User talk:Odd nature

/Archive1

Permission
Is it ok for me to do this with your words? I thought the comment was hilarious! Ciao, Brusegadi 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that there is currently and AN/I discussion regarding an issue you may be involved with here. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. – ornis ⚙  16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotation formatting in intelligent design
I removed the "quotation" formatting on the three quotes in the article. Since the wiki markup doesn't appear to allow a standard indent for blockquotes, "blockquote" seems to be the only way of indenting quotes without a "callout" borderline all around it. The borderline seems like much too much, and serves to call more attention to the quotes than is needed, and also makes it seem like a separate callout box at first glance. None of the three quotes quite rise to that level of importance, IMO. ... Kenosis 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
I'm quite disappointed to see this comment from you on Ferrylodge's talk page. This could easily be argued to be an attempt at harassment and intimidation, which is exactly what Ferrylodge was permabanned for. Ironic, no? Please refrain from bothering him as he exercises his due process. - Crockspot 12:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism
Please join us at Talk:Dominionism. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ID poll
You seem to have added an "Ohio likely voters" reference as the source for a poll of scientists. I'm going to replace this with "citation needed", by all means put in the poll but please find the correct poll. Sad mouse 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Profg
FYI regarding, one of the conditions of him being unblocked was that the notice remain in place so that if he violated the terms, it was readily apparent to anyone looking in. I don't really care one way or the other and will keep his page watchlisted for the next six months so that if he does return, it can be replaced ... but some might want the notice left in place so it isn't potentially forgotten down the line. -- B 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" discussion
I was reediting that particular statement in Intelligent design per what seemed to be a consensus on the talk page. If you have some disagreement with this change, would you mind bringing it up there so we don't end up arguing via an edit war? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations in Ferrylodge arbitration case
Please be advised that another editor has presented evidence and made workshop proposals concerning you in the Ferrylodge arbitration case. As the clerk handling that case, and since you are not named as a party, I thought it appropriate to give you this notice. You are welcome to respond on Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence and Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ON, I know you're not one to make use of talk pages, but realize that B has accused you of being a sockpuppet of Felonious Monk. Whatever you do to throw User:B out of this project will get my full support.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that and I'll be encouraging him to keep at it, he's doing me a favor. Odd nature 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * B has this time chart thingie which he claims shows you are FM. I'm not sure what you are expected to do with it. --Pleasantville 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yesterday he was tossing around bogus accusations of harassment against Guettarda, today it's FM and me. He's clearly out of control. If he wants to squander his time and reputation (such as it is) why should I stop him? It's evidence of something alright and it will end up working against him ultimately. Odd nature 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What I find even harder to swallow is that someone is clever enough to switch writing styles back and forth at will, and never make a mistake. I bet I could put 100 posts of FM and 100 posts of ON in a list, randomly ordered, without attribution, and most people would easily be able to tell who had posted what. This is just silly.--Filll 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * B's "time chart thingie" doesn't even have the merit of building a good circumstantial case -- as a diagnostic or evidentiary tool it is utterly useless. I could find gaps between when FM edited something and I edited something that would roughly coincide with the methodology used by B, thus proving that I'm FM's sock puppet.
 * Of course, then there's the linguistic evidence: as a linguist, I'm particularly sensitive to language use, and I'll be preparing evidence for Arbcomm that B is out of his tree. From what I've seen so far, the only thing ON's and FM's editing styles have in common is that they both write in English.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We should start a club. So far I, Jim62sch, and you have been accused of being FeloniousMonk's socks at one time or another. Are there any others? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

