Morton devonshire
|
This user is a member of the Counter-POV Unit |
Discussion Conventions
- Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
- Please sign your comments. Type
~~~~after your text or use the edit toolbar. - Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.
See: Don't be a dick
- Caveat: Please keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with the thoughts expressed by others on this page.
 Archives Archive 1 (redacted archives from December 2005 to June 2006) |
|---|
Classifying pseudoscience
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
- by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
- by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
- by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
- by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
- by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
- by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
- by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
- by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; or
- by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
Features of Conspiracy Theories
Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Articles by User:Blackcats and User:Zen-master (who has since been banned from Wikipedia for one year) are good examples of articles containing these traits. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:
- Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence.
- Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
- Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact.
- Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
- Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions.
- Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
- Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators
- Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
- Allots superhuman talents and/or resources to conspirators.
- May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, etc.
- Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning.
- Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
- Appeals to 'common sense'.
- Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological phenomena.
- Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
- Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
- Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', generally lacking peer review
- Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
- Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science
- At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
- Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
- Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
- Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative
- When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence.
Steven E. Jones, 9/11 "researcher" debunked
If you ever wonder if there's any science behind the conspiracy theorists claims, take a look at this excerpt from the Steven E. Jones talk page:
- wait-both Jones' paper and many points in Toms reply are debateable. If anyone is really wondering about the science, they should look here [1]-Jones' paper. SkeenaR 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I know you have an engineering background. Do you personally have any kind of opinion on the veracity of his 9/11 paper? I'm pretty sure you have an opinion on the whole controlled demolition theory, but I would still be interested to hear what you have to say from a technical standpoint if you care to share your thoughts on it. SkeenaR 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I have worked with structural steel, but in bridges rather than buildings. I am in no sense qualified to hold an opinion on the structural engineering aspects of the collapse. I have significantly more experience with explosives and demolitions, and I have used linear shaped charges and thermite. I have not done any work in controlled demolition of buildings, and I'm not qualified to evaluate Jones' work, except as a layman. His work does not have the ring of truth. Jones writes like someone who has read about, but never used, explosives. "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." This is technobabble. In what sense is RDX a high-temperature cutter-charge? What does that even mean? Is he suggesting that linear shaped charges of RDX melted the steel? From what I've seen the results of shaped charges on steel are more like tearing. Later he refers to pools of molten metal weeks after the event. Certainly thermite will melt steel, but how much thermite are we talking about? Truckloads? (By the way, I think some back-of-the-envelope heat-transfer calculations are in order there.) Rigging a skyscraper for controlled demolition is a massive undertaking, and a disruptive one. You would need open access to the structural members for weeks, there would be detonating cord everywhere, other members would probably need to be protected from damage so they didn't fail at the wrong time, and the workers would probably tear up the drywall and trash the carpets. And then what about priming the whole thing? Is it going to be left for weeks or months with blasting caps installed in the high explosives? I don't think so. And where is all this thermite going to be? I don't see how it would be possible to do this secretly. I don't see any basis for concluding that these puffs of smoke are from 'squibs.' He seems to just say they must be, because squibs can make puffs of smoke. "See the puffs of smoke? Those are squibs. How do I know they're squibs? Because of the puffs of smoke." I read through his paper, and read through (parts of) the NIST and FEMA reports, and the Popular Mechanics article. Jones' work sounds like junk science; The NIST and FEMA reports are less exciting, but seem solid and workman-like. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm not qualified to do a point-by-point debunking of Jones' work. It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. All we can do here is write, "This is what Jones says" and "This is what others say." Everyone with an interest has to read and make up his mind. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
My Page
This is my user page, and I can do with it what I want. If that pisses-off unemployed pedantic teenagers, then all the better. If, on the other hand, you want to have a rational discussion with me about articles and edits, I will treat you kindly.Morton devonshire 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mumites
Over the last few days, I've discovered that the supporters of Mumia are cult-like in their support and defense of Mumia and his public image. As such, I doubt very much that the article Fry Mumia will survive. The response has been incredible, and instructive, and I've learned something about my fellow-man -- that he's willing to elevate to sainthood even the most common criminal, so long as his image can be coopted to advance their own misguided vision. So be it. The article will be deleted because of the Cult of Mumia is obsessed with cleansing his public persona, but no amount of public cleansing will change the fact that Wesley Cook aka Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murder of a police officer, and will likely die in prison. The larger issue is the cultural phenomenen of the FM movement, which is interesting in its self, and worth exploring and commenting upon -- that's the purpose of the article. So have at it, and feel free to contribute to the article. Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Morton, you may want to review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire
Stalker Dude
User:Golbez -- quit stalking me dude! Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- And calling me out like this is supposed to get me to stop looking at your edits? --Golbez 00:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Little weasel dude, would you please just leave me alone. You're starting to scare me. Morton devonshire 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again, before things spiral out of control, please review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. The guy/girl is following me around in my edits, editing pages that I edit and that he/she has never edited before, and marked an article Afd before it was even edited. That seems WP:POINT to me, and don't know what else to do than to call him/her out on it, as nobody on the Admin side seems to be willing to help. Worse yet, he/she is an admin. I'm on my own, and here you show up and are critical again. Doesn't feel good man. Morton devonshire 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- What do you need help with, exactly? You seem to be doing fine on your own, although I recommend toning down the rhetoric and familiarizing yourself with policy. You might even want to lend your hand to a WikiProject or some non-controversial articles. You could even patrol recent changes for vandalism. There's lots to do. —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. The guy/girl is following me around in my edits, editing pages that I edit and that he/she has never edited before, and marked an article Afd before it was even edited. That seems WP:POINT to me, and don't know what else to do than to call him/her out on it, as nobody on the Admin side seems to be willing to help. Worse yet, he/she is an admin. I'm on my own, and here you show up and are critical again. Doesn't feel good man. Morton devonshire 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again, before things spiral out of control, please review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Little weasel dude, would you please just leave me alone. You're starting to scare me. Morton devonshire 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- What I want is for the "stalking editor" activity to stop -- feels retaliatory to me. Is there a Wikipedia rule against it? Morton devonshire 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, see WP:HA, but in my opinion, you have not been stalked by anyone. It might be best to just let this go and move on. I think most editors understand that having an article up for deletion that you created and have an attachment to can be stressful. Try to focus more on your edits and less on other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- What I want is for the "stalking editor" activity to stop -- feels retaliatory to me. Is there a Wikipedia rule against it? Morton devonshire 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Suspected Sockpuppets
The Conspiracy Theory
- Blackcats/SkeenaR as Sockpuppets -- why: Both hover at 9/11 conspiracy theories, and patrol the page like wildcats. Blackcats goes off the radar screen early Jan, stops editing, except for welcome messages on SkeenaR talk pages, etc. SkeenaR starts editing early Jan, immediately posts very sophisticated user page and demonstrates sophisticated tagging and editing skill immediately, while feigning newbie weakness. SkeenaR accidentally responds to a perceived affront to Blackcats, and leaves smoochie-smoochie messages on Blackcats' user page. Don't get me wrong, they're both interesting editors, and kind of fun to spar with. Both are also so sold on the 911 "Truth" Movement propaganda (yes, those are scare quotes) that they have trouble seeing just how biased their edits are. Morton devonshire 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The Alternative Explanation
They just both smoke the same dope. Morton devonshire 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fellow 9/11 Inhalers
Kaimiddleton, Bov, Ombudsman, Zen-Master (now banned), EyesAllMine, Adam Adler (probably Ombudsman), ILovePlankton (a real piece of work), Normal nick, Pedant (need I say more), Kmf164, Siva1979, Skee-man, Blackcats, Hyperbole, Irishpunktom (friend of Striver), 198.207.168.65 (definitely SkeenaR), and Strive-Man the Magnificent
Mystery Sockpuppet
IslandGyrl placed me on some sort of Wikiquette list, but I've never had any interaction with he/she/it -- most likely a sockpuppet of someone who doesn't like my criticism of Mumia. I now suspect it is Viriditas, who jumped to the aid of an editor who was stalking-editing me several months ago, has connections to Hawaii (as does IslandGyrl), and who has a vegan/ALF bent -- if it's you, please contact me and explain. Also, if Admin Golbez would just apologize for retaliatory-stalking me, then I will completely remove all refs to the dispute -- the refs are there because I believed (and still do), that Golbez violated his station as Administrator when he engaged in the retaliatory editing practices he used to punish me for my views of Mumia.
