? Some would answer yes to each of those questions. Unacceptable behavior has to be dealt with - using blocks if necessary. Unacceptable beliefs are not something we are in a position to judge and mete out justice for. I don't see anyone arguing that we have to tolerate the behavior. I just see people arguing that we do not - can not, must not - make certain beliefs verboten. Behavior vs beliefs: big difference. -GTBacchus 17:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is Darwinism racism?" is a rather bizarre comment. And, going from the ridiculous to the sublime, "Is advocating different sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine in the US racism?".

Nonetheless, beliefs often, if not invariably, drive behaviour. Jagz' beliefs have led to offensive behaviour -- a pattern of offensive behaviour.

That's my two cents -- take it or leave it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

""Is Darwinism racism?" is a rather bizarre comment." Hey man, I didn't make the claim; I've just seen it made. I agree that it's bizarre; that's pretty much my point. I'm just thinking of examples of beliefs that have been labeled "racist", fairly or not. I agree that beliefs drive behavior, and I agree with dealing with people's behavior when it leads to an non-constructive editing environment.

Whether you're agreeing or disagreeing that we block based on behavior, and not directly based on beliefs, I can't tell from you comment. I'm sure as hell not arguing in defense of "Jagz," whoever he is. I hope I didn't come across that way - it would take some creative reading-in to hear that in my comments. -GTBacchus 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we more or less agree, then. While I know that "racism" (like all other abstract nouns) is subjective, I'd think that there would be logical limits. But, I guess not -- humans are a very weird species.  ;)

I didn't think you were defending Jagz, but I do think there's a point where one has to realise that the malefactions of an editor far outweigh any real or perceived benefits. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked up "malefactions", and I see that it refers to behavior, not to beliefs. Yeah; we're on the same page. :) -GTBacchus 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't recall a word for "bad beliefs" ... I could make one or two up, but ...  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah! (and not the crappy band): cacodoxy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I happen to like A-ha, but at you said, we're a weird species. -GTBacchus 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all good -- I happen to like KISS ... a guilty pleasure.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Asthma site on Wikpedia

I work at azma.com and was wondering if you can leave my edit in place, we have a team of doctors and have been doing asthma trends for a year also run www.pollen.com and are a professional disease forcasting company not spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aczen (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's spam. It has nothing to do with helping further the knowledge of asthma.OrangeMarlin 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

can you add my link to the asthma wikipedia

I work at a Asthma Trends company SDI www.sdihealth.com we do Asthma Trends statistics every day can you please list our website www.azma.com on the Asthma wikipedia? we are have contracts with ABC,NBC,Zircam, Contac and Lysol and are a Professional company who provides Asthma statisticial maps every day. I was tasked with sharing our research data with other internet sites. We study and report these trends every day and could improve the wikipedia page for Asthma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.43.44 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the article. Neither does anyone else. It is several editors' opinion that your website is nothing more than commercial spam. Take a look at the external links there, and compare it to yours. Maybe you should take it to Talk:Asthma and see if you get any support, but I will argue that you're a commercial website. And if you're supporting Zircam, the homeopathic product that doesn't work, I'm less convinced as to your website's usefulness to the article.OrangeMarlin 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The site also appears to include copyright violations; for example, this page appears to be an unacknowledged verbatim copy of this site sponsored by the Asthma Initiative of Michigan, a rather well-regarded public health initiative. Not a good sign. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

<offtopic, but this does seem to be the medical advice centre> Apparently Radio Scotland had a programme about stem cell research where they mentioned its possible use in cases of neuter moron. Listeners have been emailing in asking about this new advance in euthanasia. . dave souza, talk 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research

FYI: Spinal manipulation research resources. You are welcome to contribute with comments, suggestions, and additions at the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 (8 days to go Edition)

According to pollster.com, the election appears to be solidly in favor of Obama/Biden:

• Obama/Biden: 306 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 142 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 90 Electoral Votes

RealClearPolitics has McCain at 157 (giving him Montana, which Pollster.com has as a toss-up). If all of the toss-up states are portioned out to each candidate based on who is leading today, Obama/Biden would win 375 to 164. Obama would win traditional red states such as Nevada, Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado, and Indiana. What should be troubling to McCain is that a recent poll in his home state of Arizona shows him leading only 44 to 42. Wow. As of right now, an average of nonpartisan polls shows Obama up, 50.8 to 43.5%. As long as Obama stays above 50%, even if every single undecided vote breaks to McCain, this election should go to the Democrats. Also from an Electoral College perspective, there isn't a strategy that makes sense to McCain. If every toss-up state moved to McCain, he would need to win two large states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama's lead in Pennsylvania is well over 10 points, so there's no chance. The Intrade Prediction Market has Obama at 364 to 174 in electoral votes, and the market predicts that there is an 87.6% chance that Obama will win the 2008 election.

According to pollster.com, the Senate Breakdown (remember, only about 1/3 of seats are up for election every year) should be:

• Democrats: 55
• Republicans: 38
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 5

This poll is unchanged for about the last week. The races appear to be unchanged from last week, so it appears that Democrats will win two of the undecided races, Minnesota and Alaska, the Republicans taking the other three, meaning the Democrats will have a 59-41 majority in the next Senate. However, a huge Obama victory might carry in one or two of the other undecided races. As we mentioned earlier, Senate filibuster rules state that the 60 votes can close debate, thereby ending the filibuster. At 59 seats, the Democrats will have a difficult time blocking it, but not impossible. Several moderate or liberal Republicans (yes, they exist, namely Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republican senators from Maine) can join the Democrats

According to pollster.com, the House of Representatives should fall as follows:

• Democrats: 245
• Republicans: 166
• Undecided: 24

One Democratic seat moved to undecided since the last listing. Not much to say here, because unless a major event happens, the House will probably have around 265 Democrats. There are no special rules in the House that matter (filibusters aren't allowed), so although there are some advantages to the size of the majority (less need to compromise on legislation and committees are set up essentially on the ratio of seats per party), this one is pretty much locked up and not very exciting.

So there you have it. One week to the election.OrangeMarlin 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)