REdit warring on dominionism template
Please see Template_talk:Dominionism. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 12 hours because of your revert on Template:Dominionism. If you will agree to stop edit warring there, I will unblock you immediately, and I encourage other admins to do so if I am not around. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my first edit to the article in 3 days, I didn't think I was edit warring, but I agree to your terms. Odd nature 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. I use the term edit warring to refer to a situation where several editors repeatedly make and revert the same edit over a period of several weeks. You are not the main person doing the reverting, certainly. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply protecting the page is a far less heavy handed way to accomplish the same thing, CBM. Blocking editors for restoring the version of the page that has the most consensus is simply overkill here and major departure from Wikipedia's spirit. I'm disgusted. Odd nature 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the page is getting reverted repeatedly, it's a sign that more discussion is needed. I left a note on your talk page in an attempt to warn you that further reverting would result in your being blocked; you had made the same revert 3 times already this month before you made it today. Protecting articles is not an effective solution when the editors involved are all experienced enough to know not to edit war. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 4 reverts in a month is hardly grounds for a block and shows a stunning display of power abuse. Just a thought.  Cheers!!! Baegis 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. I was caught out by a novel approach CBM decided to apply to correct a minor edit war and was smacked with a sledge hammer. Page protection is the standard method for dealing with editors who ignore consensus and edit war (which I was trying correct). He personally decided instituting a zero revert rule with blocking was better idea. I'm near speechless about this, and when I recover and if I decide to continue (the law of decreasing returns is becoming an issue here), rest assured I'll have plenty to say. And if I find any connection between CBM and any of the parties there, I'll be taking this up at RFAR. I think at a minimum an apology for stepping outside of normal policy and process is due me. Odd nature 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous.--Filll 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe y'all should read Administrators' noticeboard before you go off on the warpath. There are BLP issues at play here, which are generally taken very seriously. And he did unblock you ON. Not everything that happens on Wikipedia is a conspiracy to get you personally. - Crockspot 19:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on recent events I wouldn't know. And based on the comments of 2 uninvolved admins   CBM's decision to institute zero RR and blocking instead of page protection was not supported by policy or guideline. He clearly owes me an apology. Odd nature 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly he does, but I would prepare for the possibility that one won't be forthcoming. Unless you can show that he was acting in bad faith, he's pretty much off the hook. You have to decide for yourself if it's worth raising hell over. - Crockspot 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl blocked ON for reverting to a version that had overwhelming support? What sort of nonsense is that supposed to be? Guettarda 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to know the details, but there appeared to be BLP issues raised, and BLP trumps consensus. - Crockspot 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the usual nonsense so far as I can tell -- rather than protect the page, thus resolving any potential reverting issues, it's always best to block the editor who restored the consensus version. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, just because someone raises BLP issues does not make those issues valid, does it? One actually needs to prove potential harm or libel.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Although there are BLP issue with the template, the block did not involve them. The block was only for edit warring. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which I was not doing since the edit you blocked me for was my 1st edit there in three days and only my 4th revert in a month and restored the consensus version of the article reverted by the actual edit warrior. Odd nature 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It takes (at least) two editors to make an edit war. Consensus is not determined by how many people advocate each side. In the end, consensus is determined by whether edits made are reverted, and in this case it was clear that the edits were being reverted. Just as the 3RR applies even to editors who are restoring the consensus version, the prohibition on edit warring applies as well. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which calls for page protection, not creating your own draconian solutions which are not supported by policy. You were clearly striking out on your own writing new process by imposing zero RR on others and then blocking them according to other admins I've spoken to. Your heavy handed handling of this did not improve the situation but inflamed it and harmed others, namely me. I think you better reconsider your take on this, considering that there has been one editor there who has repeatedly ignored consensus and reverted and it's not me and your solution was not supported by policy. You're BS defense of the indefensible is getting my hackles up. Odd nature 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (&larr;) WP:BLOCK authorizes blocks for disruptive editing, such as edit warring. Protecting pages instead of blocking is not required, and is often the wrong choice. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Claiming you blocked me for violating WP:DE now is a new one, and a stretch. One edit to the article in three days and only four reverts in a month is far, far from disruptive editing, CBM. Sure you want to make the claim that my one edit at that article was sufficiently disruptive? I've seen 4 other admins who don't think so. You were out of line in their view. If you just admited you stuck your neck out I'd forgive and forget, but this BS excuse to excuse your extra-policy block only adds insult to injury. Odd nature 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention WP:DE. If you are looking for a policy basis for your block, it is at WP:BLOCK, which explicitly includes edit warring as an acceptable reason for a block. You were certainly a part of the edit war, even though you only edited infrequently. If you find that my posts here are insulting, I apologize for that. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you serious?! One edit in 3 days and four reverts in the last month does not even come close to meeting the bar at WP:BLOCK. Your block looks even more bogus now, CBM. It's becoming increasingly obvious you don't seem to know what you're doing or what you're talking about. Odd nature 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this conversation has run its course, so I don't plan to respond here for some time. If you would like additional feedback about the block, I suggest that you ask at ANI. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am glad this happened. It lets a little light shine into a few dark corners around here...--Filll 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And you know what scurries away when there is light?-Filll 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mice and roaches. But I offered to stand under the floodlights at ANI, which is a different matter. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite what I had in mind, but never mind. I have not even looked at the discussion and I also wonder about listing living people as dominionists if they have not identified themselves this way. However, I think this entire recent sequence of events is quite telling. Hmm...--Filll 02:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Back?
Great to see you editing again. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I am glad to see you back.--Filll (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. Odd nature (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you were doing at Expelled article page but
It did not quite work, or at least the formatting is funny. I will let you fix it since you know what you were aiming for. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas



 * Thanks. I appreciate it. Odd nature (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎ & Intelligent design movement‎
Having reverted my edits on these articles, I would appreciate if you would contribute to further discussions arising from those reversions: HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns;
 * Talk:Intelligent design movement

expelled and marks
Dude I have the upmost respect for your work here but I am at a loss to understand why you continue to remove Robert marks employment title at Baylor University. Can you explain your justification? I've read WP:Peacock and also WP:Names and concluded using his job title fell within both of those standards. I even added a cite (that I think you deleted as well). I could be missing something so please clue me in. I organized that section and each person named has their job title listed as well. Thanks. Angry Christian (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. This is his job title -- it's like marking "Senior Vice President" as puffery.  "Distinguished," as in distinguished professor, is a recognized level of achievement in academics and business.  Do we really need an edit war over job titles, given the number of other points being disputed in this article?--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ON, I've replied to you on the talk page. I would appreciate a response there when you have some free tine.  Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who can, create. Those who can't, delete.
Those who can delete are admins. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheri Yecke Page
I left the controversy part in the page. The way the page is in the revert makes it sound like her entire career is based on one issue, when clearly it is not. Why can't you leave the legit biography up and also keep up the controversy part? What is this the old USSR? Aren't liberals "free thinkers"? I have no objections for it all being on the page - so let the people decide. Plus, she's not running for anything now, nor for the rest of her life. Let the legit page stand with the parts on the controversy. Junia3 (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note
Please be careful when reverting. You re-inserted various misspellings, grammar issues and faulty quotes in this edit. I am going to undo your edit (but still remove the weasel words you were trying to remove). Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled
Hi Odd nature, please see the discussion here, as I think it would be very good to avoid edit warring over this. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II
You keep reverting to material that is defamatory and unverified. I have added a section on the edit war to the talk page. Please read, ponder, and discuss before editing again. ThomHImself (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No free lunch in search and optimization
You carried the fight over Robert J. Marks II to this article, which is one of Wiki's 15 good articles in computer science. You replaced what was mostly description of Marks' (and Dembski's) ideas related to NFL, leaving behind a claim that Marks' is an ID proponent. Your comment in the revision history, "Paring this down per WP:NPOV. Size and credulousness of section gave undue weight to ID proponents views." The section criticizes specified complexity and the use of active information. It summarizes the debate as to whether NFL theorems apply to biological evolution. You wiped this out. I invite you to explain on the talk page how lengthy description and criticism equate to credulousness. ThomHImself (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You reverted to your massive deletion of content that was in place when the article passed WP:GA review. And you have done it without any discussion whatsoever. It appears to me that you are attempting to suppress discussion of "illegitimate" topics. ThomHImself (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:GA does not trump WP:NPOV. Odd nature (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not described any departure from WP:NPOV at all. You have merely asserted it in a comment in the page history, and here again. Without support, your assertion is worthless. ThomHImself (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Email me?
Hi there. I've just left a reply on my talk page. Got your note but cannot email you. Can you possibly email me? Thanks - A l is o n  ❤ 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm out of town, but will try to email you today. Odd nature (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had given my email, but had not enabled mail from other users. Try again now. Odd nature (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mailed! - A l is o n  ❤ 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Inadequately sourced or unsourced claim about Robert J. Marks II outside his biography
The claim you have entered into articles is disputed at Talk:Robert J. Marks II. Claims about living persons must be sourced according to WP:BLP throughout Wikipedia, not just in their biographies.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. ThomHImself (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfftt. You're grossly violating COI at this and other articles. Heal thyself... Odd nature (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Drama mongers
Good comment. But it sparked my curiosity - what does the fifth dentist drama monger recommend? :) Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A root canal. Odd nature (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Had one of those.  It was long and tedious, but less painful than ANI.  Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