Definitely Sockpuppets
The Conspiracy Theory
- Gamaliel/Guettarda/Golbez as Sockpuppets -- why: Sockpuppet 1 feels insulted; Sockpuppet 2 responds to purported insult, forgetting I'm actually talking to Sockpuppet 1; Sockpuppet 3 responds with retaliatory stalking-editing -- all within a space of 3 minutes. Funny stuff! Morton devonshire 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The Alternative Theory
They are pedantics! Morton devonshire 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
My Own Sockpuppet
Just for kicks, I created my own sockpuppet -- his name is User:MortonsSockpuppet. Do not be confused -- he is me and me is he -- he's a sockpuppet. I think it's useful to have your own sockpuppet, not to masquerade as something else, but to point out actual sockpuppetry and poke fun at others. For comic relief -- MortonsSockpuppet will sometimes agree with me, and sometimes not, depending on the desired comic effect. As Wikipedia is the land of point of view advocates and gatekeepers, and therefore not really a serious enterprise, I needed a tool to help point this out. Morton devonshire 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Finding Your Inner Sockpuppet
Permanent Weasel List
Weasel
I've initiated a permanent weasel list for those pedantics who make Wikipedia a less pleasant place.
Here's my first nominee
- "I stalk all martyrs, it really makes them sweat. --Golbez 00:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)" (from the administrator board)
This guy is supposedly an Administrator, and I'm supposed to assume good faith. Screw that. Morton devonshire 23:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- In context, it appears that Golbez was being facetious. —Viriditas | Talk 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I admire your generosity my friend. Morton devonshire 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
My second nominee
- Gamaliel -- this thing put me on its permanent watch list because I accused it of liberal bias. If it is an administrator, Wikipedia is truly lost. Morton devonshire 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Cult of Mumia
Will Beback, Golbez, Ashibaka, Sycthos, Gamaliel, Bletch, Peyna, Fagstein, Viriditas, Astrokey44, StuffOfInterest, Zoe, SarekOfVulcan, Guettarda, Fawcett5, Taxman, [deleted], BadSeed, Catsv, Kmac1036, and Jim62sch. See the Fry Mumia delete discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fry_Mumia get an idea of the vociferous nature of this Klan.
[[Image:[censored]Cowbell2.gif|frame|100px|right|Animation of Gene Frenkle (Will Ferrell) in the "More Cowbell" sketch]] ...and thank you for reverting yourself on List of songs featuring cowbells. - CorbinSimpson 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- That article is one of those let's see how ridiculous we can make Wikipedia things, right? I don't think I can really take Wikipedia seriously anymore. Morton devonshire 07:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I think that we have to remember that we are more or less unbounded in the amount of information we can record here. If we're going to try to write about every village that has ever been mentioned in Brittanica, we might as well make a list of all songs with cowbells in them too. I mean, Cajatambo is not an article that I thought was meaningful, but I wrote it anyways...even though it's a tiny stub that nobody except Peruvians are really knowledgeable about... - CorbinSimpson 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't be a dick
The following is taken word-for-word from Wikimedia Don't be a dick. If Admins took this to heart, most of the disputes they find themselves in would go away, and Wikipedia would be a happier and more useful space.
Why is it a bad thing?
Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood of whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) reaching the ears of your intended audience dramatically (even exponentially) diminishes. Why? Simple: no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how correct or in the right they are.
Remedies
If you've been labeled as a dick, or if you suspect that you yourself may be one, there is hope. The first step is to realize that you are being a dick. Ask yourself what is causing you to be one. Change your behavior and your mode of presentation. If needed, apologize to anyone who you may have been a dick to. It's okay! People will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect.
Rationale to impeach George W. Bush, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account, Bush family conspiracy theory, & List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks
Getting ready to nominate these for deletion -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of surprized that you asked me, I don't even think I've read the article before. But I did read it and the other opinions before I voted. I do not feel very strongly about it, however. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I don't mind being asked for my input. Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the BCC is impotent and kind of sad, but nonetheless notable because of media coverage and the notability of some of the people involved. I'm questioning why you're labelling it propaganda. I think there may be cases where articles are irredeemably POV, but it seems to me that this is an article which could be covered objectively. Шизомби 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- If it were notable, then I wouldn't come to the same conclusion. But it's not notable, and the article was obviously created to assert the position that Bush is a war criminal -- that's the very definition of propaganda. If a real international body operating under the Rule of Law, like the International Criminal Court, were to create a tribunal with the same name, I would see the issue differently. My perspective is that Wikipedia should be free of advertising and political campaigning. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following your POV here. I could understand someone saying the group is not notable enough for an article; WP policy isn't clear on notability for groups or events, so that's a judgment call. The article may have been created by someone who believes Bush is a war criminal (I don't know Ombudsman's position, though I would guess so), but WP doesn't prohibit people from adding articles about things they agree with (how awkward would that be?). What I don't understand is why having an article about a group that decided Bush is a war criminal necessarily pushes that group's POV and acts as propaganda. WP does not endorse things as valid by having articles about them. If the problem is POV pushers owning the article, then a RFC might have been a better way to go (I realize it wasn't you that nomed it). Шизомби 02:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP is replete with POV-pusher articles like this one. I just don't see the merit in taking it to Rfc, as the article could never really be any better than it was when Ombuds started it, as the BCC is nn. As such, the article doesn't attract many editors, except those that agree with its political premise -- those kinds of article quickly become politically slanted and non-encyclopedic. It's best to delete them rather than try to fix, because they will never be encyclopedic. Peace brother. Morton devonshire 02:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following your POV here. I could understand someone saying the group is not notable enough for an article; WP policy isn't clear on notability for groups or events, so that's a judgment call. The article may have been created by someone who believes Bush is a war criminal (I don't know Ombudsman's position, though I would guess so), but WP doesn't prohibit people from adding articles about things they agree with (how awkward would that be?). What I don't understand is why having an article about a group that decided Bush is a war criminal necessarily pushes that group's POV and acts as propaganda. WP does not endorse things as valid by having articles about them. If the problem is POV pushers owning the article, then a RFC might have been a better way to go (I realize it wasn't you that nomed it). Шизомби 02:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What basis are you using to decide who to notify about this AFD? Шизомби 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm curious about that too. Anyway, please don't notify me about any more AFD articles - if I feel like contribituting, I'll find the AFD myself. Thanks. --Tim4christ17 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- To answer both of you, my interest is in combating POV-pushing and political agenda-pushing on Wikipedia. WP strives to be an encyclopedia, and should be NPOV. Morton devonshire 11:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Morton, look I'm the one who added the Afd to the Crimes commison page. Please don't notify people about it (This might cause said article to be kept and votes thrown out). If they wish to vote on it they will look it up on the Afd list. Also If the delete fails (which I think it will now) I'm going to oush for the merger of it into the Not in Our Name article. Aeon 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Morton devonshire 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did talk to you above, trying to understand your motivations. I appreciate that you're being polite, and I agree with you that WP should be an encyclopedia and NPOV, and that POV-pushing and political-agenda pushing should be dealt with. However, I think you're guilty of both by contacting 50+ people who could be expected to recommend delete on this article. Many of them have not articulated valid reasons for deletion (or any reason at all), which merely displays their own POV-pushing. As Aeon notes above, your action may backfire on you by the closing admin throwing out votes (unless that was your intent?). Should the article be deleted, you've given ample reason for a Deletion review by your actions. You would have done better to simply recommend the best possible reasons you could identify to delete the article. Maybe had you found a good one I would have agreed with you; I try to keep my recommendations in line with policy even if it means recommending deletion on something I like/agree with/find interesting/don't object to, or recommending keep on something I dislike/don't agree with/don't find interesting/find objectionable. As it is, I think you've done something wrong and felt obliged to report it. Should I have mentioned that to you before I did or immediately after? I don't know; I was debating it; I had most of this comment written and in an open window. Шизомби 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP:AGF Editing Wikipedia is a learning process, for me too. I've made plenty of mistakes, and want to get into fewer unhealthy exchanges with fellow Wikipedians. Here's hoping we can get along, even if you disagree with me. Cheers. Morton devonshire 23:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not a prob Dev. Its all cool Aeon 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did talk to you above, trying to understand your motivations. I appreciate that you're being polite, and I agree with you that WP should be an encyclopedia and NPOV, and that POV-pushing and political-agenda pushing should be dealt with. However, I think you're guilty of both by contacting 50+ people who could be expected to recommend delete on this article. Many of them have not articulated valid reasons for deletion (or any reason at all), which merely displays their own POV-pushing. As Aeon notes above, your action may backfire on you by the closing admin throwing out votes (unless that was your intent?). Should the article be deleted, you've given ample reason for a Deletion review by your actions. You would have done better to simply recommend the best possible reasons you could identify to delete the article. Maybe had you found a good one I would have agreed with you; I try to keep my recommendations in line with policy even if it means recommending deletion on something I like/agree with/find interesting/don't object to, or recommending keep on something I dislike/don't agree with/don't find interesting/find objectionable. As it is, I think you've done something wrong and felt obliged to report it. Should I have mentioned that to you before I did or immediately after? I don't know; I was debating it; I had most of this comment written and in an open window. Шизомби 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
RE:The Attention template, AFAIK one doesn't have to be an admin to place it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion which states "If you expect that the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (possibly because the article itself is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening after the AfD page is created, you might want to insert the {{Template:AfdAnons}} template into it." That seems to be directed at all editors, not just admins. Шизомби 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was impressed, and sometimes intimidated by those sorts of canned notices and messages, because I assumed that they came from Wikipedia Officials. I even got one off the bat from someone calling himself Ombudsman, which I wrongly assumed was actually some kind of Ombudsman -- turns out he's a POV-pusher, and not a neutral at all. So, I think it's helpful to note that the message is not an official one, just one placed by a regular user/editor who is apparently trying to intimidate voters. The template is meaningless -- it's not official Wikipedia policy -- I didn't want viewers to give it any undue weight. Morton devonshire 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure what status that template has if it's not policy, but it's certainly not deprecated. If you want the wording of it changed so that its meaning is better understood, you might try raising your objections on the discussion page for it. As for the deletion policy, you gave the link for the deletion guidelines for admins, not Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Шизомби 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What, no invite? I guess I have to crash!!!! SkeenaR 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that people are very seriously taking this place as a field of Information warfare. I was alerted by Striver to most but not all of the Afd's I've participated in and voted KEEP in almost all of them. I didn't base my votes on politics though, I think pretty much every one has been notable and worth keeping. It looks like articles are always nominated for this because someone has an axe to grind. Hey, here's one, I don't know if you've seen it. Wikipedia Watch (Daniel Brandt and the history is pretty interesting I think) Good luck by the way. Check your mail.SkeenaR 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of becoming involved in any of that controversy, but thanks for the advice anyway. BTW, I have a hard time seeing this struggle as a war between Left and Right. Sometimes rightwingers see my ideas as leftist("You hate America don't you? Are you French SkeenaR? You pacifists are blah blah blah" and sometimes I hear from lefties things like "You intolerant redneck! No wonder there is so much war. Here, sniff this incense blah blah blah") People should get over this left/right thing. It seems like tunnel vision to me. Don't know why the mail didn't work. SkeenaR 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Morton, it's been awhile. Since there is no more Bush Crimes Commission we can replace it with Colbert. Here. Also, you think you could put a message in my email for me? I need to test it. Thanks man. Colbert with Bush [2] Colbert with Kristol [3] SkeenaR 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, you are under attack, of course that is what happens when you enter a war zone. I see you have a lot of support as well. I don't know why the hell I can't get a message through to you by wikipedia, but I got your address now so I can go from there. Thanks for testing that for me. SkeenaR 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
POV Language in 9/11 Truth Movment Description
I've spent some time on wikipedia trying to clean up the nonesense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (I gave up on this page, because it was me against a couple others who were adamant that a hanging google link was damning evidence of CIA conspiracy, and any evidence that contradicted their postion was just part of the CIA conspiracy and therefore shouldn't be in the article). That being said, your description of the 9/11 Truth Movement on the pseudoscience page was way POV:
- 9/11 Truth Movement: hack and insubstantial scientific methods used to disprove the factual account of the destruction of the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
While I myself would not hesitate to call them hacks when speaking of them, because there is no problem with myself having a POV, when we are editing wikipedia we have to try and not use language like that, because of the whole NPOV thing ya know?