HTML markup in template quotation
Hi, you removed the paragraph breaks in Expelled, but these are important to be faithful to both Darwin (the primary source) and Scientific American (the secondary source). Also see Template_talk:Quotation. I agree HTML markup should be avoided if the same effect can be achieved without it, but getting paragraph breaks in quotation doesn't seem to work. Can you link to the relevant MOS section? I only found WP:MOSQUOTE, which says "The current version of Wikipedia's MediaWiki software will not render multiple paragraphs inside a simply by spacing the paragraphs apart with blank lines. A workaround is to enclose each of the block-quoted paragraphs in its own ... element."

Any ideas how to do it without HTML? Merzul (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of science‎
Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to politicization of science article, and considering your experience, when you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Gegenheimer's website
Hi. Can you explain why you added back this self-published source about another living person?

http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ID-intro/Sect4.html

Thanks, J Readings (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Check yourself
Attacks against admins are the exact reason why the ID group (which includes you) is up at RFAR. How is attacking four established editors by calling them part of a WR conspiracy even remotely acceptable? Does this make a bad person because she's a regular at WR? Sceptre (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to know.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When Alison files a RFAR as nebulous and devoid of content as yours then goes to WikipediaReview and gloats "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching..." I'll let you know. Odd nature (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature: I found your comments at the RfAr, rather ... odd. OM: Huh? ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lar, didn't know I was chatting with you. ?????   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to correct your misapprehension then, this being a wiki, people comment on stuff they see. I'll repeat the "huh?"... what is it exactly that you feel is good to know? (as an aside, although no one asked me, I found Sceptre's RfAr somewhat out of place, as there hasn't been much in the way of prior steps. I also found his thread title a bit less than ideal, which is why I never commented on it at all.) ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. BADSITES was rejected. Try to find some new TAR to add to your brush. Oh, and Lar, OM means to say that they should not trust Alison or you or I because we post on WR. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, I thought telepathy was a pseudoscience. Ah, yes it is.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can connect the dots on my own with just 15 minutes worth of reading and clicks, what leads you to you expect other editors, much less arbitrators, not to make the same connections? Odd nature (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have exactly one post in the "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 ****storm is approaching" thread - . I'm not sure how that qualifies as a plan of attack. My other two posts on the subject, for reference, were  and . --B (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)  Shoot ... those links don't work ... --B (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)  (In order to see any of those links, you have to go to options and hit "switch to standard".  I have no idea otherwise how to link to them - if someone wants to fix them, feel free.) --B (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But you have other posts in this thread which are about the same editors. That's a pattern. In fact, almost all of your 12 posts at WikipediaReview are in threads about these same editors. Odd nature (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My post in the thread you linked was about Christianity and the reason Christians consider scripture to be inspired. It had nothing to do with any Wikipedians.  I have posted my last 10 WR posts at User talk:B/sandbox.  Please feel free to point out which of them are disagreeable or evidence of a coordinated attack.  (The post you linked above is #6.) --B (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, you were just participating in threads where Wikipedians in good standing and in positions of trust are being attacked and harassed but you're too busy discussing other topics to do anything about it - like speaking out against harassment. Odd nature (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but if you had not even read my posts (which you must not have if you thought that #6 was an attack on anyone), how can you say "almost all" of my posts are about IDers, when the reality is only three of them are &mdash; two directed at Cla68 saying that I thought his RFAR presentation was flawed and that the vast majority of what he was calling incivil was nothing of the sort and one saying that you were not a sockpuppet of Freakofnurture? Even the edited version is false - five of my 12 posts (not almost all) are in ID-related threads. --B (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your posts. Ever hear of the term 'moral support'? Supporting others doing something is little different from doing it yourself. Odd nature (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is insane. Which of my posts is moral support to harassment? --B (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Moral support: a way of giving support to a person or cause, or to one side in a conflict, without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement. All you have to do is participate my friend. Odd nature (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are trolls on Wikipedia. By participating, aren't you giving them moral support? --B (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * B: Wikipedia exists to write an encyclopaedia, not to promote trolling. WR exists to smear Wikipedia editors and undermine the project.  There's a little difference there.  Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in general WR exists to document PROBLEMS with Wikipedia. Some they are right on about (like Mantanmoreland), some, they're off base (sometimes WAY off base) on. That just means they're human. Do they have some real bad boys? Yes, but they're generally ignored and worked around over there. I really wish you'd get off the BADSITE meme. Here's something you should read. It's not by me, but Lar, about his participation on WR. . I think it would be interesting reading for you and may open your eyes. SirFozzie (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, what's missing from the WikipediaReview regulars such as yourself and leads me to see WikipediaReview as merely the continuation of wikiwar by other means is any strong condemnation of those there who attack Wikipedians and wage wars against them. The tolerance of those attacking Wikipedians there is so broad and any warnings against it so faint that it amounts to moral support, AFAIK. Odd nature (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're pretty confused. It may not be possible to correct your confusion without you opening your mind a bit. I take input where I can find it. That includes from places where people whose views I do not condone happen to bring problems up. Places like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia Review, and just about every other place in the universe. (even my own blog is not immune to views that I don't agree with since I don't restrict comments to just those that agree with me perfectly) I find your outlook somewhat counterproductive, heck, even closed minded. I suggest you rethink your approach. Problems don't go away because you stamp your feet, or shoot the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just point me to one post at WikipediaReview by SirFozzie unequivocaly condemning one of the WikipediaReview regulars for attacking a Wikipedian, and I'll probably change my mind. As it is, my opinion is based on on what I've read there. You need to show me real evidence of being mistaken if you want me to change my mind. Odd nature (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen him do it a number of times now, including making some serious condemnations of Daniel Brandt on there. I think he might have cussed him out a bit, too. I know I did :) - A l is o n  ❤ 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