As a general rule of thumb, if you can tell which side of the argument the editor stands by their contribution, it wasn' written in NPOV language. --Brentt 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I like your edit better, and agree completely. Morton devonshire 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Counter-POV Unit
Morton, Morton..."non-expert investigators"? Holee! I flipped over to the "Truth" page and once again recognized your trademark before viewing the history. I don't know, I just don't know...what is it that you are so worried about? SkeenaR 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've thought about the issue, and you might disagree with me, but I think that particular bunch has a lot more expertise than they are given credit for around here. For example, it is often pointed out that Prof. Steven E. Jones is a physicist and is researching a subject that would more appropriate for a structural engineer. That probably isn't entirely correct. On the other hand, the whole issue is multidimensional and someone like Andreas Von Buelow or Wayne Madsen for example is expertly qualified to comment on other aspects of the issue. I think "researchers questioning..." is adequate. It doesn't call them expert, amateur, brilliant or boneheaded. Does that make sense? SkeenaR 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Bush crimes Com.
COOL! Aeon 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your cat picture on the 9/11 conspiracy page
You're a smartass.
I like you.--DCAnderson 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
NICE ONE DUDE Aeon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. on the "HOP" quote on 9/11 conspiracy theories
I also kind of like the way the quote is written, because it gives you that proper "angry ranting and raving" feel you need for any good conspiracy theory.--DCAnderson 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Morton. I personally don't have a problem with it, but you should be aware that some Wikipedians take a very dim view of campaigning for people to vote a certain way on an issue. Many people would urge you to make a neutrally worded posting to a neutral place, such as the village pump. If you keep up your get-out-the-vote-campaign, it may have the opposite effect to what you wish. Johntex\talk 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks John. I understand that some don't like it, but there's also no WP policy against it. Unfortunately, there's no other effective to get people to pay attention to blatantly POV articles. Cheers. Morton devonshire 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, as you say, it's not against policy. People have tried to make it be against policy in the past, and I've always opposed them. I think attempting to restrict people from campaigning for their position would be bad policy. Maybe if we had hundreds of people leaving hundreds of messages for hundreds of user's daily it would be a problem like e-mail spam is, but even with cut-and-paste, you can't hit that many pages with the current system. Johntex\talk 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks John. I understand that some don't like it, but there's also no WP policy against it. Unfortunately, there's no other effective to get people to pay attention to blatantly POV articles. Cheers. Morton devonshire 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I love your userpage
It's one of the best I've seen- userpage and discussion pages both. Love the tinfoil hats galore! --FairNBalanced 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, what happened to all the tinfoil hats ??????? --FairNBalanced 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Other
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read its talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. For instance, your deletion of virtually all other legal opinion, was a vandal move. As you saw, there an AfD - if you want the article gone, vote for deletion. Metarhyme 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't lecture me -- I've been on Wikipedia for awhile, and I know what is and isn't vandalism, so don't bother trying to intimidate me, because it won't work. I removed the material because it's soapboxing, and non-notable, and exactly the kind of thing that got Rationales to Impeach George Bush Afd'd. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for every person trying to promote a political agenda. I will watch the article closely, and eliminate any soapboxing that I see. The article is otherwise factual, except for the nn material I removed, so I wouldn't be in favor of Afd. Don't expect me to wilt in front of your angry fist. Morton devonshire 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding edits to User:SkeenaR
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bill 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- SkeenaR is a friend of mine, and would not see it as vandalism. Lighten up. Morton devonshire 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I know Morton was just having some fun screwing around. SkeenaR 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it. Consider myself lightened up.--Bill 22:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Image:Jokermovie.jpg
This image is tagged under fair use, so you cannot use it on your User talk page. Currently, under Wikipedia policy for fair use, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used [...] on user pages." You will need to remove the Jokermovie image that is on your User talk page. Copysan 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Coercion, I assume that this is some sort of lame attempt to punish me for my views on your favorite Bush-hating articles. I'm not impressed, nor will this sort of harassment deter me from taking aim at blatantly POV articles. Pet socks can go chew on that for awhile. Morton devonshire 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not a sock, and you can go ahead and admins CheckUser me, if you wish. I will ignore your personal attack because, overall, I don't really care. I was simply browsing around, and I noticed a fair use image on your talk. In an attempt to improve Wikipedia, which is my job as an editor, I simply notified you of the rules. Copysan 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right. Never mind, I understand now what you are, given that you would Wikify the words personal attack. Morton devonshire 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not a sock, and you can go ahead and admins CheckUser me, if you wish. I will ignore your personal attack because, overall, I don't really care. I was simply browsing around, and I noticed a fair use image on your talk. In an attempt to improve Wikipedia, which is my job as an editor, I simply notified you of the rules. Copysan 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Flat Earth Society - Proud Member
Why yes, I believe I am: http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/worldisflat.htm Have you read it? If not, I'll give you the highlights: The World IS Flat. Thanks to the internet and globalization as well as brilliant innovations in the democratization of knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia), it is no longer possible for governments to keep truth from the people.
I fundamentally believe that while you can break the law, you cannot break the laws of physics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_Laws_of_Gravity for an example of the type of law that the official account violates. I realize that Einstein's relativity proved that Newton's model was limited at atomic scales, but it still holds up against claims that 19 Al Quaeda terrorists brought down two skyscrapers with such force that the entire substructure dissapeared in a puff of 'War on Terrorism' logic.
The World IS flat and George Bush would NEVER send thousands of Americans to their deaths on the basis of a lie would he? (Oops, WMD!) 86.49.76.137 19:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
So the truth comes out, Morton...or is it MONGO!
[4]BUM, BUM, BUM!--DCAnderson 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's funny! I wish I was an Admin -- there are plenty of people I would just delete off the planet. Thanks for making my day. Oh, I do have a sockpuppet -- his name, appropriately, is MortonsSockpuppet Morton devonshire 01:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposed deletions
Shouldn't the articles you tagged with {{prod}} ([5] [6] [7]) instead be submitted to normal AfD review? Per the deletion policy, {{prod}} is reserved for "uncontroversial articles". Certainly, these articles - and their proposed deletion - qualify as controversial. --mtz206 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The tag has been removed from these articles. --mtz206 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report AfD'd if you're interested.--DCAnderson 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet!
Well, looks like I'm your sockpuppet, or you're mine. We kind of look alike though...aside from the fact that I'm in my forties and as big as a house (6'7", 270). Try not to incite violence over at the 9/11 articles...those people are either misinformed, anti-U.S., prone to believing the impossible, or simply idiots. I think what set "truthseeker1234" of was your use of the word "baloney" in the edit summary, a word I often use, which I use as a polite way to not use my preferred word, which is "bullshit".--MONGO 04:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
9/11 Articles under attack
Pro-Official POV Warriors/Inhalers Launch Encyclopedia Assault. SkeenaR
- Awesome pic! Morton devonshire 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto, but Morton is less attractive. MortonsSockpuppet 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd seen that Indymedia article or blog or whatever is before and it was pretty interesting to look at. Of course I was in a really great mood that one day.[8] SkeenaR 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Dubious Sources: From WP:RS
"Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [9]
Deleting info for political reasons?
I seriously hope this is not the case, but these three difs worry me, the deletion of the reference to MDC on John Wayne especially. MDC is quite a notable band--they even have a bio on Allmusic. If I'm wrong, please say so.
- I'm not intimidated by your crap. Morton devonshire 09:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice to see you are so interested in resolving disputes nicely. Please don't make controversial edits without discussing them first with others. The Ungovernable Force 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to "merciless editing"? How can you mercilessly edit by committee? Once again the Wiki-totalitarians make themselves felt. I guess it really should be "merciless editing unless the Left-wingers don't like it." That's much more accurate. PainMan 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"Truth Movement" Meatpuppet Alert
See [10] for an invitation from the "Truthseekers" to spread their 9/11 gospel to the pages of Wikipedia. Once more into the breach I go! Morton devonshire 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What treally happened is nomed for AFD
Hey Morton. I have nommed What Really Happened for AFD (2nd attempt) Aeon 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notif, and if anybody tries to tell you that notification is forbidden, don't believe it. Some people don't like it, but there is no rule prohibiting it. Morton devonshire 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- True True, and I didn't say go vote either I just was notifing you that an article that you watched was being AFDed....although I should have nommed it under WP:NOT not WP:WEB
- OH! I forgot to tell you I also nomed Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity for AFD. I'm not sure if the first one on your list List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks qualifies for an AFD or not yet, so far you judgement on it seems correct, which policy are you considering on that one?
- Thanks much. Yes, I've been waiting for the Veterans article to come up for some time, and will chime in on that one. The Clear Channel article is still a good candidate, but I want to wait on that until I've put together a strong argument for the Afd -- will chat with you about that later. The simple answer is that the List is an Urban Myth. Some of the facts may be true, but using the sources cited by the author, none of it is verifiable with reference to reputable sources -- the subject is discussed on a few blogs, and Snopes has weighed in and said that the Urban Myth is not true. However, the author of the article is so spastically wed to the article that he lashes out when anyone challenges it, and I expect him to retaliate against the nominator when it's nominated, and to sockpuppet the Afd as well. As such, I want to have my ducks in a row before the nom. Heh, thanks for reaching out. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- yep I stired up the hornets nest on the What really happened article. Can't wait for the rest of the puppets to start there attack Aeon 05:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey you might want to check out the AFD on What Really Happened, it has become a really puppetfest (To qoute Isotope) some of the comments made me fall out of my chair laughing Aeon 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What really happened is GONE!
What Really Happened is gone! Closed as a delete on 4th of july! Aeon 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy! Snuffed! Maybe the website can be deleted too! Now the freedomfireworks! SkeenaR 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- And it's back. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- no I didn't get hit at all....wow they will resort to anything. Aeon 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Figures
Ok.....I will Nom it tomarrow when I get to work. All my notes on this list is there. Aeon 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Nice edit
Wasn't mine at all. Linton (talk • contribs) was the one who rewrote it; I just fixed a tiny grammatical error Linton had introduced. I agree that the rewrite was well done, though. —Caesura(t) 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
9/11 theory redirects need to go to RfD, not ProD
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still feel the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Cruft on the firing Line
Hello! The terrorists have won is nomed for AfD Aeon Insane Ward 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notif.
Morton DevonshireYo
yo
RfAr involving Zero
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Alert
Thanks, added comment. Aeon Insane Ward 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A subset on how "connecting the dots" violates Wikipedia's rule against no original research
See [11], quoted in its entirety below.
Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.
AfD
Please stop doing the voty thing on Afd [12]. It isn't a vote but your use of voting symbols will mislead other editors into the belief that it is. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you see my entries on Afds, they are clearly based upon Wikipedia policy, and not some concept of voting. You apparently have a very aggressive view regarding Afds and surveys which is not reflected in Wikipedia policy (i.e. in other words, it's just your opinion, not policy), and were I a less-seasoned Wikipedian, I might be intimidated into not voicing my opinion at all in matters based upon your Admin status and your very strongly voiced views. Please be aware that your heavy handedness might be a dampener to newer Wikipedians. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
RFDs
You have placed an RFD tag on 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge. However, you never listed it at WP:RFD. Please properly complete your nomination per the instructions on that page. Also, the RFD tag is not supposed to replace the redirect. It is supposed to go above the redirect. Please fix that also. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have reverted this back to the redirect as it's not listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Please follow the instructions above. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Cruft Alert
Here is a bunch of cruft that was made by a politics class Aeon Insane Ward 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hipocrite
User routinely (when losing arguments) accuses everyone left and right of being sock/meatpuppets, but can never back up those claims. When pressed to do so, he "declines" citing info he can't disclose. If he harasses you with that AN:I him. It's a pattern. rootology 07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. It might help if you also left a message on his talk page saying the same thing, that way it's not he said/she said. If you look at his talk page, he's managed to convince someone that he's the victim instead of the aggressor. Thanks. Morton devonshire 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lost cause, look at my talk page. He doesn't like me because I called him on his nonsense previously and challenged him to prove accusations (which he couldn't as they were unfounded). If he accuses you or sockpuppeting I'd insist on the Spam page where he did to remove it he can't substantiate that. He tried to absolutely tear me a new one and embarress me on a now-deleted RfC, and when I wrote a 3 paragraph proof his lying he simply replied with "Stop trolling". Look at my talk page, too. I'm not "welcome" or allowed to post to him now. rootology 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If he continues, I intend to report him to AN/I, and hope you will support the complaint with your experiences as well. Cheers. Morton devonshire 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lost cause, look at my talk page. He doesn't like me because I called him on his nonsense previously and challenged him to prove accusations (which he couldn't as they were unfounded). If he accuses you or sockpuppeting I'd insist on the Spam page where he did to remove it he can't substantiate that. He tried to absolutely tear me a new one and embarress me on a now-deleted RfC, and when I wrote a 3 paragraph proof his lying he simply replied with "Stop trolling". Look at my talk page, too. I'm not "welcome" or allowed to post to him now. rootology 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
September 11, 2001 attacks
Did you actually take a look at the talk page ? There seem to be a dispute between twose that want to blindly accept official position of the American government, and those that want neutral representation of the issue.