&larr;Here we go; "Congratulations, Daniel, you paranoid little f**khead, you went that one step too far and showed the world what a complete f**king a**hole you are." (my bowdlerizations :) ) - A l is o n  ❤ 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to see he's supported someone there. He's come up short for the "ID cabal", though. Neither they nor I am feeling the love yet, but I am more open to being convinced now. Odd nature (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Arb case
Re. this - you forgot to add me :) Honestly, this looks rather silly from an outside perspective. Nefarious plans? Conspiracies?? And stacking names onto a list of Wikipedia Review contributors is starting to look like a witch-hunt. Please don't judge editors here on where they post off-site - A l is o n  ❤ 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Maybe not. People have a way of making up their own minds when they see this sort of behavior. Myself, I see nothing silly in filing a vacuous and tendentious RFAR the running to a attack site dedicated to harassing and outing Wikipedians and gloating "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching..." You may think that's perfectly normal and acceptable, but I think it casts serious doubt on the credibility Sceptre and this RFAR. Odd nature (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmmm. WR as an "attack site"? Nahh. It's more a jumble of individuals with their own opinions and ideas. There are certainly those who'd like nothing better than having WP implode tomorrow, but then again there are others who want to see it succeed. I've been seriously "outted", to use a term, by a regular poster there - I think you know who - and that led to serious RL issues. Still, I don't condemn the entire site based on the actions of the few. Either way, the thread title could have been better, sure, but the RFAr should stand or fall on its own merits. Arbcom, hopefully, will judge on the facts. Anyways ... we'll agree to differ - A l is o n  ❤ 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And Sceptre's gloating at WikipediaReview "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching..."  right after filing his weak RFAR is a fact they can ponder as well. Odd nature (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering all the Arbs have said there IS a problem (some just wanting to get it through RfC first), I'd recheck the strength of the case if I was you. And you had a full chance to back away from your comments when reminded of the number of admins, beureacrats, checkusers and stewards who actually *gasp* post on WR, and decided not to. So don't try to duck the blame with regards to tarring Alison with the badsites brush. SirFozzie (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The facts and the comments speak for themselves. Now please stop commenting at my page, I get the feeling you are more interested in continuing the conflict than in resolving it. Odd nature (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And I completely missed the above thread. I didn't even know I was being discussed here! - A l is o n  ❤ 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have Sceptre to thank for that. Odd nature (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

G'day Odd
I saw your comments at the WP:NTWW page - and am hoping that you might be interested in coming along and giving your perspective / talking through the issues as you see them... I replied in brief there too - and if you are receptive to such an idea, then maybe note down a suitable time that could work for you, and we'll try and make it happen! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have to pass. I don't have the time, means or stomach to participate. Odd nature (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC
At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I have other plans. Odd nature (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just kinda FYI, you may want to take note of the statement at the top of the RFC page, "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." --B (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

two queries
Hi. If you can cast your mind back to this edit, I would like to ask whether you were aware a third opinion had been sought prior to it, and whether you were solicited to comment there. Thanks, and I hope no offense is taken to my curiosity. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick heads up
Since I listed you by name, I figured I'd alert you of my impending doom/request for adminship: Requests for adminship/Ali'i‎. I only thought it right to inform you. I know, I know... what in the world could I have possibly been thinking?!?! ;-) Mahalo, Odd nature. --Ali'i 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the support!
Over at the RfC on cabals and badsites, you appear to have supported my comments twice. While I appreciate that you agree with at least a portion of my thoughts, it might confuse some folks....Hope you are having a great day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
This case was held by Arbitrators following their own inquiries.