Do you claim that the dispute doesn't exist ?Taw 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have followed the September 11 article very closely for 7 months. Based upon Wikipedia policy re reliable sources, I do not think that you have a valid argument regarding POV, as there are no reliable sources to support your position (See WP:RS). Morton devonshire 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that a memorandum (recovered after the US liberation of Iraq) from one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs (he had quite a few, rather like Hitler) to the Butcher of Baghdad contains information that confirms that Saddam personally approved of aid to the 9/11 terrorists and that the Hussein government provided material aid to the 9/11 attackers. Coupled with the known visit of Mohammad Atta to Iraq, it's clear that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The absence of this information--along with the incontrovertible discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (source: NewsMax), clearly casts serious doubts on the so-called 9/11 Commission. (Source: an AP story.)
The 9/11 "Commission" is also unique in that did it's "work" during the war begun by the attacks. By contrast, the official investigation of the military's rank incompetence that allowed the Pearl Harbor attack did not take place unitl after WWII was over.
Thank You for Your Support
While Hippocrite is troublesome, I think that the main problem is User: Zoe. She has exhibited abuses of power that threaten the way Wikipedia is supposed to function. She is the worst offender I have ever seen.
Please help me. I am asking you, as a favor, to review the First Family of the United States article as it was immediately following my last contribution, before entire families were reverted. I seem to be the target of some kind of vendetta, and recently it seems that all of my contributions have been swiftly deleted. There wasn't even a reason given; they just axed the Ford, Eisenhower, and Nixon families without explanation. There was no political bias in my wording, no controversial claims, nothing even remotely resembling a hoax. They even took down my pictures, all of which were public ___domain.
Please read this article and then write your honest opinion in its talk page. I have been writing with Wikipedia for over a year now but am seriously considering leaving because of this.
History21 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21
Hipocrite is giving me trouble again, this time on the Judy Feder website. I cited directly from her website, and stated in the article that that's what I was doing, so he has gotten rid of the whole thing because it may be a "copyright violation." Please look at that as well. Thank you for your help with First Family.
Oh, hi. Now they're trying to say that First Family of the United States is a hoax. They've labelled it and everything. Please look at that as well, and bring in some sane friends. I reported the incident on the administrators' board thing.
History21 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21
Entertainment for ya
[13]...wild man, wild. SkeenaR 02:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You'd better be careful...
...that the lizards don't zap you with their third eyes. Thanks for your assistance in trying to instil some semblance of sanity and reality into that Problem-reaction-solution bollocks. I managed to edit the first paragraph, but just gave up after that and nominated the damned thing for deletion. Anyway, power to your elbows. Byrgenwulf 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Back!
I couldn't stay away! Wikipedia is addicting. two weeks should be more than enough to deal with some o f the stress I had. Thanks for droping me a line. Æon Insane Ward 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Went over there and posted, I would recomend leting Doc Tropics know to. Æon Insane Ward 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did. Anybody else? I really want this one to go down. Bad. Morton devonshire 20:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ave. I also added a couple of thoughts to the "banned songs" AfD...thanks for the heads up. Are you aware that Problem-reaction-solution is up for deletion review? I really want that one to stay down. But feel free to piss me off, only know that my cronies the lizardmen will be coming for you if you do. I hate coercion, but sometimes we illuminated individuals have to make use of it... Byrgenwulf 20:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
hmmm can't think of anyone at this time, you might try ALphachimp Æon Insane Ward 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
9/11
I'll check out the AfD, but I probably won't vote, for fear of allegations of meatpuppetry. I hope that you understand. Regards, alphaChimp laudare 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. Mutual friend Aeon suggested your interest. Morton devonshire 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to Checkuser Question
Hi, sorry but I can't use checkuser because I'm not an administrator. If you suspect that a user is using sockpuppets to influence afds then you should request a checkuser at the following page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Jersey Devil 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you labelled comments by DejahThoris (contribs) and Mispeled (contribs) as possible single-purpose accounts. The former user in particular has almost 200 varied edits stretching back to March 2006, which automatically seems to fall outside the prongs of Wikipedia:Single purpose account ("...a user account which is (or appears to be) used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." The second user I can understand more, since s/he has very few edits, but even those stretch back to February 2006 and are on topics quite different from this one. Could you maybe rethink the adding of SPA notices to those users? Or is there some IP evidence there that I'm not seeing? Cheers! -- H·G (words/works) 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9/11 - IT WAS THE GOVERMENT/ISREALI/ILLUMINATI CABAL OMGWTFBBQ
Regarding the Robert M. Bowman article, I'd support an afd. But I'd first try and get rid of the James H. Fetzer and Kenneth L. Kuttler article. These tinfoilers are even less notable than that Bowman dude. --Peephole 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9/11 CT contradictory article
Hi Morton, we should probably settle the issue of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article can co-exist with the September 11, 2001 attacks article. When you have moment, please drop by and discuss it on the talk pages.--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Urban legend
The reference you cite contains the following: "Clear Channel did not deny that such a list existed" The only thing that seems to be a myth is that Clear Channel banned the playing of these songs, rather than sent a list to its stations of songs it thought may be inappropriate in light of 9-11. The article's title List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks adequately conveys that these were not banned songs, but just deemed inappropriate in a list that corporate sent to the stations. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Two problems: (1) the list is frequently edited by the article's gatekeeper, LGagnon, to insist that a ban really did exist (and he can't be convinced otherwise); and (2) besides the Snopes article itself, there is nothing to verify that Clearchannel actually had such a list, so how can we know what was supposed to be on the list? The only references to the list in the media seem to be to the urban legend that Clear Channel actually banned the songs. The net result is that the article lends credence to the notion that Clear Channel actually banned these songs, and it didn't. The better result is to delete all mention of Clear Channel in the article, or just to delete the article entirely. Morton devonshire 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Balance to google bomb miserable failure
I have created Great President and Waffles (John Kerry). Immediately it is under fire. You've edited Bush and Kerry articles previously so I thought you might be interested. --Tbeatty 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Gladly, particularly since Rootology (tin-foil-promoter) is on the other side. Morton devonshire 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Already redirected and sorted out to be neutral to everyone. And for WP I'm not on anyone's side at all, except basic facts that can be sourced and cited, and NPOV. :) I could care less about anyone's politics, so long as they don't infect actual articles themselves--same as I wouldn't put a liberal spin on something, I won't do a conservative on a financial article (social = liberal; fiscal = fairly conservative in most cases). It's all about [facts]... rootology (T) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you honestly think that the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are NPOV and well-sourced? Morton devonshire 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- NPOV: not totally yet, no, but that criticism section if you're talking about the scholars one can be--it just needs to get better sourcing. Overall sourcing? Getting better now that I added some more. Take a look at my actual edits there--all I did was add citations and start the clean up, really, and clarified their stated position based on a RS newspaper article. The criticism section was just the most unsourced, so I gave that the hardest scrubbing. Honestly? My personal take on it--as I watched it happen live back in 2001--was that the jet fuel from the explosions caused a catastrophic failure of the structure, and I recall seeing a PBS documentary that explained that the buildings' initial design was to fall 'inward', so that they wouldn't fall across 18 city blocks. I know what I saw, and I believe they came down fron a terrorist attack that maybe could have been prevented, maybe not. Beats me on that. It just slipped through the grasp of the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc., and dumb luck was on the side of the terrorists as well. Do I think there was a conspiracy? I can't say for sure, but I've always been opposed to the extent that any state keeps secrets, and especially in the case of the most public attack on our nation since Pearl Harbor, the government should have disclosed everything, and I mean everything, about the actual collapse. But does that they didn't mean that there was a conspiracy? Beats me, again. I just think that the scholars group and some of their members are notable enough to warrant inclusion in WP now, based on all their recent press in particular, and I'd like the articles to be as NPOV as possible as long as everything meets WP:V and WP:RS. rootology (T) 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you honestly think that the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are NPOV and well-sourced? Morton devonshire 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Already redirected and sorted out to be neutral to everyone. And for WP I'm not on anyone's side at all, except basic facts that can be sourced and cited, and NPOV. :) I could care less about anyone's politics, so long as they don't infect actual articles themselves--same as I wouldn't put a liberal spin on something, I won't do a conservative on a financial article (social = liberal; fiscal = fairly conservative in most cases). It's all about [facts]... rootology (T) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think merging them all is okay. The article will now need to be reorganized in order to reflect that it is political google bombs that include "miserable failure" and not just "miserable failure."--Tbeatty 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism warning
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- LGagnon 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- What a ridiculous thing to allege. You know darned well that editing an article is not vandalism. Your intimidation will not prevent me from editing the article. Keep it up, and I'll report you to AN/I. Morton devonshire 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything wrong; I have just given you the appropriate warning for your recent blanking of an article. Go ahead and report me if you want; it'll only get them to notice your vandalism. -- LGagnon 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not blank the article. I excised unreliable information, and kept what was reliable. That's not blanking, and you know it. I will report you this weekend, after I finish rewriting the article. Morton devonshire 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of liberal browbeating. "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to tell on you!"
Where does this individual get off writing, "Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia"? Did he buy Wikipedia when I wasn't looking? Was he appointed Wikiemperor? The arrogance!
And yet more evidence why need you, Morton, and people like you to remove Left-Liberal propaganda.
Reading between the lines here isn't hard. What Ms/Mr Gagnon wants is for liberal propaganda to be untoucheable holy writ whilst having people who remove it labeled "vandals."
Isn't that the very definition of facsism? Or, more accurately, Bolshevism?
No 9/11 conspiracy "theory" page
Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing). By writing only the facts, the conspiracy nutburgers are automatically refuted.
After all, the famous Czarist secret police forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not warrant being displayed in full next to an article on Anti-Semitism.
This is even more relevant since many of the conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks ("Hey, guys! Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!"). E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call? Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."
Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.
Please don't vandalize pages
And compromise the integrity of pages as done on this this edit. Thanks! rootology (T) 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- No thanks needed. Glad to oblige. Morton devonshire 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Glad it is amusing. Please don't do it again as it is vandalism and blockable if ongoing. rootology (T) 06:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Warning: no personal attacks
Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. -- LGagnon 00:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, that wasn't a personal attack, it was a comment on content. Please WP:AGF --Tbeatty 01:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Saying "You will feel better if you stop taking this personally" on the assumption that I am taking the article personally isn't a personal attack? He has been making similar attacks against me the whole way through the talk page, claiming that I think I own the article. Trust me, this is just a continuation of his previous violations of policy. -- LGagnon 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be best if you just stop interacting with me. Morton devonshire 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
On disputed WP:RS for State terrorism by United States of America
I've found when people start bickering over what is or is not something, the best solution is to state everything you dispute, and give reasons. Ergo, I urge you to list on the talk page of the above article each and every reference you dispute the validity of (or rather the use of due to neutrality or other reasons), and give reasons. References for the reasons also comes in handy. I've found the following format to be useful:
*[reference] **[reasoning]
Then ask the other editors involved to argue under each and every reference you listed. You may find a number of them have to be kept, but by using the above, people are often required to admit the problems with a reference.
Another suggestion is that although the article, in my opinion, attempts to be NPOV, there is a lack of opposing references. Looking for these from reliable sources and adding them would help massively, and since they are from reliable sources, it would be hard to remove them.
I hope this helps to defuse the situation some for all sides involved. LinaMishima 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Warning with respect to your userpage edit
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is with regards to this edit. LinaMishima 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note that I respect that many editors dislike others editing their userpage. As such, I have left the removal of this comment to yourself as an act of good faith LinaMishima 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- My response is this: I will make the article in question the number one piece on my watch list until the POV problems are fixed. The article in question continues to violate WP:RS and WP:OR. I assure you that I will continue to edit the article. If you have any doubt about the frustration that editors have with that page, and its editors, see the following comment from Admin Tom Harrison:
- "We could call it American terrorism (term); We could call it United States - evil empire of hypocrisy and badness plus they owned slaves. Maybe Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would work. Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)"
I have a question for you: Do you also go by the username Seabhcan? Do you sometimes go by the username Travb? Morton devonshire 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you before I continue to sign your comments with ~~~~? It helps everyone follow the converstation. Now, to busines. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. [14], [15], [16] and [17] seem to me to lack civility and certainly do not assume good faith. You have been warned about this several times now. I see your more recient edits are trying to be more tactful, which is good.
For your information, I'm LinaMishima, and checking my contrib history will show that I am not a sockpuppet. It will also show that I believe in verification, and so far I have seen an article that is verified. It could, however, do with more sourced arguing against the current ones. As I have stated before, such sources can't be contested, and as such would make perfect additions to help with NPOV improvements LinaMishima 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that you are LinaMishima, but that doesn't answer my question: Do you also edit under the other user names I mentioned (Seabhcan and Travb)? Morton devonshire 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I use sockpuppet to describe all of the multiple accounts opperated by a person. And I stated, even a cursory glance at our respective contribution listings should show up significant differences in article choices and behaviours. I find your accusations quite unwarrented, I do not have any other accounts under which I edit. LinaMishima 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not an accusation. I just wondered, given your sudden interest in me -- we've had zero interaction up to this point, so your presence on my talk page made me curious. BTW, if you really want me to stop editing the US-terrorism article, I will make it simple for you: Make the article NPOV and make sure it uses reliable sources. I don't particularly care if the content shows the US in a bad light -- that's okay, so long as the article follows Wikipedia's rules. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not follow my edits and edit articles you've never edited before but which happen to be articles that I edit -- it feels too much like stalking to me. Morton devonshire 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want you to stop, I just want you and everyone else involved to play nice to eachother, rather than bickering. On one side, people are calling the BBC non-reliable (err... 'kay... see my above suggestion) and shouting NPOV without explaining that the article is presenting it's sources neutrally, just lacking sources to the contrary. Whilst similar, a lot of people do not clarify which one they mean, leading to more trouble and argument. On the otherside, there is name calling, allegations, and a general lack of civility, which there is never really any call for. That's why I made the above suggestion of detailing your problems in full, leaving opinions out of it - that's harder to argue with, and seems like 'working to improve' rather than 'grr!'. I've found it generally works well to make people question what they are stating as fact.