The Arbitration Committee has noted a number of controversies involving the editing of Orangemarlin and Odd nature, and acting on its own volition and in the interests of minimizing disruption, has discussed the situation privately, and published their findings and remedies in the RFAR arbitration case which is closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedy includes an admonishment to both users, and Orangemarlin placed on parole and a mentor appointed. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Orangemarlin. No way this kind of a secret trial is acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. What I find a bit disconcerting is that although Odd nature is mentioned as having done something improper, I see no evidence of it listed.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this some kind of joke? If so, it's not funny. If not, something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, something is seriously wrong. I don't like the decision, but I could live with it.  But secret trials?  That's really too much.  Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish it were a joke. As I add up the things I see wrong with this place, the list starts to get longer and longer.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a joke after all. Just not an intentional one. Odd nature (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider
FT2 acted wholly on his own, unilaterally, without the arbcom's consent in proclaiming the RFAR valid: Please reconsider leaving the project. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Champagne corks went a-popping when they thought you and I quit.  I reconsidered once I understood the facts, and you should too.  No matter if I deserve this, or you should be included (that made no sense), it's not important.  What is important is that someone decided to attack me and you personally without giving us the simple right to respond, and if we let them do so, then they are empowered to do it again and again.  So we should make a stand. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have stated elsewhere, I have not even seen any evidence against Odd nature whatsoever in this nonsense. There was some weak, one-sided, biased evidence against OrangeMarlin. But against Odd nature? Where is it? And actually from studying the penumbrations of FT2's statement, I believe that he was hinting that several other editors (possibly including me) were next on his hit list. After all, if you need only one sided evidence in a secret trial, or even no evidence in a secret trial, to convict someone and are not interested in letting the accused defend themselves or even notifying the accused that there is a trial, it is easy as pie to wrap things up, right?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, guys. Odd nature (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR
Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Requests_for_arbitration. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I've got other plans. Odd nature (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, glad to see you back. Rumours of your departure have been exaggerated :) . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ID archiving
Hi, I think it very likely you did this in good faith but article talk pages are not the same as project pages. Hence, archiving or closing a section of an article talk page before other editors think the time has come may only bring further disagreement. I understand the article is controversial but talk pages are for talking about consensus (which can change) on sources. Keeping these discussions open may seem very nettlesome now and then, but in the long run, ongoing discussion only help. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm here with a different tack: I apologize for removing your comments with that section I just removed, but IMO it was completely inappropriate for the talk page of a WP article, and while I appreciate you trying to answer the other editors', they really need to find a forum. Seriously. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV reverts
Hi - with regard to this revert at WP:NPOV, it's actually ScienceApologist (and I) who are re-writing long-standing policy in this case, not Ludwigs2. SA had altered the policy and I had tweaked his alteration a bit; you reverted both of our edits. Anyhow, no big deal, just thought I'd correct your edit summary, which seemed to be based on a minor misunderstanding, and invite you to join the discussion of the proposed changes at WT:NPOV. MastCell Talk 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New edits on Eugenie Scott
A user expanded the Eugenie Scott page, and some of it looks like a violation of BLP. Can you check it? I'm going to remove an obvious violation, but if you can check the others I'd appreciate it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

* poke *
The pleasure of your reply is requested here. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive reverts of Pseudoscience categories
See this. One POV editor has taken it upon himself to revert the pseudoscience category from a huge number of articles. Help is needed. There was no consensus to do this. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you for restoring all those. If you have any ideas on how to explain how WP works to this editor, who I am afraid is a bit of a crusader for TruthTM, please give it a try. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN at Intelligent design
This edit is a violation of WP:OWN. Please revert yourself ant lets avoid an edit war. Thanks, --Damiens .rf 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But your edit warring insisting on 'your' version isn't? LOL. Do people actually fall for that shtick? I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. BTW, Violate 3RR much? Odd nature (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're trying to force him into a 3rr violation. But if you have that sort of mind-control powers, why don't you just force poor old Damiens to self-revert? :) Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Hi Odd nature, just so you are aware there is a edit war at Intelligent design, as such editors who are currently editing there are urged to take their concerns to the articles talk page to avoid being blocked. Thank you for your understanding, Tiptoety  talk 20:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Go tell that to Damiens.rf. He and the other new arrivals there better get consensus on the talk page for new, controversial changes before changing the longstanding version then. It's been a Featured Article for several years fer chrissakes. Odd nature (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just blocked Damiens.rf for edit warring. You are not being singled out. Tiptoety  talk 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice to know, thanks. The article has been protected too I see, so things should calm down for a while. Odd nature (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Academic Freedom bills
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please don't simply WP:EDITWAR over material without addressing discussion over that material in talk.
 * 2) Please don't make baby-with-the-bath-water reverts that also remove unrelated material (in this instance the 2009 Iowa bill). There is quite regularly updated information on this topic, so to simply revert to a version from over a month ago is quite inappropriate.

AfD nomination of Denialism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Climate change denial
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Climate change denial. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Where'd you go?
Hi Odd. I've missed seeing you around. Did you get a new job or something? 174.138.169.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

AfD of article you worked on
Please see: Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)