- It's my normal practice to look through the work other people have done, it's nothing personal. I recall that I liked most of what I saw, actually.
- Finally, I saw your latest comment on the talk page. Please, try not to inflame anyone, this will only make more trouble for everyone. Calm reasoning tends to be more effective, too ;) LinaMishima 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not an accusation. I just wondered, given your sudden interest in me -- we've had zero interaction up to this point, so your presence on my talk page made me curious. BTW, if you really want me to stop editing the US-terrorism article, I will make it simple for you: Make the article NPOV and make sure it uses reliable sources. I don't particularly care if the content shows the US in a bad light -- that's okay, so long as the article follows Wikipedia's rules. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not follow my edits and edit articles you've never edited before but which happen to be articles that I edit -- it feels too much like stalking to me. Morton devonshire 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton, just a question... why don't you contribute as well to make it NPOV with explained cited edits? rootology (T) 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do. I did. Nuff said. Morton devonshire 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what everyone is complaining about. The entry for POV on the userpage is about content. There is no discussion of people as far as I can tell. The article itself is pushing a POV. That is a content concern, not a concern with editors. The goal is to reduce the POV content and POV pushing that occurs in articles. I doubt Morton believes he is going to change the POV of editors, but is an admirable goal to try and eradicate POV pushing in articles.--Tbeatty 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. Common tactic -- seen it before. I'm not burdened by it. Morton devonshire 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember remember, the fifth of your mother
The truth is on to you, neocon scum! You are being tracked and watched! You will be brought to light! Viva la revolución!
Your recent actions have been noted, and your actions are being tracked and tallied for irreperable harm caused. Your vandalism must stop--you are the enemy.
(The foregoing comments brought to you by my good friend The Che Vandal)
- Sorry I couldn't talk to you before you got blocked. Maybe we wudda been chums! Morton DevonshireYo
Do you know anyone from the U.K. (are you from U.K.)? Just FYI, This is the beginning of a Guy Fawkes night poem "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" commemorating a foiled plot to blow up parliament. It's celebrated with fireworks in U.K. like the 4th of July in the U.S.--Tbeatty 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You rv'd 4 edits by 3 users without explanation in edit summary. This is vandalism. Continued abuse will be reported. rootology (T) 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well now, that's not vandalism, that's editing. I know you mean well, but I hope you understand that the Rule of Law is important to a community, and that means we enforce Wikipedia policy with respect to reliable sources and original research and neutral point of view -- please understand that that's my intent, and not something nefarious. I apologize if I've made your experience on Wikipedia a negative one -- that was not my intent. I hope that you would understand that my aggressiveness is directed at enforcing these policies, and not at you personally. Good luck, and happy editing. Cheers. Morton devonshire 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Third party intevention
Regarding: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America if you continue to revert other peoples edits without explaining your edits on the talk page, I see no other choice but to involve a third party mediator in this page.
I really want to work with you Morton, to build a better encyclopedia. Deleting other users contributions without any explanation can cause revert wars, which I think we all would like to avoid.
Please keep in mind, I even actively agreed with one of your deletions. If you explain your deletions, their is a better chance your deletions will remain deleted, thus far your deletions stay deleted for no more than 10 minutes, and unfortunatly your deletions without explaination have caused a lot of negative feelings, which I think we all would like to avoid.
We need your help and your knowledge on the page, I look forward to your continued contributions, and your explanations for any deletions on the talk page. Thanks for your hard work! Travb (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your feelings. Perhaps you can understand why I am so bold on that particular page. Here's my thinking: (1) a page such as that one is designed primarily to be an attack piece, a place for people to vent their negative feelings about US foreign policy; (2) venting is okay, but not in encyclopedia articles; (3) Wikipedia has policies in place, particularly WP:NOR, to prevent this sort of advocacy; and (4) we must be diligent in policing advocacy on Wikipedia pages so that it doesn't become a political screed -- we want people to respect Wikipedia, and have comfort that it's truthful, and not propaganda. Lastly, I will say this: It's perfectly okay for people to state negative facts about the United States. I'm an American, yet there are lots of really stupid things we do as US policy, both domestically and internationally. If we can discuss these things objectively, without color or spin or exagerration, then perhaps we can learn from these mistakes and alter our behavior. If however, things are overstated, then we don't have room to really examine the policy -- we just react to the overreaction. Cheers, and happy editing. I forgive you for reporting me. Peace out. Morton devonshire 04:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reporting you? What are you talking about? Travb (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Warning
While I appreciate to an extent your efforts to keep conspiracy-mongers from disrupting Wikipedia, some of your edits over the past few days trouble me greatly. In particular, this one and this one, as well as any unexplained reverts, are unhelpful and may result in administrative action against you if such behavior continues. Please moderate your aggressiveness and take care to avoid personal attacks against other users. Andrew Levine 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, you're right. I will play nice. I know on Wikipedia we're supposed to pretend that conspiracy theorists are rational folks, but sometimes I just get fed up. I stood there and watched when 3,000 of my countrymen died, and I can't accept that people's response would be that "The Jews Did It" or "Dick Cheney and the Evil Oil Barons Did It". But yes, I will try to be more civil. Peace. Morton devonshire 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say, even knowing they would be immediately reverted and reviled by the forces that be, and the outrage that would be expounded in your general direction, I laughed at those two edits. Vandalism: maybe. Humorous: most probably. Reliably sourced and verifiable more than the entire article: defintely. --Tbeatty 06:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- In the future, instead of calling the 9/11 conspiracy scientists "jackass", (which is taken as a personal attack), try saying "9/11 conspiracy scientists act like jackasses" so you are describing their actions and not their persons. J/K. You are ruffling the feathers and there is no point point in getting blocked over short-lived humor. Continue challenging based on sources and verifiability and the truth will emerge (rather than the "truthiness" of the current theories).--Tbeatty 06:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Stop being naughty
You have been reported as being naughty on a few articles.[18]...maybe rethink labelling folks on your pages too...I mean, they can't help it I guess.--MONGO 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken. Morton devonshire 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of being naughty
Have you been to the Protest Warrior page recently? --Tbeatty 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notif. I'll keep my eyeballs open. Morton devonshire 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)